NPR, I don't need that

So I'm in the car with my youngest son who I promised I'd let him get a toy (he is scared of the dentist and went with Dona and Jim today to the dentist, they said he was very brave). So we've got All Things Considered on the radio and my son turns to me, during this story, and asks, "Did they just say a dirty word?"

Uh, yeah, they did. And even my kid was shocked. HO?

I don't need to hear that crap, thank you.

If you can't do a report on someone, maybe you don't need to cover them. Maybe Nate Dogg's little more than an element, as opposed to an artist?

I don't know.

But I know I don't want to hear that crap on the radio.

And someone needs to teach Shereen Mergaji the English language. If NPR can't get people on air who know how to speak, they don't deserve any funding. Near the end of her 'report' ("like me" -- that's the basis for her stupid ass report), she says of a bunch of nobodies, "they'll be singing Nate Dogg's hooks long after his death." You say that when they're alive, stupid ass. After they die, you say something like "for years to come."

And, no Shereen, he didn't 'tame' misogynistic lyrics and I don't want to hear another 'report' from NPR that takes the attitude of 'piss on p.c.' In fact, I don't want to hear "p.c." said on NPR.

This was a waste of time.

Maybe Shereen -- and her sister Margareen? -- needs to stick to 'reporting' on bras because she can almost handle that. What an idiot.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, March 16, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US Congress continues to explore the White House's plan to gut the military's medical health care, more whining from the administration about their 'needs' to continue the illegal wars, more mistakes from the New York Times, more deaths from the war, the star witness against Bradley Manning continues to implode publicly, and more. Aswat al-Iraq reports an IED targeted a US military patrol in Basra yesterday and quotes a security source stating, "An IED blew up against a U.S. Army Patrol on the Hamdan Road, 10 kms south of Basra on Tuesday, but caused no human or material damage." The Iraq War continues. US service members remain stationed in Iraq. They remain in danger. Barack didn't end the violence, let alone the war. And they're looking at seeing their health care cut. Yesterday, the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcomittee met to discuss the Military Health System and the Defense Health Cost Program for the Fiscal Year 2012. Subcommittee Chair Joe Wilson observed, "The proposed TRICARE Prime fee increase for Fiscal Year 2012, while appearing to be modest, is a 13% increase over the current rate. The Dept of Defense proposes increasing the fee in the out years based on an inflation index. You suggest 6.2% but it is unclear exactly which index you are using? You plan to reduce the rate that TRIACARE pays Sole Community hospitals for inpatience care provided to our active duty, family members and retirees. Several of these hospitals are located very close to military bases -- in fact, some are right outside the front gates -- especially important for 24-hour emergency care." We'll note these statements by Maine's Chellie Pingree. US House Rep Chellie Pingree: I just want to say again, I understand how well you are all doing your job and the importance of all of you looking for cost efficiencies in what you do as we face a difficult time with the budget deficit and, uh, also where there's a lot of examination of the military budget and looking for places where we can cut. And maybe my first comment is more to my fellow Committee members then to all of you but I might see more places to cut the fat in the military budget than others of my colleagues but I am deeply concerned that we're going after medical care for both our active duty personnel and our retirees when I think there are other places to make more effective cuts. So I know you have to do your job and look for those cuts but almost everything that's before us today, either myself or one of my colleagues has mentioned a concern about, whether it's the changes to TRICARE, how we're going to deal with some of our Sole Community Hospitals I have two in my district, there are four in our state of only 1.2 million people, in a state where we have almost a fifth of our citizens are either active duty or retired military. So there's a very big dependance on this system in our state and I'm worried about that particular program. So for me, many of the efficiencies that you're talking about are going to reduce the level of medical care to people who have served us to whom we have made a huge promise. And there is going to be a -- I think -- a reduction in the services that they receive so I just -- I know you have to do your job but I don't like it and I don't think it's all necessarily good. That was yesterday. This morning the Subcommittee met again. We need to start with remarks by Subcommittee Chair Wilson. Chair Joe Wilson: Yesterday, we had an extraordinary hearing with Dr. Clifford Stanley and and Dr. Jonathan Woodson and Dr. Stanley is special to me, he's a graduate of South Carolina State University, one of the great universities of South Carolina and so I really am frustrated that with their capabilities that the president has named a health -- a military health care czar, the former governor of Maine, John Baldacci. I-I -- we don't need a health care czar. We've got veterans service organizations that can provide this information. And as stewards of the tax payers -- this is not government's money, this is tax payers' money -- $164,000 plus expenses, I think, are being diverted from the military health care system. As he notes, he hit on that yesterday. I was thinking Kat might grab that. I know Baldacci and didn't grab it for that reason. Do we need czars? No, not in this economic climate. Is Wilson correct about $164,000? No. Because Baldacci is not answering his own phones and doing his own filing and doing -- He has a staff. He is not a 'floater,' he has office space. John Baldacci's a hard worker and a nice person. As a czar, he would no doubt do a fine job. But when everything's under attack, the first thing that needs to go are the czars -- all of them. I avoided it because of conflict of interest but I do agree with Wilson that, at a time when needed programs are being cut, the White House needs to get rid of their czars. (All their czars, which may mean my position is more extreme than Wilson's. In yesterday and today's hearings, he only referenced the military health care czar.) Having taken care of that, we'll now address today's hearing. Ranking Member Susan Davis explained, "Today we'll hear first hand from the folks who really make the most difference here, from those who are the beneficiaries of the system and the experience that they are having with the military health care system and their thoughts on the health care proposals put forth by the Dept of Defense. As you alll know, our country is facing difficult economic times and we are now faced with making some hard decisions that will -- that could -- impact the lives of those who are currently serving and those who have served. I know that our beneficiary representatives here today understand the challenges that we face." The Subcommittee heard from Military Officers Association of America's Steve Strobridge, Fleet Reserve Association's Joseph Barnes, National Association of Uniformed Services' Rick Jones, Retired Enlisted Association's Deidre Parke Holleman, National Military Family Association's Kthy Moakler, Reserve Officers Association's Marshall Hanson and US Family Health Plan Alliance's Mary Cooke who attempted to convery the health care needs and how what was being proposed would hurt many, many people. As Rick Jones explained, the Department of Defense plans "to collect $450 million over the next five years from the pockets of 'working age' retirees by raising TRICARE Prime enrollment fees in the first year by 13 percent and in following years by the rate of medical inflation, which is projected by economists to run several points higher than general inflation at a minimum annual pace of 6.2 percent and as high as 10 to 14 percent over the next five years." This is on top of the Defense Dept's plan to increase the costs of co-pay for prescription drugs (for example, an additional $2 for generic drugs, an additional $3 for brand names and an additional $3 for non-formulary medications). Jones pointed out, "While it is true costs for military health care have increased over the past decade, the cause is not, repeat, not military retirees using their earned benefits. The true accelerant for risings costs is the war." Jones noted that for nearly a decade, the US has been waging two costly wars. He pointed out, rightly, that this is a betrayal of a promise, that health care is really not a 'benefit' for the military, it is part of the promise the government makes to those who serve in the military. Attempting to balance the budget on the backs of service members, veterans, retirees and their families is changing the rules once the process has already started and it's not fair. It's also, this is me -- not Jones, disgraceful. How dare you deploy people to war zones and talk your nonsense bumper sticker b.s. about 'support' when you turn around -- and, let's be clear, "you" is the Obama administration -- and then attempt to break the government's word. It's disgraceful and it's shameful and it certainly doesn't make for a good 'recruiting tool.' NAUS' Rick Jones called the proposal "a breach of moral contract." MOAA's Steve Strobridge called for "some statement in law, where there is none presently, that states explicitly that military health care is one of the cruical offsets to the adverse conditions of service -- that it is, in fact, an upfront and very substantial premium payment. And that would help defefeat some of these arguments that people want to devalue the service and only compare cash to cash which, to us, is an apple to orange comparison." We'll note this exchange from the hearing. US House Rep Niki Tsongas: Yesterday in the first of this series of hearings I said that before Congress could increase TRICARE fees for working age retirees, any proposal on the table would have to be proven to minimize impact. It would be inexcusable in my mind to deprive our retired heroes of the health benefits they have earned. I also question the disparate impact of any increases on service members who accrue less annual retirement benefits than others. As you all know, retirement benefits vary greatly depending on a number of factors such as how long a person served and whether they were decorated for extraordinary heroism. The key metric, however, is the rank they hold or held. Retired generals can earn robust, six figure sums in annual retirement benefits whereas enlisted personnel may only earn benefits in the teens. Yesterday, in the first part of this series, I asked Under Secretary Stanley and Assistant Secretary Woodson if the Department had seriously reviewed any proposals for a stepped-increase of TRICARE fees for working age retirees determined on the basis of rank at the time of retirement and retirement benefits earned? Assistant Secretary Woodson answered that the Dept did not consider this proposal because it would be difficult to administer since the Dept would want to take into consideration retirees' other streams of revenue -- a statement I do not agree with. More importantly, though, he stated it was unnecessary in this case because the fee increases that are proposed are modest. But he stated that "if we were proposing large fee increases, I would agree with you strongly." My question then, to all of you, is do you agree or disagree with Dr. Woodson's assessment? And if we could begin with you, Mr. Strobidge. Col Steve Strobridge: Yes, in fact, the Dept did propose tier-increases previously. The military coalition has been unanimus in opposing means-testing. of military benefits. We don't have that for federal civilian health care, the presidents pays the same as the lowest SGS employee One of the concerns, I think, is creating a situation where the longer you serve and the more successful you compete for promotion, the less your benefit is. And we don't think that's a good incentive. But more and more, as I said in my earlier statement, the military benefit package is considered the off-set for the adverse conditions of service. You earn the package mainly by your service. And I-I would have to agree with the answer that was given yesterday: Once you start trying to split, basically what you're saying is, "Who can afford to do what?" And I think they were accurate. Once you start to say, "Who can afford to do what?," you have to -- you have to look at all of your income and then it ultimately drives you to looking at last year's tax return. And to us, we don't think that ought to be based on what kind of job you get as a civilian, we don't think it ought to be based what your spouse's income, or how much you inherited from a parent. Your benefit derives from your service, not from your grade. Regarding the discussion above, it would probably be wise to ask Robert Gates -- who is spear heading the White House's attempt to gut the military benefits -- exactly what his own are. If he's proposing -- and he and the White House are -- that some veterans going into civilian life should be on civilian health care instead of on military health care, the American tax payers have a right to know which benefits Gates is receiving? Is it from his time in the 'Air Force' (Gates didn't serve in the Air Force, he was CIA already when he got his wings -- in fact, Gates is another Chicken Hawk but no one is ever supposed to point that out), it is from his time at the CIA, from his current position, from his college administration positions? If he wants to go after military benefits, he needs to open his hand before the American people and explain exactly what tax payer money he is consuming and how. When we first started noting the Obama administration's plan to gut veterans health care, a number of angry e-mails came in insisting it would never happen. Those e-mails continued even after the May 19, 2010 Senate Veterans Affairs Committee which should have put a rest to the denials from the Cult of St. Barack. Today's hearing was attended by a number of reporters and possibly it will finally get the coverage so that everyone can see just how the administration 'rewards' those who served. And maybe all those working their pet causes with online e-activism might try paying attention to some things actually do matter. NPR and PBS -- both of whom I support -- will get along. I'm a huge abortion rights supporter. Planned Parenthood will survive with cuts. You need to stop wasting your time and your fire on these little minor things. And if you're thinking, "I didn't serve so I don't have to worry," how this fight goes down is the test-run for how the attempt to gut Social Security will go down. Meanwhile Lara Jakes (AP) reports that the State Dept's William Brownfield, visiting Iraq, is whining that the Department budget is being gutted. The $1 billion they want for Iraq's "police and legal system" next year may not be approved, that this was "one of the oddest budget years" he'd seen (boo-hoo!) and that making cuts will jeopardize security in Iraq -- what security? First off, what gains? There are no gains, there's just the US propping up an illegitmate puppet who attacks his own people. There are no gains. And at a time when the people of the United States are being asked to give up this and give up that, it's past damn time that the Obama administration grasped they better get a little damn skin in the game as well. They can start by ending the silly functions at the White House. In this economy, it is in poor taste to entertain in the manner they have. A lack of taste doesn't