Thoughts

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Operator Error" went up last night.




"Change Takes Time." Did you catch that? That's the slogan Isaiah's given the 2012 Barack campaign. I love it. Wouldn't it be funny if Barack ran on that?



"More Shamelessness From The Obama Left - The 39% Bus Tour Dictator Solution" (Hillary Is 44):

We read it at the end of last week and we ran for cover. We thought nuclear warfare would explode on the internets. Instead there was silence.

Such is the desperation on the Obama Left that no indecency, no corruption on behalf of the golden calf is unexplored. Michael Tomasky debased himself (again) last week in service to Barack Obama. Read it and weep for the corruption that is the Obama Left:

“If Obama wants to show he’s grown a backbone, he should force Congress into recess and make appointments that Republicans have been blocking, says Michael Tomasky.”

That’s right - in order for Obama to prove he is a man he should get rid of Congress so he can make recess appointments. How low can these Obama hacks go? These are the very same “liberals” who used to protest against the “imperial presidency”. These are the “liberals” and “progressives” who attacked Hillary for insufficiently attacking the “unitary executive”. These are the very same fake “liberals” and “Progressives In Name Only” who denounced George W. Bush for his exercise of presidential power. Here’s Tomasky now, calling for a seeming dictatorship in everything but name:

“I’ve been wondering lately the same thing as a lot of liberals in Washington: when and how will the president ever grow some backbone? Sure, the post-debt-deal polls show that he came out of the mess looking somewhat less terrible than the Republicans. But he looks weak, and he’ll keep getting pushed around until he throws down on something. I’m planning an occasional series about what that something could be, and here’s idea No. 1: force the Congress into recess and make a slew of appointments.”

Tomasky asserts the president, under Article II Section 3 of the Constitution, has the power to adjourn the Congress and Obama should do so. Then under the recess appointment power granted the president in an earlier age when communications and travel made such a power a necessity, Tomasky urges Obama force feed federal appointments in order to make himself appear tough.

I think Tomasky grasps that Barack is weak and that's why his suggestions for Barack are so embarrassing.

Do you wonder if Barack can be defeated?

I do. And I really worry that the Republicans will nominate someone so loony that will be stuck with four more years of Barack. I don't think the country can survive that.

Yes, we made it through 8 years of Bully Boy Bush, but we called him out and had ethics. Now on the left there is such a reluctance to call Barack out.

And it's that cowardice that makes life even harder and more difficult.

I will be so glad when the Obamas leave the White House.





