At least 275 children in southern Iraq have been infected with a disfiguring skin disease, an outbreak some health officials are blaming on the war's devastating effect on the public health system.According to the United Nations -- citing reports from Iraq's southern province of Qadissiyah -- 275 children have been struck with leishmaniasis, which is spread by sand flies. Most have a form that causes skin sores, but others have a type that strikes internal organs and can be fatal.
"This is a killer disease and we are trying to stop its spread," said Dr. Omer Mekki, an epidemiologist at the World Health Organization's Iraq office.Two types of leishmaniasis have been found in southern Iraq, according to Mekki: 212 cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis, also known as Baghdad boil disease, and 63 cases of visceral leishmaniasis, or kala azar, Hindi for black fever.
Cutaneous leishmaniasis is not fatal but can cause facial lesions and crater-shaped sores, leaving patients disfigured. Kala azar can kill, and causes fever, weight loss, anemia, and swelling of the spleen and liver.
The above is from Maria Cheng's "Skin Disease Strikes Iraqi Children" (AP via Los Angeles Times) and as if malnutrition, cholera, air bombings, armed thugs and the deaths of family members weren't enough for the children of Iraq to face, they now have to deal with that. The article tells you that this wasn't a problem before the invasion (despite the disease's historical roots in the region) but is now thanks to a lack of adequate services (sanitation, potable water, all the things that the US was responsible for as an occupying power).
There were legal responsibilities and obligations that the US had and has an occupying power. They were not met. IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action that will address what does go down in Iraq:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Worth it? UPI reports that Exxon and Shell are whining over the theft of Iraqi oil legislation not being pushed through:
Iraq's legal framework is still uncertain, Big Oil firms say, though negotiations on oil and gas deals are ongoing and could wrap up by next month.
"Shell along with other major international oil companies are quite interested in future possibilities in the country of Iraq," Shell Gas and Power Executive Director Linda Cook said Wednesday at an international energy conference in Houston.
Iraq has the world's third-largest reserves of oil and sizeable gas reserves but is largely undeveloped and underexplored. Shell, ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron are in discussions with Iraq's Oil Ministry for special technical support contracts, a first step in Iraq's long-awaited development of its energy sector.
The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ruths report
sickofitradlz
Saturday, February 16, 2008
NYT covers peace action
A Fort Carson soldier with post-traumatic stress disorder is in El Paso County jail after being arrested in Florida on suspicion of desertion. Spc. Alex Lotero was arrested Feb. 1 and taken to Miami-Dade County jail. He had been based at Fort Carson before he left his post without permission. Lotero was reported missing from Fort Carson on June 15, McNutt said. Lotero participated in meetings about mental health care with commanders and congressional staffers at Fort Carson last spring, and told The Associated Press then that he had been diagnosed with PTSD in November 2006 after serving in Iraq. He was arrested by officers responding to a battery call.
The above is from AP's "Soldier jailed as suspected deserter" and doesn't contain any new information (two other articles have been highlighted this week -- a third if you count the one at the start of the month that we noted again this week) -- but worth noting so that the story doesn't just fade away. From PTSD and veterans to recruiters, Brandon notes Sewell Chan's "The Army Recruiter Is Not In" (New York Times):
About 20 antiwar activists gathered outside an Army recruiting office in East Harlem this afternoon to protest what they described as the military focus on persuading young blacks and Latinos to fight in Iraq. But if their aim was to disrupt recruiting, they did not. The office had already been closed for the day, with a metal gate drawn down over the plate glass windows.
Capt. Charles V. Jaquillard, the Army Recruiting Command's company commander for New York City, said the East Harlem office was not closed because of the protest. "We were conducting a training," he said. "We had everybody out at Fort Hamilton today."
After a 1 p.m. news conference at City Hall, the demonstrators gathered at 3 p.m. outside the new Army Career Center, which opened two years ago, at 126 East 103rd Street. They marched and chanted outside the closed office, as two New York City police officers looked on.
"The question of military recruitment is important because you can’t carry out this war without fresh troops," said Debra Sweet, the director of an organization called World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime. "These troops are being trained to carry out war crimes. We're sending a message that military recruiters are not welcome to prey on youth. The war will be stopped by the action of the people. That is the only way it will be stopped."
Ms. Sweet said that Latinos have been disproportionately represented among service members who have fought and died in Iraq. (The Times reported last year that the Army has focused much of its local recruitment efforts on public events popular among Hispanic New Yorkers.)
Brandon writes, "To underline the obvious, NYT is reporting on the peace movement. That's how full circle the whole thing's gone. When Democracy Now! loses all interest and can't even introduce the audience to a single war resister for all of 2007 and can't cover the peace movement, they make the case for the MSM by their silence." Their silence on that. It's not like they've been mute this whole time. They just haven't bothered to cover the topics that supposedly matter to independent media. They had other things to do. They will be mentioned in some way in Ava and my TV piece tomorrow. We got calls all day Friday from friends in the Writers Guild who are ENRAGED with a broadcast -- and for good reason. Equally true, Amy Goodman has ignored Iraq to the point that now she can't even get her facts right when she picks it up in passing so we'll be including that aspect as well. After Sunday, we hope to return to covering entertainment television. Due to the strike, we had to switch over to news and public affairs. We actually planned a summary piece at one point for the week where we didn't have the time to catch broadcasts. With entertainment programs, we're working from scripts and episodes provided. In the lead up to the fall season, we crammed like crazy because being on the road does not allow for a lot of TV watching time. Covering news and public affairs programming meant doing work when we thought out prep work leading up to the fall season would mean we'd coast through this year's commentary without any difficulty. Instead, each week started as a nightmare (except for the week that we grabbed 60 Minutes, that meant we didn't have to look at a TV for the rest of the week thankfully) and we would scramble on the road trying to catch as much as possible until we could find something that was worth commenting on. (And in three cases, PBS friends supplied copies of programs, so thank you to them.)
Andre was the first to note Margaret Kimberley's "Democrats Target Kucinich for Defeat" (Black Agenda Report) this week:
In his presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich told Democrats a brutal truth. Party orthodoxy is a disaster, a series of lies that must no longer be accepted. While his opponents, Obama, Clinton and Edwards, made it clear they weren't serious about ending the occupation of Iraq, Kucinich presented a plan to do just that. When they made the case for leaving a failed for-profit health care system intact, Kucinich said that non-profit universal care was possible. He co-sponsored legislation calling for impeachment hearings against Vice President Cheney and President Bush while leadership declared the criminals should go free.
While Barack Obama garners 80% to 90% of black votes in the primaries, it is the Kucinich platform that actually expresses the political opinions of most black Americans. Disavowal of American military aggression and support for government enforcement of legal and civil rights of citizens are the hallmarks of Kucinich's history. Obama makes eloquent but empty speeches bereft of specifics. In contrast, Kucinich's national political life appeared to be over shortly after it began because he took a courageous stand against corporate power.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
sewell chan
margaret kimberley
The above is from AP's "Soldier jailed as suspected deserter" and doesn't contain any new information (two other articles have been highlighted this week -- a third if you count the one at the start of the month that we noted again this week) -- but worth noting so that the story doesn't just fade away. From PTSD and veterans to recruiters, Brandon notes Sewell Chan's "The Army Recruiter Is Not In" (New York Times):
About 20 antiwar activists gathered outside an Army recruiting office in East Harlem this afternoon to protest what they described as the military focus on persuading young blacks and Latinos to fight in Iraq. But if their aim was to disrupt recruiting, they did not. The office had already been closed for the day, with a metal gate drawn down over the plate glass windows.
Capt. Charles V. Jaquillard, the Army Recruiting Command's company commander for New York City, said the East Harlem office was not closed because of the protest. "We were conducting a training," he said. "We had everybody out at Fort Hamilton today."
After a 1 p.m. news conference at City Hall, the demonstrators gathered at 3 p.m. outside the new Army Career Center, which opened two years ago, at 126 East 103rd Street. They marched and chanted outside the closed office, as two New York City police officers looked on.
"The question of military recruitment is important because you can’t carry out this war without fresh troops," said Debra Sweet, the director of an organization called World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime. "These troops are being trained to carry out war crimes. We're sending a message that military recruiters are not welcome to prey on youth. The war will be stopped by the action of the people. That is the only way it will be stopped."
Ms. Sweet said that Latinos have been disproportionately represented among service members who have fought and died in Iraq. (The Times reported last year that the Army has focused much of its local recruitment efforts on public events popular among Hispanic New Yorkers.)
Brandon writes, "To underline the obvious, NYT is reporting on the peace movement. That's how full circle the whole thing's gone. When Democracy Now! loses all interest and can't even introduce the audience to a single war resister for all of 2007 and can't cover the peace movement, they make the case for the MSM by their silence." Their silence on that. It's not like they've been mute this whole time. They just haven't bothered to cover the topics that supposedly matter to independent media. They had other things to do. They will be mentioned in some way in Ava and my TV piece tomorrow. We got calls all day Friday from friends in the Writers Guild who are ENRAGED with a broadcast -- and for good reason. Equally true, Amy Goodman has ignored Iraq to the point that now she can't even get her facts right when she picks it up in passing so we'll be including that aspect as well. After Sunday, we hope to return to covering entertainment television. Due to the strike, we had to switch over to news and public affairs. We actually planned a summary piece at one point for the week where we didn't have the time to catch broadcasts. With entertainment programs, we're working from scripts and episodes provided. In the lead up to the fall season, we crammed like crazy because being on the road does not allow for a lot of TV watching time. Covering news and public affairs programming meant doing work when we thought out prep work leading up to the fall season would mean we'd coast through this year's commentary without any difficulty. Instead, each week started as a nightmare (except for the week that we grabbed 60 Minutes, that meant we didn't have to look at a TV for the rest of the week thankfully) and we would scramble on the road trying to catch as much as possible until we could find something that was worth commenting on. (And in three cases, PBS friends supplied copies of programs, so thank you to them.)
Andre was the first to note Margaret Kimberley's "Democrats Target Kucinich for Defeat" (Black Agenda Report) this week:
In his presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich told Democrats a brutal truth. Party orthodoxy is a disaster, a series of lies that must no longer be accepted. While his opponents, Obama, Clinton and Edwards, made it clear they weren't serious about ending the occupation of Iraq, Kucinich presented a plan to do just that. When they made the case for leaving a failed for-profit health care system intact, Kucinich said that non-profit universal care was possible. He co-sponsored legislation calling for impeachment hearings against Vice President Cheney and President Bush while leadership declared the criminals should go free.
While Barack Obama garners 80% to 90% of black votes in the primaries, it is the Kucinich platform that actually expresses the political opinions of most black Americans. Disavowal of American military aggression and support for government enforcement of legal and civil rights of citizens are the hallmarks of Kucinich's history. Obama makes eloquent but empty speeches bereft of specifics. In contrast, Kucinich's national political life appeared to be over shortly after it began because he took a courageous stand against corporate power.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
sewell chanmargaret kimberley
Friday, February 15, 2008
Iraq snapshot
Friday, February 15, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US kills allies, the refugee crisis has a new wrinkle -- voting, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Brad McCall is a war resister who went to Canada because he could not serve in an illegal war. Yesterday he blogged about an e-mail he received from an angry Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Driggers whom McCall attempts to explain it again to, "I am protecting my nation by doing what I have done. I am also supporting my fellow soldiers that are serving in this war. By leaving and making it clear that I will not conform to this act of hate committed by my government, I make it clear that there are soldiers with conscience and that we (soldiers) should be kept safe in our own borders, and not in some country that we have no business in." Earlier this week, he addressed another e-mail from a soldier and responded, "You see, the military is built so that men, and women, have no chance to speak out against what is obviously wrong. In the Army there was this saying: 'Out of sight, out of mind'. Most lower ranking soldiers live on that principle. They believe that the quieter they stay, the smoother they will flow through, and essentially, the quicker they will get out. They are afraid to speak out. They know what can happen. I knew what would happen when I spoke up."
With Canada's Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters like McCall may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, 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).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
IVAW calls for an immediate end to the illegal war, for reparations for the Iraqis and for full benefits for US service members. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the US House Armed Services Committee held a meeting on "Medical Care For Wounded Soldiers."
US House Rep Susan Davis is chair of the subcommittee and she opened with a statement which included: "The purpose of today's hearing is for members to get an update on the implementation of the Army's Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and hear how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are caring for their wounded warriors. At out last hearing on this subject back in June of last year, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, suggested that we have him back in October and January to testify on the progress of AMAP towards Full Operational Capability. Circumstances precluded such follow-up hearings, and we understand that General Cody has just returned from Iraq in the past few hours, but we will nonetheless push foward so that we may learn how far the AMAP has come, and how far it still has to go." Testifying were Vice Admiral Adam Robinson, Surgeon General of the Navy; Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, Surgeon General of the Army; and Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, Assistant Surgeon General of the Army. With those and members of Congress, you might think the hearing could get somewhere.
