Truth telling

The World Can't Wait has reposted a must-read from Revolution, "Six Ways That Obama Has Been Worse Than Bush:"


With the presidential elections approaching, there are those who argue, yet again, that whatever problems there are with the Democrats and Obama, the "alternative"—the Republicans—are much worse. So when it's all said and done, the argument goes, people who don't want the "right wing" to take over must fall in line behind Obama and the Democrats.
The reality is that in key ways, Obama as U.S. president has been even worse for the masses of people, in the U.S. and worldwide. This is a fact that can be clearly demonstrated. Here are six main ways that Obama has gone beyond Bush in fascistic, brutal, reactionary moves, in service of the ruling system of capitalism-imperialism.

1. Assassinations on the President's Orders

Before becoming the president and commander-in-chief, Obama opposed the prison set up by George W. Bush at Guantánamo to indefinitely hold hundreds of people without charges, simply based on U.S. accusations of links with terrorism. Obama said then that "a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence."
Once in the White House, Obama has not only reaffirmed the policy of indefinite military detentions with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act last December. He has actually gone further than Bush by claiming, and acting on, a supposed presidential authority to assassinate anyone, including those with U.S. citizenship, anywhere in the world just based on the presidential say-so that those targeted are "terrorists" and a danger to U.S. interests.
The world saw this outrageous policy in action last September when missiles fired from a U.S. drone hit a car driving across a desert in Yemen and killed seven men, including Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, was a spokesman for al-Qaeda. (Another man killed in the attack was also a U.S. citizen.) A few weeks later, another U.S. drone attack took the lives of al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son along with his 17-year-old friend. The U.S. claimed that al-Awlaki had a role in planning and directing al-Qaeda terrorist attacks—but refused to provide any evidence or present actual charges, and there was, of course, no trial. This was simply a cold-blooded "hit" ordered by the leading U.S. imperialist godfather.
According to news reports, there is a secret panel of government officials within the executive, part of the National Security Council, that discusses who to place on the kill list, with the president making the final decision. There is no public record of this process, no laws regulating it, no judicial review. In a March 5 speech, Attorney General Eric Holder made the ludicrous but chillingly fascist claim that this ultra-secret process inside the administration makes this executive assassination policy constitutional. As Leon Panetta, Obama's CIA chief, put it, "[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go."
For an in-depth analysis of this issue, see "Obama Administration: Judge, Jury, and Executioner."

2. Blaming Youth for Their Own Oppression

In a series of Father's Day speeches since coming into office, and in various other public remarks, Obama has consistently put the onus for the poverty, high prison rates, poor education, and the whole oppressive situation that Black and Latino youth face on the people themselves. Like Bill Cosby, Obama claims that the problem is "personal responsibility"—absentee fathers, youth with sagging pants, too much TV, and so on. Left totally out of this is the reality: how this system has devastated communities of the oppressed; left little "choice" for millions of youth except the underground economy or the military; targeted young men with "stop and frisk" racial profiling and outright police murder; and thrown millions into prisons, many for minor drug violations.
And at the core of this message is the revival and strengthening of the patriarchal family, with the father at the head and acting as "role model." In a sick "joke" at a 2010 White House dinner, Obama combined his reactionary push for patriarchy with the broadening war of drones. Addressing the members of the pop band Jonas Brothers who were in attendance, and referring to his two daughters, Obama said, "Sasha and Malia are huge fans but, boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: Predator drones. You will never see it coming."
As Carl Dix said in 2009 on the radio program Democracy Now! about Obama's message: "The people are being blamed—and who better than Barack Obama, the first Black president, to blame Black youth for their plight? If George Bush does it, people would say it's racist. But when the first Black president does it, it actually draws people into it."


That's just the first two.  This is some fierce truth telling.  Make a point to read the full list and great job Revolution!

And, at Black Agenda Report, Bruce A. Dixon also provides some truth telling:

  We hear it all the time.... “Give the man a chance!” “He's only been president 38 months! it took Bush eight years to mess things up....” Or “He can't do nothin' cuz Republicans are blockin' everything...,” and most tellingly “He's the president --- he doesn't have a magic wand...”

Evasions and excuses like these are now the staple of black politics. Black America's political class, its learned and wise preachers, pundits and politicians counsel us in this, the age of the First Black President to “get realistic” by dialing back our expectations for economic democracy, by dropping our demands for peace and justice. After all, in the world of mature grown folks, expecting this or any president to crack down on greedy corporations and banksters, to stem the tide of foreclosures and evictions, to rein in health care costs, to refrain from starting predatory foreign wars in Asia and Africa, or to preserve Medicare and Social Security is just plain foolish. Democratic expectations, they say, are the provice of the socially immature, the politically unsophisticated.

The president himself has repeatedly deployed the “magic wand” line, both as defense and offense, as scornful mockery of those who believed his campaign promises to raise the minimum wage, to stand up to oil companies, and to walk a picket line. It ain't his fault. They should know better. One of his spokespeople suggested that those demanding those kind of promises be kept should be drug tested. That is the level of barely concealed contempt the president and the whole of the black political class have for the rest of us.

Make a point to share these with everyone you know, please.  It's so rare we get truth.