"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, August 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq is slammed with bombings, US State Dept spokesperson Victoria Nuland appears to believe "Why tell just one lie when you can tell several?," Parliament clashes continue, Law & Disorder Radio discusses free speech rights, and more. Yesterday in the Iraqi Parliament, Al Rafidayn reports, some thought they would be discussing the nomination of former Minister of the Interior Jawad al-Bolani to be Minister of Defense; however, it quickly arose that he had not in fact been nominated. Somewhere in that 'realization' is an indictment of the current government and Nouri's failure to appoint a Minister of Defense, a Minister of National Security and a Minister of the Interior back in December. Nizar Latif (The National) points out today, "As recently as Friday, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki indicated in an interview with an Iraqi television station that he sees no reason to appoint a minister of defence or minister of interior. He has filled both posts in acting capacity since the government was partially formed last December and argues that security has improved in the absence of ministerial chiefs." Somewhere in that failure to fill those security posts may be the answer to the continued and, yes, rising violence in Iraq. Today is being called not just a bloody day, but, Ben Farmer (Telegraph of London), "the bloodiest day of the year so far." AP sees a "wave of violence" rolling through Iraq today with "nearly 60" dead. It was a series of attacks and the Washington Post offers an AFP - Getty Images slide show here. The Globe & Mail offers a photo essay here. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) cites 67 dead and one-hundred and seventy injured -- 34 killed by a Kut car bombing and roadside bombing; 8 killed by a Twareej car bombing; 4 killed by twin suicide bombers in Tikrit; 8 killed by a suicide car bombing in Khan Bani Saad; 3 dead from four Baghdad bombings and "attacks also occured in Najaf, Kirkuk and Baqouba, killing at least 10 people". CNN's updated the death toll to 75 and the number injured to "more than 250". Fang Yang (Xinhua) explains the 2 suicide bombers in Tikrit were attacking "the counter-terrorism headquarters" and that they "entered the headquarters with faked IDs in an attempt to enter the main building, but were discovered and traded fire with the guards, the source from Salahudin's operations command told Xinhua." Catholic Culture notes that a Syrian Orthodox church was blown up in Kirkuk. Annie Gowen (Washington Post) observes, "The attacks came after a period of relative quiet in the country, which had descended as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan began in early August." Jeffrey Fleishman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) quote Baghdad shop owner Ali Sabih stating, "The blame is on the American troops. They want to show the weakness of the Iraqi security forces. Iraqi troops are weak and they'll need more years before they're ready to protect the country." Michael S. Schmidt and Yasir Ghazi (New York Times) quote police officer Saad Ahmed, injured in the Taji bombing, stating, "I looked at my body, and I was drowning in blood. I just thought about my friends and if they were O.K., because it was 9:15 in the morning and there was a change in shifts. It is Ramadan this month and we should pray that we won't kill each other. What crime did we commit? We were just trying to protect our country." Ben Farmer (Telegraph of London) notes the Baghdad attacks prompted "angry accusations of incompetence against Mr al-Maliki and his security forces" and quotes Baghdad shop owner Ali Jamaa Ziad asking, "Where is the government with all these explosions across the country? Where is al-Maliki? Why doesn't he come to see?" Rebecca Santana and Hamid Ahmed (AP) have a powerful report which includes: "This is our destiny," said Eidan Mahdi, one of more than 250 Iraqis wounded Monday. Mahdi was lying in a hospital bed in the southern city of Kut. One of his eyes was closed shut with dried blood, and burns covered his hands and head. DPA quotes Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi stating, "I place the responsibility on officials in charge of the security bodies and the government for those violations, that killed many innocent citizens." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) adds, "The Iraqi government declared a curfew in the wake of the blasts while Iraqi politicians criticized the security forces for not having stopped the attacks. Hakim al Zamili, a member of the Iraqi parliament's security and defense committee, said an investigation would be launched and that both provincial police officials and Iraqi military commanders would be questioned." Aswat al-Iraq quotes Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, "We strongly condemn those horrible crimes, they were committed due to the existence of security loopholes, most reasons of which had been the negligence to implement the understandings, reached by the Political Leadership in Arbil." In the US, at the State Dept, spokesperson Victoria Nuland stated, "We remain concerned about these kinds of terrorist acts in Iraq, and we are working closely with out partners to address them. In net terms though, overall, the violence in Iraq is significantly down this year over previous years. We consider these to be desperate acts by desperate people. We believe that the Iraqi security forces are getting stronger by the day, and our goal is to continue to strengthen them, and we remain on track to withdraw all our forces at the end of the year." So she lies and expects people to believe her? We should believe her about "remain on track to withdraw all our forces at the end of the year" when she lies with "the violence in Iraq is signficiantly down this year over previous years"? Victoria Nuland, meet Stuart Bowen. He is the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. He's often in the news but was in the news at the end of last month for what main reason? Lara Jakes (AP) reported: "Frequent bombings, assissinations and a resurgence in violence by Shiite militias have made Iraq more dangerous now than it was just a year ago, a U.S. government watchdog concludes in a report being released today." Report by Bowen and among the findings? That Iraq "is less safe, in my judgment, than 12 months ago." Got it, Victoria? Need more? Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) covered Bowen's report, "The findings contrast with public statements by US diplomatic and military officials in Iraq and come as Washington awaits a final decision by Iraqi leaders on whether they want US troops to stay in the country beyond the expiration of a three-year security agreement in December." So we're lied to about that (so poorly that Nuland may as well have been channeling Jay Carney). And we're supposed to believe on the timeline? Let's drop back to Thursday's snapshot: Turning to the Iraq War, if it ends at the end of 2011, why are they still deploying troops to it? Today the Providence Journal reports a send-off is scheduled this Friday (9:00 a.m., Quonset Air National Guard Base) for two units of the Rhode Island National Guard who are deploying "to Iraq for a year. They will provide aviation support for combat and reconstruction operations, the National Guard said." Jennifer Quinn (WPRI) also notes the deployment, "A Company, 1st Battalion 126th Aviation and D Company 126th Aviation will deploy to Iraq for one year." Victoria Nuland, if all is on schedule for departure at the end of the year, why were those National Guard members deploying to Iraq "for a year"? You might have pulled off one lie, but both? Especially the lie about the violence after Stuart Bowen's report (and finding on the violence in Iraq) has been covered by every outlet imaginable. The Daily Mail states, "The scope of violence -- seven explosions went off in different towns in Diyala province alone -- emphasized that insurgents are still able to carry out attacks despite repeated crackdowns by Iraqi and U.S. forces." Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports, "A jihadist site praised the attacks and said they targeted 'Shi'ites, Christians and the apostate awakening councils', in reference to the US-backed Sunni groups who turned on al-Qaida in 2007." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) quotes US military spokesperson Maj Angela Funaro declaring, "Today's attacks are eerily similar to the stream of large scale, complex attacks that occurred here last year during Ramadan on Aug. 25." That was a day that saw the toll reach at least 60 dead and 265 wounded by an hour before the network evening news. From that day's snapshot: Ned Parker and Riyadh Mohammed (Los Angeles Times) explain, "The violence shook at least seven cities from north to south and appeared timed to undermine confidence in the Iraqi army and police as the U.S. military ends it formal combat mission in the country." Anthony Shadid and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) note the assaults appear "to be part of a coordinated wave of attacks" and they quote Mohammed Abbas who lost a cousin in one of today's bombings: "There may be a state, there may be a government. But what can that state do? What can they do with all the terrorists? Are they supposed to set up a checkpoint in every house?" Wait, it gets worse: Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explain, "Car bombs were used in the attacks in Baghdad, Basra, Karbala, Baquba, Kirkuk and Wasit, the officials said in statements." In addition, they note, "Vice President Joseph Biden and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said at separate events yesterday that the administration is confident Iraqi forces are capable of taking on the primary security role." That was August 25, 2010. And Iraqi forces weren't ready then and don't appear ready today. Nizar Latif (The National) quotes Abu Abbas who was injured in the Kut attack stating, "It's unacceptable to have the same thing happening twice. It means the security forces are not learning their lessons. We have the same flaws in security as we had a year ago." Of today's attacks, The NewsHour (PBS) notes, "The attacks come as Iraqi political leaders consider requesting U.S. troop presence beyond the planned Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline, as questions persist about the ability of the Iraqi government to maintain security and combat insurgents." Sara Sorcher (National Journal) adds, "The Obama administration has made clear that it would be open to leaving approximately 10,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely at the request of the Iraqi leadership, but Baghdad has not yet requested such an extension." Jamal Hashim and Yamel Wang (Xinhua) point out, "Maliki frequently said that SOFA cannot be renewed as stated in the agreement, but talks with the Americans is expected to let small force of U.S. troops to stay in Iraq beyond the end of 2011 deadline only gor training Iraq forces under the Strategic Framework Agreement, which was signed earlier with the SOFA between the two countries." Annie Gowen and Asaad Majeed (Financial Times of London) add, "Kirkuk's provincial governor, Najmaldin Karim, has called on American troops to stay in the country past the deadline." Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) offers this media analysis: News coverage has included the by now obligatory-hand wringing over whether Iraqi security forces are up to the job. The New York Times says that "the violence raised significant questions about the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces." The Washington Post writes "they also raise questions about the Iraqi government's ability to maintain security as American troops prepare to leave the country by December." This is journalese. "Questions" aren't really being raised. It's evident that the ability of Iraq's security forces to end militant violence by force alone is nonexistent. The reason why is that the number of people willing to engage in attacks isn't small enough yet, that a substantial portion of the population looks at the Shiite-dominated government with sufficient suspicion to provide passive support to the fighting (by, say, deciding not to inform security forces of a neighbor who appears to be building a bomb in his garage), and that fighters -- whether Sunni insurgents or Shiite militants that the US alleges are receiving support from Iran -- still believe there's power and influence to be won at the end of a gun. Let's stay with the possible extension because there was an important development over the weekend. Sunday, AFP reported Tareq al-Hashimi, Iraq's Sunni vice president, has stated security in Iraq would improve if US forces left. AFP explained his role is "ceremonial." AFP missed the point. Is al-Hashimi being sincere? That's the most important question. The second most important question is will an extension go through Parliament? Why are those two questions important? al-Hashimi does have duties and powers in his role of one of Iraq's two vice presidents (two currently due to the resignation of a third). Does AFP remember the most recent Parliamentary elections? Maybe not. But those elections took place March 7, 2010 (that was a Saturday, early voting actually started the Thursday before). Maybe the long do-nothing period that followed the elections (the nine month Political Stalemate I) has erased long term memories? Those elections were supposed to take place in 2009, remember? Why didn't they? Because the Parliament could not agree on a draft election law. Any of this ringing a bell? The United Nations repeatedly warned that the deadline for 2009 elections was in danger of being missed. Finally a draft law got passed by Parliament. Was that the end of the story? No. Because the presidency council has to approve it. That's the President of Iraq and its vice presidents (at that time it was only two vice presidents). Here's where the power comes in: If any one of them says "no," just one, the passed bill doesn't become a law. Citing the large number of Sunnis making up Iraq's external refugees, al-Hashmi expressed reservations about the bill long before it passed Parliament. He felt more efforts were needed when it came to letting Iraqi refugees now living in other countries vote and that the refugee population was not being properly counted (counting Sunni refugees properly, he felt, would triple the number of seats allocated in Parliament for refugees). Parliament ignored his objections. al-Hashemi responded November 18, 2009 by vetoing the bill when it came before the presidency council. When he did that, State Dept spokesperson Ian Kelly stated the following: We're disappointed at these developments related to the elections law. We urge the Iraqi leaders and Parliament to take quick action to resolve any of the outstanding concerns that have been expressed. And this is so elections can go forward. And these elections, of course are mandated by the Iraqi Constitution. We believe that it's the responsibility of all Iraqi partiest to ensure that the Iraqi people are able to exercsie their democratic right to vote and this election law represent the best way forward for the Iraqi government to be able to consolidate the democratic and political achievements. Eventually, al-Hashemi came around. But not before delaying the proceedings considerably. So (A) al-Hashemi has considerable power if the Parliament is included in the issue (and if the Parliament votes to extend the US military presence in Iraq beyond Dec. 31st). And (B) if he really gives a damn about the issue, he can delay it, he can event halt it. The Parliament can override his objection. With 3/5 of the members voting to override it. This is outlined in Section Five of Article 134 in the Iraqi Constitution: A. Legislation and decisions enacted by the Council of representatives [Parliament] shall be forwarded to the Presidency Council to approve it unanimously and to issue it within ten days from the date of delivery to the Presidency Council, except the stipulations of Article (114) and (115) that pertain to the formation of regions. B. In the event the Presidency Council does not approve, legislation and decisions shall be sent back to the Council of Representatives to re-examine the disputed issues and to vote on by the majority of its members and then shall be sent for the second time to the Presidency Council for approval. C. In the event the Presidency Council does not approve the legislation and decisions for the second time within ten days of receipt, the legislation and decisions are sent back to the Council of Representatives who have the right to adopt it by a three-fifths non-appealable majority vote and shall be considered ratified. In reality, were al-Hashemi to object, to veto? There would be an upswell, a populace wave, among the Iraqi people. And it would be really hard to get that many members to vote to override the veto. It could happen even though it would be difficult. The US was spreading favors in cash in November 2008 to get people to vote and to get no votes to agree to leave Baghdad and not attend the session in which the Status Of Forces Agreement was voted on. With Moqtada the question the US government always wants to know is what does he want? (Followed by how much it will cost?) So Moqtada al-Sadr isn't taken all that seriously. But it required the UN and the US and a lot of hours of cajoling to get al-Hashemi to go along with the election draft law in 2009. (He was also allegedly pressured/blackmailed with the argument that they would hang all delays on him, they would destroy him before the Iraqi people as the fall guy for the long, long delays.) If al-Hashemi is serious and firm, he could throw a real road block up against what the White House wants. And there's not a lot that al-Hashemi can be given. He's been vice president twice. No one believes that a Sunni will be the next prime minister and it's known that the Shi'ite politicians have already decreed after Jalal Talabani finishes this term (his second), the next president of Iraq will be a Shi'ite. (Talabani is a Kurd.) So what does that leave al-Hashemi? Nothing. Vice president's as far as he can advance. If he's firmly against it and sincere, this is the biggest obstacle against keeping US troops in Iraq beyond December 31st. And if he's not sincere? Assuming that any negotiation would have to move quickly (not for the US' sake but for Maliki's), al-Hashemi could be staking out this position for bargaining power -- for example to ensure that the long-promised national council is created as agreed to last November. As the violence slams Iraq today, grasp that Osama al-Nujaifi had to adjourn Parliament's session yesterday when MPs began physically fighting with one another (Dar Addustour has the story here). Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The Parliament's session of today had been adjourned, due to adjourned, due to clashes that took place inside the Parliament by members of the Sadrist Trend and the State of Law Coalition, towards the General Amnesty Law and objections about some of its articles." State of Law and the Sadr Bloc in trouble? Carnegie Middle East Center's Maria Fantappie sees additional problems between the political groupings and their leaders: Presiding over the federal administration and in control of the security ministries, Maliki is able to withhold funding, maneuver provincial alliances, and even deploy armed forces. But the Sadrists are positioned to fight back: in control of key ministries­­­ -- water, housing and construction, municipalities, and planning -- they are organized locally and best able to mobilize Iraqis in the streets. Southern Iraq remains the primary battleground. On the verge of establishing a stronghold in the provinces of Maysan, the Sadrists are slowly but surely making strides in the neighboring provinces and threatening Maliki's State of Law coalition in the provincial councils of Basra and Baghdad. The Sadrists rely on a fluid chain of decision-making that issues policies at the top levels of government and implements projects through local committees in the provinces they run. In just a few months, their ministries have begun to build housing complexes in Maysan, implement infrastructure projects in Muthanna, improve the provision of electricity in Dhi-Qar, and improve access to water in Najaf. Starting with Maysan, Maliki has spared no time in disrupting this flow by limiting government funding, delaying approval for implementation, and hampering foreign investments. In other Parliament news, Al Mada reports that Nouri and the Minister of Electricity Ra'ad Shalal al-Ani have agreed to submit his (al-Anier) resignation to Parliament. Iraqi Oil Report notes that this counters the narrative of 'tough Nouri' who did firing and sees a lot of conflict on the horizon due to al-Ani being a member of Iraqiya. In 2005, US citizens Nathan Ertel and Donald Vance went to Iraq to work as contractors for Shield Group Security. While working for the company, they felt they were witnessing illegal activities and reported their concerns to the FBI. The 'investigation' resulted in them being thrown into Camp Cropper where they state they were tortured. After 97 days at Camp Cropper, they were released/expelled without charges. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled last week that Ertel and Vance's lawsuit against former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld could go forward. Russia Today spoke with World Can't Wait's Debra Sweet (link is video) about the case: Debra Sweet: Well I suppose it could go to revealing the sorted business that stands behind this illegitimate occupation of Iraq and I would add Afghanistan by the United States. One can only hope that there actually is the potential for the whole story coming out in this lawsuit. Of course, it is not just by happenstance that the lawsuit has not been heard before this because it's the Obama Administration that has resolutely opposed any prosecution of the former Bush regime's War Criminals in office -- like Rumsfeld, like Bush himself, like Dick Cheney and all the torture lawyers that actually created the justification for torture carried out in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and across the whole rubric of the war on terror. Russia Today: So can you explain please why Obama would take this position when this is all about the previous administration? Debra Sweet: Well I can only quote his words and he said 'Of course torture was wrong but that he preferred to go forward rather than look backward. And, in fact, there's been numerous attempts to seek justice in US courts by people who were detained in Guantanamo completely without charges, by people who were kidnapped and taken to US black torture sites like Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, and like the relatives of three prisoners in Guantanamo who died in 2006. None of these people have been able to convince a court in the United States to allow their legitimate law suits to go forward. And this is, in each case, because the Obama administration's Dept of Justice has opposed these inquiries. And their justification is always "national security." Friday March Forward had an event at the GI coffeehouse Coffee Strong addressing military suicides with a focus on Sgt Derrick Kirkland whose brother Jeremiah is in March Forward and whose mother Mary Kirkland participated in the event. Steve Fetbrandt (Patch) reports: Among the seven speakers were four veterans, one active-duty serviceman, the wife of a recent military suicide victim and the mother of U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Derrick Kirkland, 23, a two-time combat veteran who hung himself in his barracks at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in March 2010. Kirkland was sent home midway through his second tour in Iraq for putting a shotgun in his mouth. He also attempted suicide during a layover in Germany. A Madigan Army Medical Center psychologist diagnosed him as low-risk for suicide and he was assigned to a barracks room by himself. He hanged himself less than 48 hours later. "March Forward" co-founder Kevin Baker accused the military Friday of paying lip service to --and even mocking -- soldiers like Kirkland, who have suffered combat-related mental illness. "We're demanding justice for Sgt. Kirkland ... and also for every single active-duty service member and veteran ... and for the rights of those in the military who've yet to be deployed and traumatized," he said. Keith Eldridge (KOMO -- link is text and video) reports on the speak-out and quotes Mary Corkhill Kirkland stating, "My son did not want to die. He wanted help. He was crying out for help." Also participating was Ashley Joppa-Hagemann whose husband Sgt Jared Hagemann took his own life less than a month ago and she stated her husband wanted to leave the military and, "He just wanted to know what it felt like to be normal again." John Stevens (Daily Mail) reports that Jared Hagemann had already deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan eight times and could not take a ninth deployment. US, Senator Patty Murray is also the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes this event tomorrow. (Washington, D.C.) -- On Tuesday, August 16th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. This will be Senator Murray's first discussion with local veterans as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Monday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C. WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray Local veterans WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray WHEN: Tuesday, August 16th 1:00 PM PT WHERE: Ft. Vancouver Artillery Barracks 600 East Hatheway Road Vancouver, WA 98661 Map The latest Law and Disorder Radio -- began airing this morning on WBAI and airs around the country throughout the week. The program is hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights). Last week, the New York Times blog noted Heidi. The article, by Colin Moynihan, is currently entitled "Mobilizing Help for People Accused of Hacking." Michael Ratner saw a version of it with a different title, but that's the report he's referring to. Michael Ratner: Heidi when I opened the New York Times blog last week, I was pleased to see an article called "Courthouse Confidential." And there was our own Heidi Boghosian, sitting in front of a window with all kinds of law books in front of her and talking about a new initiative of the National Lawyers Guild and Heidi Boghosian which is to get lawyers for the people who the US is going after, the government is going after, for Anonymous and LulzSec which has to do with "hackers" or something like that. What's this about, Heidi? Heidi Boghosian: Well -- Michael Ratner: Great picture and I advise -- Heidi Boghosian: (Laughing) Thanks, Michael. Michael Ratner: -- everybody to go the New York Times and look for Heidi's picture if you want to see what the hostess of the mostess looks like. Heidi Boghosian: Aw, gosh. Anyway, this is -- Michael Ratner: Heidi, that was really made up. You don't really think [I think] that? Heidi Boghosian: No. Okay. Look, when WikiLeaks happened, a lot of activists went on line when PayPal and other banks denied access to money to WikiLeaks, people protested. You know, the way over the centuries people have protested things, in the streets. Now we have the internet. And we have stort of cyber-activism. And what they did was they downloaded software that lets you go to a corporate website and sort of hit it multiple times so what it does is it slows it down. And I think if people go and read some of the comments on the blog, you'll see a little debate going on about whether this constitutes a criminal activity. And the Guild thinks it doesn't. Michael Ratner: In this case, it was PayPal. And I think it was PayPal because they had cut off, through Mastercard and Visa, the funding of Wikileaks. Heidi Boghosian: Exactly. Michael Ratner: And that's a big deal because here you have 95% of the market for donations is controlled between Mastercard and Visa, PayPal is the door, and private companies just decide on their own. Let's remember, there's no criminal indictment of WikiLeaks or Julian Assange at this point. Heidi Boghosian: Exactly. They -- Corporations made a decision. Michael Ratner: And they made a decision to just cut them off from any funding. Very dangerous. So what did you do, Heidi, as a result? There were these protests to which the Guild to its great credit and people ought to hear it again, what is it again, what does the Guild think of these kind of -- Heidi Boghosian: The Guild supports -- We are supportive of people's decision to engage in what we call civil disobedience, this being what we see as kind of the new frontier. Since so much of our daily communication, personal business -- and not just financial business, but personal information is floating out on the web. And corporations honestly don't listen to you if you write them a letter or do a little picket somewhere. They're creating laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to punish people who try to boycott a business. Michael Ratner: So what did you see up, Heidi? Heidi Boghosian: We set up a website called anonlg.com. And it's for activsts to go to have basically a repository of Know Your Rights information including a lot of information from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, CCR's book is on there and some Know Your Rights -- Michael Ratner: CCR's book is a Know Your Rights type pamphlet. Heidi Boghosian: It's When An Agent Knocks. Michael Ratner: The Guild has one that you've been involved with. Heidi Boghosian: We do. You Have The Right To Remain Silent. And then we have sort of scenarios of what could happen, cautioning of course that this is not a replacement for sound legal advice and so what we've also done is set up a hotline and there's a number to call or an e-mail on the website and we are trying to match individuals with pro bono attorneys around the country so if they've received a subpoena or if they've been arrested in the rash of recent raids that happened a few months ago where the FBI and Dept of Justice went after individuals they think are connected to this. And they face some harsh sentences. Michael Ratner: This is a serious thing. Heidi Boghosian: This is serious stuff. Michael Ratner: And I think what you guys did on the website and what you've said is: 'This is really the equivalent of First Amendment type speech.' So when I came up to the office today to do this recording with you, there's a huge picket going on outside Verizon by CWA. A union picket because of legitimate labor grievances with Verizon. This is no different except on the internet. Heidi Boghosian: Right. Michael Ratner: And you've coined a great term for it. What do you call what's going on? We've had the Commmunist Scare -- Heidi Boghosian: The Red scare. Michael Ranter: The Red scare. We had the environmental -- Heidi Boghosian: Green scare. Michael Ratner: Now what do we have? Heidi Boghosian: The nerd scare! Michael Ratner: Oh my gosh. I hope all the anon people listening don't get offended at the "nerd scare." Heidi Boghosian: We think it's a high compliment actually. Michael Ratner: It is. In this day and age, the Nerd Square -- Heidi Boghosian: Nerds are the best. Michael Ratner: Nerds have replaced the half-back for my football team. Yea! Go Nerds! Anyway, again, the website is www.anonlg.com . We really want to thank the Guild, Heidi, etc. Anything else you want to add Heidi? Heidi Boghosian: We'd like to thank the New York Times for their interest in this story. iraq al rafidayn cnn mohammed tawfeeq the associated press the new york times michael s. schmidt yasir ghazi the washington post annie gowan xinhua fang yang mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi jeffrey fleishman the los angeles times raheem salman the christian science monitor dan murphy the associated press hamid ahmed rebecca santana the world cant wait debra sweet afp the washington post ed okeefe march forward coffee strong patch steve fetbrandt the daily mail john stevens komo keith elderidge wbai law and disorder radio michael s. smith heidi boghosian michael ratner