You would be wrong. Can someone offer US House Rep Joe Wilson a job with MoviePhone? How much time did he use talking about the documentary Fighting for Life? Did the limited time of the hour and 45 minute hearing really allow for Wilson to read from p.r. material for the film? To note a screening? But regardless of the Congress member, there appeared to be far too much concern with making nice and far too little concern about getting down to what was being done or what needed to be done.
Rep John McHugh broke from his peers to ask actual questions regarding demobilization and to address the stories the committee was hearing about servicemembers "being ordered to demobilze while still undergoing treatment." McHugh noted the information on this continues to come in despite the fact that "we brought those concerns to your predecessor and we were assured by Navy leadership that those practicies would end." Robinson claimed to be unaware of any such stories and insisted that care for those in the service was maintained before offering, "From the surgeon in me, I'm tell you that most of the time I don't think that anyone should leave the service until their medical condition has been delineated or treated." It was all a lively side-step by Robinson. The question wasn't 'What do you think?' Again, to McHugh's credit, he did show some focus and determination and followed up with, "To be clear, in general terms, it would not be the navy's policy to discharge a soldier who a few days later had surgery scheduled?" When pressed Robinson would answer and answered, "That is correct." However, he quickly followed with, "I would expect that we would care for them." You would expect? What is the policy and is the policy followed? This is the military appearing before Congress -- what is the policy, what are the orders. It's very basic.
Bethesda (National Naval Medical Center) was mentioned often. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is set to be closed and replaced with a systematic facility that would see Bethesda expanded. Schoomaker stated that the "full integration of services" has already began and used US Secretary of Defense Robert Gate's shoulder injury to illustrate the way the system flows. Robinson maintains that, under the new system, "there won't be anyone left behind" and that "inroads" are being made.
US House Rep Nancy Boyda started off noting that a one year ago the committee was informed "military to civilian transitions were supposed to be halted" but when she looks at the 2009 budget, she sees they "are still in there." In March of 2007, the subject was addressed with US House Rep McHugh endorsing the 'need' for military positions to be transitioned to civilians as 'cost-cutting' steps. At that time, McHugh noted that 5,500 positions had already been 'transitioned' to civilians with 2,700 left to go. Boyda's point was that, after previous hearings, this is still in the budget. The response was, for the Air Force, that the positions "not filled by 2009 will revert back to the military." Did Boyda have a point in asking the question? Apparently not because she mistook herself for a high school guidance counselor in all that followed -- non-stop repetitions of speaking-for-me-we-want-to-make-sure-your-needs-are-met. Over and over. Really, when you a member of Congress, why not try conducting yourself like one. Boyda went on to insist that we (but really her, remember, speaking for herself) want the military to have "the ability to make the decisions that you think are best for our military personnel." Boyda may see that as footage to run in her re-election campaign but the reality is not only does Congress have an obligation but there's also the fact that the Walter Reed scandal requires that Congress provide serious oversight. If anyone member of Congress other than McHugh (a Republican) had any idea what they were doing in that hearing, they hid it very, very well.
Having wasted so much time with 'Help-me-help-you' babble, there wasn't time for all the witness to answer her question on what they needed. Schoomaker stated "we need more latitude" when it came to mental health. It really would have been nice to have had a follow up to that but Boyda ensured that no follow ups would come as she wasted her time. Schoomaker also wanted to see "a medical suppliment".
Susan Davis, the chair, captured the mood of the hearing and it wasn't pretty as she asked, "Any additional thoughts on what the problems were? Whether there was a" here she laughs "misscomunication somewhere?" Exactly what was funny about that? And does Davis really think that's how to chair a committee? It was disgusting. Davis wanted to know about the "bedside training" of the military's CADRE.
Tucker explained that the CADRE comes "from all the ranks in the Army" and that the course-work is currently a 40 hour training; however, it is becoming a three week course based out of Houston beginning in October. The three week course will put "them through the bedside manner, like you've spoken about, ma'am." He explained the special duty pay which was not initially in place (this despite his terming the CADRE's work to be "the Lord's work"). Currently they get $300 of special duty pay a month the first year and $375 the second.
Schoomaker gave a complicated example that was meant to confuse but, judging by their performance, the committee showed up confused. Schoomaker's example rested around the fact that when you are in the military and found to have a health problem, say weak ankles, they discharge with a rating, say 30%. But a person usually has more than just that or, as Schoomaker termed them, a "total person," they have a "combination of problems." And the problem with military care for active duty service members, according to Schoomaker is that. After discharge, the same service member will begin receiving treatment in a VA hospital and the VA will certify him or her for additional health problems. Schoomaker appeared to be making an argument that both the VA and the military should work from the same table -- this was what he found "fundamentally flawed" in the process. It really shouldn't require a great deal of work on the part of Congress to ensure that the VA and the military work from the same disability tables. And it should be the VA's because, as Schoomaker pointed out, that table addresses the "total person" and the health in full. Why don't they use it currently? No one on the committee thought to ask. It's cheaper to discharge with one disability, cheaper for the military. It keeps the costs of beneifts down. Sure would have been nice if Davis or Boyda had thought to use their time for something that really mattered. Schoomaker cautioned of quick fixes, "When you speed up a bad process all you have is a fast bad process."
US Rep John Kline wondered if "we let this emphasis on PTSD . . . pull us away from this orthopedic effort?" Schoomaker disagreed that there was a signature injury to the Iraq War although he did feel there was a signature weapon "blasts." On "blast injury," Schoomaker wondered, "Are we keeping balanced? Are we looking at all the gaps? . . . And are we doing all the things for this singular weapon which is blast?" Robinson offered that "amputations are seen" which makes it appear to have an end point that conditions such as PTSD may not appear to have. He stated that "research needs to be done also in terms of the limbs and the bio-mechanics and the future is really bounding with opportunities." But TBI -- traumatic blast injury -- "is something that's unseen and we don't know what we don't know. With a limb there is an amputation . . . With" TBI "you don't know." Robinson also noted that PTSD was present during Vietnam and the veterans who developed it "were not treated . . . and now we're seeing . . . 35 years later that that was an important thing."
Davis was in wind-down mode (even though the hearing could have run for 15 more minutes) and wondered whether evaluations (she termed what had transpired an "evaluation") should be done yearly or every six months. All offering testimony agreed that a year was too long and that they should meet every six months on this topic. Davis' website notes, "A leading advocate for military families in San Diego and around the world, Davis intends to conduct thoughtful hearings which will focus on the needs of our servicemen and women and their families." That intention was not present in the hearing.
In today's New York Times, Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag continue to explore the violence taking place for veterans when they return and they open with the story of Sgt. Erin Edwards who, despite taking the necessary steps to keep her husband Sgt. William Edwards away from her, was killed by her husband in 2004. Steps she took were not followed through on and one example is the fact that William Edwards was not supposed to be allowed off base without an officer accompanying him but that wasn't enforced. The reporters observe that there was a minor wave of attention to domestic abuse and spousal homicide rates in the US military at the end of the 90s, but "just as the Defense Department undertook substantial changes, guided by a Congressionally chartered task force on domestic violence that decried a system more adept at protecting offenders than victims, the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq began." The reporters note that, "The fatalities examined by The Times show a military system that tries and sometimes fails to balance the demands of fighting a war with those of eradicating domestic violence. According to interviews with law enforcement officials and court documents, the military has sent to war service members who had been charged with and even convicted of domestic violence crimes. Deploying such convicted service members to a war zone violates military regulations and, in some cases, federal law." On January 27th, Alvarez and Sontag contributed "Combat Trauma Takes the Witness Stand," January 13th, they contributed "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles" and, February 14, 2007, Alvarez reported on the the increase for moral waivers allowing those with felony convictions to join the military.
Meanwhile, Ian Fisher (New York Times) gets a first for his paper, Iraqis killed by US forces are innocent -- and before an investigation! If you're thinking there's a major shift taking place at the paper of record, think again. The six dead aren't just any Iraqis, they're the heart of the counter-insurgency plans, the 'Awakening' Council. Fisher reports that the six "mistakenly fired on American soldiers in the north, the Iraqi police said. The American forces fired back, killing them and two women in nearby houses, the polic said." Contrast that with any other event even the September slaughter in Baghdad on the part of Blackwater. No Iraqi dead ever gets that sort of treatment from the New York Times but the "Awakening" Council isn't any mere Iraq, they are Iraqis on the US payroll, paid to drop arms against the US, and 'loyal' as long as the money's there. Those deaths were yesterday (and the two women are barely dealt with). Today, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports 3 'Awakening' Council members shot dead in Baghdad by "an American helicopter" which also wounded two more and notes, "Sheik Mohammed Ghuriari, who heads the so-called Awakening Councils that supply fighters to protect neighborhoods in north Babil province, said it was the third U.S.-led strike on one of their checkpoints in less than two months.".
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and left four more wounded. Reuters notes a Tal Afar bombing where 16 civilians were killed at a mosque. Sahar Issa reports that there were two bombers with one getting shot and the other detonating the bomb. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The attackers struck during the midday Friday prayers, the most important of the Muslim week." M-NF announces, "Attack helicopters responded to a small-arms fire attack on Coalition Forces near the town during the early morning hours Feb. 15. The helicopters engaged one structure with rockets."
Kidnappings?
Reuters reports aa family of four ("including two women") were kidnapped in Balad Ruz today.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses in Baghdad and 5 corpses in Diyala Province. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Balad Rus.
Meanwhile, Moahmmed Abbas (Reuters) quotes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki who apparently -- possibly during his time as exile -- is a big fan of Donna Summer: "We must keep our fingers on the trigger." Because? Love is in control?
Picking up from yesterday, we'll return to the subject of the refugees. Over 4 milliion refugees have been created by the illegal war. The figure includes internal and external refugees -- both those displaced outside their country and those displace internally. The Iraqi Parliament is calling for provisional elections and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that among the unanswered questions are those pertaining to the refugees including where they would vote if they were allowed to vote? Would they be counted as voters in the provinces they hailed from or, if internally displaced, voters for the provinces they currently reside in? Rubin also notes, "The problem is that many of the nation's most powerful political parties have divided up most of the seats on the Independent Higher Election Commission, which oversees national election policy. That means there are few, if any, independent brokers overseeing the election process, according to Iraqi academics and lawmakers. Some other parties are not represented on the commission."
Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reminded that is still not safe for refugees to return to Iraq. IRIN quotes Guterres: "We have clear criteria for the promotion of returns -- those criteria are not met by the situation in Iraq now. So we are not promoting returns to Iraq in the present circumstances because we do not believe the conditions are there for that to be possible on a meaningfuly scale." Haifa Zangana (Guardian of London) explains:
The return of some refugees is not related to the success of the surge, the establishment of security or a reduction in "sectarian violence", the euphemism for death squads that have infiltrated the security services and local militias. The savings of most refugees have run out, and they face real poverty since they cannot compete for the few jobs available in countries that have historically been poorer than Iraq. While I was in Amman in June, I met an Iraqi engineer who now works as a cleaner to provide for his family. Others, especially the elderly and children, are exhausted by visa restrictions; Most refugees, being of urban backgrounds, rented flats at steep prices, forcing families to share, sometimes with up to five adults and children in one room. Many refugees, previously from professional backgrounds, have had to rely on charity donations or support from relatives living in Europe.
Refugees in Syria or elsewhere rely on pensions, requiring them to go back to their workplaces in Iraq once every couple of months, leaving their families behind. Some go back also to collect monthly food rations to partially sell in the country. In the past, due to corruption in various government offices, some employees didn't attend work but collected half their salaries. Their bosses collected the rest in exchange for allowing them not to show up except for occasional days. All these arrangements came to an end after neighbouring countries implemented visa restrictions and it is almost impossible to get a visa to the UK or the US, despite their responsibility in creating the mayhem in Iraq. Now many refugees who have survived so far with such arrangements are desperate, and their only remaining hope is to share life with their extended families inside Iraq. In most cases they are "internally displaced", ie still refugees.
The Myth of the Great Return. Or as Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) observed last weekend: "As a propaganda exercise designed to show that the Iraqi government was restoring peace, it never quite worked. The majority of the returnees said they were returning to Baghdad, not because it was safer, but because they had run out of money in Syria or their visas had expired. There has been no mass return of the two million Iraqis who fled to Syria and Jordan or a further 2.4 million refugees who left their homes within Iraq." The propaganda push did a lot of damage in real time.