excuse their inability to grasp that they need to show a little more restraint. Restraint would mean giving up your czars, your fly-in-from-Chicago trainer and much, much more. Nancy Reagan was crucified for doing much less than Michelle Obama has done (and I remember because I was one of the loudest critics of Nancy Reagan). Barack said he'd end the war (with footnotes but what Americans heard was he'd end the Iraq War). He hasn't done that. He wants to throw billions more to prop up the petty dicator first-installed by the Bush administration and now re-installed by Barack's. Why? Because Nouri will let the US stay. That was the agreement made. If that's hard to grasp, it may be hard to grasp in part because so few can get their basic facts correct. For example, Jack Healy and Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) offer, "President Obama, Mr. Maliki and top American officials have consistently said that all American soldiers will be out of Iraq by the end of the year, a departure specified in a security agreement signed by both countries in 2008." Forget Barack, he doesn't do a damn thing with Iraq. He tasked it to Samantha Power a week after the 2008 elections. Within the White House, Joe Biden is his point-person. Joe Biden has stated publicly -- many times -- that the US would like a new agreement and like to stay. If the reporters (and editor) of the New York Times need help, they can start by searching the archives of The NewsHour (PBS). Robert Gates, James Jeffrey and many, many more have made public statements about the US military remaining in Iraq past 2011. If that's confusing to the reporters and their editor, they can search their own paper's archives. We've covered all that repeatedly. I don't have time to spoon feed. We have spent less time covering Nouri on this. So let's get to Nouri. July 23, 2009, here's video of Nouri stating, "Nevertheless if the Iraqi forces require further training and support in the future we will examine that [US forces staying in Iraq past 2011] then based on the needs of Iraq. March 4, 2010, CNN reported: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has left open the possibility of asking U.S. forces to stay in Iraq longer than planned, depending on the security situation and the readiness of Iraqi troops. In an exclusive interview Thursday, CNN's Arwa Damon asked the prime minster whether he would ask the United States to extend any of its deadlines for withdrawing troops. "This depends on the future, on whether the established Iraqi army and police would be enough or not," he said, "so this issue is depending on the developments of the circumstances, and regulated by the Strategic Framework Agreement between the United States and Iraq." We can do this all damn day. In fact, let's drop back to the video statement. Need text of it? Then see Margaret Talev's "Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" (McClatchy Newspapers) and Anne Gearan coverd al-Maliki's remarks for AP. From the July 23rd snapshot: Does no one listen to Adm Mike Mullen, Gen Ray Odierno or even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Reading the articles today, it doesn't appear that anyone does. Uh-oh. Reality slaps them in the face. Aljazeera reports, "The Iraqi prime minister has admitted US troops could stay in the country beyond 2011." Yeah, he did it today and it's only a surprise if you've never grasped what the Status Of Forces Agrement does and does not do. The Washington Post, for example, has one person on staff who understands the SOFA completely. That's one more than the New York Times has. Drop back to real time coverage (Thanksgiving 2008) and you'll see the Washington Post could explain what it did and didn't do and get it right. No other US outlet can make that claim. (The Los Angeles Times hedged their bets but did appear to grasp it in an article co-written by Tina Susman.) McClatchy Newspapers? Oh goodness, Leila Fadel made an idiot of herself over the SOFA. Even more so than the New York Times (Elisabeth Bumiller -- in December and January -- offered some realities but they were lost on the other reporters at the paper). The Times just got it wrong. Fadel got it wrong and sang praises of it. It wasn't reporting, it was column writing passed off as such. Today, Nouri declared, "Nevertheless, if the Iraqis require further training and support we shall examine this at the time, based on the needs of Iraq." Sound familiar? It should. This month you should have heard Adm Mike Mullen make the same statement, you should have heard General Ray Odierno make it over and over beginning in May and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made it many times -- generally he's asked when he's visiting a foreign country because US reporters don't really seem to care. So the Times reporters today are wrong, completely wrong, it's a gross factual error -- and not the only one in their report. That's what happens when you send your A-team out of Iraq. And I think the paper may be feeling, "Oops we shouldn't have done that." No, you shouldn't have. At the time of the annivesary of the Iraq War, there was no need or reason to send your strongest Iraq reporters currently to Libya. And, now that they're missing the paper may be grasping that. Today the White House issued the following: The Vice President chaired a monthly Cabinet-level meeting today to discuss the current political, economic, and security situation in Iraq. Attendees included Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jacob Lew, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, and senior officials from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Energy, and Homeland Security; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; the Office of the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations; and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Ambassador Jim Jeffrey and General Lloyd Austin participated by video conference. The discussion included an update on the status of implementation of outstanding agreements related to government formation. The principals noted that the levels of violence remain at historic lows in Iraq and that Iraqi Security Forces are capably providing security for the country. They also discussed provision of U.S. technical and policy support for the economic and energy sectors pursuant to the Strategic Framework Agreement between the United States and Iraq. Today Kirkuk has been slammed with a car bombing. AFP reports that at least twenty-two people are injured and 1 woman is dead. In an update, AFP quotes Kirkuk police Gen Adel Zinalabedine stating that the number wounded has risen to thirty-three and that, "The car bombing outside the hospital killed a 35-year-old mother and her baby daughter. She had given birth this morning and was leaving the hospital." Some reports (including Lara Jakes', state the baby was four months old.) Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds that the wounded includes seven police officers. Kirkuk is not only oil-rich, it is also disputed with the KRG claiming it is their land and the central government or 'government' out of Baghdad claiming it belongs to them. Aswat al-Iraq quotes Brigadier Sarhad Qader stating that the bomb was "targeted against the Director of Kirkuk's Water Office, Abdul-Qader Mohammed Amin." Just yesterday AFP reported that Kirkuk's provinical council head Rizkar Ali Hamma had announced he quit his post citing the "lack of solutions for Kirkuk" and that this was followed by the governor of Kirkuk, Abdul Rahman Mustapha, stating he would do the same in the coming days. The issue of Kirkuk has long been divisive -- so much so, that the 2005 Constitution (which Iraq now operates under -- or is supposed to) addressed the issue. Per the Constitution, a census was supposed to be taken of the region and a referendum held. That was supposed to take place by 2007. 2007 came and went. Nouri al-Maliki was prime minister then. He became prime minister in the spring of 2006. He didn't meet the deadline. When the Democrats won control of both houses in the US Congress and began making noises about ending the war, the White House (Bush administration) came up with a list of benchmarks that Iraq would meet to show progress. If Iraq didn't meet those benchmarks, funding was supposed to cease. Nouri agreed to the benchmarks and then ignored them. Kirkuk was one of the benchmarks. Never met but the funding continued. In the lead up to the last provincial elections, Nouri was promising the issue would be delt with (January 2009 was when those provincial elections were held). Didn't happen. Most recently, while attempting to secure the post of prime minister for more four years, Nouri was insisting that the census would be held in December 2010. Days before it was time for the census, and just a little while after he was named prime minister-designate, Nouri called off the census. It's 2011. The Constitutionally mandated census and referendum is four years overdue. Meanwhile Iraq remains without a full Cabinet and the posts of Minister of the Interior, Minister of Defense and Minister of National Security remain empty. The March 7, 2010 elections were supposed to determine Iraq's next government and, over a year later, there's still no fully staffed Cabinet. Security positions might be considered important at a time when the violence is on the rise (31 people are said to have died last week). Aswat al-Iraq reports that MP Hussein al-Safi is stating Nouri will make his nominations for the empty posts to Parliament tomorrow and "the National Coalition had supported the nomination of Ahmed al-Chalaby for the Interior Minister's post and Riyadh Gharib for the National Security Minister's post, whilst al-Iraqiya Coalition (led by Iyad Allawi), had finalized its decision to nominate Khalid al-Obeidy for the Defense Minister's post." Maybe tomorrow will be the day? Equally true, that day has supposedly been coming over and over and over for months now. New Sabah also reports that al-Obeidi will be nominated for Minister of Defense. Dar Addustour reports all the same nominees -- not just al-Obeidi -- and notes that al-Obeidi was a commander in the Iraqi army and is now a professor at the University of Mosul. While three may or may not be named tomorrow, Ayas Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports on what appears to be efforts to oust Mohammed Tamim as Minister of Education. News of the ration card system appears to be bad and David Ali (Al Mada) reports the biggest threat to the program is officials who do not know how to properly store the goods which is allowing much of it to spoil. Turning to the US, the case against Bradley Manning may be getting even weaker. Attention seeking Adrian Lamo, the convicted felon, has given an interview with Al Jaeera (video only) where he comes off even more stupid than before and also as stoned. I'm not speaking of his Asperger's, that's not what's coming through in the video. What's coming through is someone struggling to maintain some limited connection with reality. If it goes to trial, Llamo's going to be hilarious on the stand, especially trying to defend statements made in interviews like this one. The US government has used convicted felon Llamo to make their case for them in the court of public opinion. Don't be surprised if they don't put him back in the institution for a little 'tune up' real soon because even the meds he's on -- and he's on a lot meds -- aren't allowing him to maintain at a functioning level. (I know what Asperger's is. I have not raised that issue with regards to Llamo. I'm not referring now to the fact that he has Asperger's. I'm referring to the fact that is drug cocktails -- unrelated to his Asperger's -- are no longer working. Lithium, for example, is not a treatment for Asperger's.) An incoherent, clearly stoned, convicted felon rambles through a taped interview revealing extreme psychosis and that's what the government plans to put on the stand? Llamo's been unraveling in public for some time, but it's now undeniable and that interview may have sealed the deal on him coming across as unreliable witness as he stretches and stretches to meet his own self-delusions of grandeur. (The clinical term would be megalomania.) When your case is weak, you try to scare the defendant, you try to frighten them, pressure them, force them. And when you're the federal government? Then that bullying goes far beyond a police interrogation room. Which is why Bradley's being tortured. As psychiatric expert Terry A. Kupers points out at CNN, what the federal government is doing to Bradley is torturing him: Manning is a pretrial detainee. The Constitution requires that innocence be assumed until guilt is proved, and that the defendant in criminal proceedings be provided with the wherewithal to participate in his legal defense. The Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment, and repeatedly, U.S. courts have found that overly harsh conditions of isolation and the denial of mental health treatment to a needy prisoner are Eighth Amendment violations. In international circles, for example, according to the U.N. Convention Against Torture (the United States is a signatory), the same violations of human rights are termed torture. Clearly, Manning's treatment violates these constitutional guarantees and international prohibitions against torture. Why? Have we permitted our government, under the cloak of security precautions, to set up a secret gulag where conditions known to cause severe psychiatric damage prevail? As a concerned psychiatrist, I strenuously object to this callousness about conditions of confinement that predictably cause such severe harm. Ed Pilkington (Guardian) notes Physicans for Human Rights is speaking out against the way Bradley's being treated and military doctors participating in it. Dr. Susan McNamara is quoted stating of what's being done to Bradley, "That is a huge problem, as it is designed to break a person down psychologically. Solitary confinement is a form of sensory deprivtaion, and if you are depriving a person of the human contact they need that can amount to torture. In the US, if a patient was treated in a psychiatric hospital in the same way the military is treating Manning, the federal government would stamp all over it." The White House fired Philip J. Crowley, State Dept spokesperson, over the weekend because he spoke out against the treatment of Bradley. US House Rep Earl Blumenauer shared his opinion on Twitter, "Outrageous - PJ Crowley leaving State Department for saying the truth about treatment of Bradley Manning. Obama needs to fix this." In the United States, the eighth anniversary will be marked with protests. A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in these action: March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries. The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war. While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people. Actions of civil resistance are spreading. On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C. Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine. Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. Click this link to endorse the March 19, 2011, Call to Action. And, I'm sorry, I was hoping to get to the topic of Iraqi women. But, like rushing to the joint-hearing of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee this morning, after the House Armed Service Subcomittee Hearing ended, and thinking I'd be able to catch it as well, there just wasn't time. (I walked in as US House Rep Phil Roe was explaining he lived one mile away from a VA hospital so he got a lot of input on VA issues just in his neighborhood. And then he adjourned the hearing.) I'll try for it tomorrow. My apologies. iraq afp cnn mohammed tawfeeq aswat al-iraq new sabah dar addustour al mada ayas hossam acommok david ali the new york times jack healy michael s. schmidt