BAR does hard hitting stuff every week, I know.  But it's just like a one-two punch having both of those on the same day.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, March 21, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri believes if everything comes to a standstill in Baghdad then the Arab Summit can be a 'success,' Senator Patty Murray demands answers on Madigan Army Medical Center reversing 40% of PTSD diagnoses, the Congress hears from veterans groups, and more.     "Another concern I wanted to mention today and one I'm sure everyone in this room is concerned about is mental health," declared Senator Patty Murray this morning. "For service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, the VA has now projected an increased demand of over 200% for mental health care by Fiscal Year 2020.  We have got to take a hard look at whether the department's proposed 5% budget increase is enough to meet the projected demand for mental health care.  Not every veteran will be effected by the invisible wounds of war  but when a veteran has the courage to stand up and ask for help the VA has to meet that need every single time.  They have to be there not only with timely access to care but the right type of care.  Challenges like PTSD or depression are natural responses to some of the most stressful events a person can experience and we must do everything we can to ensure those effected by these illnesses can get help, get better and get back to their lives."      She was speaking at the joint-hearing of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  She is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Richard Burr is the Ranking Member.  US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee and, while Rep Bob Filner is the Ranking Member, Rep Michael Michaud acted as the Ranking Member for the hearing.  Appearing before them were Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Tom Tarantino, the Military Order of the Purple Heart's William R. Hutton, the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs' David Fletcher, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association's H. Gene. Overstreet, the Retired Enlisted Association's John Rowan and Wounded Warrior Project's Dawn Halfaker.     Chair Patty Murray: Let me just say as I continue to sit down with veterans across my home state, I hear many of the same things that those of you who will testify hear from your members: veterans who are concerned that they can't get access to health care including mental health care when they need it, continue to wait for months on a decision claims and are unaware of the services that are available to them.  Veterans tell me about the obstacles to employment that they continue to face and many tell me that they are afraid to write the word "veteran" on their resume. Last year's passage of our VOW To Hire Heroes Act was a great first step in tackling the high rate of unemployment among our veterans but there is a lot of work left to be done.     That's from Senate Committee Chair Murray's opening statements.  House Committee Chair Jeff Miller had his statement entered into the record and briefly noted the following.   Chair Jeff Miller: The one thing I do want to draw attention to is that sequestration does in fact still loom over the VA.  I, too, have asked not only the Secretary [of VA Eric Shinseki] but also the President as well.  I have yet to receive a response and so because of that I have filed a piece of legislation that's very simple. It's a page-and-a-half and it codifies one of the areas that is concurrent law, one of the conflicting statues that says veterans programs -- especially health programs -- are, in fact, not going to be subject to sequestration.  So I look forward to one of two things, either that bill passing and becoming law or secondly getting an answer from the administration as to whether or not we are going to be impacted by that.   Chair Murray had noted that in her statement, that she's repeatedly asked for an answer on this issue.  Sequestration will most likely kick in due to budget issues.  If it does, it will be automatic.  (Automatic cuts to federal programs to lower the budget for the Fiscal Year 2013.)  Is VA effected or not?  This is a question that's been asked and asked again, over and over.  Murray even asked Secretary Shinseki in a February 29th hearing (see the March 1st snapshot):     Chair Patty Murray: [. . .] let me begin the questions by getting this one off the table.  It's on the issue of sequestration and cuts to spending.  Like I said in my opening remarks I believe that all VA programs including medical care are exempt from cuts but there is some ambiguity between the budget act and the existing law. And when I asked the acting OMB director to adress this issue in a budget hearing two weeks ago, he said OMB had yet to make a final determination.  So I am concerned that by not settling this issue now, we are failing to provide our veterans with the clarity they really deserve to have.  And so while you're here, I wanted to ask you: Do you believe that all VA programs -- including medical care -- are exempt from any future cuts?     Secretary Eric Shinseki: I think, Madame Chairman, the answer that the OMB director provided you was the same one that I understand.  They are still addressing the issue. For my purposes, I would tell you I'm not planning on sequestration.  I'mI  addressing my requirements and presenting my budget as  you would expect me to do.  I think sequestration in part or in whole is not necessarily good policy.  And I think the President would argue the best approach here is a balanced deficit reduction and that the budget he has presented does that and I would ask that the Congress look at that budget and favorably consider it.   Chair Patty Murray:  I think we all hope that is the outcome but we want to provide clarity to our veterans. They are very concerned about this issue.      That was 21 days ago.  Murray, Miller, Filner and Burr (among others) had been asking repeatedly for an answer prior to the above exchange.  However, when the Secretary is asked in an open session, with press present, and he doesn't know the answer, you think he would get on the ball to find out.  It's very basic, or should be, for Eric Shinseki: Would sequestration effect my department or not?   It's very basic and you would assume it would be one he would want immediately answered since the budget is being hammered out.    There's no excuse for this non-response and, as Miller points out, he's asked for an answer from President Barack Obama as well and received nothing.  So the point is, it's gone above Shinseki's head and if the administration had wanted the Congress (and the American people) to have an answer, the White House would have already provided one.  There's no excuse for this.  It is a concern to many veterans -- of more than just the current wars -- as to whether or not their benefits or the health care or an education program might be cut.  While supposedly wanting to "honor" veterans of the Iraq War on Monday, Barack refused to do so by answering this very basic question: If sequestration kicks in, will the VA budget be targeted with automatic cuts?     In her opening remarks, one of the topics Dawn Halfaker noted was the Caregiver-Assistance program, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010.  This allows caregivers access to support services, mental health services, eduaction sessions and counseling among other things.  Although passed and signed into law, the VA, for some reason, decided, "We know what the law says, but let's instead do what we want to."  Dropping back to the July 12, 2011 snapshot:   As Ranking Member Michael Michaud explained, the hearing was a follow up to the March 11th hearing by the Subcommittee.  On the Senate side, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee March 2nd hearing (covered in that day's snapshot and  Kat covered it in "Burr promises VA 'one hell of a fight'" and Ava covered it at Trina's site with "The VA still can't get it together").  What both Senate and House Committees learned in the two March hearings was that they had passed legislation that was very different from what the VA was implementing.  Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, noted, "VA's plan on the caregivers issue was overdue and once submitted it hardly resembled the bill that unanimously cleared this Congress.  Three weeks ago, my Committee staff requested information on how that plan was developed and to date no information has been provided.  Rather than following the law, the administration set forth some overly stringent rules, bureaucratic hurdles, that would essentially deny help to caregivers."  Schulz explained she was now rated by the VA for providing 40 hours a week of caregiving.  She probably does a great deal more than that but it's not recognized.  She did want it understood that when a wounded veteran returns, there's nothing so simple as 40 hours a week of care.  She reviewed how, in her case, a great deal of time was taken with reorienting and dealing with confusing on the part of her son as to where he was and what was going on. There were sleep and other issues that had to be addressed including bathroom issues and the first weeks contained a great deal of work on reorientation.  It's an important point but it's sad that she had to underscore it. A veteran with no apparent disabilities or challenges will need time to reorient themselves and they may require help on that.  That a wounded veteran would need it should have been obvious to the VA with no caregiver having to point it out. "I couldn't understand that," Debbie Schulz told the Subcommittee of disparities for caregivers and gave an example of "another caregiver" in Texas who cares for her son suffering from TBI with a spinal cord injury and unable to transfer himself out of his wheel chair is judged of doing only 25 hours of care a week.  "How can that be right?" Schulz wondered.   Schulz is Debbie Schulz, the mother of Iraq War veteran Steven K. Schulz who was severly injured in a Falluja attack on April 19, 2005.  Halfaker called for the Committees to again review VA's performance to ensure that they are indeed following the law that the Congress passed (the law that they refused to follow until the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hauled them in for hearings in 2011). We'll note this exchange from today's hearing.   Chair Jeff Miller:  Captain, you talked in your testimony or made reference to VA's resistance to the caregiver law if I runderstood what I read.  Can you kind of expand upon it a little bit for us and let us know what your thoughts are?   Dawn Halfaker: Sure.  Thank you.  Yeah, I think the biggest thing that we're focused on is one of the parts of the program projected, how many cases VA is going to have to address within this caregiver population and originally it was projected to be 3500 cases and we've already reached that caseload.  So I mean in terms of the ability for VA to be prepared for the amount of cases that they're going to have to deal with, we feel that they need to start looking at that and, of course, how effective is the program being? We're very interested to do another survey within our population to start looking at how well the program's being set up and really how effective it's being.  So those are two of the areas that we're highly focused on. And also looking for VA to kind of comprehensively address all facets of the program.   Chair Jeff Miller:  Mr. Cooper, you alluded to something that actually I think everybody talks about, even those of us on the Committee have talked about in the past in regards to how you translate what you did in your time in the service to your civilian life as you transition across.  And we tried in the VOW To Hire Heroes Act to begin to stimulate if you will the states to be able to waive some of their requirements that a truck driver or a combat medic or whatever it may be.  What can the VA, what do you think the VA can do to help the veteran better market themselves or market their skills?   Arthur Cooper:  I think if we were to say to the VA that you need to set up programs by which the service member returning is able to sit down with a counselor or counselors and do a resume that is specific to the job that he/she is trying to apply for.  You have the qualifications from having done the job but you don't have the ability to put the job on paper as a resume.  If we can do something to that effect, have that training process in place, that will do a lot toward helping us as far as getting employment -- meanful employment, I'll say it that way.   Chair Jeff Miller: Anybody else want to comment? Sgt Major?   Sgt Major H. Gene Oversight:  Mr. Chairman, I would comment on that.  Like I said, we put on forty job fairs around the countryside throughout the year and we counsel veterans, service members, young men and women getting out of the service how to write their resume.  As a matter of fact, we have a guy who we used to bring in all the time and he wrote this book Does Your Resume Wear Combat Boots? And basically, we tell people how to make those transitional words from what they do in the military to civilian terminology. So when they build their resume and they put it together, the people that's doing the hiring do understand that and, matter of fact, the people that we bring understand that they're hiring a military person, they know what they get, they know they're going to get somebody that can read and write and that sounds very simple now days but it's not so simple because they can read and write and they can similate what they read -- in other words, they understand it and they can set it to music.  They also realize that they get some leadership with that because they come early, they stay late, they're clean cut.  They're good at all of those sorts of things when they hire a veteran.  And that's the reason that when those companies that hire veterans continue to come back to us because they understand what they did in the military and what they're getting when they bring them on, sir.   Chair Jeff Miller: John? John Rowan: The other issue and the problem is that this is spread across the different states and they all have different laws and applications.  But it would be interesting I think if the DoD people looked at training manuals and things to see that often times they're just missing a little something extra that would give them the certification they need for that particular job.  It's not really analogous but I was a linguist in the military and when I went back to college they gave me some credit for my college but told me I didn't take any reading courses so I couldn't get credit for the whole language.  I mean, it was just something as simple as that.  Now that's a bizarre thing but I'm sure that in some of the medics and things, there's probably just something not quite right that would equate to the equivalent of an education in the private sector and they need to figure that out and add it in.   Chair Jeff Miller:  It's interesting that you would bring up the item of not taking reading courses.  I visited a college that shall remain unnamed and was talking with them about the VOW To Hire Heroes Act and saying, "How in the world can a person who has been in a field hospital, doing all of the things that they do, day in and day out, not transfer those skills into a nursing program or something along those lines?"  And the first response?  "Well they haven't had the humanities, they haven't had the English" -- and I'm like, "We have got to change the culture out there to help put these folks to work."  And, as the Sgt Major said, we have people who know what it's like to get up early, work late, do it when they don't want to do it, do it with a smile on their face and you don't find that a lot of times out in the civilian workforce and we've got to find a way to expand that if we can.   What they need to do is for DoD to offer classes -- along with medic training,  I'm sorry but I don't find, for example US history to be a joke or something to laugh at.  LVNs getting a BSN from a university (as opposed to a diploma mill) are required to have certain courses and US history and US government are part of those requirements.  DoD should be training in those areas and they should be offering humanities courses (one is generally needed in most LVN-BSN programs).  The point of education is to make you a well rounded citizen.  Is that not a goal the military has for veterans?  They can easily put together courses -- courses which could utilize the training and the mission within the course work.  This should be done for every service member.  The military owes it to them.  In most cases, there is a degree of training that already qualifies it's just not structured so that a college will recognize it. This is a DoD issue that needs to be addressed immediately.     Due to floor votes starting on the Senate floor, the Senate members had to leave the hearing after the witnesses delivered their opening remarks. We'll note the following exchange.     Ranking Member Michael Michaud:  You'd mentioned the stateveterans nursing home and the great job that they do.  I really appreciate Mr. Miller's efforts on addressing the issue on reimbursment rates which is extremely important for a lot of veterans around the country -- each one a little differently.  My question is -- because we addressed it back in October,  the Senate hasn't dealt with the legislation as of yet -- what effect is it having for veterans who are 70% or higher in their disabilies throughout some of the nursing homes around the country?       David Fletcher: In cases where we have a large number of -- 70% or higher of veterans in a home, uhm, the cost -- the reimbursement does not give the homes what they -- it doesn't pay for the full cost of care. So the homes actually have to come up with the difference or the veteran.  And then the veteran obviously suffers from that.  I believe in the case especially of a few of the states and in one state in particular, it happened to be Maine, there's a large number of veterans there and the more veterans that you have that are 70% and above that are -- [handed a piece of paper] And of course, the comment I just got is that homes are turning veterans away because they can't match their cost of care.    Ranking Member Michael Michaud:  Thank you and that was the concern that I have.  