Desperate Housewives

Sunday "Desperate Housewives" aired their latest episode.  I streamed it at ABC today.

Bree was in the hotel room about to kill herself and someone ran over the cop she used to date who was now trying to put her and Gabby, Lynette and Susan in jail for the murder of Gabby's step-father (Carlos murdered him).

The cop is dead.

Bree almost was.  But there was someone banging at her door.  She finally got up to answer it and discovered Renee.  Who was there to beat her up for going after the Australian guy Renee is dating and Renee was sure was in the hotel with Bree.  She swathe gun instead.

Remember Renee's mother killed herself.

So Renee refused to leave Bree and got her back home and stayed over and moved in.

Why was she so upset that she was going to kill herself?

Bree told Renee that was a conversation for friends and Renee said they were friends but Bree corrected her and hurt her feelings.  (Even with her feelings hurt, she didn't leave Bree alone.)

At the cop's funeral, Renee told Bree about her mother.

Lynette can't stop bitching about Tom.  Oh no he got the wrong crust on the pizza.

He didn't go off to France with his new girlfriend because of the cop.  Does Lynette ever stop griping?

Gabby finds out Carlos got drunk and can't remember where he was after he left the rehab clinic.  Did he run over the cop? I don't think so but we'll know next episode when they get his car back from the cops (he left it at the police headquarters.)

Susan's off to Oklahoma to tell dead step-father's family that he's dead or something.  I'm not sure what but she insists (to Mike) that she'll feel better once she does.

So end of the episode?  Gabby's thrilled that they're off the hook and thinks maybe God sent 'one of his drunken angels' to take care of the cop.  Meanwhile Bree's at her mailbox.  Remember the card she found saying that the writer knew what she'd done?  This card said: You're welcome.

Who is the killer?