Turning to US politics, as Mike, Marcia, Kat, Rebecca, Cedric and Wally noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton won New Mexico -- a Super Duper Tuesday state that only finished its count yesterday.
brad mccall
iraq veterans against the warsickofitradlz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Other Items
Six members of an Awakening Council, groups composed mostly of Sunni Muslims who have turned against the insurgency, were killed early Thursday after they mistakenly fired on American soldiers in the north, the Iraqi police said.
The American forces fired back, killing them and two women in nearby houses, the police said. A police commander said the group had thought that the Americans were insurgents.
Local American commanders said they could not confirm the episode. But it appeared to underscore the growing danger to Awakening Council members, wedged between United States forces and the insurgent groups many of them once supported, amid a recently begun operation to go after insurgents more aggressively in certain areas.
The above is from Ian Fischer's "Mistaken Iraq Battle Kills 6 Fighters Allied With U.S." in this morning's New York Times and, as you read it, either all or just the excerpt above, grasp that, for the paper, being a US collaborator means never having to say you're sorry. As if suffering from the disease that plagued Ali MacGraw in Love Story (and we all remember how that ends, right?), the paper explains Iraqis shot at US forces "mistakenly." Think hard, search your brain for any other incident where Iraqis have been given the same benefit of the doubt.
There have been Iraqis who have accidentally shot US forces and they've usually been shot dead afterwards. When the US military has described them as 'insurgents' (they are generally the area's appointed guards), the paper runs with the US military explanation. Here, without US confirmation, the paper rushes to file their "accidentally" report. It's a benefit not extended to other Iraqis but then other Iraqis don't have the backing of the likes of Sarah Sewer and Monty McFate. Other Iraqis don't have 'human rights' War Hawks behind them. Other Iraqis don't have a counter-insurgency bible to back them up. And other Iraqis aren't used to sell the lie of 'winnable.' Since the reporter wasn't present for the incident, since the US military isn't talking, it's strange that the paper is so eager to suddenly discover an 'accidental' shooting on the part of Iraqis.
But this isn't a (needed) break with their long pattern in Iraq, it's just another effort to sale the illegal war. In terms of benefit of the doubt, surely there have been more worthy cases. The 'Awakening' Councils are thugs who stopped killing (other than US approved targets) for coin. But today that's ignored because it's really important that the American people be on board with the counter-insurgency.
To the north of Baghdad, Reuters reports, there's been a mosque bombing that claimed the life of the bomber and at least 4 civilians with thirteen more wounded. Meanwhile, Senator Crazy tries to 'explain' his comments regarding Iraq and US forces being there for 100 years -- he's still fine with it and only buries the hole deeper.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
ian fisher
the new york times
The American forces fired back, killing them and two women in nearby houses, the police said. A police commander said the group had thought that the Americans were insurgents.
Local American commanders said they could not confirm the episode. But it appeared to underscore the growing danger to Awakening Council members, wedged between United States forces and the insurgent groups many of them once supported, amid a recently begun operation to go after insurgents more aggressively in certain areas.
The above is from Ian Fischer's "Mistaken Iraq Battle Kills 6 Fighters Allied With U.S." in this morning's New York Times and, as you read it, either all or just the excerpt above, grasp that, for the paper, being a US collaborator means never having to say you're sorry. As if suffering from the disease that plagued Ali MacGraw in Love Story (and we all remember how that ends, right?), the paper explains Iraqis shot at US forces "mistakenly." Think hard, search your brain for any other incident where Iraqis have been given the same benefit of the doubt.
There have been Iraqis who have accidentally shot US forces and they've usually been shot dead afterwards. When the US military has described them as 'insurgents' (they are generally the area's appointed guards), the paper runs with the US military explanation. Here, without US confirmation, the paper rushes to file their "accidentally" report. It's a benefit not extended to other Iraqis but then other Iraqis don't have the backing of the likes of Sarah Sewer and Monty McFate. Other Iraqis don't have 'human rights' War Hawks behind them. Other Iraqis don't have a counter-insurgency bible to back them up. And other Iraqis aren't used to sell the lie of 'winnable.' Since the reporter wasn't present for the incident, since the US military isn't talking, it's strange that the paper is so eager to suddenly discover an 'accidental' shooting on the part of Iraqis.
But this isn't a (needed) break with their long pattern in Iraq, it's just another effort to sale the illegal war. In terms of benefit of the doubt, surely there have been more worthy cases. The 'Awakening' Councils are thugs who stopped killing (other than US approved targets) for coin. But today that's ignored because it's really important that the American people be on board with the counter-insurgency.
To the north of Baghdad, Reuters reports, there's been a mosque bombing that claimed the life of the bomber and at least 4 civilians with thirteen more wounded. Meanwhile, Senator Crazy tries to 'explain' his comments regarding Iraq and US forces being there for 100 years -- he's still fine with it and only buries the hole deeper.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
ian fisher
the new york times
Alvarez and Sontag offer part four
A few months after Sgt. William Edwards and his wife, Sgt. Erin Edwards, returned to a Texas Army base from separate missions in Iraq, he assaulted her mercilessly. He struck her, choked her, dragged her over a fence and slammed her into the sidewalk.
As far as Erin Edwards was concerned, that would be the last time he beat her.
Unlike many military wives, she knew how to work the system to protect herself. She was an insider, even more so than her husband, since she served as an aide to a brigadier general at Fort Hood.
With the general's help, she quickly arranged for a future transfer to a base in New York. She pressed charges against her husband and secured an order of protection. She sent her two children to stay with her mother. And she received assurance from her husband's commanders that he would be barred from leaving the base unless accompanied by an officer.
Yet on the morning of July 22, 2004, William Edwards easily slipped off base, skipping his anger-management class, and drove to his wife’s house in the Texas town of Killeen. He waited for her to step outside and then, after a struggle, shot her point-blank in the head before turning the gun on himself.
During an investigation, Army officers told the local police that they did not realize Erin Edwards had been afraid of her husband. And they acknowledged that despite his restrictions, William Edwards had not been escorted off base "on every occasion," according to a police report.
That admission troubled the detective handling the case.
"I believe that had he been confined to base and had that confinement been monitored," said Detective Sharon L. Brank of the local police, "she would not be dead at his hands."
The above is the opening of part four of the series Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag have been working on and this installment is entitled "When Strains on Military Families Turn Deadly" (New York Times). Their pieces usually run on Sunday and this one is lengthy and starts on the front page but runs on Friday instead of Sunday. That may be due to the holiday (Monday's holiday will bury a lot of Sunday front page stories that would normally be the news cycle come Monday morning) and it probably has a great deal to do with the 100 announced job cuts -- this article says "Job cuts, job shmuts, we're still the same paper." Which is why you also get two articles filed from Iraq. But if they want to reassure (with a board election looming) that the ship is being run well they might need to grasp that their online presence is important and the way this story is 'treated' reveals the many weaknesses and short comings. Using the link, you will see a 'multimedia' link -- slide show. You will learn this is part four of the series. You will not be provided with links to their previous reports. Unlike the Washington Post which has a folder for their veteran health care coverage, the Times doesn't for this series. This is part four and they seem to think just saying "PART FOUR!" is enough. Anyone dropping by for this story will have to hunt down the other three parts on their own, with no help from the paper.
Also in the paper today is Alissa J. Rubin's "U.N. to Help Organize Iraqi Elections Set for October" which is about the UN press conference yesterday and Rubin offers:
The problem is that many of the nation's most powerful political parties have divided up most of the seats on the Independent Higher Election Commission, which oversees national election policy. That means there are few, if any, independent brokers overseeing the election process, according to Iraqi academics and lawmakers.
Some other parties are not represented on the commission. Neither are new political entities, like the Awakening Councils, the local, predominantly Sunni Arab forces allied with the United States that do not yet hold political positions and do not have the pull to get appointments.
At the provincial level, political wrangling has stymied efforts to appoint local election commissions, meaning that no one is in place in those provinces to administer the elections. The United Nations said Wednesday that eight provinces, whose residents account for about 80 percent of Iraq's population, had not appointed local commissions.
Elections for the provinces at a time when over 4 million Iraqis are displaced (externally or internally)? The paper buries that point in the final paragraphs. Should they be allowed to vote in the provinces they lived in? If they're internally displaced and living in another province currently, should they be allowed to vote in their province of their origin?
The question deserves more exploration than the article gives it.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
lizette alvarez
deborah sontag
alissa j. rubin
As far as Erin Edwards was concerned, that would be the last time he beat her.
Unlike many military wives, she knew how to work the system to protect herself. She was an insider, even more so than her husband, since she served as an aide to a brigadier general at Fort Hood.
With the general's help, she quickly arranged for a future transfer to a base in New York. She pressed charges against her husband and secured an order of protection. She sent her two children to stay with her mother. And she received assurance from her husband's commanders that he would be barred from leaving the base unless accompanied by an officer.
Yet on the morning of July 22, 2004, William Edwards easily slipped off base, skipping his anger-management class, and drove to his wife’s house in the Texas town of Killeen. He waited for her to step outside and then, after a struggle, shot her point-blank in the head before turning the gun on himself.
During an investigation, Army officers told the local police that they did not realize Erin Edwards had been afraid of her husband. And they acknowledged that despite his restrictions, William Edwards had not been escorted off base "on every occasion," according to a police report.
That admission troubled the detective handling the case.
"I believe that had he been confined to base and had that confinement been monitored," said Detective Sharon L. Brank of the local police, "she would not be dead at his hands."
The above is the opening of part four of the series Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag have been working on and this installment is entitled "When Strains on Military Families Turn Deadly" (New York Times). Their pieces usually run on Sunday and this one is lengthy and starts on the front page but runs on Friday instead of Sunday. That may be due to the holiday (Monday's holiday will bury a lot of Sunday front page stories that would normally be the news cycle come Monday morning) and it probably has a great deal to do with the 100 announced job cuts -- this article says "Job cuts, job shmuts, we're still the same paper." Which is why you also get two articles filed from Iraq. But if they want to reassure (with a board election looming) that the ship is being run well they might need to grasp that their online presence is important and the way this story is 'treated' reveals the many weaknesses and short comings. Using the link, you will see a 'multimedia' link -- slide show. You will learn this is part four of the series. You will not be provided with links to their previous reports. Unlike the Washington Post which has a folder for their veteran health care coverage, the Times doesn't for this series. This is part four and they seem to think just saying "PART FOUR!" is enough. Anyone dropping by for this story will have to hunt down the other three parts on their own, with no help from the paper.
Also in the paper today is Alissa J. Rubin's "U.N. to Help Organize Iraqi Elections Set for October" which is about the UN press conference yesterday and Rubin offers:
The problem is that many of the nation's most powerful political parties have divided up most of the seats on the Independent Higher Election Commission, which oversees national election policy. That means there are few, if any, independent brokers overseeing the election process, according to Iraqi academics and lawmakers.
Some other parties are not represented on the commission. Neither are new political entities, like the Awakening Councils, the local, predominantly Sunni Arab forces allied with the United States that do not yet hold political positions and do not have the pull to get appointments.
At the provincial level, political wrangling has stymied efforts to appoint local election commissions, meaning that no one is in place in those provinces to administer the elections. The United Nations said Wednesday that eight provinces, whose residents account for about 80 percent of Iraq's population, had not appointed local commissions.
Elections for the provinces at a time when over 4 million Iraqis are displaced (externally or internally)? The paper buries that point in the final paragraphs. Should they be allowed to vote in the provinces they lived in? If they're internally displaced and living in another province currently, should they be allowed to vote in their province of their origin?
The question deserves more exploration than the article gives it.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
lizette alvarez
deborah sontag
alissa j. rubin
Thursday, February 14, 2008
I Hate The War
Mia notes Donna Volatile's "Be Careful What You Vote for, You Just Might Get It" (CounterPunch) and read it. It's well worth reading. It was also the topic planned for tonight. But there's no shortage of embarrassments on the left so we'll just expand the topic.
In the lead up to Super Duper Tuesday (February 5th), Tom Hayden rushed in with "Endorsing Obama" the week before (no link to trash). He distorted Gloria Steinem. Only a surprise to those who think of his "old days" as Chicago, et al. Far more telling will always be Bateman Street where he was kicked out of the commune for "intellectual elitism" and "sexism." His endorsement of Obama read like he wanted so desperately to prove those charges true today (still true? -- though one doubts he'll next move to Venice and answer to Emmett Garity). Gloria's being 'divisive,' Hayden argues and goodness knows he can't stand divisions or taking a stand or anything that requires strength. In the endorsement, he writes of the "sufferings and betrayals my generation went through" -- he liked to climb on the cross in real time as well (and liked to bill himself first when -- briefly -- discussing Bateman Street). In a Freudian twist, he says of others Hillary might pick for her cabinet, "The people she would take into her administration may have been reformers and idealists in their youth, but they seem to seek now a return to their establishment positions of power." Seeking positions of power? Sometimes a person confesses by their own accusations.