I know from Maine, you mentioned Maine, Maine veterans nursing homes are going to lose anywhere from $8 to 16 million a year and they can't take that sustainable loss.  I was kind of curious on other states and thank you for that answer.  My next question is for Mr. Tarantino, you talked about education for soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.  And have you found problems there in different states as far as higher ed being willing to take into consideration the experience that a soldier might have had whether it's a medic or working on heavy equipment, whereas the higher ed might at ground zero and work up?  Have you found that to be a problem or is it, have most higher eds been taking that into consideration?   Tom Tarantino:  Thank you, Congressman, this is -- this is actually a problem over all.  And this was largely what the VOW To Hire Heroes Act, one of the provisions, was meant to address.  It's less that schools aren't using a veteran's military experience and crediting them for that, it's that professional licenses and certifications that are required to do a lot of vocational jobs -- medics, mechanics, truck drivers -- don't recognize military training experience. There have been a lot of sort of efforts where -- I know ACE has a great way to -- the American Counseling Education, forgive me -- has a great way to translate your military experience into college credit.  But we've never done the math on what a military vocation and a civilian vocation is -- largely because we've never had a generation of business leaders that hadn't served in the military before. This is the first generation where you just don't have very many people who are running the business sector having military experience.  And so now this is one of the things that Congress said last year we're going to need to ramp up quickly is to do the math on the gaps and overlaps between military jobs and vocations and their civilian equivalents so that we can actually have something that the professional sector can say, 'This is what we have, this is what we need.'  And the higher ed sector can follow up with adapting their training to what they need.   Ranking Member Michael Michaud:  My last question, probably quick yes or no answer since I'm running out of time, is the House, little over a month ago, passed legislation that sets up a Brack type process dealing with federal buildings and if you look at the VA facility, they already have a process within the VA facility and a utilization rate of VA facilities actually have increased dramatically.  Unfortunately, VA is covered under this legislation that's over here on this Senate side that once it's in that Brach type process they get rid of the VA facility that money doesn't go back to the VA facility and we have a problem as it is with construction within the VA area. Has your organization looked at that legislation and do you support it or oppose it?  Quick yes-or-no answer starting with Mr. Tarantino?   Tom Tarantino: We have looked at it.  It hasn't been a priority but we do definitely support that concept. And are looking forward to seeing a lot of stuff passed by the Senate that's come out of the House.    Now we'll note another Congressional hearing.  I was not at this hearing.  Wally was and was ready to do a brief synopsis for this snapshot but we've got a press release from Senator Patty Murray's office that we can use instead (and spare Wally the trouble -- thank you, Wally):   Murray Presses Army Secretary on Handling of the Mental Wounds of War   At Hearing of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Veterans Chairman Murray pressed Army Secretary John McHugh on troubled PTSD unit at Joint Base Lewis-McChord and whether similar problems exist at other bases   Hearing comes as new information reveals a Madigan Army Medical Center screening team reversed more than 40% of the PTSD diagnoses since 2007   VIDEO: Sen. Murray questions Sec. McHugh   (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, questioned Army Secretary John McHugh on recent shortcomings in the Army's efforts to properly diagnose and treat the invisible wounds of war.  Specifically, Murray discussed the forensic psychiatry unit at Madigan Army Medical Center on Joint Base Lewis-McChord that is under investigation for changing mental health diagnoses based on the cost of providing care and benefits to servicemembers.  The Army is currently reevaluating nearly 300 service members and veterans who have had their PTSD diagnoses changed by that unit since 2007.   Key excerpt of Sen. Murray's remarks:   "Secretary McHugh, as you and I have discussed, Joint Base Lewis McChord in my home state is facing some very real questions on the way they have diagnosed PTSD and the invisible wounds of war.  And today, unfortunately, we are seeing more information on the extent of those problems.    "Mr. Secretary, this is a copy of today's Seattle Times.  In it is an article based on the most recent review of the Forensice Psychiatry Department at JBLM which -- as you know -- is under investigation for taking the cost of mental health care into account in their decisions. "And what it shows is that since that unit was stood up in 2007 over 40% of those service members who walked int he door with a PTSD diagnosis had their diagnosis changed to something else or overturned entirely.    "What is says is that over 4 in 10 of our service members -- many who were already being treated for PTSD -- and were due the benefits and care that comes with that diagnoses -- had it taken away by this unit.  And that they were then sent back into the force or the local community.   "Now, in light of all the tragedies we have seen that stem from the untreated, invisible wounds of war -- I'm sure that you would agree that this is very concerning.   "Not only is it damaging for these soldiers, but it also furthers the stigma for others that are deciding whether to seek help for behavioral problems."   ### Meghan Roh Deputy Press Secretary | Social Media Director Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray @PattyMurray 202-224-2834 Get Updates from Senator Murray   The Seattle Times article referred to above is Hal Bernton's "40% of PTSD diagnoses at Madigan were reversed."     Yesterday Iraq was slammed with violence that claimed over fifty lives and left over two hundred injured, "just days before Baghdad hosts a landmark Arab summit," Eleanor Hall observed this morning on The World Today (Australia's ABC, link is text and audio) leading into a report by Meredith Griffiths on the violence. MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: This is despite the fact for the past couple of days intensive searches at checkpoints have ground Baghdad to a halt. Security had been ramped up in preparation for a meeting of the Arab world's top leaders. It's the first time the Arab League have met in Baghdad in 20 years, and the government considers it the most important diplomatic event yet for post-Saddam Iraq. Officials had been hoping to use the summit to showcase the country's improved security since the sectarian fighting a few years ago that almost pulled the country into civil war. Trend News Agency notes, "Holding the next summit of the League of Arab States in Iraq demonstrates the restoration of stability and resumption of its role in the Arab and regional areas, Iraqi ambassador to Kazakhstan, Sabir Abbud Al-Musaui told Trend today." It does no such thing. The Arab League Summit is two days. Al Rafidayn reports that the capital will be closed down for seven days. When you have to shut down the capital for seven days to hold a two day event, that's not a sign of success. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspaers) reports, "Only Monday, Iraqi authorities began practicing security procedures for the summit, flooding existing checkpoints with large numbers of special forces troops and setting up new checkpoints, where they searched cars with dogs, looking for explosives." Al Mada notes that, this morning, it might take as much as three hours for someone living in Baghdad to get to their job in Baghdad and that might require them leaving their car at some point and continuing on foot. Does Nouri al-Maliki really think that if these measures are successful it says anything about Baghdad other than that they can put the city on crackdown for seven days? Does this enstill trust in foreign investors? As for the summit, Middle East North Africa Financial Network doesn't expect much from the summit: One thing is certain and that is that the Baghdad summit will be anything but remarkable. Egypt will be busy preparing for its presidential election, the first since the toppling of Hosni Mubarak, Libya, Tunis and Yemen have enough domestic problems of their own. The Gulf countries will find it difficult to demonize Iran when the host has special relations with Tehran, while attempts to discuss the uprising in Bahrain will be foiled by the GCC group. Meanwhile Al Rafidayn reports Nouri has called for all Iraqis to unite. Spreading love apparently means then launching into an attack on Ayad Allawi who, apparently, isn't included included in the call for uniting. Al Mada reports Nouri has declared Allawi is bad for the government of Iraq. Nouri's upset because Allawi's announced if the top four demands for the national conference aren't implemented in 72 hours Iraqiya will consider walking out. This would be highly embarrassing to Nouri with the Arab leaders visiting. Especially since most of the Arab leaders can't stand Nouri. (As most Iraqi press has noted, Saudi Arabia is only participating because the US has badgered and cajoled them non-stop.)   Iraqiya won the 2010 elections.  Ayad Allawi is the leader of Iraqiya.  State of Law came in second, Nouri is the leader of State of Law.  Because Nouri refused to follow or honor the results of the election and because Nouri had the White House backing him, he was able to lead Iraq into an eight month-plus period of political stalemate.  This ended in November 2010 when the US-brokered Erbil Agreement was signed off on by all parties.  Chief among the concessions that allowed Nouri to stay on as prime minister was that Allawi would head an independent security commission.  That never happened, the promised referendum and census on Kirkuk (to please the Kurds) never happened.  He became prime minister and tossed aside the agreement.   Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observed yesterday of the ongoing political crisis (from the 2010 elections forward): Since then Iraqiya has been given only a handful of ministries (fewer than promised), but with the largest plurality in parliament could theoretically push through a vote of no confidence, forcing new elections. That is true legally speaking, but Maliki's increased centralization of power under his control, including naming himself as Interior and Defense Minister to keep control of all national troops and police, has many believing that he doesn't intend to allow step down even if he loses his legal mandate.   Peter Van Buren reflects on the nine years of war and occupation at Huffington Post and observes:   Malaki still holds some senior cabinet positions for himself, and still has an arrest warrant out for his own VP, who is in hiding in Kurdistan where Baghdad's law does not apply. On Monday, a million loyalists of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rallied in south Iraq Monday decrying poor services and rampant graft. Demonstrators shouted: "Yes to rights! Yes to humanity! No to injustice! No to poverty! No to corruption!" Some protesters held aloft electrical cables, water canisters and shovels to symbolise the poor services that plague Iraq. Others carried empty coffins with words plastered on them such as "democracy," "electricity," "education" and "services." Iraq suffers from electricity shortages, with power cuts multiplying during the boiling summer, poor clean water provision, widespread corruption and high unemployment. This is despite the U.S. spending $44 billion on reconstruction in Iraq, the failure of which was the subject of my book, We Meant Well.   On Van Buren's first point, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is in the KRG where he is a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. He has stated he cannot receive a fair trial in Baghdad (Nouri's charged him with terrorism) because Nouri controls the Baghdad courts.  He's asked that the trial be moved to Kirkuk.  His assertion that he would not receive a fair trial was proven correct when, last month, nine Baghdad judges held a press conference to announce he was guilty of terrorism.  That was February 16th and, in that day's snapshot, we offered how the news being reported by AP and Reuters should have been reported:     IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary. BAGHDAD -- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of Iraq was guilty of terrorism.  Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day.  Mr. al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive a fair trial.  Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. During the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary.  Mr. al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get a fair trial. Today's events demonstrate that Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial in Iraq.  This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today. A judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt of the charges and to do so before a trial was held.  Not only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has long made.     Had he been tried?  No.  Is the Iraqi Constitution unclear or confusing as to how guilt is determined?  Article 19th's fifth clause is very clear: "The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial.  The accused may not be tried on the same crime fora second time after acquittal unless new evidence is produced."   They may have had an 'investigation' but an 'investigation' does not prove guilt, only a trial does and for judges to hold a press conference and announce that someone is guilty of charges they have not yet been tried for is a huge miscarriage of justice.  The nine should be impeached for misconduct.  And the process was already being criticized prior to that for all the 'confessions' that kept getting aired on television.   Reuters reports today that al-Hashemi has accused the Baghdad government "of torturing to death one of his bodyguards, an accusation that could make it more difficult to resolve a case that has split the country's politics on dangerous sectarian lines."   So Moqtada al-Sadr's followers are protesting (Van Buren's second point), Iraqiya is threatening a walk out and, see yesterday's snapshot, KRG President Massoud Barzani made blistering remarks about a new dictatorship in Iraq (referring to Nouri).  What happens next?  Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) argues nothing happens next:   The reason is simple: although all of Maliki's rivals are "in one box" with Erbil as one Iraqiya MP said, they are only in that box until the moment comes that Maliki is removed and everyone backs off for a different reason. For Maliki, although the conflict between the political groups is reaching a critical point again, just like all the previous times, nothing will happen. Meetings will take place, each bloc cuts a different deal with him and he will continue to stay. He will get a period of calm and then a new crisis starts.   And that may be.  Nouri has demonstrated time and time again that he's happy playing the petulant child and digging his heels in.  Over time, others are encouraged to be the 'grown up' and give in.  Until someone stands up to the spoiled brat Nouri al-Maliki, there's no real reason for him to change or believe anyone could outwait him.     In news of violence, Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) notes a Baghdad home invasion in which the throats of the "mother and her three children" were slit. Al Rafidayn notes a tribal sheik was assassinated in Rawa.   We'll close with this appeal for support for Courage to Resist from Michael Thurman:       I applied for a conscientious objection discharge from the US Air Force in 2007. With the help of Courage to Resist, I was able to navigate that process successfully and I received an honorable discharge eight months later. However, today as a counselor to US military objectors, I know that things do not always go as well for others, regardless of the merits of their application. We have a lot of work to do to better support the troops who refuse to fight. It's because of the financial support of thousands of folks like yourself that I'm able to do this work as a Courage to Resist staff member. Donate to Courage to Resist today (More information and options regarding donations) Today, I'm interested in making sure our mission of supporting GI resisters—accused WikiLeaks truth-teller Army PFC Bradley Manning, for example—adapts to and becomes part of the broader forces gathering against US militarism and empire. We have an atrocious and seemingly endless war and uncertain future in Afghanistan. We have not actually "withdrawn" from Iraq. We have covert wars and an expanding military presence all over the world. We have the most significant military whistle-blower of our generation, Bradley Manning, facing life in prison. And every day we're hearing threats of an attack on the nation of Iran—not unlike the propaganda fed us in the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2004. With the backing of thousands of friends like you, Courage to Resist has had a great history of supporting individual military resisters refusing illegal war, occupation and policies of empire—from "all the way back" when Marine L/Cpl Stephen Funk publicly refused to deploy to Iraq in April 2003, to when Army Lt. Ehren Watada became the first officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq in May 2006, to the hundreds of lower profile objectors we've assisted since. We've been able to do this work by collaborating with concerned community members, veterans, military families—and folks like you. Like our mission statement says, I really do believe that by supporting GI resistance, counter recruiting and draft resistance, we can harness "people power" to weaken the pillars that maintain these seemingly endless wars.         iraq abc the world today eleanor hall meredith griffiths middle east north africa financial network mcclatchy newspapers sahar issa al rafidayn al mada antiwar.com jason ditz