If it someone already on the show -- in episodes this season -- it's the Australian guy.  The only other people I could think of would be Bree's son or daughter but they wouldn't leave those cards.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, January 10, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, if the media doesn't cover realities for Iraqis why would you blame the American people for not knowing about them, the State Dept continues their public lackadaisical presentation, and more.   To put a face on war, Susie Day pens the essay "Dead Iraqis Occupy Wall Street" (Monthly Review): With the war in Iraq now officially over and the Occupy Wall Street movement less visible, life in New York was expected to return to normal. Instead, several recent passersby in Manhattan's financial district have reported seeing thousands of deceased Iraqi civilians taking up residence at Zuccotti Park. The park served for two months in the fall of 2011 as a protest base for thousands of OWS activists. Although the Iraqis remain largely silent and immobile, some witnesses claim to have seen individual deceased mothers, students, and the elderly holding up the backs of old pizza boxes, on which have been scrawled the English words, "Remember Me." Public reaction has been mixed. Some say the dead are "occupying" the park in nonviolent protest; others accuse the Iraqis of faking their own deaths in order to flout U.S. immigration laws. The Bloomberg administration, having evicted hundreds of living protesters from the park in mid-November, has thus far maintained a wary tolerance. Meanwhile John Robles (Voice of Russia -- link is text and audio) interviews De     John Tirman (Washington Post) mused on US President Barack Obama's speech. (For the record, as we noted the day Barack gave that speech, if you're president of the United States you don't say "nearly 4,5000 members of the US armed forces who died in Iraq," you give the exact number or you and your staff haven't done the job needed.) Tirman notes Barack's speech included nothing about the dead or injured Iraqis and offers, "This inattention to civilian deaths in America's wars isn't unique to Iraq. There's little evidence that the American public gives much thought to the people who live in nations where our military interventions take place." We're always so quick to blame the American people.  Why is that?  Do they control the newspapers and the radio and the TV?  If people should care -- and I believe they should -- then the media should be covering it.  If it's not being covered, it's really cowardly to blame the American people when you haven't said one damn word about the American media.   How would the American people know about, for example, Iraqis right now?    Traveling sea gull?   If the media's not covering it, then that's a media issue, it's not an American people issue. Quit blaming We The People for the crimes of The Few The Media.  As the year drew to a close on December 31st, McClatchy and NPR closed their Baghdad bureaus, joining ABC, NBC and CBS, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Globe and countless others, go down the list.  How are Americans supposed to know the realities for Iraqis when they can't get coverage of Iraq?     But don't worry, they're spending their money and time well.  For example, if NPR were still providing coverage from Iraq, listeners of Morning Edition might not know, thanks to Steve Inskeep, that Mitt Romney spoke at a Saturday event in "jeans and an open-collared shirt with the sleeves rolled up."  Here's some reality, if Steve Inskeep wants to work for Women's Wear Daily, he needs to try to get hired there.  It might not be easy, their standards are a bit higher than those of National Public Radio.  But while he's on NPR doing 'news' -- and this is true for others at NPR as well as PBS -- unless Mitt Romney -- or any other candidate -- shows up for a speech in just underwear or nude, it's not really news what they're wearing.  It's chatter.  It wastes our time.  It ensures that real issues are never addressed.  It's not news.   While the bulk of All Things Media Big and Small ignore Iraq, independent journalist Dahr Jamail has returned to the country.  Dahr (Centre for Global Research) observes, "As a daily drumbeat of violence continues to reverberate across Iraq, people here continue to struggle to find some sense of normality, a task made increasingly difficult due to ongoing violence and the lack of both water and electricity. [. . .] Iraq continues to have a cash economy; meaning there are no credit cards, almost no checking accounts, no transfer of electronic funds, and only a few ATMs.  Iraq lacks a functioning postal service, has no public transporation, nor a national airline -- and most goods sold in Iraq are imported."     And if you turn away because there is no lesson here I will hold my awkward bowl, with all its cracked stars shining like a complicated lie, and fasten a new skin around it as if I were dressing an orange or a strange sun. Not that it was beautiful, but that I found some order there. -- "For John, Who Begs Me Not To Enquire Futher" written by Anne Sexton     As noted Saturday, "What did protesters tell CNN last month? They begged CNN not to leave Baghdad's Tahrir Square. Why? Because when the press left, Nouri's forces would attack the protesters. (And did.) Across the world, we all have the power to shine a light on what's going in Iraq."  Today Jomana Karadsheh (CNN -- link is video) files an important report:   Jomana Karadsheh: Last month, Oday al-Zaidy and a small group of people gathered in a Baghdad square to celebrate the US media withdrawal planning to burn the US flag.  But more than 200 security forces swarmed around them, banned us from filming and stopped the protests because they said the group had not obtained a permit.  But they still managed to burn the flag.  Oday and others were beaten up and detained for a day. Security officials say, they assaulted policemen, something the group denies.  "Democracy in Iraq is an illusion," Oday says.  "An American illusion and an American lie.  Whoever wants to see that for themselves, should come and see what's been happening in Iraq since February 25th."  That's when thousands of Iraqis -- partly influenced by the Arab Spring -- took to the streets of cities across the country protesting against corruption and a lack of basic services. [Gun shots are heard and security forces move in.]  But from the start, they were met by a fierce crackdown.  The government denies an orchestrated effort to put down protests, saying there were just minor violations committed by to put down protests by individual security officers.  Activists groups disagree.  Human Rights Watch says the violations have been systematic and ongoing documenting dozens of cases where protesters were beaten up, detained and, in some cases, even tortured.   Human Rights Watch's Samer Muscati:  People are afraid to go to demonstrations, are afraid of being rounded up, of being assaulted, of being beat up, of being followed to their own homes.   Jomana Karadsheh:  And this is what has happened almost a year since the protests began here in Baghdad's own Tahrir or Liberation Square the scene is very different from last February. Activists say the crowd here has significantly dwindled over recent months and most of those present on this Friday say they are supporters of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.  This crowd behind me has been chanting against two of the prime minister's two main political rivals -- Ayad Allawi and Saleh al-Mutlaq.  Banners like these around the square praise "the wisdom and courage" of Mr. Maliki.   Human Rights Watch's Samer Muscati:  I think really we are at a critical juncture and we are at a crossroads and Iraq right now, from what we see, is a budding police state.  And hopefully that will change but all indications now are that things are actually going to deteriorate even more.   Baghdad Operations Command Spokesperson Qassim Atta: Our country is still suffering from terrorism and security forces are highly sensitive and ready for the worst possibilities and it is their right to protect public security. There should be no generalization.  These human rights organizations can visit Tahrir Square every week to see the protests.   Jomana Karadsheh: But those who dare venture out have a different story.  As we try to speak to this protester, we're interrupted by government supporters.  Protesters say they're intelligence agents. For now, there are still some who refuse to back down despite the intimidation campaign.      Iraqi Male: The Republic of Iraq! Every time he's dead! Kill! Dead! Kill! Why?   Jomana Karadsheh:  As this man cries out against the government, Maliki's supporters move right in, drowing out the calls for change.  Jomana Karadsheh, CNN, Baghdad.    A police state.  Well aren't we lucky the US isn't spending billions training the Iraqi police.  Oh.  Wait.  The US tax payer is on the hook for training the potential police of a police state.  Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) explained in October, "Since 2003, the United States has spent about $8 billion to train, staff and equip Iraqi police forces. With the U.S. military preparing to leave Iraq at the end of December, responsibility for the police training program transferred to the State Department this month. The department has requested $887 million to continue operating the program this fiscal year."   When not busying themselves with preventing freedom of assembly, Nouri's thugs focus on other speech issues, like journalism.  Dahr Jamal (Al Jazeera) reports:   According to [Iraq's Society for Defending Press Freedom's Oday] Hattem, if a journalists reports critically "that means this journalist will lose his life". Like Hussein, Hattem sees the situation worsening on all fronts. "The political and freedom of speech situations are both descending," he said. "Maliki launched an attack on freedom of speech in February 2010, when he arrested tens of journalists and human rights activists after the beginning of demonstrations in Baghdad." US President Barack Obama, during a December 12, 2011, press conference with Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, had nothing but high praise for the state of press freedom in Maliki's Iraq: So we're partnering to strengthen the institutions upon which Iraq's democracy depends - free elections, a vibrant press, a strong civil society, professional police and law enforcement that uphold the rule of law, an independent judiciary that delivers justice fairly, and transparent institutions that serve all Iraqis. Three days later, Iraq's Society for Defending Press Freedom filed an appeal with Iraq's High Federal Court against Maliki's government and its "Journalists Rights Law", which the group said contradicted four articles from Iraq's constitution.    And that's what the US has backed and continues to back.  Even now.   Let's note some of today's violence.   AFP counts 8 dead and seventeen injured in today's violence including a Saadiyah roadside bombing which claimed the life of Iraqi military Col Hassan Ali and injured three of his bodyguards. Mazin Yahya (AP) counts 10 dead today and emphasizes three young boys -- all ten or under -- killed in a Tikrit roadside bombing.  Both note a Shurqat sticky bombing which claimed the lives of 2 people who worked for the Ministry of Agriculture and left another injured.  Reuters also notes a Baghdad home invasion in which 1 "Iraqi private bank manager and her husband" were killed last night.     Vestnik Kavkaza reports, "The US has made a big mistake by withdrawing from Iraq, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, 1news.az reports. Erdogan met his Norwegian counterpart Jens Stoltenberg and reminded him that he had warned US president and vice-president about repercussions from such step. The Turkish premier noted that the situation in Iraq remains tense and inter-religious conflicts may arise at any moments. Turkey is a neighboring state and cannot remain indifferent to the situation. He added that Iran is planned to be involved in the process." KUNA also notes Erdogan making public statements of concern about what's taking place in Iraq and they offer this context, "Erdogan made these remarks amidst political conflict between the Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's rule of law coalition and the Iraqiya List after a judicial committee issued an arrest warrant for vice-president Tareq Al-hashimi on terrorism charges." Meanwhile the US government has nothing to say. As we noted Sunday, that's how you end up the loser. More and more statements are being made about the state of Iraq. By other countries. And the US response? At the State Dept for two weeks they more or less parroted the same response guessing (correctly) that doing so would mean reporters would lose interest. And by the end of last week, journalists had given up -- a stance that continued yesterday. So as the crisis continues in Iraq and as people -- in the US and around the world -- see various government officials weighing in, don't be surprised when the attitude is: "The US destroyed Iraq and now they just don't care." They're begging for that to be the image. And heaven forbid the crisis grow worse and really bloody. At which point the reaction will be, "Why didn't the US government even give a damn?" (They never gave a damn because, beginning in 2006, they made the decision that Nouri was the US future and mattered more than Iraqis. This lack of concern for Iraqis was a thread in the Bush administration and one picked up and continued by the Barack administration.) Adam Schreck (AP) notes, "Administration officials acknowledge that Iraq is mired in its worst government crisis since Hussein's ouster, with no obvious answers because of longstanding sectarian and regional rivalries, and newer schisms caused by political maneuvering. The task is Iraq's now, they insist, with the United States only advising and providing aid." On the first sentence, it's a shame they refuse to indicate that publicly on the record. On the second sentence, it's a shame they're such liars. How many billions is the US pumping into Iraq this year? And how many weapons are being sought by Iraq right now? And how desperate is Iraq to get out of Chapter VII at the UN? Those are only some of the influence levers the US has.   In today's State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about Iraq and offered more banal statements.   QUESTION: Toria, I forget, is it today that she's speaking with the staff in Iraq?   MS. NULAND: Yes, she spoke to them this morning. She did.   QUESTION: Yeah. What did she say?   MS. NULAND: She had a phone call yesterday with our staff in Afghanistan and she had a phone call today with our staff in Iraq. These were New Year's Day calls. Both of those staffs work extremely hard, seven days a week in most cases. They work under extreme conditions. And I think it was an opportunity to thank them for the work that they both did last year and to give them a pep talk going forward, because they're both also shepherding important transitions in our relationships with both countries.   QUESTION: Right. And on the Iraq part, is there any early indication of how things are going now that the transition is happening?   MS. NULAND: In terms of the State Department picking up --   QUESTION: Troops out. Yeah. Right.   MS. NULAND: -- the lead, we're working it through. As we've said from the beginning, this is -- it's a daunting effort, but we believe that we're up to the task. I think you've seen that that Embassy's been extremely busy, led by Ambassador Jeffrey, in its work with all of the Iraqi political parties to encourage them to talk to each other and encourage an Iraqi-owned process of national dialogue among the key leaders. So that continues, as do all of our civilian support opportunities and our training opportunities. No concerns expressed at all.  You know who the administration is sounding like, right?  Tony Hayward, BP's Tony Hayward, during the Gulf Disaster.  In fact, they're sounding worse than that, they're sounding like South Park's parody of Tony Hayward. People are paying attention the political crisis -- people in the US, people around the world.  And the administration is choosing to sound like Tony Hayward.  Not a smart move. Along with attempting to have Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi arrested, Nouri is also attempting to have Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq arrested. Though Parliament has refused to take up Nouri's demand (Nouri cannot strip anyone of their Cabinet post, he needs the approval of Parliament), Dar Addustour notes Nouri is already attempting to find a replacement and is eyeing Jamal Karbouli. Al Mada adds that Nouri began discussions with Karbouli about this post on Sunday. Hayder al-Khoei had an article Sunday at the Guardian which Al Mada summarizes here. al-Khoei is reminding that the conflict is (thus far) between political rivals and not sects. Ayad Allawi, for example, heads Iraqiya and he is of the same sect as Nouri al-Maliki. We'll note the second to the last paragraph from the Guardian article: Interestingly, and perhaps even more telling, Ayatollah Sistani blamed politicians for the recent crisis without taking sides. In 2005 Sistani stood by the Shia political parties and helped them get into power. Today Sistani refuses to meet politicians, regardless of sect, because he believes they have failed to provide services. Again, there is a Najaf-Baghdad complex at play that has received little attention.         Turning to the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes:   FOR PLANNING PURPOSES     CONTACT: Murray Press Office Tuesday, January 10, 2012              (202) 224-2834   THURSDAY: MURRAY IN YAKIMA TO HEAR FROM VETERANS (Washington, D.C.) -- On Thursday, January 12, 2012, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide.  Senator Murray is Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.  Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Thursday to bring local concers to Washington, D.C.   WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray           Local veterans   WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray   WHEN: Thursday, January 12, 2012              1:15 PM PT   WHERE: VFW Post 379                118 S. 5th Ave.                Yakima, WA 98902          Map     It is the 10th anniversary of the illegal prison on Guantanamo.  John Robles (Voice of Russia -- link is text and audio) interviews Debra Sweet. Excerpt. John Robles: My first question regards the National Defense Authorization Act, under which an Indefinite Detention Clause was passed, also censorship under the SOPA act. Starting with the PATRIOT Act, it seems like human rights have been stripped away one after the other in the US. Would you characterize the US as a police state? Debra Sweet: I don't know that I would characterize the US across the board as a police state. Certainly, in many other countries and historically there are places where people can't even gather, not to mention US-backed states, where protesters have been shot and killed during the Arab Spring with impunity. A lot of that comes back to the US backing of very authoritarian governments around the world. One can say that, since 9/11, since the Bush regime used the attack on the World Trade Center as a pretext to unleash an endless war on the world, apparently it's been continued by the next administration. Civil liberties and the protection of the first ten amendments have been, which are known in the US as the Bill of Rights, has been severely restricted and now we see that what the US instituted 10 years ago, on January 11th 2002, when it opened its illegal prison in Guantanamo, it allowed the US for years to hold men with no access to Habeas Corpus right, no charges against them. And, in fact, there have been very intense court battles within the US to try to get those men any rights at all. And, in fact, 171 are still being held indefinitely. All this has become a model, as a way that the US can keep people indefinitely without charges and now, as you are mentioning, under the law that Barack Obama signed last Saturday, on the last day of the year, there is a situation where the US now, through the President, can hold people indefinitely under custody of the US military. And this definitely includes US citizens, as well as anyone else. This is under charges "suspicion of involvement with terrorism". You may call it a police state -- and it has a real fascist tinge to it, because it's setting out a situation where people can be grabbed based on what the President thinks you are thinking about and presumably held by the military forever either in this country or outside of it. And we understand that the US has employed "black sites", third-country prisons, in addition to what it's done in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo.   Debra Sweet is with The World Can't Wait which is not only noting the 10th anniversary of the opening of the illegal prison in Guantanamo but is also calling for actions this week including Wednesday January 11th: Sign up for Washington DC action Andy Worthington's Appearances Around the Country Protests in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and More January 11, 2012 is the 10th anniversary of the opening of Guantánamo. A broad coalition of groups: Center for Constitutional Rights, Code Pink, No More Guantánamos, Pax Christi Physicians for Human Rights, Torture Abolition and Survivors Network, Voices for Creative Non-Violence, War Criminals Watch, War Resisters League, Witness Against Torture, Amnesty International USA and World Can't Wait - is calling for a major demonstration in Washington, DC and solidarity actions elsewhere to ensure accountability for torture, unlawful detention and other human rights violations committed by the US government in the name of national security. And to demand: • the closure of Guantánamo by ending indefinite detention and military commissions; • the end of torture and impunity for torture; • the end of unlawful detention at Bagram and all US facilities; • the end of Islamophobia and discrimination; • and support for all detainees either being charged and fairly tried, or released to countries that will respect their human rights. The primary action in DC is a human chain of 2,771 people in orange jumpsuits representing the people still detained without charge or fair trial at Guantánamo and Bagram stretching from the White House to the Capitol. We will chant, we will hold signs, we will not be silent. Find out more about Guantánamo, Bagram, indefinite detention and torture. Scroll down to read some of the stories of the people still languishing in these hellholes.   iraq monthly review susie day al jazeera dahr jamail cnn jomana karadsheh npr morning edition steve inskeep vestnik kavkaza kuna the associated press adam schreck dar addustour al mada the guardian hayder al-khoei  the washington post ed okeefe  the voice of russia john robles debra sweet the world cant wait