Realities

"Sukiyaki At Winters End" (Hillary Is 44):

After a campaign spewing misogyny and stirring up sexism, Obama on Saturday tried to bamboozle with an oddly timed “Women’s History Month” dump of words. On Friday, it was a publicity stunt with the Stanley Cup winning Chicago Blackhawks. Americans know a lot is wrong:

“Confidence in the U.S. system of government has dropped to a new low in more than 35 years, with public attitudes burdened by continued economic discontent, soaring gasoline prices, record opposition to the war in Afghanistan — and a letdown in hopes for political progress after a bout of bipartisanship last fall.

Only 26 percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’re optimistic about “our system of government and how well it works,” down 7 points since October to the fewest in surveys dating to 1974. Almost as many, 23 percent, are pessimistic, the closest these measures ever have come. The rest, a record high, are “uncertain” about the system.”

False hope, like a fast car without brakes, eventually leads to kissing the brick wall of reality.

A Rasmussen poll reports that it is all over for Obama’s health scam as Americans say “no”:

“Support for repeal of the national health care law has reached its highest level since May of last year. The number of voters who believe the plan will increase the cost of care has tied its highest level since the law’s passage last March.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 62% favor repeal of the health care law, including 51% who Strongly Favor it. Only 33% of voters oppose repeal, with 24% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Support for repeal is at a 10-month high, with the number that Strongly Favors repeal at its highest level to date.”

It’s not just Obama’s health scam that might get repealed:

Hillary Is 44's mouth to God's ears. Life would be so much better without ObamaCare. Ann took on the increasingly stupid John Conyers with "Someone needs to retire" last night. Conyers -- who damn well should know better -- is trying to spin ObamaCare as something good.

Conyers has spent how many years, how many decades, advocating for universal single-payer? And he wants us to believe that the corporatist give away known as ObamaCare is a good thing?

Well he thought he could play the okey-doke on us with impeachment of Bush too, remember?

All that, "I will impeach." And he lied. He was cowed by Pelosi.

Then to save face, he started insisting that he could impeach after Bush was out of office and that he would.

And nothing came of that either.