The Whores of Empire

Patrick J. McDonnell (Los Angeles Times) reports:

Starting shortly after dawn, at least 20 bombs exploded at 13 sites, from Baghdad to the northern city of Kirkuk to the southern cities of Hillah and Karbala. The nationwide death toll was at least 46, with more than 200 injured, the Associated Press reported.

At least two car bombs exploded near the heavily fortified Green Zone, where next week's Arab League summit is scheduled to take place.

And it was just yesterday that Barack Obama was attempting to use the Iraq War as a fundraiser, insisting it was honorable and successful and a bunch of other s**t that only C.I. had the good sense to call him out on.

The Iraq War started the night of March 19th.  As C.I. noted in yesterday's snapshot, Democracy Now, The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times and more all ignored it.  I checked, they did today as well.

I'm so sick of these liars who try to steal your money.  Amy Goodman pretending to care about the Iraq War as long as it got her press and sold her books.  She didn't and doesn't give a damn.

And we saw she was nothing but a War Whore with her coverage of Libya which was right-wing and jingoistic.  And which included CIA asset/agent/informant/contractor Juan Cole.  Amy Goodman's a cheap little whore and nothing more.

She and liars like Ani DiFranco are not about truth or justice, they're just whores for empire.

Jeff Lusanne (WSWS) just called out Ani and her awful new album last week:


DiFranco’s choice to celebrate Obama and the Democrats is somewhat at odds even with her own past. In the late 1990s, she recorded two albums with the late anarchist folksinger Utah Phillips. Both featured Phillips’ warm voice telling labor history to a new audience, stories which have an impact even with an insertion of anarchist politics.
“The Past Didn't Go Anywhere”, the first of these collaborations, opens with the song “Bridges”, where Phillips mentions another singer who comes to his shows and says “you always sing about the past, you can't live in the past, you know.” Phillips remarks that “I can go outside and pick up a rock that is older than the oldest song you know, and drop it on your foot. Now the past didn't go anywhere, did it?”
Perhaps not coincidentally, around this time, in 1998’s Little Plastic Castle, DiFranco wrote what may be her most thoughtful lyrics about issues in American society, in the song “Fuel”:
Am I headed for the same brick wall
Is there anything I can do about
Anything at all?
Except go back to that corner in Manhattan
And dig deeper, dig deeper this time
Down beneath the impossible pain of our history
Beneath unknown bones
Beneath the bedrock of the mystery
Beneath the sewage systems and the PATH train
Beneath the cobblestones and the water mains
Beneath the traffic of friendships and street deals
Beneath the screeching of kamikaze cab wheels
Beneath everything I can think of to think about
Beneath it all, beneath all get out
Beneath the good and the kind and the stupid and the cruel
There's a fire just waiting for fuel
On the basis of her most recent album, one has to conclude that DiFranco has stopped digging. In the last 15 years, the fuel of social inequality, war, and repression has begun to light a flame of opposition greater than any seen in decades, yet DiFranco has turned away. She now directs her largely youthful audience toward the existing political system, falsely and misleadingly claiming it is willing to listen to them.