The Firm

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Here's Nouri" turns Nouri into Lucille Ball.



Did "Desperate Housewives" come on last night?

I don't know.  If it did, I'll need to catch it at Hulu.  The boys were both excited about "The Firm" and wanted me to watch it with them.

My youngest son is now reading his brother's books and that includes a number of John Grishams.

So he read five or six and then was asking his brother what the best one was.  This was probably in June.  And his brother said the best one was "The Firm."

It was late at night and my son just had to have that book then.  Now I support reading and if it had been a few hours earlier, I would have gone to the bookstore.  But I was tired.  And it was a weekend, so he immediately goes to C.I. (we live at her house -- she doesn't! she's on the road and only home on the weekends).  She asked him what book.

And then she says that any Grisham that was a movie, she probably has on her bookshelves in the popular fiction section.  (How come?  For example, the studio that made "The Pelican Brief?"  An exec there who could give a greenlight asked her if Julia Roberts could play the part.  This is forgotten now but Julia had a major problems on the set of "Hook" and that was really it for her career and she earned the name Tinkerhell and had many rumors spread about her work habits.  "The Pelican Brief" was her comeback and for a long time people were thinking of two other actresses for that role.  So for reasons like that, she usually has them if they were later movies.  Or if they were almost movies.)  So my son is thrilled because his brother, the Grisham expert, swears this is the best Grisham book.

Saturday nights, we write at night, into the morning on Third.  And so that's my focus after I put the kids to bed.  I head downstairs and the gang's usually got stuff set up (food trays) and we nibble and write.  But it's the next morning and my middle son comes down the stairs and he hasn't been to bed.  He stayed up all night reading "The Firm."  He couldn't put it down.  He loved it.  It was a weekend, the summer and he was reading, so I certainly didn't get on to him -- though I made clear I wish he'd slept.  So he goes off to sleep and C.I. says, "I'll wait to remind him there's a movie."  Oh, he remembered as soon as he woke up.  And went through C.I.'s shelves and shelves of DVDs to find it.  He loved the movie too.

So now it's a TV show on NBC and it takes place 10 years after the book or movie (which are set in the same period).  Mitch & Abby have a kid now.

Sunday night, NBC aired the two hour opener.  Now I believe it goes to its regular night of Thursdays.

What to think of it?

We liked the beginning, the first minutes.  We really liked the end.

Other than that?  We're reserving judgment until we see the first regular episode.  Juliette Lewis is the best thing about it acting wise, by the way.  And I mean that as a compliment to her.  She's very good.  (She plays Tammy -- that's the part Holly Hunter played in the film.)