John Conyers has been caught in one too many lies and now that he's over 80-years-old, it's really past time for him to retire.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, March 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, journalists and activists hold a press conference in Baghdad to draw attention to the abuse and torture conducted by Iraqi forces, US House Rep Chellie Pingree notes, "I am deeply concerned that we're going after medical care for both our active duty personnel and our retirees when I think there are other places to make more effective cuts" and more. Kutaiba Hamid (Al Mada) reports that a press conference was held yesterday by the February Youth Movement (young Iraqi activists) at the Women's Association Hall in Baghdad to detail the way Iraqi forces are torturing protesters and journalists. Journalist Ali Abdul-Zahra was taken by Iraqi forces after covering the protests earlier this month. He and three youth protesters were taken to the Eight Brigade's Baghdad headquarters where they were all four tortured with wooden sticks and electrical wires. Hanaa Edwar noted that if they do not stand up to it now, it will be the normal and it will effect every Iraqi. Youth protester Shawkat al-Bayati stated that the press conference was not about demands but about putting into the light these abuses. He likened the current conduct to that of the previous regime (Saddam Hussein's). New Sabbah covers the press conference and notes that the activists called for an end to silence. Youth activist and bodybuilder Mohammed Kazem David spoke of how he was pounced upon by two security forces who stated they were with the intelligence division of the Ministry of the Interior and they forced him to sign a statement after they tortured him, doing damage to his leg, to his ear and tearing ligaments in both of his hands. In another report, Kutaiba Hamid (Al Mada) details Ali Abdul-Zahra's statements which note, "Without any charge against me and without any court order, I was held just for covering the demonstration, being present as a reporter. At half past noon, I was detained on Saadoun Street and after I had identified myself and explained I was a journalist, I was informed this would not help me." Along with others, he was taken to the Eight Brigade-Third Regiment and then to another regiment. "They beat us and they took photos of us and a colonel told the soldiers to get the [electric] cables while the soldiers beat us on the sensitive parts of our bodies and insulted us in vulgar terms, calling us homosexuals. The Colonel told us, 'You want democracy and freedom, I'll show you democracy and freedom.'" And the beating continued. In other Iraq protest news, New Sabah reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani declared yesterday he will not meet with any government official until the demands of the protesters are met. He did meet with a member of the National Alliance on Friday; however, that visit was supposed to be based on passing on medical news. Al Mada adds that al-Sistani reportedly refused Ibrahim al-Jaafari (also of the National Alliance and a former prime minister of the country). Meanwhile Ali Hussein (Al Mada) pens an opinion piece warning that Saleh al-Mutlaq (Iraqiya) cannot be trusted and that, basically, al-Mutlaq offers meaningless crocodile tears for the protesters because he is part of the problem that created Iraq's current climate. As you read about the torture of protesters and journalists by Iraqi forces, you may wonder why the hell the US is still in Iraq? You may wonder it more if you read this article from Al Mada which explains that Mark Meevid with the US Embassy in Baghdad has explained on Al Sumaria TV that the US will do nothing to protect Iraqis from arrests or torture. Why is the US staying in Iraq? Why are Robert Gates, James Jeffrey, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama insisting billions are needed for this year (and for the next ten -- though the press has trouble reporting that, doesn't it?)? What's the point of it? Is the US supposed to be propping up a government they know is guilty of widespread abuse? Are US tax payers supposed to pay for that? Last week, Kelley B. Vlahos offered "Iraqi Protests Make Washington Squirm" (Antiwar.com) and discussed Iraq on Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton. Excerpt: Kelley B. Vlahos: And like I mentioned earlier, we helped Maliki basically destroy his political enemies through systematic, sort of ethnic cleansing and superior fire power. I mean, I remember going and seeing David Petraeus talk about how we won the surge and basically it was basically unleashing the mighty forces of superior US firepower on Baghdad, unlike anything that those people have ever seen and so basically we just pummeled the crap out of Iraq, out of the Sunnis, out of Sadr City and basically brought all of Maliki's enemies to heel so that he could basically create a central government with all the powers that came with and he's become an authoritarian strongman there. And now we're seeing his real, true colors come to be through these protests. And one way this is actually a good thing is it basically tears the veneer off of everything that we've been saying about what we've done over there and trying to do. It basically shows Maliki for who he really is and what's been going on there while the media has been ignoring it these past two years. That's where the money has gone, in protecting the US-installed puppet. And, more bad news, while puppet Nouri has denied repeatedly the existence of secret prisons, Dar Addustour reports that members of Parliament's Commission Human Rights visited a secret prison in the Green Zone and are calling for it to be closed -- many of the prisoners have been held for years. The secret prisons still going on were noted this year by it's Ned Parker, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Nouri's response to the revelations? Deny, deny, deny. The last one I'm aware of was on February 6th, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported, "The Iraqi government on Sunday denied a human rights organization's allegation that it has a secret detention center in Baghdad, run by Prime Minister Nur al-Maliki's security forces." The report then quoted Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi stating, "We don't nkow how such a respectable organization like Human Rights Watch is able to report such lies." The secret prisons and secret detentions helped spark the first protests of 2011 in Iraq, especially the ones featuring attorneys in three cities (Baghdad, Basra and Mosul). Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) broke the story of the secret prisons in Iraq and how they were run by Nouri's security forces, the Baghdad Brigade -- and how the Brigade was behind the prison he and the paper exposed in April 2010. Today Raheem Salman and Salar Jaffe (Los Angeles Times) note, "The jail in Baghdad's high-security Green Zone, called Camp Honor, fell under the nominal supervision of the Justice Ministry. But it was actually controlled by two elite security branches affiliated with Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's military office, the Baghdad Brigade and Counter-Terrorism Bureau. [. . .] After a scandal last spring over a secret prison at another military base, Maliki ordered that Camp Honor should be opened to detainees' families and lawyers. Instead, the jail remained closed to visitors and allegations of abuse emerged in late January in reports by the Times and Human Rights Watch." AP reports that the Minister of Justice's spokesperson is stating that "Camp Honor" will be shut down. New Sabbah quotes the spokesperson stating that the prison runs "contrary to international human rights standards." Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) examines Nouri's 100-days 'till reform pose and speaks with various experts who say the idea that any serious reform will be done is unbelievable leading Ibrahim to conclude that Nouri's made a few for-show measures to buy some time and to ditch some Cabinet ministers: "From the outset, he has said he was not satisfied with the cabinet, complaining he was forced to acept some ministers to win the blessing of parliament. The protests effectively give him an opportunity to revist the coalition agrement, blame ministers for Iraq's woes, and replace them." Mayada al-Askari (Gulf News) examines recent events and finds a country that is in real trouble: The country is simmering with anger while Al Maliki and his bloc are playing politics on a two way street. On the one hand, Al Maliki is assuming all the authority, and on the other, he is pressing all the other blocs' representatives to come up with solutions related to corruption and ill-management, a task which he alone controls. Regulatory authorities, the central bank and other vital bodies, which are supposed to hold the prime minister and his government accountable for its deeds (or misdeeds if you please) are all under Al Maliki, which seems very odd in a democracy which has come after 35 years of blood, sweat and tears. There are also stories of Iraqi prisoners telling human rights' groups about the existence of secret jails -- something that runs against Iraq's Constitution. Members of Iraqi Parliament no longer have the power to propose legislation. Instead, all new laws have to be proposed by the cabinet or the country's president and then passed on to parliament for a vote. New Sabbah reports that the Parliament has just discovered 22 billion dinars has vanished in various cities in various provinces. David Ali (Al Mada) reports that bickering plagues Parliament. Zainab Suncor (Al Mada) adds that the al-Sadr bloc in Parliament is blocking the move to create three vice presidents. Iraq still has no official vice presidents. An attempt by Jalal Talabani to create four positions was blocked by the Parliament (his fourth would have been a female Turkman). With that shot down, now it appears the three vice presidents plan is shot down as well. Which may mean that they will stick with naming just two. You would think this could have been established long ago, during the long, long political stalemate, for example. The long, long pattern of violence continues. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing injured five people, 2 Baghdad roadside bombings (one after the other) injured seven people, a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured two police officer, a Falluja bombing targeting police officers (their homes) which left one police officer and two girls injured, 5 Yazidis were kidnapped in Baaj by assailants wearing "military uniforms using civilian cars," and, after being injured by Syrian border guards, 1 man passed away in Mosul. On the Yazidi kidnapping, Aswat al-Iraq adds that three cars were attacked and the men pulled from them but women in the cars were left alone. "Today the Subcomittee meets to hear testimony on the Military Health System and the Defense Health Cost Program for the Fiscal Year 2012," declared US House Rep Joe Wilson as he brought to order the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcomittee hearing this morning. Subcommittee Chair Wilson noted his recent trips to Afghanistan and Iraq, his Iraq War veteran son and his Iraq War veteran nephew. He then stressed, "Even in this tight fiscal environment, the Military Health System must continue to provide world class health care to our beneficiaries. Even in this tight fiscal environment, the Military Health System must continue to provide world class health care to our beneficiaries and remain strong and viable in order to maintain that commitment to future beneficiaries." Must continue to? When has that ever been a doubt? Travel back with us to May 19, 2010 when the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee heard testimony from the VA's Associate Deputy Under Secretary Thomas J. Pamperin: Senator Scott Brown: I'm wondering if you could just tell me what benefits might be at risk at this point and time? Any specific issues that we need to focus on that we're missing or falling through the cracks? Thomas Pamperin: Benefits that are currently being delivered that might be taken away? Senator Scott Brown: Right. Things that we -- that you're saying, "You know what? We got to keep our eye on this." Thomas Pamperin: Uh - uh, we'd be glad to - to give you a more extensive response in - in the future. Uh . . . My - my concern is that the nation clearly -- Senator Scott Brown: Can I interrupt just for a second? As noted in that day's snapshot (in addition Wally covered the hearing at Rebecca's site), people needed to hear an answer to the question but before the answer was provided, Brown was cutting off Pamperin -- intentionally or not, you'd have to ask Brown -- and America, for a brief moment, may have realized that even veterans care wasn't safe under the current government. If they did, they might have wished (as we did at Third) that Brown had kept his mouth closed and allowed Pamperin to finish his statement. Instead, nearly a year later we learn that, in Subcommitte Chair Wilson's words: The proposed TRICARE Prime fee increase for Fiscal Year 2012, while appearing to be modest, is a 13% increase over the current rate. The Dept of Defense proposes increasing the fee in the out years based on an inflation index. You suggest 6.2% but it is unclear exactly which index you are using? You plan to reduce the rate that TRICARE pays Sole Community Hospitals for inpatient care provided to our active duty, family members and retirees. Several of these hospitals are located very close to military bases -- in fact, some are right outside the front gates -- especially important for 24-hour emergency care. What analysis