Hayden concludes his endorsement with the following paragraphs:
We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet's future as only a reliving of the past.
So I endorse the movement that Barack Obama has inspired and will support his candidacy in the inevitable storms ahead.
That nonsense had an impact. Not in the way he might have liked (hence his hurry to airbrush it away shortly after Super Duper Tuesday), but it had an impact. Today, on a campus, it came up yet again and, as Ava and I noted, at least one day a week we're hitting the road with a real activist from the Vietnam era. He was shocked to hear a student ask why Hayden, "a leader of the peace movement," would be endorsing a candidate who wasn't calling for all troops to be withdrawn. After I admonished, "Be kind," the activist explained that Tom Hayden really wasn't an activist. He was on the sidelines and managed to get headlines. But Chicago was really it for him. He was on the sidelines egging others on (including in Chicago) but he had 'higher ambitions' and that's why he and the peace movement split. (At which point I picked up the story of the split and what happened after.) He's managed to convince a lot of people that what matters most to him is peace.
And to a degree it does really matter to him. But it also matters to him that he be seen as 'powerful.' And the two desires always compete -- have always competed -- and always destroy him because he can't stay away from the glory. And it's that need for glory that allows him to come out for a candidate who won't end the illegal war. Peace v. personal glory? The latter will always win.
"After Super Tuesday, Time for Peace Movement to Get Off the Sidelines" was the attempt at air brushing and it concluded:
The new reality is that the primaries will grind on, the percentages will remain extremely tight, and the Iraq War can be made into a tipping issue over which the candidates compete. It takes a peace movement now.
That was sincere as well. He means it and, most especially, he means to wipe out the fact that he endorsed Obama. If his desire to be seen as a 'powerful' weren't so great, he wouldn't have rushed out his endorsement. A lot of people were assuming it was going to be win-win-win for Obama. A number of them because of the laughable Zogby polls. The Zogby polls are repeatedly wrong and have been repeatedly wrong for repeated years. At some point, that should make people question the polling group. Equally true is that Zogby went into 'expand' mode with new techniques such as reaching people by e-mailing them surveys instead of just relying on phone calls. The audience for e-mail is a smaller audience -- even today -- than the number of people who have a phone.
The above can be seen as an expansion on the CounterPunch article (with a few bits of detail thrown in -- sprinkled). Fortunately, Laura Flanders never tires of disgracing herself these days so we can go a little further. (I don't know Laura Flanders. I do know Tom.) "Which Womanhood?" asked Laura Flanders in her endorsement of Obama on Super Duper Tuesday. No links to trash. Flanders was taking on -- or trying to -- Robin Morgan. Robin Morgan who made her life about something versus Flanders the lesbian who couldn't call out the Barack Obama campaign for using homophobia? Morgan was always going to win. Even if Flanders hadn't been bound and determined to embarrass herself -- which she did very successfully.
She declares herself part of the "global women's movement" -- a movement that really hasn't seen her participation unless you define "global" as every where but the United States -- and writes of the "less attractive parts, of which Hillary Clinton, I'm sad to say, constantly reminds me." Considering that Laura Flanders has both a radio show and those postings at The Nation to lead from, the fact that she was as silent as everyone else at The Nation on the topic of the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer would suggest that she drops in and out of the "global women's movement" depending on her fancy.
Flanders rewrites history to make the Edelmans heroic in their fight against the so-called welfare reform. They weren't judged heroic in real time. Frances Fox Piven blamed not just the Clintons, but also the Edelmans and the left itself. There's a lot of blame to pass around for that including to the Congress. But it's been rewritten so that it's only the failure of the Clintons. That's not reality but a lesbian who can stay silent while her candidate of choice used homophobia isn't interested in reality.
As Flanders might word it, "And that's the saddening, shaming part of Flanders' record -- and the part that reminds me just how often elitists have advanced their own fortunes at the expense of others." Flanders, not done with her revisionary history, wants to blame Hillary Clinton for the failure of ERA (it was White male state legislators) and wants to blame her for the "war on drugs" because "most female lawyers (including Clinton) carried on rising up, even as thousands of disproportionately poor and drug-addicted women were set under." What Clinton's time as a lawyer in Arkansas has to do with the 'war on drugs' Flanders can't say.
But she's not interested in making an argument, she's interested in using slurs and innuendo to build a case against Hillary. She's also not very interested and/or knowledgeable about Iraq since she writes, "One million dead in Iraq alone." The study she's referring to had a stopping point and even then they'd already gone over one million. But those are the sort of details that require attention to the illegal war and, so desperate to save her bad radio show, Flanders hasn't been interested in Iraq since she lost her six hours of live radio each weekend. That is why she's writing about political races (and in an dishonest manner) instead of Iraq. Iraq's not of interest to her.
Flanders concludes, "And so me and my womanhood are rooting for a movement that might someday build for structural change -- and that kind of leadership. Today, with fingers crossed, I’m voting for Barack and Michelle Obama. At least we can call their community organizers’ bluff. Or we can go down -- or rise up -- trying." Apparently her 'womanhood' is disposable and not just because she refused to call out the homophobia but also because she shows up today at The Nation with "Raise the Bar" (never links to trash, never). The thrust is 'let me air brush out my endorsement!'
Humor's provided by lines such as these, "Fourteen months on, the Democratic majority (albeit slim in the Senate) has disappointed those voters, and Congressional approval ratings are down below Bush's." If Flanders really gave a damn about the illegal war, she'd either fight to have control of her radio program or walk away from it because what people are disappointed in is The Nation and the lack of focus on Iraq. It's not just Congress that's run from Iraq and anyone who's suffered through the one hour version of Flanders' program knows that. She's like Lori in the Cher infomercial from a decade ago as she sits down and speaks with Nation 'writers' about their latest political pieces or their latest this pieces or that pieces and Iraq rarely comes up.
She might try getting out in the world if she doesn't grasp how her "approval ratings are down" as well. That may not come about as a result of the small but loyal crowds that show up for book signings. But that is reality. She insists that "[n]o other issue comes close" to the illegal war which only begs the question of why it's so little of interest to her one hour radio program?
Arguing, like Hayden, that it's time to hold the candidates (by the candidates both mean Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- Big Media vanished Mike Gravel and Little Media can't think for themselves, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and all others are similarly ignored) feet to the fire, she writes:
The young voters, poor voters, secular, female, people of color, lesbian and gay, progressive and antiwar voters who have the candidates' attention at the moment belong to the part of the Democratic base whose interests are perennially sidelined by party higher-ups come the general election--and way before anyone gets down to the pay-to-play business of governing.
In contrast to the GOP--whose leaders bow and scrape before every religious extremist all election year--those at the top of the Democratic pyramid run away from their base as soon as the primaries end in order to pander to the so-called center and swing voters [see Flanders, "A New Moment?" at Tomdispatch.com]. This extended primary season offers an unusual period in the sun for progressives, but it's not enough to bask. Activists must raise the bar on policy and barter their support for some solid commitments.
Activists must raise the bar? And how will they do that, Flanders, by endorsing candidates? By playing footsie with a candidate who traffics in homophobia?
More laughs come at the end when Flanders offers up, "When it comes to Iraq, it's not only morally correct but strategically smart for progressive groups and Democratic voters to play hardball with these candidates. " Like a great many, Flanders thought Super Duper Tuesday would decide it. And she played the hand she wanted then. Now that it didn't turn out the way she wanted, she wants to counsel those who still haven't voted and to try and erase her endorsement.
Today she wants to "play hardball with these candidates," last week she was concluding, "Today, with fingers crossed, I’m voting for Barack and Michelle Obama." Was that hardball?
No, it wasn't. It was pathetic. It was embarrassing. It was jump on the bandwagon. It was hideous.
Like Hayden, Flanders seems to think she can act as if she didn't offer an endorsement. She offered one. She's been offering it for months with her candy valentines to Obama's campaign. She's embarrassed herself repeatedly and shamed herself by pleading with Barack ("and Michelle Obama") to "break" with Richard Daily over torture -- Michelle Obama had a very close working relationship with Daily. She's not breaking with him. Flanders should have been calling Barack out for his use of homophobia (the South Carolina event had just taken place when she issued her 'plea' on torture). Instead she's pleading with him to "break" with someone his wife knows very well. I'm speaking of professionally and friendship. I am not trying to suggest an affair. There was no affair. But Michelle Obama and Richard Daily did work together, did enjoy working together and are close friends. A real journalist would have found out if there was any relationship between Daily and the Obamas before proposing a 'break.' A real journalist would have at least suspected there was one because of the Daily family's long hold on Chicago politics and the fact that Barack Obama was elected from there to the state legislature. But real journalists can't get all weak knee-ed at the sight of uninformed and disinformed crowds salivating as though Gary Cooper's playing John Doe.
That is what has happened. It didn't have to be that way. Bob Somerby will probably laugh his ass off at this, but I didn't think that's how it would go down. I (foolishly) bought the lie (I bought it back in the day as well) that 'independent' media would be independent. I wrongly thought they'd get on board with Dennis Kucincih (The Nation, for example, had no reason to cover anyone else favorably by their own editorial statements). I don't care for Kucinich. But while he was in the race, he was included here over and over. Not in a negative way, not making little jabs at him. We treated him as a serious candidate here and covered his statements on the illegal war and his actions. That wasn't the case for 'independent' media. The only cover The Nation gave Kucinich was one that featured every Democratic candidate.
Now maybe some shared my opinion of Kucinich and that's why so many in independent media refused to cover his campaign with the same detail that they covered others? Possibly. But my intent wasn't to tell anyone who to vote for. 'Independent' media enlisted in the Bambi campaign. I expected that I'd be able to hold Hillary accountable and Barack accountable (and others). I expected that they'd both be held accountable and one would eventually break with the illegal war. I assumed we'd just be highlighting things from 'independent' media. But that would require an adult independent media and we didn't get that.
We got Amy Goodman shutting all Hillary Clinton supporters out of her program. We got Goodman even refusing to note Juan Gonzalez' column about Obama. We got The Nation offering one piece after another on Hillary that could have been seen as doing their job if the same standard was applied to both candidates. It wasn't.
Bambi got personal stories from Professor Patti Williams (apparently tearing herself away from People magazine long enough to put her drools into word form). Bambi got non-stop covers of The Nation. Bambi got praised by all of independent media. In real time, no one called him out for his use of homophobia. All accepted it as 'necessary' or something to be silent on. When they next try to call out a Republican candidate, they will be seen as hypocrites (most already are seen that way).
Bambi got stories about his 'inspiration' and the 'inspiration' he 'inspired.' Of course if Bambi had been scrutinized the way Hillary was, that might not have happened. And Bob Somerby can focus on MSM (or whatever he wants) but the reality is that the attacks on Hillary were not fueled by the MSM, they bubbled up to it from 'independent' media. Ari Berman pens an attack and it's echoed throughout Little Media as he's booked on this show and that to 'present' his 'findings' and he's allowed to do that without any Clinton supporter being present or without any attempts to contact the Clinton campaign. And they want to criticize Big Media for bias?
Barack Obama can't even be questioned on Democracy Now! by one solo guest. To have Glen Ford (who, with Bruce Dixon, has covered Obama for years) on the program, it was necessary to set him up against Michael Eric Dyson. When Dyson was on earlier singing Bambi's praises, there was no need to pair him up with a Hillary supporter. There never is.
And of course Amy Goodman trashed her own reputation when she trashed journlism ethics by bringing Melissa Harris-Lacewell onto her program when she knew Harris-Lacewell was part of the Obama campaign -- not just a supporter, part of the campaign -- and didn't inform her audience of that. She allowed -- huge breach of journalistic ethics -- Harris-Lacewell to rave about a speech Obama gave while neither woman bothered to tell the audience that this woman raving over Bambi's speech happens to be with the Obama campaign. Less than a week later, when it was time to trash Gloria Steinem, Goodman invites Steinem (a Hillary supporter) on for a 'discussion.' It wasn't a discussion. It was Harris-Lacewell out for blood in the sort of thing that Gloria has spent her lifetime avoiding because she knows how those moments play out. On that broadcast, suddenly Amy Goodman and Melissa Harris-Lacewell could both tell the audiences what was always true: Melissa Harris-Lacewell was part of the Obama campaign.