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 

Monday, January 9, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, the prison at Guantanamo Bay hits the 10 year mark, Iraq is slammed with bombings again, the KRG judiciary makes clear that Baghad doesn't order them to do anything, more Iraqis report they are suffering, Iraqi refugees continue to be stuck in limbo, and more.   Before we get to Iraq, an anniversary.  On this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) -- topics explored include an update on Guantanamo by Michael Ratner on the tenth anniversary of the Guantanamo Bay prison, attorney Roger Wareham discusses the January 12th International People's Tribunal on War Crimes and Other Violations of International Law, California State University professor David Klein on the plan to build the Cornell and The Technion of Israel in NYC and CCR attorneyy Darius Charney on NYC's stop and frisk policies.  Excerpt from opening segment.   Michael Ratner: January 11th, here we are.  We've completed ten years after 9-11, going into the eleventh year.  The tenth anniversary of Guantanamo opening, entering its 11th year now.  On the actual annivesary, January 11th, I will be in London commemotrating the opening of Guantanamo with other lawyers but particularly with men who have been freed from Guantanamo, a group called Caged Prisoners.  Commemorating the 11th year of the practices that underlie imprisonment at Guantanamo:  the capture of detainees anywhere in the world or their kidnapping; their imprisonment indefinitely or forever under a preventive detention scheme; and their trials, if at all, by rump trials or military commissions.  Here we are, the Guantanamo Syndrome -- that series of illnesses, sickness and outrage that represent both Republican and Democratic administrations are still with us. I'm commemorating it with a group set up after Guantanamo, set up by some of the very people who were formerly impisoned in Guantanamo, a group called Caged Prisoners. And I'm in London going through three days of commemoration of not just those who remain in Guantanamo, but of those who remain in secret prisons all over the world, particularly Bagram.  And I'm with a number of the people who have been freed -- freed from Guantanamo. Some of those prisoners. for example, Moazzam Begg was freed from Guantanamo even before we won our court case in June 2004.  And I'm with him today in London and his story actually tells us a lot about what happened at Guantanamo.  And then I want to give a little history of the Center [for Constitutional Rights]'s  involvement and my own.  I met Moazzam Begg in February 2004 in the United Kingdom.  He'd been freed because of the huge amount of efforts by the British citizens -- led by the Redgraves [the late Corin Redgrave and his sister Vanessa Redgrave of the British acting family dynasty] in particular and others to get the British citizens to get the British citizens out of there.  And when I walked into the room, I remember it like it was yesterday,  here were these young men -- I mean they were young like my own children in a way -- and the idea that these three men were ever kept in Guantanamo as the 'worst of the worst' or 'terrorists' just struck me as completely impossible.  They could joke with me, they could tell the stories of what happened, they could talk about Guantanamo, they could talk about their own lives and, of course, they were kept in Guantanamo after being picked up in Pakistan and forced to give 'confessions' when they were at Guantanamo.  They figured when they were at Guantanamo that after they were being tortured in various ways that they were better off just saying, 'Yeah, we knew Osama bin Laden, etc.'  And they thought it would go better for them but of course it went worse.  And even though they had alibis of where they were at the time and why they were in Afghanistan -- and good ones, correct ones -- the government forced these 'confessions' out of them under torture and kept them there year after year.  When I met them, they talked about the torture.  And when I talk to you, our listeners, about it, you have to understand that when I met them, no one knew publicly what was going on in Guantanamo, there'd been no access to Guantanamo.  But there was the testimony of the Tipton Three.  And everybody said, 'Oh, they're lying, they're not telling the truth.'  And in the room with me that day, they went over what's called a "Rumsfeld Technique."  Those are what we now know are everything from hooding, stripping, dogs, sexual assault -- all these kind of terrible things that Rumsfeld Techniques did to people at Guantanamo as a means of coercing what turned out to be false confessions out of people.  And I sat there and I believed them.  But I had trouble believing it because, of course, I'd always looked at Guantanamo as a horrible place because it was incommunicado detention -- we couldn't get them into court to test their detentions, we couldn't get them lawyers, we couldn't visit -- and I looked at that as the worst aspect.  And while I suspected that there might be interrogation issues, I didn't realize that there would be abuse amounting or equivalent to torture.   And was I naive in that respect?  Possibly so. But of course within a couple of months after my interview with the Guantanamo Three or the Tipton Three, the Abu Ghraib photos came out on April 24th of 2004 and then, of course, it was public for everybody.  The Rumfseld Techniques came out and then the Tipton Three's testimony -- that people had said, 'Oh, we don't believe it' -- was proven to be utterly, utterly accurate to the actual use of the Rumsfeld Techniques, the dozen techniques. And so then Guantanamo became synonymous not just with incommunicado detention but with torture as well.  And today, of course, Guantanamo is still there.  And as we talk about Guantanamo, I want to give people the numbers. Guantanamo is still there.  171 men remain in Guantanamo.  46 have been approved -- whatever that means -- for indefinite detention and will be there forever as far as I know.  36 men have been referred for prosecution.  What kind of prosecution? Most likely military commissions which are just rump courts which are just rump trials for nothing.  The remainder?  Not clear. But most of the remainder have been approved for release.  So that means the remainder shouldn't be there at all.  People like the Uighurs from western China who were picked up wrongly -- admittedly wrongly  -- and have now been there for ten years and will be going on  I don't know how many years. So that total is about 89 people, most of whom have been approved for transfer.  So of those 89 almost none of them should be there.  So there's our numbers again.  46 indefinitely detained forever, 36 supposedly subject to prosecution and 89 who shouldn't be there at all -- or most of whom should not be there at all, some of whom they may not have decided yet. That's Guantanamo today.   This is an important issue, it does have connections to Iraq (including how Rumsfeld Techniques migrated from Guantanamo to Iraq).  It's one of the reasons that (offline) this will be a crazy end of the week for me (as I noted last week) and also Michael Ratner's worked like crazy to get attention on this issue for ten years now.  Ideally, we will continue to note Guantanamo every day in this week's snapshots due to the anniversary; however, the rest of the week we will save it for the end of the snapshot. And the above is an excerpt, there is more to Michael Ratner's analysis on the topic in the broadcast.  And for more on Guantanamo, all this week, World Can't Wait will be drawing attention to Guantanamo.  It generally covers Guantanamo every week regardless but due to the anniversary and various actions, there will be even more attention so refer to World Can't Wait throughout the week.     Iraq?  AFP's Prashant Rao Tweets:   prashantrao Prashant Rao Yet another terrible day in #Baghdad. #Iraq 2 hours ago     Another day of political crisis, another day of extreme violence.  AP notes 2 Baghdad car bombings left "at least 14 people" dead with "dozens" injured.  Kareem Raheem (Reuters) notes the death toll rose to 15 and fifty-two were injured.  AFP reports that bombings today targeting pilgrims in Iraq have resulted in one death and twenty-four people being left injured -- 1 dead and nine injured in Owairij and fiften injured in Hilla.  Jomana Karadsheh (CNN)  explains, "Hundreds of thousands of Shiites are making their way to Karbala to commemorate the Arbaeen pilgrimage this weekend. Arbaeen is the pilgrimage marking the end of a 40 day mourning period for the death of Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed, a seventh century imam and one of the  Shiaa Islam's holiest figures."  Al Jazeera adds, "As part of the Arbaeen ceremonies, Shia pilgrims walk to Karbala from across Iraq.  Devotees also descend on the city from around the world."  Reuters notes the Hilla bombing was yesterday and the injured were Afghanistan pilgrimas, they count 2 dead in a Baghdad roadside bombing with twelve more pilgrims injured, they also note the following Sunday night violence just making the news cycle: a Balad home bombing targeting a police officer which left him "his wife and three children" injured, a Falluja home bombing targeting a police officers home which injured two of the officers' relatives, Baghdad police shot dead a suspect, Iraqi soldiers in Mahmudiya shot dead a suspect, and 1 city government worker was shot dead in Kirkuk. And the political crisis?  Kareem Raheem (Reuters) notes today, "The crisis threatens to unravel Iraq's fragile coalition government of Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish factions and has raised fears of renewed sectarian violence."  The editorial board of Canada's Globe & Mail observes:   Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki continues to purge his opponents and consolidate his authority. He is now on the verge of abandoning last year's power-sharing agreement, which formed a government of national unity. Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi has [. . . sought refuge in] Kurdistan after authorities issued a warrant for his arrest, a decision that added to sectarian tensions. In the weeks before the U.S. military withdrawal, Mr. al-Maliki rounded up hundreds of Iraqis accused of being former Baath Party members. Security forces detain and abuse dissenting academics, activists and journalists with impunity [. . .]     Serena Chaudhry (Reuters) quotes the Economist Intelligence Unit's Ali al-Saffar stating, "There is no doubt [the arrest warrant] was choreographed to put down the marker, to eradicate any doubt over who was in charge in the wake of the U.S. troop withdrawl." Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) offers an analysis and we'll note this paragraph: "I think it was a bad mistake for the US not to say in 2010 that Maliki was unacceptable to them," said a Western diplomat formerly posted to Baghdad. He argued that Mr Maliki should have been rejected because he was a sectarian Shia intent on building an authoritarian state and that this state is corrupt and dysfunctional. Corruption is at a level whereby state funds are simply transferred abroad to shell companies secretly owned by officials at home. Unemployment is between 25 and 40 per cent. Inability to provide an adequate supply of electricity has been a notorious failing of the post-Saddam state, but the electricity ministry still managed to agree to pay $1.3bn to a bankrupt German company and a non-existent Canadian one. The government's budget is spent mainly on salaries and pensions, with recipients often connected to the ruling parties. Not only did they refuse to say he was unacceptable, they demanded that he continue as prime minister. The Iraqi people voted in March 2010. Nouri's State of Law came in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya. Instead of respecting the will of the voters and the Iraqi Constitution, the US government set out to circumvent both. It was as ugly and offensive as the US Supreme Court installing second place Bully Boy Bush over first place Al Gore. And it sent the message to Iraqis that (a) their votes didn't matter, (b) the Constitution didn't matter and (c) that the whole thing was a farce. This was a very big thing, the elections. Iraqiya was labeled "Ba'athists" by State Of Law, the Justice and Accountability Commission (whose term had expired) suddenly resurfaced to begin banning Iraqiya candidates from running, in the lead up to the elections, several Iraqiya candidates were shot dead, state media was claiming Nouri's State of Law would come in first. Despite all of that, Iraqis turned out and voted and, thanks to the US, were left to wonder why they even bothered? This was an issue raised in the Iraqi protests in 2011 -- that the prime minister stayed the same, that Jalal Talabani remained President and the two Vice Presidents remained the same, so why did they even vote? They also protested the corruption, the disappearance of loved ones into the so-called judicial system, the lack of jobs and the lack of public services (reliable electricity, potable water, etc.)  