"DUNN TALKIN'! Anita Dunn went after Fox hard. Did her complaints make sense?" (Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler):
Partisan juices flowed in some quarters after yesterday’s 14-9 vote. But then again, in today’s New York Times, we see that Snowe still opposes a “public option.” As reported by Robert Pear:
PEAR (10/14/09): Ms. Snowe said she liked the Finance Committee bill because it would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against people on account of health status or sex and would create a network of insurance exchanges where individuals, families and small businesses could shop for coverage, with subsidies from the federal government.
At the same time, Ms. Snowe said she shared Republican “concerns about vast governmental bureaucracies and governmental intrusions.” That, she said, is why she had opposed amendments to create a government insurance plan and would continue to do so.
Ms. Snowe said she was open to a compromise under which a public plan could be “triggered” in states where people could not otherwise find affordable insurance.
Snowe still opposes a public option, except in the most convoluted, denatured form possible. For our money, this captures a slow, steady turn in the health care debate—a turn toward the quiet protection of grasping corporate interests.
Snowe says she likes the Baucus bill because it lets people with pre-existing conditions get insurance. In that sense, it advances one original goal of the health reform effort—the desire to get everyone covered.
But how about the second major goal—the goal of lowering our nation’s astonishing health care costs?
Yes! And I am amazed that only Bob Somerby sees Olympia Snow's 'approval' for the Trojan horse it is.
That's a really powerful commentary today so use the link.
And grasp that the press just can't seem to tell you the truth -- mainly because they don't have the stomach for it.
To understand the press, you have to look at your own workplace.
Is there a kiss ass who always tries to butter up the boss and never will stand up even when something is ethically wrong?
That's the press.
They want to please their bosses.
Their writing isn't their own.
It's not like Lois Lane can type anything and get it in the paper. She's got to make it through the hurdles.
So it's going to be watered down and watered down again. And over and over as she attempts to curry favor with her bosses because this isn't about one story for her, it's about her life, her house, her car note, etc.
It's about everything but what reporting is supposed to be about: the facts.
No where was that demonstrated more than in the coverage of 'health care' in the last months.
"The ACLU and Religion: Don’t Believe Everything You Read On the Internet" (Will Matthews, ACLU's Blog of Rights):
A malicious and factually inaccurate e-mail accusing the ACLU of not standing solidly on the side of religious liberty – an e-mail that was first circulated six years ago – has once again reared its ugly head and popped up in the e-mail inboxes of people across the country. In an effort to set the record straight, below are two myths the e-mail passes off as truth, followed by the facts which effectively debunk the e-mail’s claims.
MYTH: The ACLU has filed a lawsuit to have all cross-shaped headstones removed from federal cemeteries.
FACT: The ACLU has never once advocated for or initiated any litigation in favor of removing cross-shaped headstones from federal cemeteries. In fact, as the website Politifact.com makes clear, there are no cross-shaped headstones at VA national cemeteries. The headstones and markers the government issues are rectangular.
What the ACLU did do in 2006 was file a lawsuit seeking to protect the right of veterans and their families to choose religious symbols to engrave on headstones in federal cemeteries. The result of this litigation was not the forced removal of any crosses, but rather an expansion of the official government list of religious symbols allowed on headstones by the National Cemeteries Administration of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to include the Wiccan pentacle.
There are military cemeteries with rows of crosses in them, but most of those are in Europe, the final resting place of some American troops killed during World War I and World War II. Those cemeteries are maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission and, according to Politifact.com, are technically owned by the foreign country in which they are located but sit on land given to the U.S. for use in perpetuity as commemorative cemeteries. Politifact.com further reports that commission officials are not aware of any effort – by the ACLU or anyone else – to remove cross-shaped headstones from those sites.
MYTH: The ACLU filed a lawsuit to end prayer in the military completely.
FACT: The ACLU has filed no such lawsuit. This totally false assertion is likely misrepresenting a letter the ACLU and the ACLU of Maryland sent in June 2008 to officials at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis asking them to stop forcing midshipmen to participate in the Academy’s compulsory “noon meal prayers.” A New York Times article very effectively details why forcing midshipmen to stand in attendance at the daily “noon meal prayer” is a violation of their religious freedom and rights of conscience.
In the letter sent to the Academy, ACLU of Maryland Legal Director Deborah A. Jeon makes clear that the ACLU opposes compulsory religious services mandated by the government, not voluntary religious exercises by Academy midshipmen. As Jeon writes: “[T]his request is not motivated by any hostility to voluntary religious exercises by Academy midshipmen, nor do we fail to recognize the important place religious faith holds among many in the military. Indeed, the ACLU has long defended the fundamental right of religious communities, families and individuals – including those in the armed services – to practice their faith freely and openly.” Let there be no question that the ACLU vigorously defends the right of all Americans to practice religion (PDF).