They're whores for empires.  There's no reason to listen to their garbage anymore or to support their careers.  They depend on goodwill and they pose as caring people but the reality is Barack Obama can murder a million more people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen and they won't say one word because they're whores.  Like that awful Aimee Allison.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, March 20, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq is slammed with bombings (refuting all of the claims made by Antony Winken Blinken and Nod -- see yesterday's snapshot), Kurdish President Massoud Barzani delivers a speech and the press notes the message to Nouri but misses the message to the US, Cindy Sheehan continues her war tax resistance, the US State Dept pretends to be 'concerned' about events in Iraq, and more. Today Iraq was slammed with bombings. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "Tuesday's violence was surprisingly widespread, striking not just the capital, but locations to the east, west, north and south. Medical authorities predicted the death toll would rise because many of the wounded are in serious condition." In a text, photo and video essay, ITV's Bill Neely explains, "They are snapshots of a forgotten conflict; one that most people can't bear to read or think about any more. This is Iraq. And this is carnage. Another day of slaughter in the land many in the West like to argue is better, safer, calmer now." Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/20/142574/bombings-in-iraq-kill-50-heighten.html#storylink=rss#storylink=cpy Early on, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) counted "at least 38 dead and 171 injured" as violence exploded "in Baghdad, Kirkuk, Karbala, Hilla, Tikrit, Baiji, Ramadi, and Falluja." AKI noted the bombings "killed 13 in Kirkuk, 13 in Karbala, 6 in Baghdad, 2 in Ramadi and 2 in Mahmudiya." Patrick J. McDonnell and an unnamed Iraqi correspondent (Los Angeles Times) note, "The attacks were apparently aimed at a range of targets: Shiite Muslim pilgrims, Iraqi police, an army patrol, government officials and guards outside a Christian church in Baghdad." Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London -- link is text and video) notes, "In most of the cases, the targets seem to have been civilians and police, but a motorcade carrying the governor of Anbar province, a Sunni heartland west of Baghdad stretching to the Syrian border, and long a haven for al-Qaeda, was also hit. A bodyguard was killed." Governor Qassim Fahdawi,. Al Rafidayn reports, is the Anbar Province governor who survived an assassination attempt in Ramadi (car bombing). AGI notes the claim that Baghdad security forces "managed to defuse 6 car bombs" before they went off. Salam Faraj (AFP) notes that in addition to bombings -- including one "in the center of the capital" -- a Baghdad church was attacked with 3 people shot dead. Catholic Culture explains it was the St. Matthew Baghdad Church, a Syrian Orthodox Church. The Telegraph of London offers video of the aftermath of the Kirkuk bombings. Lindsey Tugman (CBS News -- link is text and video) reports on the Kirkuk bombing, "Security teams, backed by ambulances and fire engines, who rushed to the scene in southern Kirkuk, examined the vast damage and wrecked vehicles, some still smoldering." The Australian quotes Kirkuk police officer Mohammed Sobheh stating, "We lost everything. Not one of my colleagues is alive; they were all killed. I will never forget their screams as long as I live." Sky News runs Sammer N. Yacoub's AP report quoting wounded cameraman Saman Majid explaining of the Kirkuk attack, "I quickly got out of my car to see burned bodies trapped inside the cars. Dozens of cars were on fire. It was a scene from hell, where there is only a huge fire and dead people and nothing else." A Kirkuk shop keeper tells Peter Biles (BBC News -- link is video) that, "A car parked here. We shouted for security because it looked suspicious. But no one from the police responded. A few minutes later it exploded." BBC News offers a photo essay of the aftermath in various cities. Alice Fordham (Washington Post) provides this context, "The violence followed the mass killing of more than 20 police officers in Anbar provinces this month and an attack on police cadets in February. The wave of attacks is worrying Iraqi and Western officials alike." Late in the day, Trend News Agency was noting, "At least 56 people died in bombings in seven Iraqi cities on Tuesday, on the ninth anniversary of the United States-led invasion. Nearly 150 people were wounded, dpa reported." Jill Reilly (Daily Mail) notes of Karbala provincial council member Shadhan al-Aboudi, "Mr al-Aboudi immediately blamed the attacks on al Qaida, the terror network which officials believe is behind the recent violence with the aim of forcing the Arab League's summit in Baghdad next week to be cancelled for the second year in a row." Remember, when you have a ready-made 'bad guy' that you can always rush to blame, you never have to examine what it is that keeps courting these attacks. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) speaks with someone who wants to look a little further than al Qaeda in Mesopotamia: A security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters, told McClatchy that while the attacks had the hallmarks of al Qaida, they also could be the result of infighting among Iraqi political parties trying to undermine one another's credibility just before the summit meetings. "It seems they (the political parties) will never stop. They will continue this war for supremacy until the very end. So until political issues are resolved at the top level, we will see no peace." he said. Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/20/142574/bombings-in-iraq-kill-50-heighten.html#storylink=rss#storylink=cpy In addition to the above, AFP adds, "Separate gun and bomb attacks in Salaheddin province, north of the capital, killed four people, including a city councillor, police said. Gunmen also killed a member of the Shabak minority in the main northern city of Mosul." BBC News' Peter Biles (link is video) notes today's attacks were "an attempt to undermined confidence" ahead of the Arab Summit. On The World (PRI) today, anchor Lisa Mullins spoke with McClatchy News Service's Sahar Issa. Excerpt. Sahar Issa: [. . .] And I think insurgents want to remind people that although nine years have passed, everything in Iraqi politics today stems from an occupation of the country. Lisa Mullins: The fact that the explosions are continuing now in such large numbers, what's the potential that this will derail the Arab League Summit next week? Sahar Issa: The Iraqi government has taken this into consideration, I believe, because they have given two days holiday and there is a high possibility -- in fact, it is expected -- that a curfew will be announced. In which case, if people want to arrange bombings, it is going to be very difficult. But I don't believe it will be derailed, I believe it will take place. The Iraqi government looks to the summit to give it legitimacy in the Arab world. I doubt very much that it is going to let this opportunity slip between its fingers. Lisa Mullins: Even if it has to embrace this opportunity and hold the summit against a backdrop of bombings? Sahar Issa: They will want to keep it. It remains for the guests to decide whether they want to come to the site of bombings or not. A week ago, we noted, "Dar Addustour notes that the Cabinet has agreed to foot the bill for the Summit which, according to Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh, will cost $100 billion dinars. That would be $86,073,447.54 in US dollars." Today Jack Healy (New York Times) reports, "Iraq is spending about $500 million on the meeting, for extensive security plus everything from hotel renovations and overtime to catering, stationery and new sod and palm trees on the road fromt he airport. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari called the price tag 'an investment for the country'." I'm sure his figure is correct -- and not just because the cost has increased as the government has added this closure and that. Al Bawaba News adds, "The government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, announced a week-long holiday in Baghdad, from 25 to 31 March, during which government offices will be closed. A curfew will be imposed on March 29 in some areas of the capital to secure the arrival of Arab leaders. The roads near the fortified Green Zone where the summit is to take place will be barred and the residents will be encouraged to stay home." Al Rafidayn notes that, after today's wave of attacks, the government decided to stop work this Sunday and declare a holiday beginning March 25th (the Summit is scheduled to run the 27th through the 29th) and that the move comes as Iraqis are already complaining about "security measures" for the summit which are already causing big traffic news. Prior to today's decision to impose a week long holiday, barricades were already going up throughout Baghdad, it had already been announced that Baghdad International Airport would be closed and Baghdad was already set to be closed to non-official vehicular traffic. Sam Dagher, Munaf Ammar, Ali A. Nabhan and Jabbar Yaseen (Wall St. Journal) quote cab driver Ashraf Mohammed delcaring today, "The Arab summit is worth nothing as long as the people continue to pay the price." Response to the attacks came from around the world. France's Foreign Ministry issued the following statement: France utterly condemns the attacks perpetrated this morning in several cities in Iraq which left several dozen people dead and around a hundred injured. It extends its condolences to the Iraqi people and to the families of the victims and expresses its solidarity with the Iraqi authorities in their fight against terrorism. In this context, we urge all Iraqi political actors to engage in dialogue in order to safeguard the country's national unity and stability. France stands alongside Iraq and reaffirms its full support for all democratic political forces and the Iraqi government engaged in the efforts to ensure the recovery, stability and security of Iraq. Press TV reported, "Iran's Foreign Ministry has vehemently condemned terrorist attacks in a number of Iraqi cities which have claimed the lives of many people, including a number of Iranian pilgrims. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast noted that the bomb attacks in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities were in continuation of certain parties' enmity which have targeted independence, peace, stability, and peace in Iraq." Of course, the US government pretended to give a damn as well. Jay Carney was forced to note -- when asked -- Iraq in the White House press briefing today while Victoria Nuland was more somber at the start of her State Dept press briefing in that she was telling jokes about her shoes (that would be yesterday -- don't we love how they have fun on our tax dollars?). The State Dept, please remember, gets $6 billion a year just for the "mission" in Iraq. And yet they no longer produce the weekly reports that they did before they got the $6 billion yearly, they don't give press briefings just on Iraq, and they don't feel that they have to answer to either the Congress or the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction as to how they spend the money. They don't feel they have to answer to anybody. They just spend your money and pretend to give a damn. Like today, when Victoria lies and said "we strongly condemn terrorism of any kind. We condemn today's attacks in Iraq." Let's leave aside the laughable assertion that the US government condemns terrorism and note some reality for hacks in the press department -- was it all that long ago that Vicky was working for Dick Cheney? (oh, my bad, her "makeover" includes the new nickname "Toria"). When you condemn something strongly? You do it immediately. At the start of your press briefing. Not over nine minutes into a press breifing and then only when asked. The State Dept needs to have the $6 billion pulled, they are not just ill-equipped to lead anything, they're incompetent and they are arrogant. They also appear to believe that they are not accountable to the people. Why the wife of a neo-con, why this woman who worked for Dick Cheney in whoring for the Iraq War in the lead up was brought into the State Dept by Hillary Clinton is a question the White House needs to answer. The administration is still -- whether they like it or not -- accountable to the people. Their desire to bring little Vicky into the fold is something they need to answer to. Again, there is no difference in the Bully Boy Bush administration and the Baby Barack administration -- two War Hawks whoring for the same destruction, with partners from the same dance card. Two wings of the same War Party. Cindy Sheehan: You know the United States president said today -- he didn't say it today, but the one that we have in office today -- said back in 2002 that the Iraq War was a stupid war but yesterday he made March 19th a Day of Honor because the US did such great things in Iraq. I want to put their wars on trial, Joyce. If I have to go on trial to do that then that's what I've been wanting to do. You know, to me, it just blows my mind that George Bush and Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of those War Criminals and international War Criminals -- and not just crimes abroad, but crimes in our own country -- they can run around free making all kinds of money with their books and their appearances and their consulting jobs for the war machine when they're prosecuting me somebody whose son was killed for their crimes. So, you know what, Joyce, I hate to use the term of George Bush but I think, "Bring it on." That's Cindy Sheehan speaking with Joyce Riley on The Power Hour today about her war tax resistance. We may note more of that tomorrow but we've noted repeatedly that Iraqiya needs to wise up to the empty promises coming from US Vice President Joe Biden's office and that the Kurds already have wised up to how empty those promises are. Today this was demonstrated yet again. Prasnant Rao (AFP) reports, "Kurd leader Massud Barzani hinted on Tuesday at a possible break with Iraq's unity government, complaining that premier Nuri al-Maliki was monopolising power and building an army loyal only to him." This press release is from the Kurdistan Regional Government (sent to the public e-mail account): Salahaddin, Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRP.org) – In his annual message on the occasion of Newroz, the Kurdish New Year, President Barzani said that power-sharing in Iraq and commitment to the Iraqi Constitution are under threat and that the Kurds will decide their own course of action if these two principles are abandoned. "Iraq is facing a serious crisis. We have tried our utmost to prevent Iraq from descending into a sectarian conflict and we have consistently avoided taking sides in this conflict. The Kurds have played a pivotal role in bringing about the new Iraq, particularly two years ago when our initiative resulted in the formation of the current government. Had it not been for our role, one can only guess what an unknown fate would have beset Iraq. It is very unfortunate that a small number of people in Baghdad have imposed themselves and monopolized power," said the President. He said there are a number of main disputes with the Baghdad government. "Power-sharing and partnership between Kurds, Sunni and Shiite Arabs, and others is now completely non-existent and has become meaningless. The Iraqi Constitution is constantly violated and the Erbil agreement, which was the basis upon which the current government was formed, has been completely ignored. As soon as they came to power, they disregarded the Constitution, the previous agreements that we had, and the principle of power-sharing." On disputes between Erbil and Baghdad, the President said: "The resolution of the status of Kirkuk and other disputed areas has constantly been evaded. We have shown utmost flexibility and patience and here I want to thank our people for their patience. We have opted for a resolution based on legal and constitutional means but others have reneged on their pledges. It is impossible for us to abandon this issue because for us it is extremely significant and more than being a mere matter of principle." He said the other main issue is allocation of funds for the Kurdistan Region Peshmerga forces which the Iraqi government has consistently refused to address, saying, "for the last five or six years funding for Peshmerga forces has been embezzled." On the dispute regarding oil and gas exploration and management, the President defended the legality of the oil and gas contracts that the KRG has signed. "None of the KRG contracts with foreign oil companies is unconstitutional. The main reason behind this dispute with Baghdad is not a question of legality of the contracts; rather it is that they don't want to see the KRG make progress and stride forward. " On monopolization of power in Baghdad, the President stated that power is being concentrated in the hands of a few people and others in the political process are being marginalized, including Shiites. "There is an attempt to establish a one-million strong army whose loyalty is only to a single person. Where in the world can the same person be the prime minister, the chief of staff of the armed forces, the minister of defense, the minister of interior, the chief of intelligence and the head of the national security council. " The President dismissed statements that the Kurdish-Shiite alliance is close to collapse, saying, "We are committed to our alliance with the Shiites but not with this group of people who have monopolized power and with their policies have even marginalized other Shiites. The Kurds and the followers of Ammar Al-Hakim and Muqtada Al-Sadr have always shown solidarity with each other." "It is time to say enough is enough. The current status of affairs in unacceptable to us and I call on all Iraqi political leaders to urgently try and find a solution otherwise we will return to our people and will decide on whatever course of action that our people deem appropriate." Doesn't Joe Biden's little boy Antony Blinken look like an idiot today? He really does. And, Joe, the Kurds don't trust your boy Antony. Nor did the recent reshuffle in power -- which strengthened Massoud Barzani and weakend Jalal Talabani -- improve US relations with the Kurds. Most importnatly, now that the US is arming Baghdad, don't ever expect the Kurds -- which the US won't arm for fear of offending the government of Turkey -- to return to seeing the US as an honest power broker. There have been too many lies and too many broken promises. Consider the Kurds today's Native Americans, offered beads and blankets -- blankets with small pox -- while the US government repeatedly took from them. Turning to a functioning branch of the US government, the Congress. First, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Tuesday, March 20, 2012 CONTACT: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834 TOMORROW: Senator Murry to Question Army's Top Brass on their Handling of the Mental Wounds of War At Hearing of Defense Appropriations Subcommitte, Veterans Chairman Murray will press Army Secretary and Chief of Staff on troubled PTSD unit at Joint Base Lewis-McChord and whether similar problems exist at other bases (Washington, D.C.) -- Tomorrow, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will question Army Secretary John McHugh and Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno on recent shortcomings in the Army's efforts to properly diagnose and treat the invisible wounds of war. Specifically, Murray will discuss the forensic psyhciatry unit at Madigan Army medical Center on Joint Base Lewis-McChord that is under investigation for taking the cost of PTSD into consideration when making diagnosing decisions. The Army is currently reevaluating nearly 300 service members and veterans who have had their PTSD diagnoses changed by that unit since 2007. WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray WHAT: Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing When: TOMORROW -- Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:30 AM EST/ 7:30 AM PST -- Hearing start time Where Dirkensen 192 WEBCAST: http://appropriations.senate.gov/ Matt McAlvanah Communications Director U.S. Senator Patty Murray 202-224-2834 - press office 202--224-0228 - direct matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates We'll note that in some way but I believe there's another hearing tomorrow at the same time. The House Veterans Affairs Committee has issued "Setting the Record Straight: Veterans and the Path to Prosperity" and we'll close with that: The Path to Prosperity increases America's funding for services and benefits earned by veterans. Of the $6.2 trillion in spending reductions included in The Path to Prosperity, not a single dollar comes from veterans programs or services. Under the House-passed budget, spending for veterans will increase from $128.3 billion in FY2012 to $164.4 billion in FY2021, providing $155 million more than the President has requested. This is the only area of discretionary spending in the House-passed budget to see significant growth across the budget window. Myth: The House-passed budget seeks to end advance appropriations for veterans programs. Fact: The Budget Resolution passed by the House authorizes $52.5 billion in advance appropriations for FY 2013, a record level of funding for veterans health programs. The House recently passed an appropriations bill providing that full amount. Veterans health programs are not the programs referred to on page 37 of The Path to Prosperity, because these advance appropriations are specifically authorized in law, namely the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009. There are no savings from veterans programs assumed in the $6.2 trillion in spending reductions under The Path to Prosperity and no proposals for changing how appropriations for those programs are handled. Myth: The House-passed budget seeks to end enrollment in veterans health programs for Priority Group 7 and 8 veterans. Fact: The Path to Prosperity provides full funding, including authorization for advance appropriations, for the Veterans Health Administration. This will allow VA to provide medical care for a record number of veterans and eligible dependents. The budget proposes no restrictions on any priority groups' access to VHA and it assumes no savings from changes to veterans benefits or programs. Sorry, one more thing. Feminist Gloria Feldt, author most recently of No Excuses: Nine Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power, is hosting an online discussion this Sunday: Join me for a No Excuses Facebook chat on my fanpage Sunday, March 25, at 3pm eastern, 2pm central, 1pm mountain, noon pacific, etc. I'll be on video, you'll be able to ask questions and talk with others via chat box. It's easy. Really. And there will be giveaways! Let me know if you're coming here. Tweet: Mark your calendar: Next Sunday No Excuses "Power To You" Virtual Book Chat ... please join us! http://ow.ly/9w9qq Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/events/342340245811951/ Gloria Feldt Visit www.GloriaFeldt.com Buy it Now: ~ No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power Gloria@GloriaFeldt.com Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter @GloriaFeldt iraq mcclatchy newspapers sahar issa cnn mohammed tawfeeq afp salam faraj the telegraph of london bbc news peter biles al bawaba news the washington post alice fordham sky news the associated press sameer n. yacoub the telegraph of london richard spencer the los angeles times cindy sheehan pri the world lisa mullins the new york times jack healy the wall st. journal sam dagher