Dar Addustour reports that protests took place in Sulaymaniyah Province today over public services and the claims were put forward that there are planned projects. Lots of 'planning' but Iraqis still see no results. Worse, they saw Nouri al-Maliki -- watching the unrest in Egypt -- insist that problems would be fixed in 100 days.  Then 100 days passed and Nouri claimed that he had not promised to fix anything just to identiy the problems.  The 100 days was nothing but a stalling technique (as we noted when he announced it) a way to distract Iraqis.  The 100 days expired in June.  So, according to him, that was time spent identifying problems.   And what was done in the over 180 days since Nouri 'identified' the problems?  Not a damn thing to impact the average Iraqi in a positive manner. And this as the number of Iraqis who see themselves as sufferin/enduring increases.  Gallup has a new poll out today. It's a survey of Iraqis. Stafford Nichols explains, "The percentage of Iraqis who rate their lives poorly enough to be considered 'suffering' rose from 14% in in October 2010 to 25% in September 2011."   And no progress.  Nouri's been prime minister since 2006?  At what time is held he accountable for this?  Aswat al-Iraq quotes Iraqiya spokesperson Maysoun Damalougy stating, "No progress has been achieved in both the service and economic levels in the country."   In addition, she points out that that "the biggest part of this [political] crisis is the fact that despite the lapse of one within the current government, the cabinet has not been completed."  When Jalal Talabani named Nouri prime-minister designate, per the Constitution, he had 30 days to name a Cabinet -- that means his nominating candidates and Parliament voting on each one.  He did not do that.  Per the Constitution, he never should have been moved to prime minister.  Having failed at naming a full Cabinet, he should have been stripped of prime minister-designate and someone else should have been named (by Talabani) and that person would then have 30 days.    Nouri's 30 days ended with the month of December . . . in 2010.  For over a year, Iraq has had no Minister of National Security, no Minister of Defense, no Minister of Interior.    That is on Nouri who refused to name people to those posts.  Critics stated that this was a power-grab on Nouri's part and that he had no intention of naming ministers to those posts.  Over a year later, they appear to have been correct.     Nouri al-Maliki returned to Baghdad from DC last month and promptly began acting as if he had run out of meds. He demanded that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and he would order the arrest of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi soon after. Both al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are members of Iraqiya. Nouri insists that al-Hashemi is also a terrorist and to 'prove' it ordered 'confessions' played over state TV -- in violation of the Constitution's innocent until/unless found guilty in a court of law. By the time Nouri ordered the arrest, Tareq al-Hashemi was already visiting the KRG on official business. Since the arrest warrant was announced, he has remained in the KRG as a guest of Jalal Talabani. Bradley Klapper (AP) has an interesting analysis here that hopefully we'll have time for later in the week.   Al Mada reports Allawi says that al-Hashemi must be tried before an independent judiciary -- not Baghdad's judicial system which Nouri controls. The paper notes that Allawi met in Sulaymaniyah Saturday night with Talabani and in Erbil yesterday with Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani.  And Aswat al-Iraq notes that Talabani had arrived in Baghdad this afternoon.  Yesterday, the United Nations' Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Iraq, Martin Kobler, met with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and they discussed the need to resolve the political crisis via an ongoing dialogue. Al Rafidayn notes that Baghdad made an official request to the KRG to hand over al-Hashemi. Baghdad admits that it has no power to enter the KRG and arrest al-Hashemi. Nor do they have any control over the Kurdish judiciary. And now we drop back to the roundtable we did at Third on Christmas Day: Betty: C.I., can the KRG continue to protect al-Hashemi and what's the status on al-Mutlaq? C.I.: The Parliament has stated that Nouri is incorrect in his assertion that the law is on his side, they've stated the law is unclear. That's only a temporary time saver. If the law is unclear, it's left to the judiciary to resolve the issue and the Iraqi judiciary has long been seen as a rubber stamp for Nouri. So right now, Tareq al-Hashemi can remain in the KRG but what happens if the judiciary rules? I have no idea. Now the Iraqi judiciary could rule and, this could be a trump card, the KRG could respond, "Okay, well that's what it says about Baghdad, but we're the KRG and we have our own courts so we'll take the issue to our courts." That could further delay it. The KRG courts might determine the law -- they'll have to go by intent if they're using Iraqi law but I don't know why the KRG would not use their own law, I think they would and give it greater emphasis -- said Tareq al-Hashemi had to be handed over. In which case, the KRG officials might hand Tareq al-Hashmi over. But what if the KRG courts, citing KRG law, stated the KRG cannot hand him over? Then you'd have a conflict and how that gets resolved would be something the whole world would watch. That conflict may be arriving. Dar Addustour notes the Baghdad request for al-Hashemi and the fourteen people with him and they note spokesperson for the head of the Kudristan Judicial Council held a press conference yesterday. Judge Dhatiar Hamid Suleiman's spokesperson acknowledged that the request from Baghad had been received; however, he declared that they are not the police and they also do not take orders from Nouri al-Maliki. The judge wondered why al-Hashemi wasn't arrested at the airport (Baghdad International) instead of bringing the KRG into it? Noting that al-Hashemi is Talabani's house guest, the judge wondered how you would even go about arresting him?  On al-Hashemi, Press TV runs with a rumor: Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz has ordered that al-Hashemi be murdered and Saudi Prince Muqrin bin Abdul-Azis is the one who will have to oversee the planning of the execution -- this is being done because the Saudi royal family fears what al-Hashemi might tell.  If you're not aware, the governments of Saudia Arabia and Iran are in the same level of conflict of, say, the US and North Korea.  In other words, the rumor didn't need any verification for Press TV to run with and, in fact, the rumor might have started at Press TV.   Turning to the issue of Iraqi refugees, Press TV also notes:   According to the UNHCR, the victims number some 4.7 million, many of whom are in serious need of humanitarian care. Of those, more than 2.7 million Iraqis are internally displaced, while more than 2 million have escaped to neighboring states. Iraq's local authorities are, meanwhile, struggling to provide appropriate accommodation infrastructure for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, who have returned home and are trying to resettle. The largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since 1948 was set off by the Iraq War.  With violence non-stop, people weren't going to wait for host countries to process any applications for immgration.  They went across the borders -- some with travel visas -- some without.  They went to Lebanon and Jordan and Syria primarily.  (Some also went to Iran and Turkey. And within Iraq, ethnic cleansing meant that many were forced out of their homes and neighborhoods.  This made it very difficult to receive rations and subsidies because these people no longer lived in their neighborhoods and the system being used to dole out those services was based upon what neighborhood you lived in. External or internal, Iraqis lost their homes at either bargain basement rates or without even that, their homes were just taken over.  The ethnic cleansing is 2006 through 2007 -- Nouri is prime minister during this, for those who've forgotten -- and armed militias go block by block through neighborhoods.  And Nouri does what?  Not a damn thing.   Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) has spent the last years reporting what she saw with her focus on the truth. A strong argument could be made that her columns have documented the steps that led to the current political crisis. Her focus for some time has been on the Iraqis who helped the US as translators and have now been forgotten. Her most recent column on that topic is "Shame On US: allies betrayed." Excerpt: Last week, I spoke on the PBS NewsHour about Iraqis who worked for our civilians and military before we left the country - and who now face death threats because we betrayed them. I've received a slew of e-mail from Iraqi interpreters who are in hiding because Shiite militias have pledged to kill the "traitors" who aided the Americans. I've also received e-mail from U.S. military officers desperately trying to get their "terps" out of the country. And I've heard from ordinary, concerned Americans. All ask the same question: How can we get the U.S. government to issue the visas it promised to Iraqis who risked their lives to help us? I'm ashamed to admit that the U.S. government has abandoned these people. No one seems eager to bring more Iraqis into this country in an election year. President Obama has failed to keep his 2007 campaign pledge to rescue these Iraqis. A group of concerned senators, mostly Democrats, including Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, has made inquiries, but gotten no answers from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta or Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Nor has a peep been heard on behalf of the "terps" from Republican senators who backed our war in Iraq.   Good for Trudy Rubin. And her voice is especially needed since no one has taken up the megaphone Kenneth Bacon had as president of Refugees International (he passed away in 2009). In addition to the stories she shares in her column, she also has a blog post entitled "More Iraq visa horror stories" dealing with stories shared by a US military officer and Refugees International. Kimi Yoshino (Los Angeles Times) writes of a visit to Disneyland with a group of Iraqi refugees who were among the small number able to get into the US: Since my husband arrived in the U.S. in 2009 after months of red tape, I've heard him remark on numerous occasions how youthful everyone looks here -- and how relaxed. In Iraq, a life of fear and anxiety has taken a toll. Forty-year-old Iraqis look 10 years older. And there's an exhaustion, a sadness, that seems to permanently cloud their eyes. That was part of the culture shock of Disneyland, so much joy all packed into one place. "Once I entered inside, I felt like I was transferred into a whole different world of fantasy," my husband said. "Everybody's happy and everybody's nice -- like it's not a real world." The uncertainty and the violence that still grips their country is what drove them to leave, even if it meant starting over. And Andrew Lam (New American Media) focuses on the Iraqis forced out of their country due to the violence: Each time Uncle Sam ventures abroad he leaves an unfinished story, and nowhere is it most unfinished than the story of Iraq, where despite flowery speeches regarding freedom and sovereignty by the Obama administration, despite assurances that tyranny has been "cast aside," the tragedy caused by the United States invasion, occupation and inevitable abandonment is on an epic proportion. Never mind that sectarian violence continues unabated and much of the populace remains mired in poverty, and that there's a distinct possibility that the country is on its way to becoming a failed state if the Sunnis and Shiites cannot find a way to collectively govern. The most unfinished story, however, is the population that the war has displaced. Whether tyranny has been cast aside is questionable, but certainly cast aside are the people of Iraq. They have been displaced both internally and internationally and are now imperiled by the sin of our omission.   iraq afp reuters cnn jomana karadsheh the independent patrick cockburn dar addustour al mada al rafidayn wbai law and disorder radio michael s. smith heidi boghosian michael ratner vanessa redgrave gallup stafford nichols iraq body count the philadelphia inquirer trudy rubin the los angeles times kimi yoshino new american media andrew lam