We at the ACLU sincerely hope that providing you with this factual information regarding the erroneous claims made in the e-mail will not only help you avoid bearing false witness, but, should you desire, also empower you to set the record straight should it find its way to you.
No Comments » Permalink
I'm a Christian, my whole family is. My father's a deacon at our family's church. My father's also a card carrying ACLU member.
The ACLU is not anti-religion towards any religion. Nor are they ever trying to promote one religion or even religion.
They are a group that fights for the rights of everyone.
Since they're trying to correct false rumors, I'm including their post in full.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
October 14, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Congress hears from VA Secretary Eric Shinseki who explains that the VA always knew the Post-9/11 GI Bill would be 'problematic,' three senators stand up for a family who's loved one died serving in Iraq, and more.
Today Veterans Affaris Secretary Eric Shinseki appeared before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs for a hearing entitled "Update of the State of the VA." Shinseki was the only witness appearing before the committee.
Ranking Member Steve Buyer made an idiot out of himself repeatedly. Kat will be grabbing most of that at her site tonight (and I agree with her 100%) but to claim, as Buyer did, that Congress is responsible or equally responsible for the VA backlog on the Post-9/11 GI Bill is beyond uninformed. It goes to Buyer not paying attention to what Congress did do. We'll address that tomorrow when the Committee hears about the VA backlog on education benefits but the fault lies with the VA and that was clear to anyone attending hearings over the summer. Buyer apparently has no long term memory. He can take comfort in the fact that the press was snoozing as well. But the VA was offered additional help and the VA turned it down.
June 25th, US House Rep Harry Teague chaired the US House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (filling in for US House Rep Stephanie Herseth Sandlin). He and Ranking Member Boozman noted the VA needed to step forward immediately if there were any problems with the Post-9/11 GI Bill with Boozman especially stressing that if problems came up, let the committee know immediately so they can assist. July 29th Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing found Senator Jon Tester suggesting that -- due to the VA's huge backlog on claims -- the VA might need to add some employees. The VA's Patrick Dunne insisted more employees weren't needed and that they would mean more administrative duties which would cause even more delays. This was echoed by the GAO's Danile Bertoni who 'said', "We have reported that an infusion of a large number of staff has the potential to improve VA's capacity. However, quickly absorbing these staff will likely pose human capital challenges for VA, such as how to train and deploy them. The additional staff has helped VA process more claims and appeals overall, but as VA has acknowledged, it has also reduced individual staff productivity. . . . According to VA, this decline in productivity is attributable primarily to new staff who have not yet become fully proficient at processing claims and to the loss of experienced staff due to retirements. VA expects its productivity to decline further before it improves, in part because of the challenges of training and integrating new staff."
"Said"? It's part of his prepared statement but his time ran out before he completed reading it. It is part of the record.
And Buyer and the press should be familiar with and Shinseki should have been asked about this. Did the VA refuse to ask for the help they needed? Maybe the question will come up tomorrow when a hearing on the Post-9/11 GI Bill is held?
Reading a statement today at the start of the hearing, different from the prepared one, Shinseki did note, briefly, the problems with the education bill.
Eric Shinseki: Complications in implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill required VA to make advance payments to effected veterans to cover their expenses and to relieve their uncertainty and stress. There are many reasons for those complications but the delays were unacceptable. Advance payments remain in effect -- that's the emergency procedure we put in place two weeks ago. Advance payments remain in effect as we mature our IT tools to assure timely delivery of checks in the future. And I'm hopeful that early November, we'll have the Phase III automated tool for our use.
IT? The VA's had a lot of IT problems. Equally true is that the VA attempted to blame colleges for the delay. Or are we all supposed to forget that? Now Congress is told that it was an IT problem?
Buyer wasn't the only one looking foolish, US House Rep Corrine Brown, informing that she was "watching television" yesterday morning, insisted that the media had it wrong and the delays in veterans receiving their checks wasn't the VA's fault it was the institutions who weren't verifying adds and drops for their colleges. Brown doesn't know what she's talking about. She then wanted a response from Shinseki. Chair Bob Filner attempted to move on and she stopped him asking if she could get a response?
Shinseki avoided it. Brown couldn't take a hint so she brought it up again, "Can you discuss the VA's wonderful program that we're having some challenges with? But it's a win-win for the veterans, you know the community, especially with these hard times, the opportunity to go back to school and retrain is a win-win." Does she grasp how uninformed and/or insulting she sounds? You have veterans across the country who have still not received payment. Some of them are single-parents. Several are single mothers with small children and the press has covered this and covered how they are taking out loans as they wait for the VA to get it together, how they fear they may end up homeless. Is Corrine Brown that out of touch?
She waited for Shinseki to back her up. He didn't.