have you done to determine whether reducing these rates will affect access to care for our beneficiaries and in particular the readiness of our armed forces? I would also like our witnesses to discuss the range of efficiency options that were considered but not included in the President's budget. There were four witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee: DoD's Cliff Stanley, Jonathan Woodson, Army Surgeon General Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker, Navy Surgeon General Vice Adm Adam Robinson and Air Force Surgeon General Lt Gen Charles Green. In 2003 and 2004, attempts by the Bush adminstration to slash veterans benefits was big news. This administration is going after active duty. This is the Armed Services Committee, not the Veterans Committee. These are the active duty personnel who can be -- and often are -- deployed to the current wars. We'll note this exchange near the end of the hearing. US House Rep Chellie Pingree: I just want to say again, I understand how well you are all doing your job and the importance of all of you looking for cost efficiencies in what you do as we face a difficult time with the budget deficit and, uh, also where there's a lot of examination of the military budget and looking for places where we can cut. And maybe my first comment is more to my fellow Committee members then to all of you but I might see more places to cut the fat in the military budget than others of my colleagues but I am deeply concerned that we're going after medical care for both our active duty personnel and our retirees when I think there are other places to make more effective cuts. So I know you have to do your job and look for those cuts but almost everything that's before us today, either myself or one of my colleagues has mentioned a concern about, whether it's the changes to TRICARE, how we're going to deal with some of our Sole Community Hospitals I have two in my district, there are four in our state of only 1.2 million people, in a state where we have almost a fifth of our citizens are either active duty or retired military. So there's a very big dependance on this system in our state and I'm worried about that particular program. So for me, many of the efficiencies that you're talking about are going to reduce the level of medical care to people who have served us to whom we have made a huge promise. And there is going to be a -- I think -- a reduction in the services that they receive so I just -- I know you have to do your job but I don't like it and I don't think it's all necessarily good. And the only other program that hasn't been brought up today that I might ask you to comment on is the pharmacy co-pay. I've seen a little bit about that and know that some of the co-pays will be reduced through using mail order pharmacies. I have concerns about that as well because I do believe people get better care when they go directly to a pharmacist in their community, that's where we catch a lot of redundancies or problems with the medications that people are taking particularly with retirees. So, in my opinion, having to go with mail order to get your pharmaceutical products is not always good treatment or good service. And one of the things I might ask is how much the Department is doing to negotiate for better prices with the pharmaceutical companies in bringing costs down in that way as opposed to this other option. That was my question. If you've got any comments about that. Asst Sec of Defense Jonathan Woodson: Uh -- we continue to have efforts to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. I think that in fact the mail order advances care because, uh, there's a large percentage of retail prescriptions that are never picked up and there's breaks in terms of, uh-uh, the supply of medications. Our proposal not only reduces the cost but it ensures timely supply of medicines and, of course, linked with our concept of the patient-centered home, they have a team of health care providers that can counsel, coach, monitor their medicines. We have new electronic -- electronic data bases that highlight, uh, medication, medication interactions and notify, uh, pracitioners of, uh, medications that may be unsafe. So I think there are a number of things that we're doing that are, uh, are going to enchance the quality of care while reduce the costs and provide a better service for the beneficiaries. US House Rep Chellie Pingree: I appreciate your perspective on that. That's - that's useful information in thinking about the program. Uh, back to the question of negotiating, is that an active activity that goes on today to negotiate for cost-cutting. We-we still continue to pay some of the highest prices in the world in this country for prescription drugs and I know the military has done a better job of bringing down the costs but I just I wonder how engaged we are in the process and I wonder how much resistance there is to it? Lt Gen Eric Shoomaker: Ma'am, I'm told that's a commodity that's managed through the Defense Logistic Agency and the center in Philadelphia and I'm told that the Dept of Defense has some of the most favorable cost profiles of any organization in the United States because of our -- because of levarging and volume. An issue raised was the Pentagon's hiring of a consultant to conduct a year long study and US House Rep Walter Jones seemed to speak for many when he noted the endless studies while people wait and wait and for help. Walter Jones: My question, in just a moment, will be for you Adm Robinson. I appreciated the question by Congressman West. I remember 10 years ago, I think I was briefed by Dr. [Paul] Harch from LSU about hyperbaric oxygen as a treatment for our head wounds. And I know I had a conversation a couple years ago, I cannot remember the Air Force officer, about where the research is going. And I appreciate your statement, Gen Schoomaker, uh, that, uh -- My concern or interest is this Adm Robinson, I know that -- I want to thank Adm Mullen. Quite frankly, I brought this up at a full hearing about a year ago about a hyperbaric chamber down at Camp Lejeune, we do have one at Camp Lejeune. And I believe that they're in the process now of preparing to be part of a pilot program to treat Marines down at Camp Lejeune, which I am very grateful for. Help me understand when -- and I understand the need for studies, please understand, I do realize they are very, very important -- but when would the military get to a point after the study by the Air Force, maybe the Army, I don't know that, maybe the Navy as well? When do you get to the point that the study says -- and I'll tell you why and then I'm going to let you answer -- I've called numerous Moms and Dads whose sons and a couple of daughters had been in the hyperbaric chamber or treatment. One that really sticks with me -- and I want to use this and then you answer, please sir -- I called Col [George E.] "Bud" Day -- he's a Marine, won the Medal of Honor in Vietnam -- called and he told me his grandson had a severe brain injury from Iraq, I believe, at the time and he was just not satisfied with the treatment and as his own expense he sent his grandson to LSU to Dr. Harch and, I never will forget, Col Day said to me, "I'll go anywhere I need to go to testify that this treatment has given my grandson a quality of life that he would never have had if he had not had the hyperbaric treatment." So now -- this was the question I had just a moment ago -- when do we get to the point that we say -- meaning the Dept of Defense -- that this protocol does help, it does work? Vice Adm Adam Robinson: Congressman Jones, thanks for the question. This has been for me, as Surgeon General of the Navy, a four year question. We have looked at hyperbaric oxygen and Dr. Harsh who has been at several meetings -- and I've met him many times and looked at his results -- we've invited him to come through and participate in our double-blinded studies so that we can get away from the anecdotal results of individual patients, families and other anecdotal lessons and we can get down to what we have to have from an objective and definitive way so that we can base clinical practice guidelines both for the military health system and also for the private section. We need to base those therapies on objective clinical data that cannot be influenced by opinions of people who have benefited but we can't prove that benefit in a scientific way. So we need to employ a scientific method. What we have done -- and I can say that after --in my fourth year as Surgeon General -- we now have studies, we're now beginning to produce data from-from compentent studies that look at, number one, hyperbaric oxygen seems to be safe. So I think that that is a -- that is a clear improvement in terms of our knowledge. And now we need to go and look more deeply at the Air Force study and that study has been completed but the analysis has not been done. So I think we're very, very close to getting more data. I think when we can get some studies on the record that actually look at the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, I think at that point we can say that is an effective treatment, it is not an effective treatment but it is a treatment that can be utilized in complimentary medical ways so that the people who may benefit from it can use it it's certainly not going to harm them. We will have an array of answers I think we are literally months away from getting there but it normally takes -- and this is one of the issues with medicine -- it normally takes time to get to where we need to be and we have to base it on a scientific method in order to keep from having everything become a clinical practice guideline -- things that are not proven. So the scientific method is being utilized in this way. There will be protests in the US next weekend. A big one in DC and protests around the country. If you are in NYC or the surrounding area, you might consider this one that Joan Wile is the founder of Grandmothers Against the War and has written the book Grandmothers Against the War: Getting Off Our Fannies and Standing Up for Peace. She and others will be taking part in a peace celebration Sunday: It's encouraging to see the people uprisings abroad and in our own country. The Egypt revolt really sparked something, and, on its revolutionary heels, the workers of Wisconsin came to life and fought Gov. Walker's efforts to strip them of their rights. People in other states being subjected to the same onslaught rose into action, also. It seems as if we might be on the cusp of meaningful fightback in the U.S. against the new robber barons who don't give a damn about you and me but are only interested in swelling their over-bloated portfolios to even greater obscene proportions. This is a supremely opportune time to apply this welcome surge of People Power to the anti-war movement. We in the peace movement who have been conducting our futile struggle for almost 8 years to prevent, then end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, must grab this moment to pursue our cause with greater force. This does not take anything away from the battle to protect workers rights -- to the contrary, it is a wonderful support. Bring the troops and the war dollars home, and fix our broken economy. Remove all justification that way for cutting benefits and salaries -- then, the greedy scoundrels would have no rationale for busting the unions. Accordingly, I urge all those within travel distance of New York City who will not be going to the Washington rally on March 19 to attend our adjunct protest on the same day, coordinated by the local Chapter 34 of the Veterans for Peace and by Grandmothers Against the War. As we did on Dec. 16 in support of that day's protest at the White House, we will meet at the Times Square recruiting station at 5:00 pm. In December, 131 people were arrested in D.C. and 11 of us were arrested in New York. We will again carry out non-violent civil disobedience in our continuing efforts to thereby keep the issue alive and, hopefully, to nudge the sleeping citizenry with the urgent need to end these immoral and tragic wars. Let's turn out in massive numbers in Washington and in the Big Apple. They are doing it in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and other locales. We can, we must, get out on the streets, too, and finally stop the killing! DATE AND TIME: 5-6 pm, Sat., March 19 PLACE: Times Square recruiting station, Broadway at 44th St. SPEECHES BY PEACE LEADERS, ENTERTAINMENT AND NON-VIOLENT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE endorsed by Big Apple Coffee Party; Brooklyn For Peace; Catholic Workers; Chelsea Neighbors United to End the War; Grandmothers Against the War; Granny Peace Brigade; Gray Panthers; Pax Christie of Metro New York; Peace Action Bay Ridge Interfaith Peace Coalition; Peace Action Manhattan; Raging Grannies; Veterans for Peace Chapter 34 (NYC); War Resisters League In addition to that event, A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in these action: March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries. The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war. While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people. Actions of civil resistance are spreading. On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C. Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine. Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. Click this link to endorse the March 19, 2011, Call to Action. We'll cover this tomorrow. iraq al mada kutaiba hamid new sabah ali hussein david ali zainab suncor dar addustour kelley b. vlahos antiwar.com scott horton reuters muhanad mohammed waleed ibrahim amnesty international the los angeles times ned parker human rights watch joan wile