Changey?

"The Inauguration of Police State USA 2012. Obama Signs the 'National Defense Authorization Act'" (Michael Chossudovsky, Global Ressearch):
With minimal media debate, at a time when Americans were celebrating the New Year with their loved ones,  the “National Defense Authorization Act " H.R. 1540 was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The actual signing took place in Hawaii on the 31st of December.

According to Obama's "signing statement", the threat of Al Qaeda to the Security of the Homeland constitutes a justification for repealing fundamental rights and freedoms, with a stroke of the pen.  The relevant provisions pertaining to civil rights were carefully esconded in a short section of  a 500+ page document.

The controversial signing statement (see transcript below) is a smokescreen. Obama says he disagrees with the NDAA but he signs it into law.

"[I have] serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Obama implements "Police State USA", while acknowledging that certain provisions of  the NDAA (contained in Subtitle D--Counterterrorism) are unacceptable. If such is the case, he could have either vetoed the NDAA (H.R. 1540) or sent it back to Congress with his objections.

The fact of the matter is that both the Executive and the US Congress are complicit in the drafting of Subtitle D. In this regard, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) revealed that it was the White House which had asked the Senate Armed Services Committee "to remove language from the bill that would have prohibited U.S. citizens’ military detention without due process"

Obama justifies the signing of the NDAA as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a "counter-terrorism" agenda.  But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can --under the provisions of the NDAA-- be labelled a "suspected terrorist" and arrested under military detention. Already in 2004, Homeland Security defined  several categories of potential "conspirators" or "suspected terrorists" including  "foreign [Islamic] terrorists", "domestic radical groups", [antiwar and civil rights groups],  "disgruntled employees" [labor and union activists] and "state sponsored adversaries" ["rogue states", "unstable nations"]. The unspoken objective in an era of war and social crisis is to repress all forms of domestic protest and dissent.

So much for the changey, huh?  Barack is so full of it.  He and Michelle need to go back to Chicago already.  I've had it with him and all of his crap.

He is Bush.  He is worse than Bush.  We thought nothing could be worse than Bush and then the country met Barack. 


His grandmother is so lucky not to see what her bastard grandson has done to this country.

Go read Ruth's "That idiot Naomi Wolf." Then wonder where the apology to America is from all the loons who pimped Barack in 2008?