All of this 'work' on the part of 'independent' media to create a difference between Hillary and Barack over the illegal war when there really is none. But today Jess was telling me on the phone to check out my folder in the public account for an e-mail he moved to it. A blogger wanted to trade links. Jess explained why it wasn't happening. The blogger had blogged on Hillary's vote for the Iran resolution and said that her vote was what convinced him she was the same person who voted for the Iraq resolution. (The resolution did not give Bully Boy permission to go to war. The war is illegal.) Jess wrote back to ask how Obama 'voted'. Obama didn't vote. But all the loonys repeat that nonsense of how Bambi was against it. Unlike 2002, he was a member of the Senate last summer. If he really opposed it, he could have voted against it. (He was in DC at the time.)
Now if his supporters grasped that would they be so 'enthusiastic'? If they grasped how little he'd done as a chair of committees, would they be so 'enthusiastic'? If The Nation had long ago explored who was backing him and done so in a cover story, would they be so 'enthusiastic'?
Obama gave over $150,000 contributions away due to Tony Rezko's upcoming case. He didn't do that all at once. He did it bit by bit. Now it wasn't really giving the money back because the money had long ago been used to run for public office. His televised statement on Rezko is that he did five hours of work for a charity connected with Rezko. Rezko was one of his biggest supporters. When Obama wanted a mansion, he couldn't afford it. He went to Rezko for advice (he's admitted that to the print press, he hasn't addressed it in any debate). The house and a small strip of land were one sale. To turn them into two pieces of property required the approval of the Chicago Landmark Committee. Michelle Obama sat on that committee. The property was split in two pieces. The Rezkos bought the now-split land and the Obamas bought the mansion. For some weird reason, Rezko (a contractor) paid full asking price but the Obamas paid less than asking price. Both the Rezkos and the Obamas made their purchases on the same day. We could continue to go through this (including where the Obamas parked their car -- basically the Rezkos provided them with parking). But the point is that there is a long-standing relationship. It may not have been one that engaged in anything illegal but it was worse than "boneheaded" (the term Obama used when describing it to the print press)and if he gets the nomination, the GOP won't play silent the way Little Media did.
Little Media has acted as though Obama was born at the 2004 DNC convention. They'll toss out the 2002 speech (a speech where he was wrong, Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs) and they'll toss out personal stories Obama likes to tell. They won't explore the other areas. But Flanders wants to blame Clinton for the 'war on drugs' when Clinton was a corporate lawyer? That's insane.
It hasn't been equal. It hasn't been fair. And when someone speaks of Obama's supporters and how passionate they are, well who wouldn't be when reality never gets stressed?
The reality is that Obama and Clinton have no huge difference on the illegal war. They have no huge difference on what they'd do about it if elected president. (And both refused to pledge that they'd have all troops out by 2013.) But that gets lost as well, doesn't it?
Independent media has fueled the double-standard. Common Dreams last week ran 13 or so pieces praising Bambi and not one that praised Hillary. (There were four even-handed pieces on all the candidates.) [Added 2-15-08, it was 13, click here.] The ridiculous BuzzFlash, which offered up pro-Clinton premiums for years and years (The Hunting of The President, et al), trashes Hillary ever day. Beyond the audiences for these programs, magazines and websites the talking points circulate by the audiences that gather their information from them. Because they trust them. Who would have thought the day would come when Laura Flanders couldn't play it fair? Who would have thought 'independent' media 'rockstar' Amy Goodman would trash her own reputation (and it's trashed in Big Media now)?
They talked a good talk but in the end they didn't want to be 'media,' they wanted to be a campaign. And notice that if you're Mike Gravel, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney or (when he was in the race) Kucinich, 'independent' media isn't advancing you. They're advancing a candidate who voted for war spending over and over, one who does not have a plan to remove all troops by any set date (certainly not by the end of his first term), one who uses homophobia and so much more. Real candidates against the illegal war get sop and a war hawk gets non-stop coverage.
And along come Flanders and Hayden, having already endorsed Bambi right before their states voted, wanting to now preach that people should hold candidates' feet to the fire? They didn't. Nor did 'independent' media as a whole.
There are two stand out moments from Flanders' show when it was live, two moments with Hayden. After the 2004 elections, Hayden was a Sunday guest and was on (he thought) to talk about Iraq. Flanders wanted none of it. She wanted to talk about the stolen election. Their irritation with one another was obvious on air. They made nice in another appearance. At least while on air. In that one, Hayden was talking about the need to know the resistance in Iraq. It was a proposal that, when Alexander Cockburn made it, would drive some 'leaders' nuts. It didn't drive Flanders (Cockburn's niece) nuts. She just played dumb. Until Hayden was off the line. At which point, she ridiculed him by 'reading' from the blog and making ha-has about Hayden wanted Americans to be pen-pals with the Iraqi resistance (she didn't term it the "resistance"). Considering the conflict between the two then, it's amazing that they've both followed the same path this election.
They've both enlisted in the Bambi campaign. Flanders disgraced herself because she's a lesbian who refused to call out homophobia. Tom disgraced himself because Bambi trashed everything Tom's seen to be a part of. Bambi even coined the phrase "Tom Hayden Democrats" as an insult. Both Flanders and Hayden put self-respect and the illegal war on hold to hop on board the Bambi campaign. They've disgraced themselves. And there's really no reason anyone should listen to them today. If pattern holds for Tom, he'll have something worth listening to shortly. When his lesser goals win out, he usually would grasp that and come back with something harder, something worth listening to. Flanders I don't know. But they've both made themselves useless.
Awhile back, Black Agenda Report explained why they were holding Barack Obama's feet to the fire and explained how they were not pro-Hillary. In a functioning media, they wouldn't have had to explain that. In a functioning media, the fact that they called both out would have made that clear. But Little Media is dysfunctional. And after reading all the praise be Bambi pieces and hearing those stories on broadcasts, it does seem to some like Black Agenda Report is 'going after' Obama. They're not.
They've attempted to have a standard that they applied to both and they've also had to spend more time on Obama (and even then, they have noted he and Hillary are twins) because if it weren't for them, who in Little Media (defined as broadcast and print here) would?
Bruce Dixon's "Holding Barack Obama Accountable" (Black Agenda Report) addresses the fact that Obama was (is?) DLC and notes how he and Glen Ford discovered that. From the article, we'll note this:
The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience. From its Bloody Sunday 2007 proclamation that Obama was the second coming of Joshua to its nationally televised kickoff at Abe Lincoln's tomb to the tens of millions of dollars in breathless free media coverage lavished on it by the establishment media, the campaign's deft manipulation of hopeful themes and emotionally potent symbols has led many to impute their own cherished views to Obama, whether he endorses them or not.
To cite the most obvious example, the Obama campaign cynically bills itself as "the movement", the continuation and fulfillment of Dr. King's legacy. But the speeches of its candidate carefully limit the application of all his troop withdrawal statements to "combat troops" and "combat brigades", omitting the six figure number of armed mercenary contractors in Iraq, along with "training", "counterinsurgency" and other kinds of troops. Obama also presses for an expansion of the US Army and Marines by more than 100,000 troops and a larger military budget even than the Bush regime. The fact that both these stands fly in the face of the legacy of Martin Luther King, and flatly contradict the wishes of most Democratic voters is utterly invisible in the establishment media, and in the discourse of established Black leaders on the Obama campaign. The average voter is ill-equipped to read Obama's statements on these and other issues as closely as one might read a predatory loan application or a jacked up insurance policy, trying to determine exactly what is covered.
As we pointed out back in December
The Obama campaign is heavy on symbolism, and long on vague catch phrases like "new leadership," "new ideas," "a politics of hope," and "let's dream America again" calculated to appeal to millions of disaffected Americans without actually meaning much of anything. Corporate media actively bill Obama as "the candidate of hope," and anointed representative of the "Joshua generation." There are good reasons campaign placards at Obama rallies say "change we can believe in" instead of "stop the war --- vote Obama" or "repeal NAFTA -- Barack in '08." The first set of messages are hopeful and vague. The second are popular demands among the voters Obama needs against which his past, present and future performance may be checked. When the comparison is made, the results are dismaying to many who want to support Barack Obama.
Black Agenda Report has not played favorites. Nor have they put journalism on hold for a campaign. They haven't lied to their audience with vague promises (I'm referring to Little Media's, not Obama's) that the illegal war would come to an end with a vote in November. What they've done all along is what Flanders and Hayden are trying to advise (post-endorsements) now. You need to realize who was there when it mattered. You need to grasp who respected you enough to let you pick your own vote. Margaret Kimberley, Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon saw their role as journalists and, as such, their duty to inform. They have done their job and they have not forgotten that an illegal war is going on. Week after week (except for when they're on hiatus), they've conducted themselves as real professionals and they've treated their audiences with respect -- assuming that they can provide information and their audiences will them make their own decisions. They haven't felt the need -- while others have -- to lecture anyone post-primary. While they are wonderful journalists and deserve high marks, the reality is that the approach they took is not novel or invented on the spot -- it goes to the heart of what journalism is and what Little Media is supposed to strive for.
The fact that others couldn't practice it -- refused to practice it -- is one of the many reasons we hit the five year mark on the illegal war next month. And what's happened is offensive especially if you drop back to 2004 and what happened then. The peace movement was put on hold for an election. You've seen the same thing happen again. Who in independent media is covering war resisters? Where do you hear or see the interviews? What articles do you see in your our Little Media magazines? None.
As long as the illegal war is reduced to a footnote in a campaign (and Flanders' crap about the 'people' is crap when she refuses to write about the illegal war or Tom's when he's off writing about superdelgates) don't expect it to end. As long as 'activism' is gas bagging over political candidates, don't expect the illegal war to end. As long as we're being lied to by Little Media that Obama's the one with a plan to end the illegal war, don't expect it to end.
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 goes
Na 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 3952. Tonight? 3960. Forty away from the 4,000 mark. Not that anyone would know it from Little Media. And that's one reason why the illegal war continues to drag on.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
bruce dixon
dpnna volatile
In the lead up to Super Duper Tuesday (February 5th), Tom Hayden rushed in with "Endorsing Obama" the week before (no link to trash). He distorted Gloria Steinem. Only a surprise to those who think of his "old days" as Chicago, et al. Far more telling will always be Bateman Street where he was kicked out of the commune for "intellectual elitism" and "sexism." His endorsement of Obama read like he wanted so desperately to prove those charges true today (still true? -- though one doubts he'll next move to Venice and answer to Emmett Garity). Gloria's being 'divisive,' Hayden argues and goodness knows he can't stand divisions or taking a stand or anything that requires strength. In the endorsement, he writes of the "sufferings and betrayals my generation went through" -- he liked to climb on the cross in real time as well (and liked to bill himself first when -- briefly -- discussing Bateman Street). In a Freudian twist, he says of others Hillary might pick for her cabinet, "The people she would take into her administration may have been reformers and idealists in their youth, but they seem to seek now a return to their establishment positions of power." Seeking positions of power? Sometimes a person confesses by their own accusations.
Hayden concludes his endorsement with the following paragraphs:
We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet's future as only a reliving of the past.
So I endorse the movement that Barack Obama has inspired and will support his candidacy in the inevitable storms ahead.
That nonsense had an impact. Not in the way he might have liked (hence his hurry to airbrush it away shortly after Super Duper Tuesday), but it had an impact. Today, on a campus, it came up yet again and, as Ava and I noted, at least one day a week we're hitting the road with a real activist from the Vietnam era. He was shocked to hear a student ask why Hayden, "a leader of the peace movement," would be endorsing a candidate who wasn't calling for all troops to be withdrawn. After I admonished, "Be kind," the activist explained that Tom Hayden really wasn't an activist. He was on the sidelines and managed to get headlines. But Chicago was really it for him. He was on the sidelines egging others on (including in Chicago) but he had 'higher ambitions' and that's why he and the peace movement split. (At which point I picked up the story of the split and what happened after.) He's managed to convince a lot of people that what matters most to him is peace.
And to a degree it does really matter to him. But it also matters to him that he be seen as 'powerful.' And the two desires always compete -- have always competed -- and always destroy him because he can't stay away from the glory. And it's that need for glory that allows him to come out for a candidate who won't end the illegal war. Peace v. personal glory? The latter will always win.
"After Super Tuesday, Time for Peace Movement to Get Off the Sidelines" was the attempt at air brushing and it concluded:
The new reality is that the primaries will grind on, the percentages will remain extremely tight, and the Iraq War can be made into a tipping issue over which the candidates compete. It takes a peace movement now.