Yearbook photo

"Obama Reacts With Vigor To World Meltdown" (Hillary Is 44):

Once assured that his Saturday night festivities appeared on schedule, it was time for the real priority:

“President Obama just could not wait for spring weather to arrive.

For the second week in a row, the most powerful man in the world stepped away from the White House to hit the golf course.

Even as his administration and the U.S. military help Japan recover from a devastating earthquake, and as the world worries about Fukushima’s nuclear reactor, the president could not resist taking advantage of the 48-degree weather in the Washington, D.C., area. [snip]

With cloudy skies, it’s not the best weather for golf, but Obama loves to spend his Saturdays on the greens. Last fall, Obama went golfing darn near every weekend.

These are never quick “work on your swing” trips; usually the president plays 18 holes, as he did last week.”

Recently Jay Clown, er Carney, recently explained that Obama had not spoken out about Libya because his schedule was so booked, there was no time. A concerned citizen asked:

“Japan, a friend to our country, is underwater, in flames, and likely facing nuclear meltdown(s) at their power plants. Our President will be ucking it up with Washington reporters today. I wonder if President Bush did this, would the media ignore the lack of leadership and poor taste displayed?”

I was going to call this post "Hillary Is 44 Gets It Wrong." But Hillary Is 44 didn't get it wrong. I thought they did. But I read the post again and I must have seen it somewhere else.

A post today pointed out that Barack didn't know how to lead that he'd never offered leadership and they're right. And they then went on to why he wanted the post of president. They had this long and analytical reasoning that made no sense.