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, January 6, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, denial that Barack has responsibility continues, the US is not going to support Tareq al-Hashemi, who got punished for Iraq coverage (and who didn't), and more.   Let's start with David Shorr.  He's not interested in honesty, he's not interested in facts.  If you can hold your nose, click on the link and sink into the spin and ignorance.  He doesn't see how Barack Obama "owns" what happens in Iraq.  He doesn't see it because he can't admit the truth.  I haven't read Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan's column, I have no interest in reading it.  I have even less interest in reading Steve Clemons.  I did read Peter Feaver's piece -- awhile back.  (We highlighted it in the December 27th snapshot.)   I'm not in the mood to pretend Shorr's an honest broker, so we'll dismiss with him quickly.  Feaver argued that Barack also owns the war (owns it with Bush).  Shorr has a problem with that. We'll let Shorr's own words betray him:   Feaver cries foul on the attempt he sees by Obama supporters to give him full credit for anything positive in Iraq and saddle President Bush with everything negative. Well, what is the Obama Administration claiming to have done? President Obama claims credit for extricating American forces from nearly nine years of military involvement there.  By the way, can I pause for a moment to say how absurd it is to talk about a hasty exit after nine years?!?   Wow.  Well I'm convinced.  Barack's a saint, a hero and pees rainbows.  In Shorr's  mouth.  The rest of the world, however, may note that Shorr claims the Iraq War lasted nine years.  No, March 2003 is when it officially started.  So let's go with the eight years plus.  (Facts are so hard for con artists.)  So Barack deserves credit because he ended this eight year war?   Bush started and Bush ran it for eight years and just last month, Barack ended it.  Thank goodness Barack Obama was sworn in as president in December 2011 or else the US might still be -- What's that?   Oh, that's right.  Barack wasn't just sworn in.  He was sworn in back in January of 2009. A few weeks short of three years he pretends he ended the war and occupation (he didn't end it).  But he continued it, despite campaign promises.  And he wanted to continue the US military's strong presence even longer.  The "hasty exit" line?  Again? We just called out Media Matters distorting/lying about this.  But, I guess, when independent thought is beyond your capabilities, all you can do is repeat talking points.    The "hasty exit"  -- as presented by members of Congress -- refers to the fact that in October when Barack ignores the Defense Dept's legal opinion and goes with the State Dept's legal opinion (I don't believe the idiot Shorr is even aware that there were legal opinions) and declares (that phase of) the talks over, that period from the last of October through December, is what they call the hasty exit.  Liars and whores can't make solid arguments so they have to lie.  Barack has not ended the war and occupation.  But let's pretend for a moment that he has.  Was he elected in 2008 with the mandate to follow Bush's actions?  To continue the Iraq War for three more years?  No, he wasn't.  He was voted into office to end the Iraq War.  And during those three years (2009, 2010 and 2011), he repeatedly made one mistake after another.  December 13 on To The Point (KCRW), Warren Oleny spoke with former Iraqi Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi.  Excerpt.   Warren Oleny: Is there anything the Obama administration should be doing differently from what it is?   Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi: Well, I mean, that's hard to say because obviously it's influence is somewhat waning.  The critical mistake the Obama administration made occurred last year when it threw its entire diplomatic weight behind supporting Nouri al-Maliki notwithstanding these very worrisome signs which were already in place in 2009 and 2010.  The administration lobbied hard both internally in Iraq and throughout the region to have Nouri al-Maliki get a second term -- which he has done.  Right now, the betting there's some question among Iraq experts whether we'll ever have a set of elections in Iraq worthy of the name.  I mean, you can almost get odds, a la Las Vegas, on that among Iraq experts. It's a very worrisome thing.  What can they do in the future? Well I suppose it would be helpful, it would be useful, if we stopped hearing this sort of Happy Talk coming from the administration -- whether its Jim Jeffreys in Baghdad, the US Ambassador or whether it's the president himself or other cabinet officers.  We're getting a lot of Happy Talk, we're getting a lot of Happy Talk from the Pentagon about how professional the Iraqi Army is when, in fact, the Iraqi Army Chief of Staff himself has said it's going to take another ten years before the Iraqi Army can secure the borders. So it would help, at least, if we would stop hearing this sort of Pollyanna-ish -- if that's a word -- exclamations from the administration about how swimmingly things are going in Iraq and had a little more truth told in public, that would be a very big help to begin with.   We're opposed to the illegal (and ongoing) Iraq War.  We always have been.  I don't need to distort what someone from the other side says or does to make my argument (see last night's entry).  Let's dispense with David Shorr by noting he hero worshipped Daniel Schorr.  Schorr loved to lie that he was fired from CBS News because of his integrity in ensuring that a Congressional report was printed.  No, he was fired for lying.  He was fired for lying and trying to get someone else in trouble.  As Ava and I noted in "Let's Kill Helen!" (our look at the disgusting trolls attacking Helen Thomas):   Oh my goodness, Helen's anti-war! Strip her of her American citizenship! Truly, that must be a huge offense to Alicia since she likens it to anti-semitism. Can you get more stupid than Alicia Shepard? Others may not be able to, but she surely can. And did. No reporter for CBS would get away with that, Alicia wanted to insist. And she follows that up by telling Aimee that age can't be to blame because "Dan Schorr" is 91 and he works for NPR. He does, she's right. But he doesn't work for CBS, does he? Nor can he. Yeah, we'll go there. Daniel Schorr was fired from CBS. He and his supporters (who funded a year long travel circuit for Danny after his firing) insisted he was fired for doing his job. That is and was a lie. Daniel Schorr was not fired for being a defender of freedom. Most people are aware of the Church Committee which investigated governmental abuses. The Pike Committee came immediately after, doing the same sort of work, and they wrote a report. They then decided not to issue it. Schorr, in his capacity as a CBS reporter, had a copy of the report. CBS was weighing whether or not to report on the now killed report. Schorr has often (not always) maintained that a decision was made to kill the report and that's why he acted. That's not true. Either he's lying or he was out of the loop. CBS was still deciding. Schorr took the report to The Village Voice which published it. That could have been the end of it for CBS News because they retained their copy (Schorr had photocopied it and given the photocopies to the weekly). There was an internal investigation at CBS to determine whether or not someone at CBS leaked the report to The Village Voice. Had Schorr kept his mouth shut, the investigation would have been as half-assed as every other internal investigation CBS News conducts. But Schorr couldn't keep his mouth shut. This is why he was fired, this is why he will never work for CBS again. When asked, as all who had access to the report were, if he had given it to anyone, Schorr didn't stick to "no comment" or a lie that he didn't do anything. No, instead Schorr chose to finger Lesley Stahl. Schorr told the investigators that The Village Voice published the report (which they knew) and Lesley was dating Aaron Latham (who worked for The Voice) so it was most likely that Lesley Stahl handed over the report to the weekly. Schorr was not fired for leaking the report. He was fired for lying and for trying to blame someone he knew was innocent. Think for just a moment what could have happened if Schorr had gotten away with that: Lesley Stahl's career would have been over -- at least at CBS though probably no other network would touch her if they feared she'd take their stories elsewhere. Aaron Latham (a notable journalist in his own right) would have been outraged that Lesley lost her job because she was dating him. Knowing Aaron, he would have made it his life's purpose to find out who falsely accused Lesley and prove that liar wrong. If he'd been successful, it might have been a messy media moment and then life would have continued. If not? Most likely, Lesley would try to move on from it and Aaron would want to remain in the role of protector/enforcer. Meaning it wouldn't have just effected her professional life, which was bad enough, if would have changed her entire life. Lesley and Aaron married years ago and have had one of the few enduring marriages in the journalistic community. Lesley could have lost everything as a result of Daniel Schorr's lies. He was prepared to destroy someone professionally and personally. In June 2010, while he was still alive, Ava and I were telling the truth about the dishonest and corrupt Daniel Schorr.  A month later, he died and there was David Shorr holding him up as a model. That says everything you need to know about the dishonest and uninformed David Shorr.  We're done with David Shorr.   In the real world, Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) observes, "And as we noted here last month, the American war crime in Iraq just keeps rolling on. This week saw yet another spate of mass slaughter in yet another series of bombings in the virulent sectarian warfare which was spawned, set loose, empowered and fomented by the invaders, who very deliberately -- with malice aforethought -- divided their new 'Iraqi' government along strict sectarian lines, arming and paying death squads and militias on both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide to rip each other -- and Iraqi society -- to pieces. The mass murder this week is a direct result and a direct responsibility of the Americans who instigated, carried out, supported -- and praise -- the 'extraordinary achievement' of this endless atrocity. 'Nine years in the making,' yes -- and still going strong!"  From the right-wing, we'll note Sheldon Richman (Reason -- link is text and audio):   Obama will campaign on how he ended the war -- which began not in 2003 but in 1991; the U.S. government tormented the Iraqi people for 20 years! -- and conservatives will attack him for it. Both sides will conveniently forget that (1) the U.S. government was obligated to leave on Dec. 31, 2011, under an agreement signed by Bush, and (2) Obama tried his damnedest to get the Iraqi leaders to ask the U.S. military to stay. (Contrary to claims, not all troops have left.) And let's be clear: An exit from Iraq hardly constitutes an exit from the Middle East. The troops moved down the road to Kuwait, "repostured" for future use. Meanwhile, sabers are being rattled in the direction of Iran and Syria, where covert warfare is already being waged. The more things change, the more they stay the same.     The Iraq War has entered a new phase.  As people mark the end of the last phase with various stats and numbers, it might be time to note that a few people paid a price for getting it right.  Chris Hedges is the author of many books including Death of the Liberal Class which we picked at Third as one of the ten most important books of the last ten years (2001 to 2011).  The community voted it the number two book of 2010, see "2010 in books (Martha & Shirley)" and the number two book of 2011, see  "2011 in books (Martha & Shirley)."  His most recent book is a collection of his columns, The World As It Is.  He was a guest on CSPAN 2's Book TV program In Depth (you can also click here).  Excerpt.     Host:  When were you with the New York Times?   Chris Hedges:  1990 to 2005.   Host:  And why did you leave? Chris Hedges: Well we had a little dispute oversomething called the Iraq War. And I'd spent a lot of my life, not only, of course in the Middle East, but in Iraq.  I understood like most Arabists that the arguments used to justify the invasion-occupation of Iraq were non-reality based.  They weren't -- This is not a political discussion.  It's the idea that we would be greeted as liberators and there wouldn't be an insurgency, that democracy would be implanted in Baghdad and emanate outwards across the Middle East, that -- remember? -- the oil would pay for the reconstruction.  I mean these were just spun by people who had no idea what they were talking about.  But to get up and say that, despite the wealth of experience that I had within the region and within Iraq itself became deeply polarizing.  And I gave a commencement address -- I'd been saying it, but it came to sort of a head when I gave a commencement address at Rockford College [text of speech, video of speech with a link to other parts of speech on the right) where I was booed off o the stage, had my microphone cut, people stood up and started shouting things against me.  At one point, they stood up and sang "God Bless America."  I was actually escorted off the platform before the rewarding of diplomas since they didn't want any sort of fracas by close contact with students.  And this got picked up by Fox and sort-of trash talk media -- which looped it, hour after hour.  And the New York Times responded by giving me a formal written reprimand.  Now we were Guild, at the Times, which means we were unionized and the process is you give the employee a written reprimand and the next time they're fired.  So I faced a difficult choice which is that I would have to in essence muzzle myself in service of my career. But, you know, on a fundemantal level, I was very close to my dad.  He was a great minister and an activist in the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-war movement, the gay rights movement  -- his brother who was gay -- and he was very outspoken in support of gay rights.  You know I realized that point to do so would be to betray my father.  And I wasn't going to do that so I left the paper.   It's interesting. You could go on TV and -- reporter or columnist for the New York Times -- advocate for the war -- as many did, before it started and after it started -- and you would not get a written reprimand.  But speak out against the war and suddenly there was a big problem.  That goes to the huge problems with the US press.  If you repeat the government's lies -- even if you know they're lies -- as reality and truth, you don't get into trouble.  Even whent he lies are exposed, even when it's known, for example, that you helped the Reagan administration with Iran-Contra although you were a TV journalist.  You're not punished.  But if you question the government, if you criticize it, you have an "opinion."  And you may have violated your outlet's code.  This despite the fact that skepticism is supposed to be the hallmark of journalism.      Many were punished for opposing the Iraq War -- Henry Noor (San Francisco Chronicle) and Phil Donahue (MSNBC) are two more.  But the only one who was punished from the other side is scapegoat Judith Miller.  The New York Times let her go because (a) her image and (b) their own embarrassment.  Her reports don't stand up.  Was Judith also an editor?  Was she the publisher?  Why was she the only one at the paper who was let go?  Judith didn't host Meet The Press on NBC or any of the Sunday chat shows that sold the illegal war (often with Miller as a guest).  None of those people were fired from their jobs.  Judith was a guest on Oprah's daytime talk show when Oprah wanted to sell the upcoming illegal war and Oprah even snapped on TV at an audience member who dared to questions the dubious claims presented as fact.  Oprah lost nothing.   Judith Miller's reporting doesn't stand up.  She was wrong.  She was a lousy reporter.  If you ignore that she commandeered a US military unit while she was in Iraq and used them to go find WMD (they found nothing), you could call her a liar.  (Clearly she was tricked or allowed herself to be tricke by the sources she was too cozy with.)   But Judith Miller didn't work at the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or any other newspaper.  And Judith Miller hosted no MSNBC, CNN or Fox News program.  And Judith Miller anchored no broadcast network's evening news.  And Judith Miller didn't host PBS' Washington Week or The NewsHour.  So why was she the only one -- out of all those fools, liars and worse?   Because, as a woman, she was a lightening rod in a way that a man can never be. (Bash the bitch is the American pastime, as Ava and I noted.)  And so a lot of men (and less prominent women) kept their heads down and played dumb, just glad to have Judith Miller punished for all of their journalistic sins.     On national, state and local levels around the country, people were fired for being skeptical and/or against the impending war.  And the only one fired who cheerleaded the war was Judith Miller?  