Racist ABC, Racist Marc Cherry, Racist Housewives

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Sporty Barack" went up last night.




I hope that made you smile.  It will probably be the last time you do with this post.

I have had it up to here with the racism.

And let me just aim at ABC since that's the big offender last night.

I've pretended like I didn't notice that "Once upon a time . . ." exists in some pre-frog prince Disney world since there are NO DAMN BLACK PEOPLE ON THE SHOW!!!!

I've pretended not to notice that all ABC has to offer -- outside of the shows done by Shonda Rhimes -- are tokens and a lot of White snow.  Why, for example, are there no Blacks on "The Middle"?  On "Modern Family"?  We have Sam(antha) and we have Curtis and sometimes we even get them on the same episode appearing in a significant scene -- although they themselves are never significant.  Bud, Sam's partner, has a wife, a pregnant wife.  Season two's been all about Bud.  Does Sam have a life?

Outside of Rhimes' show, there's Ashley Judd's best friend and business partner on "Missing" (that we probably won't see much of since she's in the US and Ashley's all over Europe looking for her son -- but I do appreciate that Ashley is someone who thinks about representation issues) and we've got Brad on "Happy Endings."  I love Brad.  I love Jane (his White wife).  But it just seems to me that ABC could be offering us something more than one person who is 1/6 of the show.  (There are six main characters in "Happy Endings" -- all are adorable but Alex -- they've finally started writing a character for the actress to play and I have high hopes that as the writing of her part gets stronger she'll be even better.)

Now have I made it a point to talk about this over and over here?

No.

I've waited.

If you go back to when I first started watching "Desperate Housewives" -- I only started when Vanessa Williams was added to the cast -- you'll find posts where I said if they don't use her properly, I'll call them out.

I've noted already that she's not treated as a real friend or even a real neighbor.

That was very clear last night.

Her only big scene -- with dialogue -- was when she and Bree spoke.  Renee (Vanessa) was going to bail on Mike's funeral.  She talked about how Mike got killed by the man he kicked out of her house.  And Bree went along with that.

Excuse me?  Renee did not go looking for the loan shark.  Mike is the one who came to her and told her the Australian guy was going to be killed because he owed a loan shark.  Renee paid off the debt.  Mike was on the phone with Renee when he saw someone in her home and went over.  She didn't ask him to, he didn't ask her permission.  He didn't even notify her.

But let's blame the Black woman.

Now if it had just been that, I would have rolled my eyes.

And the fact that they excluded her from the 'all the neighbors get together' scene I would have ignored.

I understand that countertop sit-ins never arrived at ABC or in Marc Cherry's racist mind.

But they made her sing.

At the funeral.

Renee is not a singer.  That's not established.  Vanessa Williams is a very talented singer.

And she certainly nailed "Amazing Grace" (click here for YouTube video).

Do you get how offensive that is?

All the women on the show (under sixty) gather and nurture one another except Renee -- the only Black woman.

But she's used to sing a gospel spiritual?

Didn't we all think the days of Lena Horne being trotted out for a musical number but not being used as an actress were over?

Hadn't we moved beyond the days when William Faulkner could write notes to Warner Bros. about his re-write attempt on "Mildred Pierce" and how great it would be to get "mammy" Hattie McDaniel to sing Joan Crawford a spiritual?

So Renee's not good enough to mingle with after the funeral, but stand her -- the only Black woman on the show -- in front of everyone so the colored woman can sing yous home to Jesus?

That was so racist and considering the way Lena Horne was treated at MGM, every White person on that set knew what was going on or damn well should have.

Marc Cherry and ABC owe a big apology to Black America.

We are not on this earth to be an accessory for you to look more spiritual or soulful.

It was racism pure and simple.

And before someone says, "Wait! She sang 'My Funny Valentine!'"  Yes, she did.  She sang it very badly and that was the point.  And that's the only time anyone other than Lynette ever saw her sing and Gabby and Bree and Susan were all appalled by Renee's singing on that episode.