There is one simple reason why Barack wanted to be president: Yearbook photo.

He's truly that shallow. He needed it next to his name.

He had nothing to offer. He didn't know the first thing about governing. He hadn't swept the country with a new way of governing.

He was an inexperienced, weak man and politician who needed to do a lot of growing to have the maturity required for the presidency. Instead of seeing that, all he could see was the yearbook photo and that's all that mattered to him.

He'll leave office (hopefully at the end of his fourth year, I pray there will not be a second term) and he'll be too young to retire and have nothing left to do with his life because he's never really led on anything.

To this day, he's never led on anything.

Bill Clinton left office and went to work on Global AIDS. Al Gore (elected president but prevented from serving by the Supreme Court) made his later years about the environment. And Barack?

There's nothing there.

He hops on one fad after another, hoping somehow something will stick.

This week I'm against bullying!!!!

He lacks the ability to follow through.

So he'll have W. Bush's legacy and be wanted for War Crimes and tortures. Maybe they can go on vacations together?



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, March 14, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, calls come in for Jalal Talabani to apologize or step down, Vlahos talks about how the US government is uncomfortable over the protests in Iraq, turns out Nouri's thugs beat people in Friday's demonstration in Baghdad, the Integrity Commission finds a whole lot of corruption going on, following a shoot out the Brig Gen of Nouri's Rapid Response Team is finally arrested and taken into custody, Bradley Manning issues a statement, Dennis Kucinich talks about his attempt to see the conditions Bradley is being held under, the US gears up for this Saturday's protest and more. We noted Kelley B. Vlahos' "Iraqi Protests Make Washington Squirm" last week. Saturday at Antiwar.com, an Antiwar Radio interview Scott Horton did with her was posted. We'll note the section where they discussed her article: Scott Horton: But I want to talk about Iraq. Mostly, I especially want to talk about Iraq because apparently and maybe this is just my hyperbole, you know, I'm kind of an extremist but the way, the best I can the rest of America has decided that the Iraq invasion happened some time a hundred years ago back before World War I and nobody cares at all about Iraq anymore, just forget it, that was George Bush's thing and it might as well have been Korea or something, you know, back when TV was still in black & white. And so it seems to me that since the consequences -- even just the short terms consequences -- of America's invasion back in 2003 and the occupation that's lasted this whole time are still playing out there that we ought to pay extra attention to what's going on. So, uhm, you have this great article, it's at Antiwar.com right now, "Iraq protests make Washington squirm." And you have a very detailed write up of the very recent history of the state of Iraq and the protest movement -- Tunisia and Egyptian-inspired protest movement there --- as it has existed over the past few weeks. Why don't you give us a brief roundup there and maybe we'll save the politics 'till the second half. Kelley B. Vlahos: Yes, sure. Before I even get started on that, I was Google-ing around on Iraq a little while ago and the story popped up about members of a Buffalo based National Guard unit headed to Iraq. And it just -- It sort of like took me back into some sort of tailspin newswise. You know, here, like you said, this is like ancient history to most Americans. We still have units, soldiers, going over to Iraq. Meanwhile the mixed messages that this war is over, that our guys and gals are home, that somehow we're not even stationed there anymore, we don't here about the troops over there anymore, where are they, what are they doing? And here I just Google "Iraq" and here's a unit going over there. Most of the guys in this particular unit, this is their first deployment. Some of them, they've been on deployment before. But it just, it kind of gives me kind of a funky feeling, you know, deja vu, but also of sadness because I realize that these deployments are still occuring and nobody cares anymore. And, like you said, with my article I try to explore what's been going on with Iraq because I haven't -- It's been really difficult to go to the mainstream media and kind of discern what's been going on there in the context of these revolutions in the Middle East right now. Iraq is having its own revolution but in a very ironic way that they're revolting against us. I mean we have been the chief puppet masters over there for the last eight years. The-the prime minister that they are railing against all throughout the country across ethnic lines -- this isn't a a Sunni/Shia thing, this is Sunni-Shia-Kurd-All revolting over there and Prime Minister Maliki is the key reason. His government has failed to bring basic services, things that we take for granted -- electricity, food, water, sewage -- in the last several years. He's been in power since 2006, he's failed to-to make good on all his pledges to reconstruct that country. We have failed on our promises to reconstruct that country. But he is basically Our Man In Baghdad. And so they are, in effect, fighting us. And when I say it's making Washington squirm, it is. It's very awkward. It's embarrassing. And official Washington has basically reacted to that by silence, is what I say. So I tried to fill in the void by providing some of the, you know, easily accessible information that's out there on the web right now about what's going on on the ground because our mainstream news is just ignoring it. Scott Horton: Well you know it's especially ironic, I mean here America backs every dictator in the region and so the irony there where we're supposed to have the legacy of the Declaration of Independence on our side and all of that is really harsh. But in the case of Iraq, here they did this whole aggressive invasion in the name of liberating the people of Iraq and providing them a democracy so they wouldn't have to suffer under an American-backed military dictatorship anymore like the rest of Middle East and this is the government that these people are rebelling against. Kelley B. Vlahos: Right. And when you think about it, it really isn't too much of a surprise. The military took over -- the military was responsible obviously for the invasion, but it also took over the reconstruction. It marginalized the State Dept, it marginalized the civilians in our government from going in and having a hand in there. It politicized the reconstruction so that what you have left is a military led post-invasion Iraq. And, at some point, the charade over the whole democracy and liberation was ripped off and basically we did -- our military did -- everything it could just to get out of there with some semblence of a face left. And what it did is they installed Maliki, you know, they committed to the surge, they pummeled Iraq and Maliki's enemies so they could get out of there. It became less about establishing a democracy and reconstructing that country and more about us saving face and saving Petraeus' face and putting a veener of success on it all. And this is what you're seeing, you're seeing that veneer ripped off the Potemkin village exploded and you're seeing what - what basically, the-the-the chickens come home to roost, as though they say. Scott Horton: Yeah, well. And, you know, you're certainly right. One of the first headlines I saw about the protests was "From Mosul to Basra" -- virtually every population center in Iraq had a giant protest on the Day of Rage there. Kelley B. Vlahos: Mm-hmm. Scott Horton: And that was what? Last Friday? Kelley B. Vlahos: Right, last Friday. And upwards of 29 protesters were killed. I've seen varying numbers but that's the highest number I've seen and not only protesters killed but demonstrators beaten, journalists detained and tortured in the jails there too. Scott Horton: Well that's where we're going to pick this up when we get back, is the persectuion of the journalists and the intellectuals as a result of this, al-Maliki's post-protest crackdown. It's Kelley B. Vlahos from Antiwar.com and The American Conservative Magazine. We'll be right back [. . .] and we're talking about Iraq's Day of Rage, massive protests across that country against the American-installed government of Nouri al-Maliki and when we went out to the break we were just about to get to the crackdown that came as the result last weekend. Kelley, tell us about that. Kelley B. Vlahos: Well people might be surprised that a democracy that we supposedly helped flourish in Iraq has responded to largely peaceful protests by sending out storm troopers. in essance, to round up journalists, round up protesters, hunt them down -- as one person had described, bringing them to detention centers, torturing them, beating them, releasing them after signing affidavits that they haven't been tortured. All in an attempt to stifle this people protest in Iraq. Something that we had bragged and boasted that we helped create, remember, with the purple finger elections, you know, starting in 2005. And now we're seeing sort-of the outgrowth of that, we're seeing that we have helped bring in an authoritarian government that is responding to people trying to exercise their rights [being met] with lethal force really. -- Scott Horton: Well it's just like -- Brent Scowcroft tried to tell George Bush that "Look, man, this is what's going to happen." You're going to topple the minority dictatorship there and the majority is going to take power." And that's what happened. The Ayatollah Sistani said, "Hey, if you believe in God go out there and demand one-man, one-vote. And demand it, say you want it, really soon." And they had no choice after that. Once you overthrow Saddam Hussein, now you're job is installing whoever Sistani and Sadr can agree on. Kelley B. Vlahos: Yeah. Scott Horton: And so that was that whole war, just fighting for those guys. Kelley B. Vlahos: Right. Exactly. And like I mentioned earlier, we helped Maliki basically destroy his political enemies through systematic, sort of ethnic cleansing and superior fire power. I mean, I remember going and seeing David Petraeus talk about how we won the surge and basically it was basically unleashing the mighty forces of superior US firepower on Baghdad, unlike anything that those people have ever seen and so basically we just pummeled the crap out of Iraq, out of the Sunnis, out of Sadr City and basically brought all of Maliki's enemies to heel so that he could basically create a central government with all the powers that came with and he's become an authoritarian strongman there. And now we're seeing his real, true colors come to be through these protests. And one way this is actually a good thing is it basically tears the veneer off of everything that we've been saying about what we've done over there and trying to do. It basically shows Maliki for who he really is and what's been going on there while the media has been ignoring it these past two years. Today's New York Times finds the editorial board offering "Mr. Maliki's Power Grab" which includes, "Instead of taking responsibility, Mr. Maliki charged that the protests were organized by 'terrorists.' He ordered the closing of the offices of two political parties that helped lead the demonstrations. His only concessions were vows not to seek a third term in 2014 and to cut his pay in half. That was not persuasive, especially given his many recent power grabs." And not persuasive given news that emerged over the weekend about Friday's protest in Baghdad. Adam Youssef, news photographer for Al Mada, is among the people David Ali (Al Mada) reported on. At the Friday protests, Adam was brutally beaten by Iraqi security forces despite repeatedly telling them he was a photographer and only present to take photos. They beat him and beat him, over and over with batons. But brave little thugs rarely only beat one person. Activst Hana Adoor and journalist Npras Mamouri were also beaten with batons by security forces who apparently were threatened by the thought of two women out in public. The Arab American News reports surrounded the protesters in large numbers: "People will continue demonstrating until there is reform because the government has been built on a sectarian basis," said Faisal Hamid, a pensioner who walked to Tahrir Square from the nearby neighborhood of Karrada. The Iraqi government, worried the demonstrations may spiral out of control, have taken strict measures that appear designed to limit the number of demonstrators who come out. Late Thursday, they imposed a vehicle ban in the capital so many of the protesters were forced to walk for miles. Similar vehicle bans were in place in the northern cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, and the southern city of Basra. Side streets leading up to the square were blocked with security vehicles and helicopters buzzed overhead in Baghdad. Before those protests, Iraqi officials tried to discredit the demonstrations by saying they were being backed by supporters of Saddam and al-Qaeda. The warnings seemed designed to keep people away and paint those who did take part in a bad light. Over the weekend, Nouri continued his attacks on the protesters. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Lara Jakes (AP) reported he took to state television Saturday where he verbally attacked the protesters, "Those who call for regime change are limited in number; they are weak and voices of discord. [. . .] Do they want the return of a dictatorship? Or the Revolutionary Command Council? Or a regime that marginalizes groups? We say clearly that who ask for the change of this regime are out of line with the will of the nation." True only if Nouri's desires are the will of the nation. Iraqi voters made clear Nouri was not their choice in the March 7, 2010 elections when despite his harassment, scare tactics, abuse of office and a largely compliant media he was not able to lead his political slate to victory. Abdul-zhra and Jakes note how "liar" and other words are increasingly applied to Nouri at the ongoing public demonstrations. In other news of outrage, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports that the practice of ministers and officials (since the start of the war) stealing Iraqi land and homes may be coming to an end. Many Iraqis have been left homeless as a result of the illegal practice and MP Safia al-Suhail is calling for the land to be returned. In other news of corruption, Inas Tariq (Al Mada) reports that while Iraqis are plagued with unemployment, the few jobs available are being doled out by ministers to their own unqualified family members and friends. Unqualified being one of the key words. Last week, New Sabah reported that the Integrity Commission has supposedly developed a plan to examine the graduate certifications and other credentials of various officials and they will be checking them out and also looking into the rumors that certain positions were purchased with large amounts of money. The Ministries of Defense and Interior are named in New Sabah's report as two ministries that will be examined. Yesterday Saad Abdul-Kadir and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reported that there are "some 20,000 goovernment employees" under investigation of possibly forging diplomas and graduate certifications and MP Layla Hassan states, "Some of those who have fake education certificates are senior officials in the current and former government. These people should not be pardoned. Otherwise, others will do the same in the future." New Sabah reports that the chair of the Integrity Committee in the Iraqi Parliament announced that former ministers and officials have broken laws and is calling on heads of Ministries to utilize appointments correctly. The Committee was "shocked" by the corruption that has taken place and vows former officials and ministers will be brought to justice. Dar Addustour adds that today Parliament is supposed to, according the Integrity Committee vice chair Ahmed al-Jubouri, hold a workshop explaining how the commission did relatively little work in the last years due to the fact that a law was not passed giving them the needed powers. Meanwhile Baghdad's Kassakhoon noted Friday, "After 40 sessions of Parliament iraq lawmakers approved only 2 of 280 proposed measures." New Sabah reports that the chair of the Integrity Committee in the Iraqi Parliament announced that former ministers and officials have broken laws and is calling on heads of Ministries to utilize appointments correctly. The Committee was "shocked" by the corruption that has taken place and vows former officials and ministers will be brought to justice. Dar Addustour adds that today Parliament is supposed to, according the Integrity Committee vice chair Ahmed al-Jubouri, hold a workshop explaining how the commission did relatively little work in the last years due to the fact that a law was not passed giving them the needed powers. If a law is passed this time, it will be a result of the demands of the Iraqi protesters who have loudly and repeatedly decried the corruption. Last week, we noted: Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq reports that Talabani spoke Monday in Sulaimaniya and declared Kurkuk to be "Kurdistan's sanctity." The problem with interpreting that comment is that (a) Talabani was before a crowd and (b) he always goes back on his statments -- especially when it comes to Kirkuk. That hasn't prevented many from attempting to decipher where Talabani is leading. What's the deal with Kirkuk? Kirkuk is an oil-rich region of Iraq that's long been in dispute -- even if the idiot Chris Hill publicly revealed he couldn't grasp that in his 2009 Senate confirmation hearing. The KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government) argues they they have a right to it. They argue that they were kicked out. The central government or 'government' out of Baghdad argues it belongs with them. The issue is so divisive that the 2005 Constitution (which Iraq now operates under -- or is supposed to) addressed the issue. Per the Constitution, a census was supposed to be taken of the region and a referendum held. That was supposed to take place by 2007. 