That was sincere as well. He means it and, most especially, he means to wipe out the fact that he endorsed Obama. If his desire to be seen as a 'powerful' weren't so great, he wouldn't have rushed out his endorsement. A lot of people were assuming it was going to be win-win-win for Obama. A number of them because of the laughable Zogby polls. The Zogby polls are repeatedly wrong and have been repeatedly wrong for repeated years. At some point, that should make people question the polling group. Equally true is that Zogby went into 'expand' mode with new techniques such as reaching people by e-mailing them surveys instead of just relying on phone calls. The audience for e-mail is a smaller audience -- even today -- than the number of people who have a phone.
The above can be seen as an expansion on the CounterPunch article (with a few bits of detail thrown in -- sprinkled). Fortunately, Laura Flanders never tires of disgracing herself these days so we can go a little further. (I don't know Laura Flanders. I do know Tom.) "Which Womanhood?" asked Laura Flanders in her endorsement of Obama on Super Duper Tuesday. No links to trash. Flanders was taking on -- or trying to -- Robin Morgan. Robin Morgan who made her life about something versus Flanders the lesbian who couldn't call out the Barack Obama campaign for using homophobia? Morgan was always going to win. Even if Flanders hadn't been bound and determined to embarrass herself -- which she did very successfully.
She declares herself part of the "global women's movement" -- a movement that really hasn't seen her participation unless you define "global" as every where but the United States -- and writes of the "less attractive parts, of which Hillary Clinton, I'm sad to say, constantly reminds me." Considering that Laura Flanders has both a radio show and those postings at The Nation to lead from, the fact that she was as silent as everyone else at The Nation on the topic of the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer would suggest that she drops in and out of the "global women's movement" depending on her fancy.
Flanders rewrites history to make the Edelmans heroic in their fight against the so-called welfare reform. They weren't judged heroic in real time. Frances Fox Piven blamed not just the Clintons, but also the Edelmans and the left itself. There's a lot of blame to pass around for that including to the Congress. But it's been rewritten so that it's only the failure of the Clintons. That's not reality but a lesbian who can stay silent while her candidate of choice used homophobia isn't interested in reality.
As Flanders might word it, "And that's the saddening, shaming part of Flanders' record -- and the part that reminds me just how often elitists have advanced their own fortunes at the expense of others." Flanders, not done with her revisionary history, wants to blame Hillary Clinton for the failure of ERA (it was White male state legislators) and wants to blame her for the "war on drugs" because "most female lawyers (including Clinton) carried on rising up, even as thousands of disproportionately poor and drug-addicted women were set under." What Clinton's time as a lawyer in Arkansas has to do with the 'war on drugs' Flanders can't say.
But she's not interested in making an argument, she's interested in using slurs and innuendo to build a case against Hillary. She's also not very interested and/or knowledgeable about Iraq since she writes, "One million dead in Iraq alone." The study she's referring to had a stopping point and even then they'd already gone over one million. But those are the sort of details that require attention to the illegal war and, so desperate to save her bad radio show, Flanders hasn't been interested in Iraq since she lost her six hours of live radio each weekend. That is why she's writing about political races (and in an dishonest manner) instead of Iraq. Iraq's not of interest to her.
Flanders concludes, "And so me and my womanhood are rooting for a movement that might someday build for structural change -- and that kind of leadership. Today, with fingers crossed, I’m voting for Barack and Michelle Obama. At least we can call their community organizers’ bluff. Or we can go down -- or rise up -- trying." Apparently her 'womanhood' is disposable and not just because she refused to call out the homophobia but also because she shows up today at The Nation with "Raise the Bar" (never links to trash, never). The thrust is 'let me air brush out my endorsement!'
Humor's provided by lines such as these, "Fourteen months on, the Democratic majority (albeit slim in the Senate) has disappointed those voters, and Congressional approval ratings are down below Bush's." If Flanders really gave a damn about the illegal war, she'd either fight to have control of her radio program or walk away from it because what people are disappointed in is The Nation and the lack of focus on Iraq. It's not just Congress that's run from Iraq and anyone who's suffered through the one hour version of Flanders' program knows that. She's like Lori in the Cher infomercial from a decade ago as she sits down and speaks with Nation 'writers' about their latest political pieces or their latest this pieces or that pieces and Iraq rarely comes up.
She might try getting out in the world if she doesn't grasp how her "approval ratings are down" as well. That may not come about as a result of the small but loyal crowds that show up for book signings. But that is reality. She insists that "[n]o other issue comes close" to the illegal war which only begs the question of why it's so little of interest to her one hour radio program?
Arguing, like Hayden, that it's time to hold the candidates (by the candidates both mean Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- Big Media vanished Mike Gravel and Little Media can't think for themselves, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and all others are similarly ignored) feet to the fire, she writes:
The young voters, poor voters, secular, female, people of color, lesbian and gay, progressive and antiwar voters who have the candidates' attention at the moment belong to the part of the Democratic base whose interests are perennially sidelined by party higher-ups come the general election--and way before anyone gets down to the pay-to-play business of governing.
In contrast to the GOP--whose leaders bow and scrape before every religious extremist all election year--those at the top of the Democratic pyramid run away from their base as soon as the primaries end in order to pander to the so-called center and swing voters [see Flanders, "A New Moment?" at Tomdispatch.com]. This extended primary season offers an unusual period in the sun for progressives, but it's not enough to bask. Activists must raise the bar on policy and barter their support for some solid commitments.
Activists must raise the bar? And how will they do that, Flanders, by endorsing candidates? By playing footsie with a candidate who traffics in homophobia?
More laughs come at the end when Flanders offers up, "When it comes to Iraq, it's not only morally correct but strategically smart for progressive groups and Democratic voters to play hardball with these candidates. " Like a great many, Flanders thought Super Duper Tuesday would decide it. And she played the hand she wanted then. Now that it didn't turn out the way she wanted, she wants to counsel those who still haven't voted and to try and erase her endorsement.
Today she wants to "play hardball with these candidates," last week she was concluding, "Today, with fingers crossed, I’m voting for Barack and Michelle Obama." Was that hardball?
No, it wasn't. It was pathetic. It was embarrassing. It was jump on the bandwagon. It was hideous.
Like Hayden, Flanders seems to think she can act as if she didn't offer an endorsement. She offered one. She's been offering it for months with her candy valentines to Obama's campaign. She's embarrassed herself repeatedly and shamed herself by pleading with Barack ("and Michelle Obama") to "break" with Richard Daily over torture -- Michelle Obama had a very close working relationship with Daily. She's not breaking with him. Flanders should have been calling Barack out for his use of homophobia (the South Carolina event had just taken place when she issued her 'plea' on torture). Instead she's pleading with him to "break" with someone his wife knows very well. I'm speaking of professionally and friendship. I am not trying to suggest an affair. There was no affair. But Michelle Obama and Richard Daily did work together, did enjoy working together and are close friends. A real journalist would have found out if there was any relationship between Daily and the Obamas before proposing a 'break.' A real journalist would have at least suspected there was one because of the Daily family's long hold on Chicago politics and the fact that Barack Obama was elected from there to the state legislature. But real journalists can't get all weak knee-ed at the sight of uninformed and disinformed crowds salivating as though Gary Cooper's playing John Doe.
That is what has happened. It didn't have to be that way. Bob Somerby will probably laugh his ass off at this, but I didn't think that's how it would go down. I (foolishly) bought the lie (I bought it back in the day as well) that 'independent' media would be independent. I wrongly thought they'd get on board with Dennis Kucincih (The Nation, for example, had no reason to cover anyone else favorably by their own editorial statements). I don't care for Kucinich. But while he was in the race, he was included here over and over. Not in a negative way, not making little jabs at him. We treated him as a serious candidate here and covered his statements on the illegal war and his actions. That wasn't the case for 'independent' media. The only cover The Nation gave Kucinich was one that featured every Democratic candidate.
Now maybe some shared my opinion of Kucinich and that's why so many in independent media refused to cover his campaign with the same detail that they covered others? Possibly. But my intent wasn't to tell anyone who to vote for. 'Independent' media enlisted in the Bambi campaign. I expected that I'd be able to hold Hillary accountable and Barack accountable (and others). I expected that they'd both be held accountable and one would eventually break with the illegal war. I assumed we'd just be highlighting things from 'independent' media. But that would require an adult independent media and we didn't get that.
We got Amy Goodman shutting all Hillary Clinton supporters out of her program. We got Goodman even refusing to note Juan Gonzalez' column about Obama. We got The Nation offering one piece after another on Hillary that could have been seen as doing their job if the same standard was applied to both candidates. It wasn't.
Bambi got personal stories from Professor Patti Williams (apparently tearing herself away from People magazine long enough to put her drools into word form). Bambi got non-stop covers of The Nation. Bambi got praised by all of independent media. In real time, no one called him out for his use of homophobia. All accepted it as 'necessary' or something to be silent on. When they next try to call out a Republican candidate, they will be seen as hypocrites (most already are seen that way).
Bambi got stories about his 'inspiration' and the 'inspiration' he 'inspired.' Of course if Bambi had been scrutinized the way Hillary was, that might not have happened. And Bob Somerby can focus on MSM (or whatever he wants) but the reality is that the attacks on Hillary were not fueled by the MSM, they bubbled up to it from 'independent' media. Ari Berman pens an attack and it's echoed throughout Little Media as he's booked on this show and that to 'present' his 'findings' and he's allowed to do that without any Clinton supporter being present or without any attempts to contact the Clinton campaign. And they want to criticize Big Media for bias?
Barack Obama can't even be questioned on Democracy Now! by one solo guest. To have Glen Ford (who, with Bruce Dixon, has covered Obama for years) on the program, it was necessary to set him up against Michael Eric Dyson. When Dyson was on earlier singing Bambi's praises, there was no need to pair him up with a Hillary supporter. There never is.
And of course Amy Goodman trashed her own reputation when she trashed journlism ethics by bringing Melissa Harris-Lacewell onto her program when she knew Harris-Lacewell was part of the Obama campaign -- not just a supporter, part of the campaign -- and didn't inform her audience of that. She allowed -- huge breach of journalistic ethics -- Harris-Lacewell to rave about a speech Obama gave while neither woman bothered to tell the audience that this woman raving over Bambi's speech happens to be with the Obama campaign. Less than a week later, when it was time to trash Gloria Steinem, Goodman invites Steinem (a Hillary supporter) on for a 'discussion.' It wasn't a discussion. It was Harris-Lacewell out for blood in the sort of thing that Gloria has spent her lifetime avoiding because she knows how those moments play out. On that broadcast, suddenly Amy Goodman and Melissa Harris-Lacewell could both tell the audiences what was always true: Melissa Harris-Lacewell was part of the Obama campaign.
All of this 'work' on the part of 'independent' media to create a difference between Hillary and Barack over the illegal war when there really is none. But today Jess was telling me on the phone to check out my folder in the public account for an e-mail he moved to it. A blogger wanted to trade links. Jess explained why it wasn't happening. The blogger had blogged on Hillary's vote for the Iran resolution and said that her vote was what convinced him she was the same person who voted for the Iraq resolution. (The resolution did not give Bully Boy permission to go to war. The war is illegal.) Jess wrote back to ask how Obama 'voted'. Obama didn't vote. But all the loonys repeat that nonsense of how Bambi was against it. Unlike 2002, he was a member of the Senate last summer. If he really opposed it, he could have voted against it. (He was in DC at the time.)
Now if his supporters grasped that would they be so 'enthusiastic'? If they grasped how little he'd done as a chair of committees, would they be so 'enthusiastic'? If The Nation had long ago explored who was backing him and done so in a cover story, would they be so 'enthusiastic'?
Obama gave over $150,000 contributions away due to Tony Rezko's upcoming case. He didn't do that all at once. He did it bit by bit. Now it wasn't really giving the money back because the money had long ago been used to run for public office. His televised statement on Rezko is that he did five hours of work for a charity connected with Rezko. Rezko was one of his biggest supporters. When Obama wanted a mansion, he couldn't afford it. He went to Rezko for advice (he's admitted that to the print press, he hasn't addressed it in any debate). The house and a small strip of land were one sale. To turn them into two pieces of property required the approval of the Chicago Landmark Committee. Michelle Obama sat on that committee. The property was split in two pieces. The Rezkos bought the now-split land and the Obamas bought the mansion. For some weird reason, Rezko (a contractor) paid full asking price but the Obamas paid less than asking price. Both the Rezkos and the Obamas made their purchases on the same day. We could continue to go through this (including where the Obamas parked their car -- basically the Rezkos provided them with parking). But the point is that there is a long-standing relationship. It may not have been one that engaged in anything illegal but it was worse than "boneheaded" (the term Obama used when describing it to the print press)and if he gets the nomination, the GOP won't play silent the way Little Media did.