Baked Sweet Potatoes

At Corrente, Jjmtacoma has a recipe for sweet potatoes that I would never eat. If you like maple syrup, follow her recipe. Otherwise, follow me.

Sweet potatoes are also known as yams. I don't think you can grow up Black in Georgia without having yams repeatedly. Most of us know candied yams -- sweet and maybe with a dollop of marshmallow on top. But that's not how I want you to fix them.

At the grocery store or market, buy 2 or more yams and at least 2 limes. They're tubular like. If they have any strands on them, pull of the strands. Rinse and poke a hole through. You'll probably neeed a knife (they're very thick) to poke a hole.

Wrap the yams in a paper towel and place in the microwave. I would microwave the two for six to eight minutes. To be sue that was enough time, poke a fork in the yam and if it goes through easily, it is done.

Place the yams on plates and cut down the middle to split yam into two halves. Sprinkle with sea salt and cut limes in half. Squeeze lime juice onto yams.

The yam has a rich texture, almost velvety and the sea salt and lime really make for an amazing taste.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, August 12, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US Army releases data on military suicides, Nouri and State Of Law object to something they previously agreed to (twice0, the AFL-CIO pulls a fake out, and more. Starting with the Libyan War, Amnesty International issued the following this week: NATO must take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties during military operations, Amnesty International said today, after allegations by Libyan officials loyal to Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi that 85 people were killed during an air strike on Monday night. The organization called on NATO to thoroughly investigate allegations of the deaths of unarmed civilians during the air strike in the area of Majar, south of Zlitan city. Independent journalists taken to the scene reported having been shown up to 30 body bags, of which the bodies of two women and two children were revealed On Tuesday, NATO military spokesperson Colonel Roland Lavoie said the "legitimate target" of the strike was several farm buildings taken over by al-Gaddafi forces and said that he had "no evidence of civilian casualties." "NATO must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties, even in those cases where al-Gaddafi forces are using civilian facilities for military purposes," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui of Amnesty International. "NATO continues to stress its commitment to protect civilians. To that effect, it should thoroughly investigate this and all other recent incidents in which civilians were reportedly killed in western Libya as a result of air strikes." On 2 August, Amnesty International wrote to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen asking for clarification on incidents in June in which unarmed civilians were reportedly killed and injured in Surman and Tripoli. On 19 June, several civilians were reportedly killed, including two children and a woman, when a projectile struck their homes in Tripoli. A NATO Spokesperson later said that during the air strike on a missile site, "a potential weapon system failure occurred and this caused the weapon not to hit the intended target, and reportedly resulted in a number of civilian casualties." On 20 June, NATO strikes in Surman against what appeared to be civilian homes in a compound belonging to one of Colonel al-Gaddafi's associates, Khweildy al-Hamedi, reportedly killed several civilians, including two children and their mother. NATO said that the facility was a legitimate military target and assured that precautions were taken before conducting the "strike which minimized any potential risk of causing unnecessary casualties". Since March 2011, Amnesty International has repeatedly requested access to territories under the control of Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi in order to investigate allegations of human rights violations and violations to international humanitarian law. These included the sites of NATO bombings where civilian casualties have been reported. The organization received no response. On 17 March, as fighting intensified in eastern Libya as well as in Misratah, the UN Security Council authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya and the implementation of all necessary measures, short of foreign occupation, to protect civilians. The international alliance launched its first military attacks against al-Gaddafi forces on 19 March. NATO took over the military operation in late March. In their attempt to regain territory under opposition control, al-Gaddafi forces launched indiscriminate attacks and attacks targeting civilians. Such attacks were particularly widespread in Misratah. Residents faced relentless and indiscriminate rocket attacks from March to mid-May and sporadic attacks in the summer. On 31 July, three unarmed civilians were killed and another injured when rockets landed in the residential neighbourhood of Magasaba. Whether attacking hospitals or bombing news outlets, NATO has shown a blood desire to inflict as much destruction and death as possible in what was originally termed a "humanitarian mission" that would "protect" civilians. At the start of the war, it was also asserted it would be a matter of weeks. That was six months ago. Every other week, the media breathlessly announces that the so-called 'rebels' are advancing. Are they crawling across Libya on their bellies? The reality is that they're not advancing in any real sense and that's due to the fact that the US government has yet again backed exiles -- decades old exiles -- and just knows that these people who chose to leave the country will have sway on those who remained behind. Not very likely. And that's why NATO bombs like crazy, more than willing to kill civilians in the hope that the final result will be Libyans screaming, "I don't care! I don't care! Do whatever you want! Just stop the bombings!" This week's talking points was "advancing" and "success" just around that corner. But the week ends with Reuters reporting the so-called 'rebels' attempting to overthrow the current government suffered 11 deaths "in the past 24 hours" while fighting in Brega. Meanwhile the Coalition of the Killing got a little bigger today when Russia made an announcement. Xinhua reports, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree Friday backing the U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized international military action in Libya, the presidential press service said. Russia abstained from voting on UNSC Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and tightened sanctions on the North African country, when the measure was presented in March. According to a decree posted on the Kremlin's website, Russia has agreed to ban all flights to Libya in Russian air space with the exception of flights for humanitarian purposes or for making an emergency landing." 2008 US presidential candidate and former US House Rep Cynthia McKinney is speaking around the country, truth-telling, about the Libyan War. Press TV notes today that hundreds turned out in Canada to hear her speak this week and that tomorrow (August 13th) she will be taking part in the Millions March in Harlem. David Hungerford (Fight Back News) notes hundreds turned out for Cynthia's Newark, New Jersey speak-out and that she quoted Libyans stating, "This is our land and what lies underneath it belongs to us. We aren't going to let anyone take it away. We wiil fight to the last person and the last bullet." Workers World notes of her speech to a packed crowd at Atlanta's Shrine of the Black Madonna last month, "She declared to the enthusiastic crowd that she would never be a 'team player for war' but was representing the 'peace team' on her travels around the world'." June 24th, she spoke in DC and this is an excerpt of the speech: Cynthia McKinney: I took a rash step because I was so outraged. I was outraged that our president would launch yet another illegal, unconstitutional, immoral war. And so I also knew that my government was lying. I knew -- Again, yes, that's right. I knew also that the press were lying. After all, in this country we've got at least one court decision that says it's okay for the press to knowingly lie to the American people and to the international community. But not only that, we know from just a few years ago with Iraq that 935 times not only were we lied to but our president, vice president and Condoleeza Rice but the press readily, zealously printed all of those lies. And since I'm a student of the counter-intelligence program, I know that it didn't start with the Iraq War, it started a long time ago. And the demonizing, the targeting. Our own FBI said that they wanted to neutralize certain leaders who dared to dissent. And while I'm here, I'm staying at the home of John Judge who has dedicated his life to understanding the nature of political assassinations that have taken place in our country and so we know that we have had silent coups and the end of sniper's bullets that have killed our leaders who have dared to dissent. Faced with all of that, Brother Akbar [Muhammad] that is so vitally important. Black Amrica has been extremely supportive of our president but not in this case. A line has been drawn in the sand with respect to our president bombing Africa. And Libya in particular because of the history of support when the United States was supporting apartheid in Africa, on the African continent it was the people of Libya and the leadership of Muammar Gaddafi who were fighting to eradicate apartheid. And for those Blacks and people of color inside this countrty who were fighting to eradicate American style apartheid, the people of Libya and Muammar Gaddafi were supportive as well. Now I don't know that history but Brother Akbar knows that history very well. And that is part of the reason why Black America has drawn this line in the sand because this is something that is a historical relationship that has context that [. . .] that our President Obama has stepped across, he has crossed over the threshold. I have been blessed to be able to travel all over the world and as I have traveled, at one point I was extremely proud of the fact that Black people in the United States all over the world have a moral authority because everyone all over the world understands the plight that we have struggled against and that we continue to have to struggle against. But unfortunately now, the policies of the Bush administration have been enuciated and implemented by Black faces from Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice and now we have a continuation of those polices through the office of President Obama. So I am directly impacted negatively by the actions of these Black people who have decided that they would cast their lot with War Mongerers, War Criminals and people who peddle in death and destruction. So I decided that as a responsible and conscious Black person, I wanted my voice heard against what these other people were inunciating. And at the same time, I am sick and tired of war. Cynthia McKinney's truth-telling tour continues: A continuing mobilization against the U.S. war on Libya has taken place in cities across the country. Packed, standing room only audiences at major meetings have heard former Congressperson Cynthia McKinney report on her June fact-finding trip to Libya with the Dignity delegation. In every meeting the message rings out: Stop the U.S./NATO bombing of Libya. In the coming ten days Cynthia McKinney is scheduled to speak at meetings in Boston on Saturday, August 6, in Los Angeles on Sunday, August 7, in Vancouver on Tuesday, August 9. McKinney will speak at the Millions March in Harlem of August 13 along with Minister Farrakhan and other opponents of war and sanctions on Libya and Zimbabwe. She is scheduled to speak at 2 meetings in North Carolina on Sunday, August 14 hosted by the Black Workers for Justice in Rocky Mount and later at a historic civil rights church in Durham. CLICK HERE for FULL LISTING CLICK HERE TO DONATE FOR TOUR EXPENSES To see Cynthia speaking at Riverside Church, click here. The release notes that Cynthia spoke to a standing-room-only audience at Newark's Abyssinian Baptist Church. Quoting from the release: A Full listing of the current tour follows and is available at: www.IACenter.org National-tour, now to 19 cities, organized by International Action Center in coordination with many antiwar and community organizations from July 7 to August 28, 2011. And we'll note her upcoming events: August 13, Saturday - NYC with Millions March in Harlem August 14, Sunday - Rocky Mount, and Durham, NC August 19, Friday – St Louis MO August 21, Sunday - Pittsburg, PA August 25, Thursday - Baltimore, MD August 27, Saturday – Detroit, MI August 28, Sunday – Denver CO Please note if you're planning to see her Sunday in Rocky Mount that the venue has changed. She will now be speaking at the Imperical Centre. It will still start at 3:00 p.m. Turning to Iraq where Nouri al-Maliki's greed was once only fabled and whispered of softly, today it's legendary. As he continues to fleece the Iraqi people, his greed may be the thing that destroys the US-propped up government. Despite the March 7, 2010 election being seen as a rejection of Nouri -- whose slate came in second despite all of the predictions otherwise as well as Nouri's own abuse of office in an attempt to bring in the votes -- his greed would not allow for anyone else to be prime minister. As Nouri dug in his heels following the election, a few wondered what it would take to get Nouri out of the office he had just lost? Thanks to the US, he didn't have to worry and, after nine months of Political Stalemate I, he and the political blocs agreed to follow the Erbil Agreement. Among other things, the Erbil Agreement called for the creation of a national council on security which would be headed by Ayad Allawi (Allawi's Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections). Then Nouri got named prime minister-designate and promptly trashed the agreement. Via a series of summer house parties, Jalal Talabani brought together the political blocs and, as late as yesterday, there was praise for Jalal's efforts in the Iraqi press. Political Stalemate II was going to be ended. And before nine months! The political blocs -- including Nouri -- had agreed to return to the Erbil Agreement. Yesterday in Parliament, the most vocal opponents to the creation of the national council were from Nouri's State Of Law. Alsumaria TV reports today, "Iraq Premier Nouri Al Maliki reiterated that he is not convinced by the Higher National Strategic Policies Council as the country is heading towards Ministerial reduction and added that the Council is to be established in order to please some parties and doesn't have any role in solving the problems of the political process. During an interview with Alsumaria TV Maliki said he is not convinced by establishing this council especially that the institutions of the Iraqi State are currently flaccid. Maliki stressed that the situation will deteriorate if politics interfered in security." Though the body was supposed to be independent and have actual powers, Al Rafidayn quotes Nouri stating that its work would be purely advisory. Nouri's trashing this latest agreement much sooner than he did at the end of 2010. When State of Law carped and complained in Parliament yesterday following the reading of the draft law, many observers knew that they must do so with Nouri's blessing (Nouri is the head of State of Law). Now the surprise over that has been replaced with puzzlement over why Nouri is attacking the agreement he just signed off on? Since the only thing most are aware he got was for others to begin publicly speaking favorably of at least entertaining the thought of US forces remaining on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011, that would appear to be all he got from the summer House Parties -- spreading the blame for a continued US presence all around in the government. On the subject of whether or not US troops remain in Iraq after the start of the new year, Robert Naiman (Huffington Post) observes, "John McCain once said that there's no problem with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq forever, just like we do in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. How liberals mocked him! But that's what the Obama Administration is now trying to do: keep US troops in Iraq forever. [. . . ] The Pentagon doesn't want you to notice that at the same time Washington is seized with debt hysteria, and the nation's mainstream media are demanding cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits on the preposterous claim that 'we can no longer afford it,' the Pentagon is laying plans to keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq forever. They call these troops 'trainers,' so we are not supposed to notice. But these 'trainers' engage in combat: they kill Iraqis, and they get killed by Iraqis." Naiman is with Just Foreign Policy and they're asking you to tell Congress no more Iraq War funding after the end of 2011. And while Americans wait for the day that Barack will speak publicly about the efforts of the US government to extend the US military presence in Iraq, the costs are not only finanical but also human lives. A memorial in California has been tracking deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Has been. Jonathan Morales (Contra Costa Times) reports that the memorial in Lafayette has simply run out of space for any more crosses. There is no more space to erect additional crosses to note the deaths and yet the US government wants to continue both wars. Political intrigue continues in Iraq as well. For example, Al Mada reports that the Sadr bloc is calling for an investigation into the alleged fake contracts and alleged theft of funds in the Ministry of Electricity. Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki announced he was firing the Minister of Electricity due to fake contracts worth billions. There were two main responses. First, many stated Nouri didn't have the power to do the firing, only Parliament did. Second, the Minister of Electricity floated that he had many stories to tell. It has since emerged that these contracts Nouri claims to be surprised and appalled by carry . . . Nouri's signature. Nouri and State Of Law's latest move is to note that this member of Nouri's Cabinet is also a member of Iraqiya. I'm not sure how that assists Nouri since, over the weekend, Iraqiya was the first to state that they supported the move Nouri made. Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli (The Middle East Media Research Institute) offers an analysis of what happened: In July of this year, the Ministry of Electricity signed a contract with a Canadian company, CAPGENT, for $1.2 billion for the construction of 10 power stations with a production capacity of 100 megawatts each. The company was registered in Vancouver, Canada. It also signed a second contract with a German company, Maschinerbrau Halberstadt, for €500 million ($650 million) for the construction of five power stations with a production capacity of 100 megawatts each, to be completed within 12 months from the time a line of credit was extended. It now appears that the two companies are fictitious, and had the contracts been executed they would have would have constituted a monumental case of fraud involving senior officials of the Ministry of Electricity. The two fraudulent cases came to light thanks to the personal efforts of Jawad Hashim, a former minister of planning in Iraq during the early Ba'thist regime in the 1960s and early 1970s. In a handwritten letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, datelined Vancouver, Canada, August 2, 2011, Hashim detailed the fraud. As a resident of Vancouver, Hashim decided to investigate the available information on the Canadian company while he asked the former minister of economy and governor of the Iraqi central bank, Fakhri Yassin Qadduri, who resides in Germany, to investigate the identity of the German company. David Baines (Vancouver Sun) reports that Jawad Hashim (the whistleblower) was convicted of "in absentia, of embezzling more than $50 million from the Arab Monetary Fund" and that Hashim maintains that the charges are false and were revenge for his defection from Saddam Hussein's government and his departing Iraq. Hayder Najm (niqash) questions whether the contracts are indeed with fake companies. Last Friday, a prison in Hilla saw a riot and a break out. Among the details that were passed on to the media was that guns with silencers were stored in the prison -- by guards. Why do you need a silencer in a prison if you're a guard? That question was never answered. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports four prisoners were killed, 1 guard was killed and four guards were injured. Dar Addustour reports that the prison break was addressed in Parliament today. Now might be a good time to note what's not addresssed: though there was a great deal of grandstanding when protests were taking place repeatedly throughout Iraq, no salaries were changed. That's the presidency and the vice presidency, that's the prime minister. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing last night left three people injured and a second one left two Iraqi soldiers injured (other events from last night noted by Retuers were included in yesterday's snapshot). In the US, the AFL-CIO union has issued a statement on the wars: "There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home" - AFL-CIO Executive Council, Aug. 3, 2011 Tom Hayden found the statement amazing and a sign of a 'progressive' victory. This morning, I disagreed. Tom may have indeed been right. Because the statement is rather weak and the AFL-CIO has been calling out the Iraq War for years, click here for one 2007 example and although the new statement was approved and passed August 3rd, you can search in favin on the AFL-CIO's website for it. You'd think such an important statement might make the main page. Wrong. But on the main page you will hear about what you can do for the Democratic Party in next year's elections and about those 'bad' Republicans. But you won't find the statement. Because it means nothing to the AFL-CIO. If it did, they'd make it their damn banner already. It's nothing but an attempt at advertising. It's nothing but, "We've got to elect Dems! Who can connect with liberal voters now that Barack's proven to be the golden calf? I know! The unions! Get the AFL-CIO to issue a statement and then when they come to the website we'll lock in their votes for the Democratic Party." I'm real damn sick of this illegal war to begin with. But I'm also sick of the partisn b.s. that has surrounded it from day one. It's been used to give Republicans control of Congress (that was the 2002 strategy), it's been used to give Democrats control of both houses of Congress and it's been used to flip the White House. But the Iraq War has not ended. And if 'progressives' were serious about ending it today, they'd be talking about the war every time they were in front of the camera or microphone and, in Congress, Barbara Lee wouldn't be writing that embarrassing letter. Instead, she or someone else, would compose a letter that simply stated: "We will not allow you to continue this war. We will stop funding." That's all that needs to be said. And it's not even an issue of votes. A real filibuster could defeat any and every attempt at continuing to fund the illegal war. On the main page of US Labor Against the War, the top headline, in huge letters, is about the AFL-CIO resolution. And if they cared about their own resolution, that's what the AFL-CIO would have done as well. Instead it's a 'progressive.' Meaning, it tricks and decieves, lies and manipulates because all that ever matters is how you vote every other year in November. That is the true meaning of progressive as they have repeatedly taught us (so-called progressives) since 2007. They're fakes. Many of them are adults who are too scared of their own shadow to declare they're Socialists. Matthew Rothschild, for example, presented as "progressive" and only came out as a Socialist after the 2008 election. (And no doubt, actual Socialists wish the coward would go back in the political closet.) If you use the links US Labor Against the War provides, you suddenly find the 'statement' at the AFL-CIO website. Remember progressives are fakes? Tom Hayden, the mother of all progressives, the one who nursed them with his man boobs, Tom Hayden writes about this 'amazing' statement, turns it into a Huffignton Post article. Is there a bigger fraud than Tom Hayden? "There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home." Is that not just the sweetest little open the heavens and let in the light statement to be made? What's the problem with the statement? It's 42 words. 42 words. And this 'big statement' that's only 42 words? It's not really a statement. If I want to make a statement about the wars, I make a statement about the wars. I don't bury two little sentences of 42 words in a, pay attention, 1592.word essay. That 'statement'? It's the eighth paragraph of their press release that should be entitled "Your 2012 Voters' Guide." 19 more paragraphs follow paragraph eight. Only paragraph eight -- those two sentences of 42 words, mentions the wars. And Tom wants to claim it as a progressive victory. Wants to treat it as major news. And thought he'd get away with it. There's nothing worth praising here. US Senator Patty Murray is also the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes this event next week. (Washington, D.C.) – On Tuesday, August 16th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. This will be Senator Murray's first discussion with local veterans as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Monday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C. WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray Local veterans WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray WHEN: Tuesday, August 16th 1:00 PM PT WHERE: Ft. Vancouver Artillery Barracks 600 East Hatheway Road Vancouver, WA 98661 Map Still on veterans issues, Joe Fryer (KING5) reports on March Forward's press conference this week where the addressed the issue of military suicides and noted that Sgt Derrick Kirkland repeatedly attempted to take his own life yet was labeled "low risk" by the military. Michael Prysner is quoted stating, "Within 48 hours of being in the care of Fort Lewis, he was dead. The mental health care system is broken. Soldiers are sent on constant, repeated deployments. When they ask for help, they receive notoriously inadequate care." Tonight at Coffee Strong -- the GI coffeehouse -- a speak-out was held. Among those telling truths was Mary Kirkland, mother of the late Sgt Derrick Kirkland. Jeremiah Kirkland is a member of March Forward and, like his brother Derrick, he served in the Army. He spoke about his brother's suicide in an interview with March Forward. Excerpt: MF: What was he like when you talked to him after he was sent home? Jeremiah Kirkland: He was just totally depressed. It all got to him. MF: Did he express his frustration with the treatment he was getting? JK: Yeah, he said all they did was load him up with drugs. MF: What was your reaction when you heard that he had killed himself? JK: In all honestly, I was not surprised. I mean, Army mental health care is a joke. You pretty much go there, don't even tell them anything, and they determine whatever category you're in based on different factors and that's the treatment you get. My brother got substandard treatment. The consistently dropped the ball. MF: Who do you think is responsible for your brother's death? JK: This government! If he hadn't been deployed, for no goddamn reason but corporate greed, he would still be here. MF: What do you think about Derrick being rated a "low risk" for suicide by the Army? JK: Not surprised, honestly. It's just, you know, pretty much whatever they can do to save the government dollar on giving our soldiers actual health care. It just doesn't work. The speak-out comes as the US Army delivers the latest monthly results on suicide. Youchi J. Dreazen (National Journal) explains: "There were 32 Army suicides in July, the highest monthly toll ever recorded. The grim figure underscores the military's continuing inability to find ways of preventing troubled soldiers from taking their own lives." Next week, we'll do two days on the UN report. I forgot it yesterday and just don't have the time tonight. My apologies. iraq alsumaria tv al rafidayn al mada dar addustour the huffington post tom hayden king5 news joe fryer iwatch news corbin hiar march forward