Imagine how different today would be if those cheerleading war -- and not the Dixie Chicks -- had been the ones to lose their media access, had been the ones dropped by various media outlets.  But opposing war was controversial.  Blindly going along wasn't.  Because it's never a crime in US journalism to parrot and applaud the US government -- especially the White House.     (And I'm not calling for the censorship of the War Hawks or anyone else -- let opinions compete in the public square.  But I am attempting to underscore that they had access to the media and amplification while those who were skeptical or flat out against the Iraq War were shut out by the media.)     After yesterday's string of bombings across Iraq, today would have to be (comparatively) more peaceful. This being Iraq, that doesn't mean the violence stopped. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports, "At least three explosions struck Friday near Baghdad's Green Zone, where a parade to make Iraq's Army Day was taking place, according to witnesses."  Reuters notes that there was also a Baghdad mortar attack which left three people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left seven people injured, a third Baghdad roadsie bombing claimed 1 life and left five more people injured and a Balad Ruz roadside bombing claimed 1 life. That's 3 dead and twenty injured.  Of yesterday's violence, Dan Morse (Washington Post) observes, "At least 72 people were killed Thursday in a series of attacks on Shiites in Iraq, marking the deadliest day since U.S. troops withdrew last month and raising new worries about the country's sharp sectarian divisions." The political crisis continues in Iraq.  At 8:00 pm EST last night, the White House issued the following: The White House Office of the Vice President For Immediate Release January 05, 2012 Readout of the Vice President's Call with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey In the context of close U.S.-Turkish consultation on matters of mutual interest, Vice President Biden and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed regional issues, including political developments in Iraq, by telephone today. Following up on their conversation during the Vice President's trip to Turkey in December, the two leaders agreed on the need to advance security, support the rule of law and encourage democracy in the region. They agreed that our two governments would remain in regular contact on these issues.   Hurriyet Daily News adds that "Erdogan warned efforts expended so far to protect Iraq's territorial intergrity and stability would become meaningless if Iraq drifted away from democratic culture."  Nouri al-Maliki's attempt at seizing further power has resulted in his swearing out a warrant against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.  Former CIA Director (2006 - 2009) Michael V. Hayden offered this summary at CNN of Iraq post Status Of Forces Agreement:     With that agreement unextended and now expired, al-Maliki appears to be acting out the darkest shadows of his own past. Over the last months, he has reneged on a power-sharing agreement with Sunnis in several key ministries, arrested hundreds of suspected Baathists (read Sunni oppositionists) and -- as the last American troops were leaving Iraq and fresh from an audience in the Oval Office -- he has now ordered the arrest of his own Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, for alleged "terrorism." Along with all of this, al Qaeda in Iraq greeted the U.S. withdrawal with a series of deadly bombings against largely Shiite targets. Al Qaeda was always expected to take advantage of the "seam" created by the handoff of counterterrorism operations from American to Iraqi control, but now even a badly weakened al Qaeda can exploit the sense of Sunni vulnerability that al-Maliki's actions have created. The situation may yet be salvaged. America is not without tools. Ambassador Jim Jeffrey cut short his holiday home leave to return to Iraq and, as he has in the past, he will no doubt use his considerable skills in an attempt to defuse the situation. But the ambassador will have fewer tools at his disposal. But is James Jeffrey able to address all the issues?  No.  And he wouldn't if he could.  The US government has repeatedly went for the 'big' issue.  Which, under Bush since 2006 or Barack since he was sworn in, has always translated as: Protect Nouri and his position.  That's why Barack was able to ignore the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community even with the US Congress calling it out.  That's why Barack was able to ignore Nouri attacking protesters during the so-called "Arab Spring."  February 25th, Nouri's forces were attaking protesters and journalists.  This continued week after week.  Human Rights Watch covered this repeatedly.  Here's Human Rights Watch from June 2nd:   On May 28, soldiers in four Humvees and two other unmarked vehicles approached the offices of the human rights group Where Are My Rights in Baghdad's Bab al Mu'adham neighborhood, as members met with fellow protest organizers from the February 25 Group. Members of both groups told Human Rights Watch that soldiers raided the building with guns drawn, took away 13 activists in handcuffs and blindfolds, and confiscated mobile phones, computers and documents. One detained activist who was released on May 29 told Human Rights Watch that during the raid a commanding officer introduced himself as "from Brigade 43"of the army's 11th Division and said another officer was "from Baghdad Operation Command." "They did not show any arrest warrants and did not tell us why we were being arrested," this activist said: A female activist complained and asked to see warrants, and they told her to "shut up and get in the car." They blindfolded and handcuffed us, and while they were doing this, they asked, "Why are you having these meetings? Do you really think you can bring down the government?" And they asked who was supporting us. The activist said that the army took the people it arrested to a detention facility at Division 11 headquarters, where they were interrogated both as a group and individually. "Once we were there, they hit us with their hands in the face, neck, chest, and arms while we were still blindfolded," the activist said. "They kicked us everywhere they could reach. They did not use batons on me, and they talked to each other about not leaving marks or bruises on us." The released activist and several members of both organizations said security forces are still holding nine of the activists and have released four without any charges. "I asked what crimes we had committed, and asked again about arrest warrants," said the released activist. "They never answered either question."   But that was never anything Barack condemned.  Nouri becomes prime minister in 2006.  Was there a year in there -- 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 -- when Nouri wasn't getting exposed for running another secret prison?  And they tortured in those prisons.  And yet when Nouri's slate came in second in the 2010 elections -- when Iraqis chose Iraqiya for first place and when that meant, per the Constitution, that Iraqiya had first crack at forming a government -- the White House refused to stand up for the will of the Iraqi people or for the Iraq Constitution or for democracy.  They backed thug Nouri.   So Iraqiya would have to be very foolish to think that this is the time that the US finally breaks with Nouri and comes to the rescue of Tareq al-Hashemi, let alone the Iraqi people.  And commentators are noting that James Jeffrey isn't doing a damn thing to help al-Hashemi.  Northsum32 (All Voices) writes:   U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey said: "There is a serious effort by the Iraqi judiciary to have a free and fair and just investigation," "It seems a lot of care is being taken at this point to maintain judicial independence and to have a very broad investigation." These remarks give support to Maliki in his attempt to discredit Hashemi and portray him as a terrorist.   John Glaser (Antiwar.com) observes, "The U.S. ambassador to Iraq has expressed approval of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's quest to detain Iraq's vice president on terrorism charges, despite almost everyone else recognizing it as part of a troubling pattern of consolidating dictatorial power."  Again, Iraqiya would have to be very stupid at this late date to think the US government was going to help al-Hashemi when they have repeatedly backed Nouri over and over.  Despite the fact that Nouri's a thug.  Despite the fact that I can list five prominent members of the administration who have described him as that.  Despite the fact that I can name more Democratic Senators who describe him as a thug than I can name Democratic Senators who don't.     Al Rafidayn reports al-Hashemi has opened an office in the KRG. In a statement, al-Hashemi noted that his new office was in Sulaymaniyah and that it was temporary. He also called for a stop to the raids and harassment on his home and offices in Baghdad as well as the homes of his staff. Two women who work for him were recently detained with no explanation provided to them. On al-Hashemi, Al Mada reports that Parliament has rejected a request to supervise the investigation of al-Hashemi noting that such an action is beyond the scope of their legal duties. The paper also notes that rumors that he will be going to Jordan have been denied by Jordanian officials. Rakan al-Majali, government spokesperson, states no request from al-Hashemi has been received. Again, Nouri's political slate is State of Law. al-Hashemi is currently a house guest of Iraq's President Jalal Talabani. Earlier this week, the Kurdish Alliance staged a walkout (Tuesday) during a session of Parliament to register their offense over State of Law MP Hussein al-Asadi calling Talabani (who is Kurdish) a "terrorist.' Al Mada reports that al-Asadi delivered a formal apology and has stated he will travel to Sulaimaniyah to apologize to Talabani in person. Talabani has called for a national conference among the political blocs to address the political crisis. Alsumaria TV reports on "observers" believing Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc not attending (this was announced over the holiday weekend) could cause a problem and some think the objection is part of a larger issue with claims that the National Alliance wants the list of invitees narrowed while Iraqiya and the Kurdistan Alliance want the conference to be open to various political actors. Alsumaria also notes that Talabani met with Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi in Sulaimaniya and Talabani and Allawi remain committed to a national conference to "dismantle" the political crisis. Aswat al-Iraq covers another meet-up: Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani discussed with Higher Islamic Council leading member Adel Abdul Mehdi ways to deal with the present crisis in the country and the necessity to all parties' agreement on a national projects and the implementation of previous agreements. Barzani, in a statement, copy received by Aswat al-Iraq, stressed the importance of abiding by the real partnership. The statement added that both sides stressed that all political parties should agree on a national project, implement previous agreements and solve the present crisis to create a state of stability in the country. Adil Abdul-Mahdi was the Shi'ite Vice President of Iraq in Nouri's first term. In the second term, he was one of two Vice Presidents originally (himself and Tareq al-Hashemi) and then there were three vice presidents. He turned in his resignation at the end of May and Talabani accepted it formally in June. (Since then, Iraq has only had two vice presidents.) Mahdi has long wanted to be prime minister. He has had the support in that from various international oil corporations. Like most rulers in Iraq (excepting the KRG), Mahdi is an exile. He left Iraq in 1969. When he stepped down as vice president, he did so with a letter lamenting government excess. The letter and the move was seen by some insiders as Mahdi setting himself up for a potential challenge to Nouri. We need to wrap up.  We've got two things.  Partner Hub will be hosting a live online discussion with Angelina Jolie Thursday (January 12) starting at 8:00 pm EST (7:00 pm Central, 5:00 pm PST).  Angelina is an Academy Award winning actress and, of course, now a film director with her upcoming In The Land of Blood and Honey.  She also wrote the screenplay.  What impressed me (I saw at the end of last month) the most was just how strong Angelina's visual storytelling is.  She's a gifted director right out of the box.  Many sites will be taking part in the discussion (we won't -- it was a nice invitation but Thursday next week is a hard one and Friday's a nightmare in terms of my schedule).  We wil, however, gladly note any sites that are taking part.  As noted here before when I've felt the need to defend Angelina from some stupid attack (usually when some reporter -- Leila Fadel, I'm thinking of you especially), I've known Angelina since she was a little girl.  (I am much older than Angelina.  I was not a little girl, I was an adult.)  She's directed an amazing movie and she's got the visual gift a director needs, it's there in transitions from scene to scene, it's their in telling moments.  She should be really proud of herself and proud of her film.  And the last word goes to the Feminist Majority Foundation as they address the change in the FBI's legal definition of rape:   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, January 6, 2012 Contact: Francesca Tarant, 703.522.2214, ftarant@feminist.org Annie Shields, 310.556.2500, ashields@msmagazine.com     Feminist Majority Foundation Celebrates FBI Approval of New Rape Definition - FBI Director's Action Follows Extensive Campaign By Women's Rights Supporters "Updating the FBI Uniform Crime Report definition of rape is a big win for women," said Eleanor Smeal, president of Feminist Majority Foundation. "We appreciate the support for this change from the Obama Administration, led by Vice President Joe Biden and by Lynn Rosenthal, White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, and Hon. Susan B. Carbon, director of the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice, as well as the FBI." The White House today announced that FBI Director Robert Mueller has approved the change recommended by several committees of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Service. "With a modern, broader definition, FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics will finally show the true breadth of this violence that affects so many women's lives. Women's groups will work to ensure that this more accurate and complete data will lead to increased resources to combat and reduce the incidence of rape," continued Smeal. The "Rape is Rape" campaign, a massive grassroots feminist activism effort launched by the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, generated over 160,000 emails to the FBI and the Department of Justice urging this change. For over a decade the Pennsylvania-based Women's Law Project (WLP) had pursued the change. "Ultimately, accurate data is a fundamental starting point to improving police response to sex crimes and improved practice should lead to increased victim confidence in police and reporting," said Carol E. Tracy, WLP Executive Director. The old definition, adopted over 80 years ago, had been extensively criticized for leading to widespread underreporting of rape. Defined as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will," it excluded rapes involving forced anal sex and/or oral sex, rape with an object (even if serious injuries resulted) and rapes of men, and was interpreted by many police jurisdictions to exclude rapes where the victim was incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or otherwise unable to give consent. The old rape definition excluded many rapes against women and all against men. The new definition, as it appears on the FBI website, is: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." "This is a major policy change and will dramatically impact the way rape is tracked and reported nationwide," said Kim Gandy, Vice President and General Counsel of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It is a great day for women and law enforcement because the police can more accurately know what is going on as far as the crime of rape in their communities," observed Margaret Moore, Director of the National Center for Women and Policing of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Available for interview on the change in definition, its significance and the campaign leading up to it are Feminist Majority Foundation President/Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal, FMF Vice President and General Counsel Kim Gandy, Executive Editor of Ms. Katherine Spillar, Women's Law Project Executive Director Carol E. Tracy and Margaret Moore, director of the National Center for Women and Policing, a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation.   iraq chris floyd to the point warren onley chris hedges cnn jomana karadsheh the washington post dan morse al rafidayn al mada alsumaria tv aswat al-iraq antiwar.com john glaser