Renee wasn't good enough to write some dialogue for but they were happy to let the Black woman sing a spiritual.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, March 19, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Barack tries to squeeze a cheap campaign buck out of the blood and bones of the dead, the Abu Ghraib torture queen weighs in with her thoughts, and more on this 9th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. AFP's Prashant Rao Tweets on this evening's violence: prashantrao #Iraq violence: a half-dozen bombings in Baquba, Diyala province, have killed two people and wounded 25 today, according to officials. @AFP about 3 hours ago Reuters adds the death toll has climbed to 3 with over thirty injured and that the "bombings all took place after sunset." On the topic of violence, AKE's John Drake Tweeted: johnfdrake At least 26 people were killed and 22 injured in #Iraq violence last week. about 12 hours ago I'm confused by Peter Juul's post at Think Progress. Is he reporting? Is he offering his opinion? What the hell is that last pargraph? If it's a summary of what Antony Blinken (National Security Advisor to Vice President Joe Biden) said? If so, it should state that. If it's a quote from Blinken, it should be in quotations. It reads like it was a paragraph that kept getting moved down as the piece was written until finally it was forgotten and left in while posting by mistake. (And if that's what it is, I've done that dozens of times myself.) But why would you run Blinken's nonsense unchecked? First off, just because you're nothing but a partisan, don't push it off on other people. There are many people who care about Iraq in the US and will tell you how Barack Obama screwed it up that do not and did not want more troops on the ground in Iraq. Stop lying. Stop whoring. Second, why quote Blinken on violence being down if you use the sectarian fighting/ethnic cleansing as your base? First off the dates are wrong. It's 2006 to 2007 and I'm surprised to have to point that out to Peter Juul because, back in December, writing with Matthew Duss, he had the dates correct. Of course, in that article, instead of quoting an idiotic Blinken's nonsense about violence, Juul and Duss noted, "Iraq still endures a level of violence that in any other country would be considered a crisis." What happened? How did that not get tossed in when 'reporting' on what Blinken said? Third, what does Barack have to do with 2006 - 2007 levels of violence? He's not president then. He's not president when Bully Boy Bush implements the "surge" and the violence goes down (mainly because the ethnic cleansing has taken place with thousands and thousands dead and 4.1 million refugee crisis). Why would you use that as a baseline to judge Barack? Fourth, if you're going to use that as a baseline, try remembering Barack opposed the surge. If I thought there was honest bone in Barack's body, I'd go into his summer 2008 interview that, if he had enemies at Saturday Night Live, could have been the 'hoot' Sarah Palin's was. He came off very uninformed and very testy. But everyone looked the other way. Blinken lied. Does it even qualifies as news at this late date? The government lies and whores over and over. And so much of the press goes along with it. Iraq is a failure. And it's worth noting Blinken said it wasn't only because reality loves to slap these liars in the face. He insists that the current political crisis is like the one in 2007, "In the end, the main difference between the two episodes [2007 and today] was that in 2007/2008, the boycott lasted eight months -- at a time when the United States had more than 150,000 troops on the ground. In 2012, we had no troops on the ground, and the boycott ended after less than two months." When you lie like that, you really should be fired. There's no excuse for that kind of lying. The 2007 issue wasn't a crisis and it was various members boycotting the Cabinet. They didn't leave the Parliament. Right now, it's a crisis and the boycott of Parliament and the Cabinet (both) really wasn't the issue. To lie like Antony Blinken's doing should really get you fired. There's no excuse for it. The political crisis has been going on for some time. The briefest explanation goes like this. 1) March 2010 elections are held. Nouri's State of Law comes in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiay. Per the Constitution, Iraqiya should have first dibs on forming a coalition. 2) Nouri bitches, whines and moans and has the US backing him so he's able to be a big baby for eight long months as Iraq cannot move forward, cannot do a thing. This is Political Stalemate I and this is where Barack Obama made the mistake and owns the tragedy that is Iraq. 3) Ayad Allawi may be a monster, may be Ned Flanders from The Simpsons, I don't know and I don't care. I do care that we have free and fair elections. I do care that when we tell Iraqis that they can solve their problems at the ballot box, we listen to what their votes say. Nouri's second place showing wasn't a surprise. Iraqis were moving towards a national identity and that was reflected in the 2009 provincial elections. The 2010 elections merely confirmed the trend. 4) A national identity would go a long way towards healing the rifst and allowing the country to come together. Instead of encouraging that, instead of respecting the votes of the Iraqi people, the White House backed Nouri al-Maliki -- already known for running secret prisons as documented time and again by the outstanding reporting of Ned Parker for the Los Angeles Times. They could have backed the Iraqi people. Without the US support, Nouri wouldn't have been able to dig his heels in for 8 months. 5) Backing Nouri included telling Iraqiya and the Kurds and others that it really was best for Nouri to stay on as prime minister and, if you'll agree to that, you'll get this. "This" was outlined in the US-brokered Erbil Agreement that the political blocs signed off on in November 2010. This ended Political Stalemate I. Parliament finally had a real session. Jalal Talabani was named President, Tareq al-Hashemi and Adil Abdul-Mahdi were named Vice Presidents. (All three held those positions before the 2010 election.) Nouri was named prime minister-designate. This is why Iraqis, in the immediate press that followed, began asking (and would continue for months after to ask), "Why did we even bother to vote? Nothing changed." Was to piss on the promise democracy, Barack Obama. Way to instill a belief in the power of the vote. 7) Nouri does what he always does, stalls. And after a month, he's wrongly moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister (he did not name a full Cabinet, the Constitution says you name a Cabinet, not part of one, not half of one, a Cabinet) or someone else is immediately named prime minister-designate. At this point, Political Stalemate II has started. Nouri is not holding the Kirkuk census and referendum as promised to the Kurds to get them on board with the Erbil Agreement, Nouri is not naming Allawi to an independent security committee as promised to get Iraqiya on board with the Erbil Agreement. 8) He stalls and he stalls. And has no intention of living up to the Erbil Agreement. If you want to talk about violence -- three ministries are security ministries: Interior, Defense and National Security. Nouri makes himself the head of all three by refusing to nominate people for the three posts. That's 13 months -- during which violence has increased -- that Iraq's three security posts have been empty. 9) Over the summer, the Kurds get tired of Nouri's excuses and call for him to return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya joins the call. Other elements including Moqtada al-Sadr join the call. 10) With Nouri ignoring that call, Iraqiya announces their boycott, he calls for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq (Sunni and a member of Iraqiya) to be stripped of his office, Vice President al-Hashemi goes to the KRG on business, Nouri insists that al-Hashemi is a terrorist and swears out an arrest warrant. (Adil Abdul-Mahdi bailed on the nonsense over the summer noting the corruption in Nouri's government after Nouri asked for 100 days to address the corruption -- another stall tactic from Nouri -- and then 100 days later attempted to pretend like something would be done. Abdul-Mahdi has used the time since to play diplomat, traveling throughout Iraq and meeting with various groups.) This is when the press pays attention. December 19th. Now on December 16th, Nouri had tanks circling the homes and offices of various members of Iraqiya -- a detail only the Washington Post's Liz Sly bothered to report. ("In recent days, the homes of top Sunni politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants will be issued for other Sunni leaders.") 11) Iraqiya called off their boycott when Blinken begged them to and promised them that the Erbil Agreement would be honored. A detail Blinken leaves out. It's not one history will leave out. It's cute the way he erases his own involvement, isn't it? He got a boycott ended. That's it. The problems still remain and if he and Joe Biden can't make good on this round of promises, Iraqiya's going to start talking as badly about the administration as the Kurds are. (And, like the Kurds, they will have good reason to do so.) The only thing that ends the crisis is a return to the Erbil Agreement. Nouri doesn't want to do that. When he doesn't want to do something he stalls and stalls some more. He wasn't supposed to become Prime Minister without a full Cabinet, but he's 15 months into this term and still has never appointed a Minister of the Interior, a Minister of Defense or a Minister of National Security. While Blinken lies and claims success and wants to insist that Iraq's reaching out to neighbors, let's look at what that really means for the US. Nouri al-Maliki wrapped up a recent visit to Kuwait and wanted everyone to know he didn't leave empty handed. Saturday, Dar Addustour reported Kuwait had agreed to release 9 Iraqi prisoners -- including the one who allegedly plotted to assassinate George H.W. Bush. Today Al Rafidayn explains that Raad al-Asadi is one of the nine -- he's the one arrested in Kuwait in 1993 for attempting to assassinate George H.W. Bush. You might think would warrant attention from the US press. When Bully Boy Bush was mentioning the alleged attempt in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2002, the press was happy to cover it. Whenever Bush mentioned it, the press was happy to cover it. When he didn't, the press was still happy to cover it. Not to mention that June 26, 1993, Bill Clinton ordered a missile attack on downtown Baghdad as a result of the alleged assassination attempt. Andrew Glass (POLITICO) reported on that attack two years ago noting: In all, 23 Tomahawk missiles were fired from the USS Peterson in the Red Sea and from the cruiser USS Chancellorsville in the Persian Gulf, destroying the building and, according to Iraqi accounts, killing at least eight civilians. The Sunday morning American missile attack was meant to retaliate for an Iraqi plot to assassinate George H.W. Bush during the former president's visit to Kuwait, where he was to be honored for his role in leading the coalition that drove Iraqi invaders from that country during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. So was it all just another government lie? If not, it seems rather strange that there's no US press interest in the deal Nouri made. It seems strange that Blinken wants to tout Iraq's success at the same time Nouri's securing the release of Poppy Bush's alleged assassin. Blinken insists that the US Embassy in Baghdad and US Ambassador James Jeffrey have a strong relationship with Nouri. Jeffrey's been repeatedly rebuffed by Nouri since December 19th. And last month, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported the truth which includes: After the American troops departed in December, life became more difficult for the thousands of diplomats and contractors left behind. Convoys of food that had been escorted by the United States military from Kuwait were delayed at border crossing as Iraqis demanded documentation that the Americans were unaccustomed to providing. Barack chose badly. He chose to get in bed with a thug. That's on him. People can try to lie and pretty it up but no one forced Barack to do the nasty with Nouri. Today -- no link to that garbage -- Barack wants to use Iraq to help his re-election campaign and he's got this site that you can fill in a message of thanks to a vet -- and Barack will have your e-mail and zip code to use for his re-election. That's beyond tacky. There just aren't words for that. I'm sorry for anyone who had to fight in the illegal war, I'm sorry to the families and friends who lost a loved one, I'm sorry to those who came back injured, I'm sorry to those who had to put their lives on hold, I'm sorry the United States government didn't value the lives of its own citizens (we always knew they didn't care about Iraqis -- after all that was the message of the Clinton-era sanctions). As for thanks, I believe Barack Obama should be kissing the ass of everyone in the antiwar movement -- a movement he co-opted and rode to the White House. The Iraq War was based on lies and illegal. And the US occupation of Iraq has not ended. I'm sorry Barack lied to the American people and said the first thing he would do when he was sworn in was to start the withdrawal process, that we had his word on that. I'm sorry that Barack lied and that when Samantha Power let the truth slip in March 2008, she was forced out and John Nichols and all the other whores tried to distract the American people. I'm sorry Barack's a liar and killer. I'm sorry he was ordering a drone attack upon being sworn in. As we 'celebrate' the illegal war that cost (conservative estimate) 2 million Iraqi lives, I'm sorry to Iraq and the children of Iraq who will live with the fallout for decades to come (we'll go into that tomorrow). I'm sorry that Mr. Pretend To Be Against The Iraq War Barack Obama has never said a damn word about all the Iraqis killed and wounded in this illegal war. I'm sorry for the wounded because they have to continue to live in a country the US government destroyed. I'm sorry that there was no honest examination of the Iraq War by the press that dropped it like a hot potato after they sold it or by the Democratic Party that used it as an election booster and then quickly got on board with