How many terms?

In "Republican Debate Tonight - The Eventual Nominee Will Not Be There," Hillary Is 44 argues that though a GOP debate is taking place tonight, the nominee isn't present. They think it may be Sarah Palin, Rick Perry or Mark Rubio.

I have no idea.

It's too bad no one seems to think it will be Ron Paul. He's the only one of the candidates who has a plan for ending the war. The wars will never end with Barack.

I really want to see him out of the White House before he does any more damage.

We barely survived two terms of Bush, we can't survive two with Barack. Republicans would be smart to choose someone electable.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Thursday, August 11, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Senator Patty Murray raises concerns about the treatment of female veterans, Political Stalemate II continues, house bombings are still the new fad in Iraqi violence, and more. Starting with women veterans. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes: (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray and Illinois Senator Dick Durbin sent a joint letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki expressing their concern about the placement of homeless female veterans in unsecure housing in Chicago, which jeopardized their safety. Chairman Murray and Senator Durbin's letter asks VA for assurances that homeless female veterans across the country who are being cared for by the Department are housed in appropriate, safe and secure conditions. The full text of the Senators' letter is below: The Honorable Eric Shinseki Secretary Department of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 Secretary Shinseki: We are writing to express our strong concerns regarding the privacy, safety, and security of homeless female veterans who participate in the grant and per diem (GPD) program. As you know, women veterans are more likely than their male counterparts to become homeless, and VA must be prepared to serve the unique needs of this growing population. We were recently informed that several homeless female veterans were placed with a provider in Chicago, Illinois, which was only approved to house male veterans. As you know, sexual trauma and domestic violence are prevalent in the homeless women veteran population. Furthermore, placing these women into a mixed-gender environment often exacerbates their trauma. While we understand VA has taken immediate action to remove the women veterans from this facility and to immediately stop per diem payments to this provider, the failure to mitigate the privacy, safety and security risks for these female veterans is simply unacceptable. Although this appears to be an isolated incident, the problems raised in Chicago do call into question the Department's ability to exercise effective oversight over its GPD grantees and to provide the type of care that homeless female veterans truly need and deserve. In order to ensure that a situation like this never occurs again, we request that you provide us with the results of an inventory of active GPD grantees to certify that there are no ongoing inappropriate placements of homeless female veterans at other facilities or housing situations. Please also provide a description of the measures VA is taking to ensure that homeless female veterans are not housed in inappropriate housing situations in the future, including a description of the grantee inspection process. We expect a detailed briefing to our staffs on these matters as soon as possible. Secretary Shinseki, we appreciate your commitment to ensuring the highest quality care for homeless veterans. We are grateful for the leadership you have displayed in fighting to end veteran homelessness once and for all and look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve this mutual goal. Sincerely, U.S. Senator Patty Murray Chairman Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee U.S. Senator Richard Durbin Senate Majority Whip ### Meghan Roh Deputy Press Secretary Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray @SenMurrayPress 202-224-2834 Get Updates from Senator Murray Now moving on to the Libyan War, Saturday July 30th, NATO attacked the Libyan Broadcasting Authority. We noted the Libyan Broadcasting Authority's statement in the August 3rd snapshot. The International Federation of Journalists issued the following statement on NATO bombing the journalism outlet: The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today condemned the NATO air strikes against Libyan state television which took place last Saturday in Tripoli, killing three journalists and injured fifteen staff members according to its director of the English service, Khalid Basilia. According to agency reports, NATO confirmed that it bombed the transmitters without giving any details of casualties, posting on its website that their aim was to degrade Libyan leader Gaddafi's "use of satellite television as a means to intimidate the Libyan people and incite acts of violence against them." "We utterly condemn this action which targeted journalists and threatened their lives in violation of international law. These kinds of actions that use violence to stifle dissident media spell catastrophe for press freedom," said IFJ General Secretary, Beth Costa. The IFJ says that the bombing is in contravention of UN Security Council resolution 1738, passed in December 2006, which explicitly condemned such attacks against journalists and media, and clearly established that media equipment and installations constitute civilian objects and are not to be considered target of any type for military reprisals. The IFJ has continually protested these kinds of attacks since the 1999 NATO bombing in Belgrade of the Serbian broadcaster RTS, which killed 16 people. At the time, NATO said the station was a legitimate military target because it was a "propaganda mouth piece" for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic regime. The IFJ says there is no justification for the action under international law and calls once again on NATO to refrain from such attacks against media. "Our concern is that when one side decides to take out a media organisation because they regard its message as propaganda, then all media are at risk," said Costa. "In conflict situations, international law is clear that unarmed journalists cannot be treated as combatants, irrespective of their political affiliations." For more information, please contact IFJ on + 32 2 235 210 The IFJ represents more than 600.000 journalists in 131 countries Barack Obama declared war on the Libyan government back in March but has hid behind NATO and claimed that it was not a war to avoid getting Congressional approval. He also insisted that it was to protect protesters in Libya from a violent government response. Barry Neild (CNN) notes that with protests and riots breaking out in England, the governments of Libya and Iran are "mocking Britain over riots" and that "The criticism came as other nations around the world reassed their usually peaceful views of the UK, revising official advice to Britain-bound travelers and publishing newspaper headlines and editorials likening London to the troublespots such as Somalia's Mogadishu." Law and Disorder Radio -- which airs Mondays on WBAI and around the country throughout the week -- is a weekly program which examines issues and offers solid legal analysis because the three hosts are all attorneys as well: Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights). On the program for the week of July 11th, the legality of the Libyan War was explored. Michael Smith: Michael, the actions that the Obama administration took against Libya is really a perversion of the law. Explain what they did in order to justify not going to Congress. Michael Ratner: Well the use of military force by the president has to be authorized by Congress under the United States Constitution. That's very clear. And it's not just war, it's use of -- it's hostilities, it's really any military action anywhere in the world other than in self-defense. So we start from the premise that military actions, whether in Libya, killing people in Somolia or Yemen, etc., has to be authorized by Congress. In some cases the president claimed that the authorization to use military force passed in 2001 -- after 9/11 -- gave him authority. But in other cases, he's just asserting raw, naked power. He's claiming that because these don't amount to large wars that the Constitution doesn't apply and he doesn't have to go to Congress. Now then what happened because this is a common claim of presidents whether it's in Libya or Somolia, Congress after Vietnam built in a safety trigger. They said, "Lookit, you still need our consent to go to war, or to go into hostilities or bomb people, etc. But we're going to put in a safety trigger. If you do that, if you engage in hostilities and you don't come to us first like you're required to do under the Constitution, then you have sixty days to come back to us and get authority or within sixty days all troops have to be automatically withdrawn." So it's a safety figure because they knew the president would do exactly what Obama is doing, violate the Constitution. They put in a safety trigger that said you have sixty days to get authority, if you don't have authority then you then have 30 more days to get all the troops out, a total of 90 days. So in the case of Libya, of course, the 90 days have passed and the War Powers Resolution had required that all those troops be brought out. So we had a sort of double system. Is that clear, Michael? Michael Smith: Well as a practical matter, the political will in this country is lacking to do anything. Technically what he did is a crime and he can be impeached for it and tried and gotten out of office but I don't think that's going to happen. Michael Ratner: It's a high crime or misdemeanor. It's true violation of the Constitution, it's a violation of Congressional statute, you could impeach him. But good luck. We've never -- we've never successfully impeached anybody. I mean, we had, you know, Andrew Johnson after the Civil War was at least tried and acquitted eventually but I think that was the case. Nixon, rather than be impeached, resigned. Clinton made it through. Bush made it through. So what do you say, Michael? It looks like it's not a really good lever. FYI, Michael Ratner has teamed with Margaret Ratner Kunstler for the just released book Hell No, Your Right To Dissent. Back to the Libyan War, as Michael Ratner noted, Barack is in violation of the War Powers Act. A group of men, thought to be former citizens of Libya and supporters of the so-called rebels (Transitional National Council) stormed an embassy today. Al Jazeera reports the the Libyan Embassy in Stockholm was attacked with people hanging the flag of the TNC and tossing any photos of Libya's leader Muamma Gaddafi "out of its windows." Al Jazeera notes 7 men were arrested. Today the spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued the following statement: The Secretary-General is deeply concerned by reports of the unacceptably large number of civilian casualties as a result of the conflict in Libya. He expresses his sincere sympathies and solidarity with the Libyan people, in particular, those who have lost loved ones in the recent attacks carried out in the country. The Secretary-General calls on all parties to exercise extreme caution in their actions, in order to minimise any further loss of civilian life. He once again reiterates his strongly held belief that there can be no military solution to the Libyan crisis. A ceasefire that is linked to a political process which would meet the aspirations of the Libyan people, is the only viable means to achieving peace and security in Libya. The Secretary-General urges all Libyan parties to immediately engage with his Special Envoy, Mr. Abdul Ilah Al-Khatib, and respond concretely and positively to the ideas presented to them, in order to end the bloodshed in the country. Jacob Zuma is the President of South Africa. AFP quotes him stating, "We have found ourselves in a situation where the developed world has decided to intervene in Africa in a manner that was not agreed to when the UN resolution 1973 . . . was passed. We have found this resolution being abused in a manner that is totally unacceptable." Zuma, like the African Union, wants the violence stopped and peace talks to take place. (He does not see Gaddafi being a part of those talks.) While the African Union has repeatedly called for the matter to be left to the regional powers (which would not include the US or NATO), the White House wants Gaddafi out of power and wants to split Libya up into at least three regions. The Council on Foreign Relations loves every war -- at least until continuing to love it reveals their War Hawk nature, at which point (as with Iraq) they finally start calling for an end to it. Today they offer Daniel Serwer 'explaining' what can be done with Libya after the US kicks out Gaddafi (I'm not saying that will come to be, but that is the premise of Serwer's paper, Gaddafi is gone). As with the selling of the Iraq War, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies is at the forefront of the calls for violence. That did not register at the start of the Iraq War. Hopefully, people will notice it this time. Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies is nothing but a hotbed little War Hawks. The TNC (so-called 'rebels') assassinated Abdel Fatah Younes. He had defected from Gaddafi's side early in the war and was with the TNC, even holding a position in it. And then the TNC began to doubt him and murdered him. While a large number of TNC-ers are exiles (some from America, some from elsewhere), without actual Libyans on the TNC's side, it's going to be very difficult for them to continue to pretend to represent the will of the Libyan people. And when one of the highest ranking defectors in the TNC is still not trusted, it does not instill a sense of security in others who defected over to the TNC side. Patrick Cockburn (Indpendent of London) observes: This week the head of the TNC, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, sacked his whole government on the grounds that some were complicit in the killing. He was apparently forced to do so in order to quell the rage of the powerful Obeidi tribe to which Younes belonged. A ludicrous aspect of the whole affair is that at the very moment the rebel leaders are at each other's throats, they are being recognised by country after country as the legitimate government of Libya. This week TNC diplomats took over the Libyan embassies in London and Washington and are about to do so in Ottawa. In a masterpiece of mistiming, Britain recognised the rebel government on the day when some of its members were shooting their own commander-in-chief and burning his body. Noting Cockburn's article last night, Elaine observed, "The Libyan War receives more attention from the international press these days, have you noticed that? I am sure another wave is due any day now on how godly and saintly and wonderful the so-called 'rebels' are. This 'brief' mini-cakewalk that Barack promised is now what, five months old? When it's in year whatever, do you think people will give a damn?" Yesterday, the State Dept's spokesperson Victoria Nuland was quizzed about her claim that TNC was "a sign of vibrant transparency and democratic accountability and she responded, "I think we stand by what I said yesterday, which is that this is an opportunity for renewal not only in political terms, but in terms of the confidence that the Libyan people are going to to have in TNC leadership." The TNC murdered one of their own and Victoria Nuland wants to talk "opportunity for renewal"? Turning to the Iraq War, if it ends at the end of 2011, why are they still deploying troops to it? Today the Providence Journal reports a send-off is scheduled this Friday (9:00 a.m., Quonset Air National Guard Base) for two units of the Rhode Island National Guard who are deploying "to Iraq for a year. They will provide aviation support for combat and reconstruction operations, the National Guard said." Jennifer Quinn (WPRI) also notes the deployment, "A Company, 1st Battalion 126th Aviation and D Company 126th Aviation will deploy ti Iraq for one year." March 7, 2010, Iraqis voted. The elections would determine members of Parliament who would then determine who was prime minister who would then determine with the Parliament who made up the Cabinet. This is not a lengthy process. Or it's not supposed to be. But it drug on for a little over nine months creating Political Stalemate I. In November 2010, a deal was hammered out, the Erbil Agreement, saying Nouri and State of Law would get this, Iraqiya would get this, etc. This deal allowed Political Stalemate I to end. And Nouri became prime minister-designate that month. And Nouri quickly disregarded the other elements of the deal, refusing to honor them and starting Political Stalemate II. Nouri was named prime minister-designate in November. Per the Constitution, he then had 30 days to nominate members of his Cabinet and have the Parliament approve them. But Nouri never nominated a full Cabinet. And to this day, the positions of Minister of the Interior, Minister of Defense and Minister of National Security have never been filled. Every few weeks comes the speculation that finally Nouri is going to make nominations. It's August, eight months after the positions should have been filled. Will Political Stalemate II last longer than the first one? Dar Addustour states that "informed sources" state that the issue will be resolved "net week" and that the candidates have already been decided. Al Rafidayn states three nominees will be named by the National Alliance and credits the recent House Party at Jalal's for ending the impasse. The Erbil Agreement called for the creation of a National Council on security issues and called on Ayad Allawi (whose Iraqiya came in first in the March 7th elections) to head the new body. On the first day Parliament met following the Erbil Agreement, many members of Iraqiya walked out when the agreed to creation of this body was immediately tabled. Al Sabaah reports that people expect today's session of Parliament to be "heated" due to the fact that the issue of the National Council is on the agenda -- finally on the agenda. Aswat al-Iraq reports that National Alliance MP Abdul-Hussein Abtan objected at the first reading of the draft law and is stating that the council would have too much power. The Cabinet was reduced by 17 positions last month. Nouri had promised everyone something in an attempt to sew up votes for prime minister. As a result, even with three ministry heads not named, Nouri kicked things off in December with a bloated Cabinet. Charges of corruption and protests led Nouri to propose trimming the Cabinet's ministers and deputy ministers. Bilgay Duman (Sunday Zaman) calls out the decision: This decision which was taken with the agreement of political groups of the Republic of Iraq is seen that will cause new problems for Iraq even if it seems as positive at first. First of all, there is a big question mark that is about which tasks will be given to political groups whose ministries are taken over. On the other hand, associating ministries is in question. For instance, associating Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities is being discussed. However, the Ministry of Culture was afforded to the Coalition of Iraqi union under the leadership of Cevat El Bolani who is the former internal affairs minister and the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities was afforded to one person of Al-Sadr's group. In case of associating these two ministries, the possibility of being a moot question concerning it will be afforded to which group is pretty high. Because of the fact that there has not been any appointment to ministries, it is thought that the new assignments will raise problems in Iraqi politics. This situation may lead the Republic of Iraq to a new crisis. On the other side, the continuing discussions relating to the existence of American soldiers in Iraq and also the disagreement among political groups might deepen this crisis. In the forthcoming period, the issues such as reviewing of government or calling an early election may be anticipated to be brought up to the agenda again. Patrick Seale (Gulf News) observes, "Iraq's new-found 'democracy', dominated by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, is characterised by a great number of parties and splinter groups, all jostling for advantage. This produces a lot of heated talk but not much action — to the extent that a leading Iraqi (consulted for this article) described the Iraqi political scene as resembling that of the French Fourth Republic." Filing early and never updating, Reuters notes Wednesday events that they didn't cover yesterday: two Kirkuk roadside bombings injured one police officer, 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk, 1 corpse was discoovered in Hilla, a Mosul roadside bombing injured a child, another Mosul roadside bombing injured a police officer, a Falluja roadside bombing injured eight people. Interesting. But today W.G. Dunlop Tweets: wdunlop87 3 dead, 49 wounded in #Iraq violence on Thursday http://bit.ly/nWBnx5 about 1 hour ago Ali Yussef (AFP) reports 3 people were killed by a bombing of police officer's Ramadi home leaving 3 dead and 24 wounded. As we noted Monday, home bombings are the new craze in Baghdad -- Sunday an Iskandariya home bombing resulted in the death of 5 family members (nine more injured) and a Baghdad home bombing claimed the life of 1 Sahwa and the life of his son (two female family members were injured) and Monday a Haswa home bombing left four members of a police officer's family injured. In addition, AFP notes four bombings slammed Baghdad after sunset with at least ten people left injured. Yesterday it was still news in Australia that the last 33 Australian soldiers were finally leaving Iraq. Yes, Kevin Rudd lied and said "Elect me and all soldiers come home." Why do you think it was so easy to defeat Kevin Rudd in the first place (Rudd didn't even make a full three years in the post). Jeremy Thompson (Australia's ABC) reports that John Howard's words may come back to haunt him. Howard was prime minister before Rudd. As Tony Blair and Bully Boy Bush lied to their own nations in the lead up to the war, so Howard lied to Australians. Now MP Andrew Wilkie wants Parliament to launch an inquiry into the war and wants Howard to testify before it. The article notes of the start of the illegal war, "At the time, Mr Wilkie was an intelligence officer with the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and resigned his post because he said the Government had no evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction." David Ellery (Canberra Times) explains, "Mr Wilkie said yesterday that Mr Howard and former Coalition foreign minister Alexander Downer must be made to explain why they took Australia to war based on a lie in 2003. He wants an inquiry similar to the one being conducted by Sir John Chilcot in Britain." AAP adds, "No light had ever been shone on the behaviour of Mr Howard and former foreign minister Alexander Downer." News9 reports that Tony Abbott, opposition leader in Parliament, is already shooting down the idea of an inquiry. Meanwhile Dennis Jett (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that the US has had no inquiry: Various Senate committees and special commissions put out reports five or six years ago, but they were set up to have a balance between Republican and Democratic politicians and given narrow mandates. The results were invariably weasel-worded conclusions that evaded the truth and provided little insight and no accountability. To the extent any blame was assessed, it was directed at unnamed bureaucrats. Instead of bearing any responsibility for the war and its aftermath, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Tenet rake in seven figure advances for their books and six figure fees for giving speeches to friendly audiences. So why is there no interest in finding out what lessons can be learned from the Iraq experience, what went wrong and who is responsible? The four failures identified by the Chilcot committee apply even more to Bush since Blair was only acting as Bush's poodle. Does America suffer from NADD -- national attention deficit disorder? Or is there another reason. The war was unnecessary because Saddam Hussein had no WMD. And he wasn't going to get any because the UN inspectors were doing an effective job. The war was illegal, because, as the legal experts in the British Foreign Office concluded, it was against international law. Bush used violations of Security Council resolutions to justify invading Iraq. He never bothered to ask the UN for the authorization that would have legitimized the invasion, however, because he knew he could not get it. iraq wbai law and disorder radio michael s. smith heidi boghosian michael ratner dar addustour al rafidayn al sabaah sunday zaman bilgay duman abc jeremy thompson the canberra times david ellery news9 mcclatchy newspapers dennis jett al jazeera the independent of london patrick cockburn