Little Media has acted as though Obama was born at the 2004 DNC convention. They'll toss out the 2002 speech (a speech where he was wrong, Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs) and they'll toss out personal stories Obama likes to tell. They won't explore the other areas. But Flanders wants to blame Clinton for the 'war on drugs' when Clinton was a corporate lawyer? That's insane.
It hasn't been equal. It hasn't been fair. And when someone speaks of Obama's supporters and how passionate they are, well who wouldn't be when reality never gets stressed?
The reality is that Obama and Clinton have no huge difference on the illegal war. They have no huge difference on what they'd do about it if elected president. (And both refused to pledge that they'd have all troops out by 2013.) But that gets lost as well, doesn't it?
Independent media has fueled the double-standard. Common Dreams last week ran 13 or so pieces praising Bambi and not one that praised Hillary. (There were four even-handed pieces on all the candidates.) [Added 2-15-08, it was 13, click here.] The ridiculous BuzzFlash, which offered up pro-Clinton premiums for years and years (The Hunting of The President, et al), trashes Hillary ever day. Beyond the audiences for these programs, magazines and websites the talking points circulate by the audiences that gather their information from them. Because they trust them. Who would have thought the day would come when Laura Flanders couldn't play it fair? Who would have thought 'independent' media 'rockstar' Amy Goodman would trash her own reputation (and it's trashed in Big Media now)?
They talked a good talk but in the end they didn't want to be 'media,' they wanted to be a campaign. And notice that if you're Mike Gravel, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney or (when he was in the race) Kucinich, 'independent' media isn't advancing you. They're advancing a candidate who voted for war spending over and over, one who does not have a plan to remove all troops by any set date (certainly not by the end of his first term), one who uses homophobia and so much more. Real candidates against the illegal war get sop and a war hawk gets non-stop coverage.
And along come Flanders and Hayden, having already endorsed Bambi right before their states voted, wanting to now preach that people should hold candidates' feet to the fire? They didn't. Nor did 'independent' media as a whole.
There are two stand out moments from Flanders' show when it was live, two moments with Hayden. After the 2004 elections, Hayden was a Sunday guest and was on (he thought) to talk about Iraq. Flanders wanted none of it. She wanted to talk about the stolen election. Their irritation with one another was obvious on air. They made nice in another appearance. At least while on air. In that one, Hayden was talking about the need to know the resistance in Iraq. It was a proposal that, when Alexander Cockburn made it, would drive some 'leaders' nuts. It didn't drive Flanders (Cockburn's niece) nuts. She just played dumb. Until Hayden was off the line. At which point, she ridiculed him by 'reading' from the blog and making ha-has about Hayden wanted Americans to be pen-pals with the Iraqi resistance (she didn't term it the "resistance"). Considering the conflict between the two then, it's amazing that they've both followed the same path this election.
They've both enlisted in the Bambi campaign. Flanders disgraced herself because she's a lesbian who refused to call out homophobia. Tom disgraced himself because Bambi trashed everything Tom's seen to be a part of. Bambi even coined the phrase "Tom Hayden Democrats" as an insult. Both Flanders and Hayden put self-respect and the illegal war on hold to hop on board the Bambi campaign. They've disgraced themselves. And there's really no reason anyone should listen to them today. If pattern holds for Tom, he'll have something worth listening to shortly. When his lesser goals win out, he usually would grasp that and come back with something harder, something worth listening to. Flanders I don't know. But they've both made themselves useless.
Awhile back, Black Agenda Report explained why they were holding Barack Obama's feet to the fire and explained how they were not pro-Hillary. In a functioning media, they wouldn't have had to explain that. In a functioning media, the fact that they called both out would have made that clear. But Little Media is dysfunctional. And after reading all the praise be Bambi pieces and hearing those stories on broadcasts, it does seem to some like Black Agenda Report is 'going after' Obama. They're not.
They've attempted to have a standard that they applied to both and they've also had to spend more time on Obama (and even then, they have noted he and Hillary are twins) because if it weren't for them, who in Little Media (defined as broadcast and print here) would?
Bruce Dixon's "Holding Barack Obama Accountable" (Black Agenda Report) addresses the fact that Obama was (is?) DLC and notes how he and Glen Ford discovered that. From the article, we'll note this:
The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience. From its Bloody Sunday 2007 proclamation that Obama was the second coming of Joshua to its nationally televised kickoff at Abe Lincoln's tomb to the tens of millions of dollars in breathless free media coverage lavished on it by the establishment media, the campaign's deft manipulation of hopeful themes and emotionally potent symbols has led many to impute their own cherished views to Obama, whether he endorses them or not.
To cite the most obvious example, the Obama campaign cynically bills itself as "the movement", the continuation and fulfillment of Dr. King's legacy. But the speeches of its candidate carefully limit the application of all his troop withdrawal statements to "combat troops" and "combat brigades", omitting the six figure number of armed mercenary contractors in Iraq, along with "training", "counterinsurgency" and other kinds of troops. Obama also presses for an expansion of the US Army and Marines by more than 100,000 troops and a larger military budget even than the Bush regime. The fact that both these stands fly in the face of the legacy of Martin Luther King, and flatly contradict the wishes of most Democratic voters is utterly invisible in the establishment media, and in the discourse of established Black leaders on the Obama campaign. The average voter is ill-equipped to read Obama's statements on these and other issues as closely as one might read a predatory loan application or a jacked up insurance policy, trying to determine exactly what is covered.
As we pointed out back in December
The Obama campaign is heavy on symbolism, and long on vague catch phrases like "new leadership," "new ideas," "a politics of hope," and "let's dream America again" calculated to appeal to millions of disaffected Americans without actually meaning much of anything. Corporate media actively bill Obama as "the candidate of hope," and anointed representative of the "Joshua generation." There are good reasons campaign placards at Obama rallies say "change we can believe in" instead of "stop the war --- vote Obama" or "repeal NAFTA -- Barack in '08." The first set of messages are hopeful and vague. The second are popular demands among the voters Obama needs against which his past, present and future performance may be checked. When the comparison is made, the results are dismaying to many who want to support Barack Obama.
Black Agenda Report has not played favorites. Nor have they put journalism on hold for a campaign. They haven't lied to their audience with vague promises (I'm referring to Little Media's, not Obama's) that the illegal war would come to an end with a vote in November. What they've done all along is what Flanders and Hayden are trying to advise (post-endorsements) now. You need to realize who was there when it mattered. You need to grasp who respected you enough to let you pick your own vote. Margaret Kimberley, Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon saw their role as journalists and, as such, their duty to inform. They have done their job and they have not forgotten that an illegal war is going on. Week after week (except for when they're on hiatus), they've conducted themselves as real professionals and they've treated their audiences with respect -- assuming that they can provide information and their audiences will them make their own decisions. They haven't felt the need -- while others have -- to lecture anyone post-primary. While they are wonderful journalists and deserve high marks, the reality is that the approach they took is not novel or invented on the spot -- it goes to the heart of what journalism is and what Little Media is supposed to strive for.
The fact that others couldn't practice it -- refused to practice it -- is one of the many reasons we hit the five year mark on the illegal war next month. And what's happened is offensive especially if you drop back to 2004 and what happened then. The peace movement was put on hold for an election. You've seen the same thing happen again. Who in independent media is covering war resisters? Where do you hear or see the interviews? What articles do you see in your our Little Media magazines? None.
As long as the illegal war is reduced to a footnote in a campaign (and Flanders' crap about the 'people' is crap when she refuses to write about the illegal war or Tom's when he's off writing about superdelgates) don't expect it to end. As long as 'activism' is gas bagging over political candidates, don't expect the illegal war to end. As long as we're being lied to by Little Media that Obama's the one with a plan to end the illegal war, don't expect it to end.
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 goes
Na 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 3952. Tonight? 3960. Forty away from the 4,000 mark. Not that anyone would know it from Little Media. And that's one reason why the illegal war continues to drag on.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
bruce dixon
dpnna volatile
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, February 14, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military's state of readiness is explored in Congress, the Iraqi Parliament takes some action, and more
Starting with war resisters. Lance Griffin (The Dothan Eagle) profiles war resister Brad McCall who explains why he went to Canada rather than to deploy to an illegal war. "They," McCall explains of service members who were returning from Iraq, "were telling us all of these things they did over there; things where you would have thought you were listening to the Nazi tribunals. Innocent people were dying, more of them than the terrorists. That's when I realized I couldn't go over there and be a part of that. When I joined up, I agree with our mission, which was we were fighting terrorism. And I agreed that we were looking for weapons of mass destruction, taking a tyrant out of office and bringing freedom to a people that had never known freedom before. But now I see the war as being about money to line the pockets of politicians and corporations. It's a battle over (expletive), pretty much." At his own site, McCall noted February 4th, "I received my first notice to appear befor a Canadian court today. So I'm pretty bummed. Oh, yeah, and my family are being very, well, unsupportive. So, it's just a horrible day." Griffin reports of McCall's attempts to win refugee status in Canada, "He expects to lose, then he predicts a long appeals process. He said he hopes the political climate in Canada changes before his appeal options run out. If it does, he plans on living the rest of his life in Canada. If it doesn't . . . 'If somehow I get deported, then I guess I will be serving some time in Ft. Leavenworth,' he said. 'Do I think that's fair? No, because I'm standing up for my moral right to make decisions for myself. But I'll do it'."
With Canada's Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters like McCall may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
Meanwhile Kate Murphy (Oakland Tribune) reports that Oakland High School was the setting for a debate regarding military recruiters access to schools between military recruiter Sgt. Jose Delao and war resister Pablo Paredes. Murphy reports (separate story) that on Tuesday the two ("Delao encourages young people consider the path he chose, while Paredes tries to spare them from making the same choice") debated in front of "dozens" of students and quotes Paredes explaining, "Right now, tens of thousands of people, just like you, have come back from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts with injuries that are going to affect them for the rest of their lives" and that there are other means to funds for college: "Whatever dream you're trying to chase in the military, there are other ways to chase that dream." As Dee Knight (Workers World) noted at the start of the month, Paredes was among those taking part (Friday January 25th) in the US to show support for war resisters in Canada: "In San Francisco, the delegation to the Canadian Consulate was led by Pablo Paredes and Mike Wong. Paredes is a former U.S. sailor who refused orders to return to Iraq, and is now a GI Rights Hotline counselor. In December 2004 at Camp Pendleton, Calif., he publicly refused to get on a ship returning to Iraq. 'I don't want to be part of a ship that's taking 3,000 Marines over there, knowing a hundred or more of them won't come back,' he told reporters at the time. Mike Wong is a Vietnam War-era veteran who chose exile in Canada for five years in the 1970s."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, 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).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Kokesh and IVAW will have testimony worth hearing. But today in Congress, maybe not so much with others? Michele A. Flournoy rips through group associations faster than Fox 'News' offers up excuses for the White House. No longer with CSIS, she's now with CNAS and the only logical explanation for the switch may be that the taint on CSIS is too extreme (War Hawks and War Hawks who were wrong). CNAS is the Center for a New American Security and if you ever wonder why so many 'reporters' sound so damn similar look no further than the ambitious start-up of CNAS which has already signed up, for their 'writers program' -- think of it as day-camp, if not day care, for those not ready for sleep away camp. Little Davey E. Singer and Davey Clouds, the paper of record's Two Davids (Cloud is no longer with the paper) along with Greg Jaffe (ex-Wall St. Journal) get cookies and watered down juice each day. Are the three so busy with pillow fights and panty raids (on one another?) that our young students can't think a minute or two about affialiating with an organization that things counter-insurgency (slaughtering the native people) is something to hop on board with? There really isn't a great deal of independence in the press (Big or Small).
Wearing a shocking pink wrap-around (was it a sari, a sarong or a mini-burka?) that may have been as frightening to the eye as her plans for war-war-more-war! are to the heart and mind, Michele A. Flournoy was among those speaking to the US House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on Military Readiness: Implications for Our Stategic Posture which was chaired by Ike Skelton.