it. I'm sorry that War Hawk and War Criminal Barack Obama thinks he has some higher ground to stand from and issue apologies for what those under him do. From Sherwood Ross' "Obama Apologizes for Kandahar Massacre -- But Not His Own Killings" (Scoop): How shall the world view the apology by President Obama for the massacre of 16 Afghan villagers allegedly by a lone U.S. serviceman in Kandahar Province when the President is himself personally responsible for the extra-judicial killing of hundreds of civilians by means of drone aircraft strikes whose crime he defends? Army Staff Sgt., Robert Bales, of Lake Tapps, Wash., is being held in prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. Mr. Obama is free to travel the campaign trail. "We're heart-broken over the loss of innocent life," the president said of the Kandahar massacre. His seeming expression of contrition rings hollow, though, particularly if one considers how Mr. Obama goes about his daily routine ordering drone strikes and seemingly is unaffected by the "loss of innocent lives" they cause, as well as by the hated companion night raids on Afghan homes, also the result of his policy. I'm sorry that elected Democrats seem to think their going along with the Libyan War will be forgotten. I'm sorry that the party has sold out whatever scraps of ethics it had to get behind Barack in all of his destruction. His tantrum baby, smashing everything in sight from public financing during the general election, to humanity. Today Barack Obama declared of Iraqis, "Their lives are better. They got the better end of the deal." Oh, wait, that was his doppelganger Lynddie England -- whom AFP reports on today. Like Barack, the torture queen of Abu Ghraib has nothing to say about Iraqis who were hurt or killed, she's only focused on "people on our side." Heaven help anyone whom Lynddie England believes is on her side. I'm sorry that pompous asses think international law can be trashed -- both with starting the Iraq War and then walking away from the promise made to Camp Ashraf residents in Iraq. I'm sorry that idiots and asses seem to think rights are only granted to those we approve of. That's how you get so much prison abuse in the US, that thinking. 'There's prisoners, who cares what happens to them.' Either human rights and the law matter or they don't. How did the Holocaust happen? Over six million Jews were murdered also killed were gays and lesbians, gypsies, disabled or challenged people, civilians and soldiers of the USSR and others. How did it happen? Because I don't care about the gypsies, or I don't care about the disabled or . . . That's how it happened. Don't pretend, don't kid. It happened because a comfortable people -- often in the US -- were able to look down on other human beings. They didn't do the cleansing, but they damn well made sure they didn't do any defending of the targeted populations. Peter Certo's garbage at Foreign Policy In Focus reads like a primer of how to allow the Holocaust. Never once does Peter Certo express even a bit of concern for the residents of Camp Ashraf, never once does he note the legal obligations to Camp Ashraf, never once does he even mention Camp Ashraf but damned if he doesn't attack people who've spoken out for the Camp Ashraf residents. As I've explained before, I had no idea who the residents of Camp Ashraf were until well into the Iraq War and then I asked disinterested parties (friends at the United Nations -- the UN was a disinterested party at that time, that's not true today) to walk me through. This is a legal issue and legal's what everyone wants to avoid. Because the legal issue is clear: The residents are protected under international law and the Geneva Convention. It's also a humanitarian issue and either you believe all people have a right to protection or you don't believe that. And if you don't believe that, we're back to the days where the fact that you hate Jewish people means it's okay if the Nazis kill them -- that's it's okay if the Nazi's kill a 1,000 Jews, or 10,000 Jews but somewhere after it reaches 6 million, well then all the sudden you've got a few concerns -- too damn late, you've got a few concerns. It's cute the way IPS's Foreign Policy in Focus has time to yack about others. Were I Foreign Policy in Focus, I think I'd be on my knees before the world begging forgiveness. It was their riduclous Emira Woods who was singing the praises of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and who went on Democracy Now! mere months ago to praise Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (mere months ago? October 7th): Emira Woods: You know, the other laureate, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, we hold her up, as well. She is Africa's first democratically elected woman president. She has long been an icon and a role model for many on the continent and around the world. I have to say it's a little bit -- it's interesting, this prize going to her. It is just a few days before the elections, and she is, as the incumbent, running for president, and the elections are next week, October 11th, in Liberia. Clearly, women were fundamental in terms of getting her into office, and, many believe, keeping her in office on this path to peace for the last six years. But she comes from a different tradition. And let's remember, you know, it's -- Ellen Johnson Sirleaf remains, really, the only president on the continent of Africa that offered to host the U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, very controversial move, not well supported by civil society, or particularly the Council of Churches and others in Liberia who were not in support of that. So, really, this award, it comes at a challenging moment, probably for the opposition in Liberia, but it also, for many of us who are committed to peace, is a reminder that this should be a clarion call for the President to remember her commitment to long-term peace and justice, not only for the people of Liberia, but for all of the African continent and the world. As Amy Goodman explained, "Emira Woods, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus, Institute for Policy Studies". Foreign Policy in Focus is part of IPS. And the woman lovely Emira was praising? She's in the news today. Tamasin Ford and Bonnie Allen (Guardian) report: The Nobel peace prize winner and president of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, has defended a law that criminalises homosexual acts, saying: "We like ourselves just the way we are." In a joint interview with Tony Blair, who was left looking visibly uncomfortable by her remarks, Sirleaf told the Guardian: "We've got certain traditional values in our society that we would like to preserve." Liberian legislation classes "voluntary sodomy" as a misdemeanour punishable by up to one year in prison, but two new bills have been proposed that would target homosexuality with much tougher sentences. Blair, on a visit to Liberia in his capacity as the founder of the Africa Governance Initiative (AGI), a charity that aims to strengthen African governments, refused to comment on Sirleaf's remarks. Again, were I Foreign Policy in Focus, I'd be begging for forgiveness right now for praising a proud homophobe like Sirleaf. March 5th, we first noted the attacks on the Iraqi youth with "Emo kids in Iraq targeted for death." It's 14 days later and The Nation magazine's never said a damn word about what's taking place. There is a connection -- there are multiple actually -- Katrina vanden Hevuel is an IPS Trustee. And she's editor and publisher of The Nation. It's cute the way they all ignore the LGBT issues, isn't it? Especially Katrina whose family home has many closets -- none of them unoccupied. But if Katrina ever practiced ethical journalism, she'd have to disclose things like being an IPS Trustee. I mean you don't write this lengthy column -- as she did last June -- praising IPS through the roof and 'forget' to disclose your an IPS Trustee unless you're practice the art of concealment. And The Nation ignores the Iraq War today. The war that saw its circulation soar (it's long since crashed). Democracy Now! didn't even note in the headline. According to Democracy Now! back then, the Iraq War started at 9:30 EST, March 19th. But nothing on it today. Nothing at The Progressive on the Iraq War though they do want you to know about Uncle Tom's Cabin being published 160 years ago tomorrow. Tomorrow. We'll link because it's Kevin Alexander Gray. Uprising Radio didn't have time for the Iraq War anniversary today. Nor did In These Times. Those outlets should all be ashamed of themselves. David Swanson's War Is A Crime didn't forget today. Ann Wright has a piece and David Swanson discusses the war in a posted video. You can even include David Swanson's discussion with Lila Garrett on KPFK's Connect the Dots. But that's really it. (Feel free to e-mail -- common_ills@yahoo.com -- if you have some program I've missed. I haven't been by a TV or radio and am going by speed listens over the phone and what Pacifica friends are telling me.) It's handful. Thank goodness for Ann Wright. Thank goodness for David Swanson. But that's really it today. As of right now, Antiwar.com has done NOTHING on Iraq today. Their most recent piece is Margaret Griffis Sunday piece on violence. Lynddie England didn't take the day off from spinning lies. Barack Obama didn't miss a chance to try to make a buck off the illegal war today. But those who supposedly gave a damn, they had others things to do and they are a big reason that not only has the government not gotten honest about the Iraq War but also why so many wars continue to sprout and flourish under a 'peace' president. We'll pick back up on this topic tommorrow. On the latest The State We're In, Jonathan Groubert interviews Safa al-Sultani who plays basketball for the American University in Sulaymaniyah and also the team manager. Jonathan Groubert: And then there was the way Iraqi males viewed Iraqi females running around in shorts and t-shirts Safa al-Sultani: Like, our boys, they grow up in this cultural environment and, as a result, they opposed to something like that, they opposed to something like girls playing basketball or -- Jonathan Groubert: What did they say to you? Safa al-Sultani: Like, "Don't try to act like American girls." Like, you should start thinking more and evaluate if that's really appropriate to be done here. This is the first thing they said. The second thing they said that 'this is unacceptable' so they won't accept -- some won't accept you in our groups because you're doing something like we are opposing to. Jonathan Groubert: And what do you say when they say that to you? Safa al-Sultani: I say, first of all, we are not imitating anyone, this is something that we were wanting to do a long time ago but we didn't have the chance and the opportunity to do it and you'll get used to it with time, deal with it. Jonathan Groubert: And do they accept that? Do they get angry? Safa al-Sultani: They got angry. But actually, they accepted it, after two years or something like that. Jonathan Groubert: The very idea of creating a women's sports team is groundbreaking in and of itself but what makes Safa's team at AUiS really special is that in a country where ethnic differences have meant tension and killing as far back as people can remember, this team is ethnically mixed. Safa al-Sultani: You have Christian, you have Arab Sunni, you have Arab Shi'ite, you have Kurdish, you have Turkoman, you have Sabi -- it's mini-Iraq, you know? Jonathan Groubert: What did you know about other ethnic populations in Iraq? Christians, Kurds, what image did you have of them before going to the AUiS? And let's start with the Kurds. Safa al-Sultani: This one, I was really negative. I was negative because, like, Saddam put this bad image of Kurds people in our heads. Jonathan Groubert: But what exactly is a bad image? What exactly were you thinking? Safa al-Sultani: Okay, the bad image is that they were people who always challenged his power but he didn't present it that way, he presented it as challenging "our" power, and Kurds always want to get Arabs down, like they don't want a good life for them. So, as a result, like naturally you'd grow up and say that Kurd people are bad. Jonathan Groubert: So have there ever been ethnic tensions on the team? Safa al-Sultani: Sure. I won't lie and say that, 'No, there was none.' And I created some of them [laughing] actually. Jonathan Groubert: What do you mean? What did you do? Safa al-Sultani: Like, okay, there was an Arab girl who got hurt and a Kurdish girl of course I would to help the Arab girl first. I would leave the Kurdish one to suffer for a bit. But then I would help her. Of course, this is not the case anymore. I am totally different now, don't get me wrong. But that would happen at the beginning, like there were tensions, we didn't help each other because, I've seen how people treat me out in the street, so I just reflected them and the team and of course that wasn't actually me. Jonathan Groubert: Did you actually see that happen? Like an ethnic conflict between two girls on the team? That you would have to deal with? Safa al-Sultani: It happens while we're playing. Like, 'She kept the ball. Why she kept the ball? Why she didn't give it to me to score?' Like something as simple as that. You know, connected to ethnic background. Jonathan Groubert: Safa had her reasons to be suspicious of others. Her mother is a Sunni politician from Baghdad who was on the governing council in 2004. Her mother and brother were in a car leaving Najaf, a Shi'ite stronghold, when they were ambushed. Safa al-Sultani: And my dad said, let's get out of this house and go to your uncle's house and I was like, 'Okay fine, let's do it.' But I didn't actually know what was happening. But then I was sitting with them in my uncle's house and there on the TV they were saying that my mom, she got in an attack. I was like, "What? No one told me about that." Because they were afraid because they know that I am like really sensitive so they didn't want to do it because they didn't even know what happened, like we didn't know about my brother died until the day after. Jonathan Groubert: I'm so sorry. What happened? Safa al-Sultani: They were on their way from Baghdad to Najaf and they were in their own car and the terrorists who attacked them were like cars and guns, shooting them, and all this stuff happened. iraq the washington post liz sly the new york times tim arango afp prashant rao sherwood ross