2007 came and went. Nouri al-Maliki was prime minister then. He became prime minister in the spring of 2006. He didn't meet the deadline. When the Democrats won control of both houses in the US Congress and began making noises about ending the war, the White House (Bush administration) came up with a list of benchmarks that Iraq would meet to show progress. If Iraq didn't meet those benchmarks, funding was supposed to cease. (US House Rep Lloyd Doggett appears to be one of the few members of Congress who grasped that then or since.) Nouri agreed to the benchmarks and then ignored them. Kirkuk was one of the benchmarks. In the lead up to the last provincial elections, Nouri was promising the issue would be delt with (January 2009 was when those provincial elections were held). Didn't happen. Most recently, while attempting to secure the post of prime minister for more four years, Nouri was insisting that the census would be held in December 2010. Days before it was time for the census, and just a little while after he was named prime minister-designate, Nouri called off the census. It's 2011. The Constitutionally mandated census and referendum is four years overdue. Alsumaria TV reports, "The statements of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in which he described Kirkuk as 'Jerusalem of Kurdistan' spurred wide reservation. In result, a number of Iraqi MPs gathered signatures to question President Talabani in Parliament on account of his latest statements on Kirkuk. Parliament Speaker Ousama Al Nujaifi welcomed the request and political parties called on Iraqi President to either backtrack his statements or apologize." Aswat al-Iraq cites MP Mahmoud Othman, of the Kurdistan Coalition, stating that it is legal to call Talabani before Parliament if he's violated the constitution but he doesn't see Talabani's remarks as being in violation of the Constitution noting "that when Talabani said that Kirkuk was the 'heart of Kurdistan,' he expressed his viewpoint, being the chairman of a party. . So, there is no need to gather signatures to summon him by the Parliament." In addition, they report that MP Khalid al-Assadi (with Nouri's coalition) has stated that the attempt to bring Talabani before the Parliament is the "incorrect measure." Sinan Salaheddin, Lara Jakes and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) report that hundreds gathered in Baghdad's Liberation Square (Tahrir Square) today calling for Talabani to apologize for his remarks or resign. Today New Sabah notes that Kirkuk is "combustible again" and the columnist explains Speaker of Parliament Osama Nujaifi has made similar remarks. The columnist calls upon all sides to proceed with wisdom and open minds and remember that Kirkuk has a population of Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens with other ethnic and religious minorities as well. The leaders of both (major) Kurdish parties are called upon to use dialogue and discussion. (Goran is not a major Kurdish party.) Dar Addustour notes that the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Iraq Ad Melkert met with Nouri yesterday to discuss the issue of Kirkuk. Al Rafidayn notes that Ayad Allawi -- who has taken himself out of the running for head of the (still hasn't emerged) National Council -- is seeking the nomination of Secretary General of the Arab League. In other political news, Al Sumaria TV reports, "It seems that major rows impeding the nomination of Iraqi security ministers are no longer restricted between Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki and heads of political parties. Rows have swept into political parties themselves which members are complaining about their leaders' autocracy." Yesterday's snapshot noted: "Dar Addustour reports one of Nouri's 'finest,' the man in charge of the Rapid Response Brigade got caught by the Integrity Commission in the process of accepting a $50,000 bribe. And? He ordered the forces to attack the Integrity Commission, he ordered the forces to attack them and beat them -- beat nine of them, leaving them all wounded and three of the nine requiring hospitalization. That's Nouri al-Maliki's thugs." Saturday, New Sabah reported the latest including that Rashim Hassan Ugaili, chief judge of the Integrity Commssion, states Nouri has "ordered the arrest" of Gen Numan Dakhil, the commander of the Rapid Reaction Brigade. It lists the amount of the bribe as 60 million dinars. A shoot out ensued as attempts were made to carry out the order but Numan finally surrendered. MP Sabah al-Saadi is quoted decrying that assault on the Integrity Commission which took place Thursday when they caught Numan taking a bribe. Saturday, Muhanad Mohammed (Reuters) became the first English language outlet reporter to cover the story. Al Rafidayn reports that a suicide truck bombing in Canaan (Diyala Province) has left 11 Iraqi soldiers dead and twenty-nine injured and a curfew has been imposed on the area. Tang Danlu (Xinhua) adds, "The attack took place in the morning when a suicide bomber rammed his explosive-laden vehicle into the local government compound of the Kan'an town, 20 km east of the provincial capital of Baquba, the source said on condition of anonymity." BBC News notes, "Rescue workers were trying to free victims from beneath the building's rubble, a spokeswoman for Diyala's provincial government said." Michael S. Schmidt and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) quote Iraqi soldier Mohammed Abed Anwar stating, "I fell and I heard my partners screaming for help and I could hear them moaning. I almost died and I saw my friends taking their last breaths." Alsumaria TV reports the number wounded has risen to forty (death toll remains 11). Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports, "Eight other people were wounded Monday when roadside bombs exploded in three Baghdad neighborhoods, the interior ministry said." Since then more have been wounded. Reuters counts eleven wounded and 1 dead from 4 Baghdad bombings today plus two wounded from one yesterday, and notes 1 police officer shot dead in Tal Afar Sunday Xinhua reported a a Tikrit prison was the site of riot and possibly a break out today and they quote a source who states, "Riot erupted as dozens of inmates clashed in the afternoon with the prison guards and set fire to part of the building of the al-Tasfirait prison in Tikrit". Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) added that 2 prisoners are dead and seven are injured along with seven guards. AFP noted that there are conflicting reports on whether anyone escaped. September 24, 2009, there was a prison break in Tikrit with sixteen prisoners escaping. Who needs sleep when we've got love? Who needs keys when we've got clubs? Who needs please when we've got guns? Who needs peace when we've gone above But beyond where we should have gone We went beyond where we should have gone -- "Sleep Through The Static" written by Jack Johnson, first appears on Johnson's Sleep Through the Static album Wray Harris is the president of the Oregon chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Jo Ann Bowman: Can we really believe that we've actually been at war for nine years, eight of which have been in Iraq? It seems insane that we've been at war that long. Friday, he appeared on KBOO's Voices from the Edge where he spoke with Jo Ann Bowman and Dave Mazza. Wray Harris: It is insane. No nation is supposed to be at war this long. Real wars don't last this long. And you can see that it's taking a toll on our economy, it's taking a toll on our soldiers, our military. It is insane. Jo Ann Bowman: And so this Saturday [. . .] Saturday March 19th is the next, great big anti-war gathering that will take place in Portland at Pioneer Courthouse Square [SW 6th and Yamhill]. The gathering will start at 12:30 [pm] with a 1:00 pm rally and a 1:30 march. I have noticed over these last nine years that the marches have gotten a lot smaller and why do you think that is, Wray? Wray Harris: You know, I'm just now getting into the public activism thing so I actually wasn't around during what I hear are the glory days of 2003, 2004, 2005. I think it largely has to do with the election of a new face in the White House and a lot of the American people have just become apathetic. Jo Ann Bowman: And so tell us about you spent time in Iraq yourself. Wray Harris: Yes. Jo Ann Bowman: You were stationed there. Wray Harris: Yes, I was stationed in Baghdad for fourteen months. My unit was the first part of Gen Petraeus' troop surge for 2007 -- Jo Ann Bowman: Uh-huh. Wray Harris: -- to quell the civil war, I guess they wanted to call it. Jo Ann Bowman: Right. Wray Harris: So we deployed in November 2006 and returned, my paperwork says, January 2008 but for some reason December sounds more accurate. Jo Ann Bowman: Well, you know, federal government for you. Wray Harris: There you go. Jo Ann Bowman: And what was your sense as part of your unit? I mean, did you feel like you were there doing something worthy and necessary? Wray Harris: Well when you're on the battlefield the thing is when things are happening or this or that, you're not thinking about the politics of anything, you're not thinking about the flag or freedom or glory or patriotism. All you're doing is you're thinking about the person next to you or the person behind you. And so thinking about the whole politics of the situation, we kind of knew it didn't make sense. We would sit in dark towers and we'd find ourselves sympathizing with the people we were fighting. Jo Ann Bowman: Why so? What do you mean? Give me an example. Wray Harris: Well in a sense that we used to say, you know, really it's a pretty cheap shot to put a bomb on the side of the road and wait for someone to drive by and blow it up. It's kind of a cheap shot. But in the next breath, one of us or somebody would always say, "Yeah, well, what's the difference between that and dropping a bomb from five feet in the air." Or a five hundred pound bomb from however far away. Jo Ann Bowman: Right. Right. Dave Mazza: You know, Wray, one of the things we all come from different experiences and clearly this war is much different from, say, Vietnam -- our last protracted engagement -- in that, for one, this is an all volunteer force whereas we had a draft military in Vietnam and there was certainly signs of dissension and much more organizing against the war -- both inside the military and outside the military. And I was wondering your experience in Iraq, how -- like you said -- you're thinking mostly about the guy next to you and about yourself. But, you know, what was -- Was there a sense, was there any activism going on? Was there any more open discussions about 'we really need to get out of here or get this thing over with'? Wray Harris: We would sit all the time and say in various capacities, this is pointless, I want to go home, there's no reason, this is stupid -- much more colorful language than that. Jo Ann Bowman: (Laughing) We appreciate your not using that particular language. Wray Harris: No problem. No problem. Time and place. But I don't particularly remember any outspoken, outright political activist, hobbyist soldiers at all actually. Because, like you said, we're an all volunteer force in the end. We all kind of wanted to be there. On some level. Jo Ann Bowman: I-I thank you for that. I appreciate that. I mean, you said we all wanted to be there at some level. Why -- Wray Harris: Sure. Jo Ann Bowman: Why did you join the military? And did you join like after 9-11? What was the process that got you into the military? Wray Harris: I kind of knew that that was what I was going to do from the time I was real young. My grandfather was a Korean War veteran. He had lost his leg. I just kind of knew for some reason that that was going to be on my plate. Jo Ann Bowman: And was it going to be a career or was it just something you were going to do to like pass through? Wray Harris: You know, I really wasn't sure. I didn't really think long term when I did it. It was more of a "I need to get out of my small town in central Oregon so that I don't stick around and be that guy." Jo Ann Bowman: (Laughing) Right. Right. Wray Harris: You know what I mean. Jo Ann Bowman: Right. We all know that guy. Wray Harris: We do. Yeah. There you go. Jo Ann Bowman: So, okay, so this was like just something. You weren't moved and compelled by some incident or event. This was just like a part of -- You just assumed you'd get out of high school and you'd go into the military, right? Wray Harris: Well September 11th gave me a little more of a motivation or whatever you want to call it. Jo Ann Bowman: Right. Wray Harris: And I was glued to the television. And I was playing the whole left-versus-right, war protesters versus war hawks and that whole thing. And that just doesn't get anybody anywhere. Jo Ann Bowman: Right. Well and so here we are and I'm glad that you talked about the fact that you grew up in eastern Oregon, small town -- Wray Harris: Central Oregon. Jo Ann Bowman: Central Oregon, sorry. Small town. Decided the military was your ticket out of the small town. And -- But for some reason, you got out. Did you get out? Or maybe I should ask that. Wray Harris: Yeah. Jo Ann Bowman: You did get out. So you are officially out of the military. Wray Harris: That's what my goatee says. Dave Mazza: So what -- what -- Was your decision, "I did my hitch and I'm ready to get out." Or was it something? Did you have a deeper feeling about wanting to separate from the military? Wray Harris: In the end, I didn't want to go back to Iraq, honestly. There was no use. There was no point. I didn't want to have to go to a new unit and be really tight with a whole bunch of new people and redeploy and have to go through the whole thing again. There was no point. It doesn't serve anybody any purpose. Dave Mazza: So what's the -- You know, I mean, that still seems like a, then there's a big jump here between going from that to being president of Iraq Veterans Against the War. So what happened? Wray Harris: (Laughing) Well it's called the internet and, you know, thankfully because of the free flow of information in our society today, I was able to learn a lot of things very quickly. And I came back from Iraq and I was asking questions -- a lot of questions. You find yourself on the internet finding answers. Or the closest things you'll get to answers. There's a great deal more to the interview (above is about seven minutes and Wray was the guest for the hour). And remember, there will be protests in the US next weekend. A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in these action: March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries. The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war. While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people. Actions of civil resistance are spreading. On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C. Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine. Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. Click this link to endorse the March 19, 2011, Call to Action. In other news, Philip J. Crowley was fired from the State Dept over the weekend (actually, he was asked for his resignation which he tendered). Why? Because he disagreed publicly with the treatment of Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning? Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning has been at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key, for months. Earlier this month, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. David E. Coombs is Bradley's attorney and he provided a walk through on Article 104. Like many, Sophie Elmhirst (New Statesman) emphasized the possibility of the death penalty. As a result of Crowley's remarks entering the Friday news cycle, Barack was finally asked a few serious questions (by one reporter). Patrick Martin (WSWS) reports: The inquiry by Jake Tapper of ABC News was the second and subordinate part of a question that began with the Japanese earthquake and its effect on Japanese nuclear power facilities. Tapper then continued as follows: "And then, a second question -- the State Department spokesman, PJ Crowley, said the treatment of Bradley Manning by the Pentagon is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid. And I'm wondering if you agree with that. Thank you, sir." Obama answered the question about Japan, then added: "With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are. I can't go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Private Manning's safety as well." This answer is a cowardly example of stonewalling, undoubtedly crafted in advance after consultation with the Pentagon brass. Obama does not actually say that Manning is being treated appropriately, only that unnamed military officials "assure me that they are." What is the Pentagon up to with the torture? Trying to deliver another Jose Padilla to the courts? US House Rep Dennis Kucinich has stated he wants to review the conditions under which Bradley is being held. Last Friday, he spoke with Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio -- link has audio and a transcript). Excerpt: US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: That's right. I put in a request to the Secretary of Defense who referred me to the Secretary of the Army who referred me to the Secretary of the Navy who referred me to the Secretary of Defense and still not an answer on whether or not I can visit Private Manning. Scott Horton: Unbelievable. I could see them giving the runaround like that to a reporter or something but you're a Congressman. They can't treat you that way, can they? US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Actually they shouldn't treat reporters that way but -- they shouldn't treat anyone that way. They should be accountable. But unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Pentagon doesn't have any accountability. Scott Horton: Right now I'm confused though because his friend David House, for example, is able to visit him. Can he not just add you to that same list somehow? US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: Well I don't know. I'm a member of Congress. I have to go through a different channel. The Secretary of Defense office is the appropriate channel for a member of Congress and I have to add that as a member of the Oversight Committee of Congress I'm also entitled to go and see the conditions under which Private Manning is held. Meanwhile Bradley has made his first public statement -- issued via his attorney David E. Coombs. You can read it in PDF format here or in HTML (regular formart) at ZNET. iraq kelley b. vlahos antiwar.com antiwar radio scott horton al rafidayn xinhua tang danlu bbc news cnn mohammed tawfeeq baghdads kassakhoon patrick martin wsws alsumaria tv aswat al-iraq new sabah dar addustour the new york times al mada david ali adam youssef the arab american news inas tariq dar addustour new sabah