Ike Skelton brought up West Point professor and Army General Barry McCaffrey's remarks that ten percent of today's army recruits do not need to be in uniform (McCaffrey to the Senate Armed Services Committee in April 2007: "Ten percent of Army recruits are of low caliber and do not belong in uniform") and Flournoy responded that "1 in 5 are receiving some kind of waiver to enter the force" and that, relying on what she identified as anecdotal evidence, that military command she speaks with say that "more and more of their command time worrying about a central number of problem children in their unit." What's being discussed there are the multiple waivers being granted and the lowered standards for recruting. Moral waivers -- such as the one Steven D. Green were let in on -- are a serious issue and just as head injuries are the key injury of the Iraq War, recruits let in on waivers may be the key characteristic of enlistment today. [Steven D. Green has been portrayed in military court-martials as the ringleader who plotted the gang-rape and murder of Abeer in the home invasion that also killed her five-year-old sister and both of her parents. Green maintains that he is innocent. Others participating in the War Crimes have admitted to their own guilt and consistently fingered him as the ring-leader. Green is scheduled to go on trial in a civilian court in April.]
US House Rep Jim Saxton, apparently hoping to serve in the jury pool at Green's trial, maintained that "we have looked at this at length and found that some soldiers with waivers do better than soldiers without." Flournoy wasn't speaking of "some," she was speaking of a trend. Saxton didn't help his own argument wasting everyone's time with a statistical citation that had no point. "About .26%," he declared of recruits let in with waivers, "was the rate of disatisfaction expressed by waivered [recruits]" while the "unwaivered" -- e.g. traditional recruits -- was "double that." Imagine that. More recruits let in on a moral waiver that allowed them, like Green, to avoid a jail term or probation are happy to be in the military? That is a shocker. Flournony restated that she was maintaining this was an issue that needs to be studied -- by the military and Congress, she was repeatedly clear -- and noted, "In some cases, these waiver soldiers become models in the army. In other cases, they don't and they show greater difficulty in meeting army standards so I think it is something we need to watch over time. I think the jury's out . . . and we need to watch it very carefully over time."
To be clear, the waivers have always existed and many men and women have joined the military under those circumstances and excelled by the service's own standards. That's not the issue nor is the issue that the waivers exist. The issue is the heavy reliance on them today. Someone who may be a bit below the basic standards that really wants in (even to avoid jail or probation -- though some get waivers for academic backgrounds and other issues) can (and they have) live up to all the goals and even surpass those goals. That's not the issue. The issue is that these cases were not the norm for recruitment in times past. Today, if the military couldn't rely on the waivers, they wouldn't meet their targeted goals and a lot of people who should not be accepted are being let in. This is an issue for those stationed and it is an issue for career military types. We'll come back to this topic but let's highlight the rest of the hearing briefly since it seems like the press these days has a really hard time reporting on Congressional hearings.
US House Rep Solomon P. Ortiz was concerned that "the time it would take to restore military readiness gets longer and longer every day." Those invited to give testimony did not dispute that or question it -- it was noted that when there's no X-day for the wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) to be completed, restoring readiness will be always be an estimate that's altered continually -- such as with Bully Boy's decision to 'pause' the drawdown. US House Rep Duncan Hunter was concerned with the readiness of the inventory -- both in terms of whether or not bar-coding is used to track military equipment and also in terms of "what it would be better to leave" in Iraq "and what we might want to cascade to the Iraqis." On the first part, it wasn't clear (whether any tracking was used consistently throughout the branches). On the second part, this fell back into the theme that the US military is being asked, in Iraq (Afghanistan as well, but the comments focused on Iraq), to carry out tasks that are not military tasks. US House Rep Patrick Murphy noted a recent trip overseas where he was asked by a service member "Where the hell is everyone else?" because the military was doing the work that the US State Department and USAID should be doing. US House Rep Vic Snyder stated that the cost will be "20 to 30 billion additional dollars to do the kind of counter-insurgency we need to do." No one bothered to ask what "kind" that was or to question the idea that counter-insurgency was a plus. Sharon Pickup of GAO did make the point that "DoD needs to" clearly outline "what it is getting for the money" but that was a passing comment that no House member felt the need to explore. This despite the fact that Pickup's comment was perfectly in keeping with what Skelton outlined in his opening remarks, "If an unexpected contingeny arises, what will be the cost to us in lives and in dollars? Is that cost one we are truly prepared to accept, or would we instead wish we had done more to prepare for or prevent it? We must also evaluate the initiatives and programs which the Department of Defense is proposing to address our strategic risk and determine whether they are realistic, and whether their scope and pace is sufficient to protect national security." But maybe, here's where we get back to the main topic, answers aren't going to come when centrists think-tank flacks are the ones speaking. Why were the Dems put in control of both houses of Congress? To end the illegal war. And they can't even expand upon the witnesses they call to testify. Anita Dancs of the National Priorities Project was far more informed on the January 23rd broadcast of Uprising Radio (noted in this snapshot) than Floury was today speaking to a Congressional committee.
From the US Congress to the Iraqi Parliament, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on yesterday's actions when they "passed a budget and approved two major bills" and states, "The major winners are Sunni Muslims -- who won a limited amnesty for prisoners and an Oct. 1 date for provincial elections -- and Kurds, who won a budget that allocated 17 percent of Iraq's funds to them, instead of 13 percent as the Shiite-led government had proposed." We'll come back to the elections shortly. Raheem Salman and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) also cover the topic noting that there was another walkout yesterday and that "questions remain about how they will be implemented" which brings to mind the start of the month when Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported on the criticism coming from CIA asset and Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi that the Iraqi Parliament, "People should pay attention to what they are discussing and voting on." Salman and Zavis note that nothing is yet implemented (the presidency council must sign off or at least let it pass through without object) and point out, "Analysts cautioned, however, that Iraqi leaders remained deeply divided on key issues, including the distribution of Iraq's massive oil wealth and the future of disputed territories such as oil-rich Kirkuk." On the issue of the prison amnesty, Solomon Moore (New York Times) examines the prison-industrial-complex created in Iraq where "[t]ens of thousands of news prison beds" are demanded by unnamed US officials and there are "the 26,000 prisoners" in Iraqi prisons "still awaiting trial" plus "24,000 additional prisoners held in separate American military prisons."
Meanwhile the protests and strikes go on by "Awakening" Council members in Diyala Province and Al Anbar Province (see Monday's snapshot). James Cogan (World Socialist Web) explains:
In the working class Shiite suburbs of Baghdad, the US military has essentially ceded control to the Sadrist movement in exchange for an end to its operations against Sunni opponents and its assistance in hunting down Shiite insurgents who attack the occupation forces. The US sponsorship of large Sunni-Baathist militias, however, has produced open opposition to Sadr's collaboration. Factions of the Mahdi Army have called in recent weeks for an end to the ceasefire. Sadr has refused, making it likely that there will be substantial break-aways from his 60,000-strong militia and the emergence of new Shiite resistance groups.
For their part, the Sunni militias are becoming increasingly frustrated by their continued marginalisation from political power. They are coming under constant attack by groups who oppose their collaboration, and have clashed with government or US forces several times over the past month. Last week, in Diyala province, the Awakening Council announced it was suspending all cooperation with the occupation following the murder of two girls, allegedly by Shiite police.
In Anbar, the US military faces the prospect of an even greater collapse of its deals. This week, the 20,000-strong tribal Awakening Council militia issued a threat to use armed force to seize control of the provincial government.
For their part, the Sunni militias are becoming increasingly frustrated by their continued marginalisation from political power. They are coming under constant attack by groups who oppose their collaboration, and have clashed with government or US forces several times over the past month. Last week, in Diyala province, the Awakening Council announced it was suspending all cooperation with the occupation following the murder of two girls, allegedly by Shiite police.
In Anbar, the US military faces the prospect of an even greater collapse of its deals. This week, the 20,000-strong tribal Awakening Council militia issued a threat to use armed force to seize control of the provincial government.
Garrett Theroff (Los Angeles Times) reports that "Awakening" Council member Hisham Mahdi Salih has made a trip to Baghdad to persuade the puppet government, via "meeting with Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and other high-ranking officials" that the police in Diyala Province are torturing people -- including him -- in an attempt to grab more power. The puppet government (especially it's Interior Ministry thugs) armed and trained by? The US. The "Awakening" Council armed and trained by? The US. There will be open, armed civil war in Iraq if the US can just keep pitting sides against one another by arming thugs.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahr Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded three people, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 4 lives and left thirty-three people wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing (in the continued targeting of officials) wounded Col. "Hazim al-Juburi and 3 of his security detail," a Basra roadside bombing wounded two Iraqi soldiers, a Muqdadiyah roadside bombing wounded three children and, outside Mosul, "Al-Anfal Intermediate School was bombed".
Shootings?
Sahr Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Mejeed Mahmoud Hussein ("Staff General and commander of a division in former Iraqi Army") in Samarra today (he "had been detained in Bucca prison by Coalition Forces for three years and was released 2 months ago"), an armed clash outside Baquba resulted in seven police officers being wounded, Sheikh Abu Ali al-Buhruzawi was shot dead in Baquba and, yesterday, Labib Ali al-Zaidan, his wife and 7 members of their family were shot dead in Awja during a home invasion. Reuters notes "a member of a neighbourhood police patrol" was shot dead in Hawija.
Kidnappings?
Sahr Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 people were kidnapped outside Baquba. And although the interpreter was released yesterday, the Press Gazette notes that the CBS correspondent remains missing following the kidnapping of both on Sunday.
Corpses?
Sahr Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Returning to the topic of elections in Iraq, the United Nations notes that Staffan De Mistura, Special Representative for Iraq, "said action is critical following the passing of new legislation calling for governorate elections before 1 October." Yes, in February the Iraqi Parliament gets attention for the "elections are coming!" law that may or may not come to pass but October 1st is the actual scheduled day which, no doubt, will provide many ink-stained photos just in time to attempt to influence the US presidential elections. de Mistura stated, "It is vital that all steps are taken to ensure that the Independent High Electoral Commission is in a state of readiness for future elections. We hope by ensuring transparency and professionalism in the selection processes that this can be achieved."
The United High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres is touring the MidEast this week. Yesterday, Gueterres visited Jordan and "thanked King Abdullah II for his country's generosity in hosting more than a half a million" Iraqi refugees, the UN noted, with Jordan being one of the two main countries externally displaced Iraqis have sought asylum (Syria being the other most popular choice). The United Nations is issuing a call for $261 million to fund programs that will provide assistance to the internally and externally displaced Iraqis. IRIN reports that the Iraqi government "has earmarked US$40 million to help ease the plight of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and Iraqi refugees in other countries, its spokesman said on 13 Februrary."
We'll pick up on that topic tomorrow. Instead we'll close with US politics. Danny Schechter (writing at Common Dreams last Friday) observed, "Neither Democratic candidate is focusing on the reality of mounting inflation, joblessness, the credit squeeze/debt burden (Student loans and mortgages) and the growing income gap. Are they only reading their own press, and ignoring this financial time bomb? Are they in denial?" They? Try many US voters who see "Troops Home If I'm Elected" in either or, worse, believe the spin that Bambi's better on the illegal war than Hillary. Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) makes the case for holding both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's feet to the fire -- and doing so now, not, as some fools suggest, after one of them (maybe) makes it into the White House. If it sounds familiar, you've probably heard it last week. But unlike an 'anti-war' 'leader,' Bruce Dixon has credibility. Unlike Tom Hayden, Dixon has consistently maintained that Obama and Clinton were twins, two-of-akind and, unlike Hayden, Dixon didn't rush out an embarrassing, gushing endorsement of Obama at the start of last week. When you attempt to show up after that trying to argue that both should have their feet held to the fire, the laughter you're greeted with has been more than earned. Dixon makes the case and does so with his integrity intact and he concludes, "It's time for a little less respect for the high and mighty of either party, and a little more action. It's high time for activists inside and outside the Democratic party to look for creative, innovative, sometimes impolite and civilly disobedient ways to reach larger audiences as they speak truth to the powerful. Even and especially when those in power are nominal Democrats." And if you don't grasp the importance of what Dixon's saying, try flashing back to spring of 2004 when John Kerry was riding high and no pressure was put on him because it was more important to elect him -- got to get him into office! -- so everyone stayed silent and, for those who can't remember how that ended, Kerry never made it into the Oval Office. Demands for peace do not wait for elections. Those gushing over Bambi and working overtime to create a 'record' for him don't grasp that (and may never). Again, Joe Wilson has been shut out by Little Media that couldn't get close enough to him not all that long ago. His column endorsing Hillary has been expanded and can be found at TaylorMarsh.com and No Quarter. Did Joe Wilson change? No, Little Media did. File him with Joe Conason, Paul Krugman, Gloria Steinem and all the others kicked to the curb (and attacked) because they had their own judgements.
lance griffin
leila fadel
alexandra zavis
solomon moore
garrett therolf
james cogan
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.