Eric Shinseki: I've-I've-I've been very clear about how important this is. Not just to the VA but to me personally. Uh, it is, uh, a you know an aspect of myself coming back although not in a program like this. Coming back from Vietnam and having the opportunity to go back and do graduate schooling, I understand the importance of this program. But it's even more important to the country. The potential that will come out of this -- we go back and look at what came after WWII, what that country provided to our country in terms of leadership for the second half of the 20th century, that's what we're about to realize here. And the VA has an important role to make sure this happens.
As he continued to speak, he said a number of things that should have been red flags.
Erick Shinseki: A plan was written, very quickly put together, uh, very short timelines, I'm looking at the certifcates of elegibility uh being processed on 1 May and enrollments 6 July, checks having to flow through August. A very compressed timeframe. And in order to do that, we essentially began as I arrived in January, uh, putting together the plan -- reviewing the plan that was there and trying to validate it. I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh, there were a number of people telling me this was simply not executable. It wasn't going to happen. Three August was going to be here before we could have everything in place. Uh, to the credit of the folks in uh VA, I, uh, I consulted an outside consulatant, brought in an independent view, same kind of assessment. 'Unless you do some big things here, this is not possible.' To the credit of the folks, the good folks in VBA, they took it on and they went at it hard. We hired 530 people to do this and had to train them. We had a manual system that was computer assisted. Not very helpful but that's what they inherited. And we realized in about May that the 530 were probably a little short so we went and hired 230 more people. So in excess of 700 people were trained to use the tools that were coming together even as certificates were being executed. Uhm, we were short on the assumption of how many people it would take. We based our numbers on the Montgomery GI Bill which is about a 15 minute procedure. The uh chapter thirty-three procedures about an hour on average, maybe an hour and 15 minutes. So right off the bat, we had some issues with assumptions. Uh, we are still receiving certificates of enrollment. This week alone, we received 36,000 certificates of enrollment coming from schools who are working through the process and we put them into the execute of providing those checks -- three checks.
Shinskeki wasn't honest. The 36,000 certificates this week alone? These are not 36,000 new certificates. I asked a friend at the VA and these include a large number of schools refiling in an attempt to help the veterans who are waiting. Each week, some schools are refiling certifications because their students still do not have funding. In addition, there is late enrollment and some of the forms being processed are late enrollments.
As for the employees, Shinseki made a big to do about grasping 530 wasn't enough employees (as claims examiners) so, apparently quickly, 230 more were hired and trained. Quickly? No. June 25th, VA's Director from the Office of Education Service, Keith Wilson, was stating that they expected to have those 230 "on board by August 31, 2009."
Shinseki testified he was told it wasn't possible by the VA and by some outside contractor. I'm sorry, I've attended all the Congressional committee and subcommittee hearings on the Post-9/11 GI Bill and never once did the VA express that to the Congress. Never once did they say, "We won't be able to do it." They stated they were on track repeatedly. They were asked if they were worried about a crunch as deadlines for fall enrollment approached, they never blinked an eyelash, they never raised a concern. Now, after the system falls down in front of the whole country, Shinseki wants to say, 'Oh, we knew back when I started as VA Secretary that it wasn't going to go smoothly.' At what point in the 'planning' did the VA expect to inform of Congress of that?
This add and drop crap? It's getting real old and it's amazing that the VA attempted to lie (and got away with it) when the problem emerged. They blamed the colleges. Shinseki himself blamed the colleges and said that it was an add and drop issue. Did no one ever think to ask about the first checks issued? If you issue a check before the semester even starts, you're not waiting for adds and drops. Did no one grasp that this took place? Did everyone sleep through testimony over the summer when the VA was bragging about how many they had already processed -- before any semester even began?
"But again, we adjusted to the assumptions that didn't bear out and we'll make adjustments in the future," Shinseki declared. Where in that statement do you find "It's the fault of the colleges!"? Only Corrine Brown, watching television at five in the morning, and not liking what she sees, can see that.
John Boozman also rushed to excuse the VA. He's a Republican and, as a result, I may not expect him to be reality based but even he did come off as nutty as Corrine Brown. But this idea that the VA is not responsible for the current mess goes to the Culture of No Accountability in DC. The VA didn't just issue the checks (or not issue them), it also designed the entire system. Columbia in New York, UCLA, etc did not design the VA's programs. If there were problems in the system designed by the VA then that falls back on the VA and there needs to be accountability.
There is none. Despite Shinseki's claim at the hearing that "accountability does count with me." Shinseki admits before Congress that he knew, stepping in as Secretary, that the program wouldn't work as it was being presented. He admits that today. The Congress should have been informed of that long ago. And a Committee less concerned with fawning over a former general and more concerned with serving veterans would have raised the issues noted here. In other testimony, Shinseki stated that he had heard the stories about women arriving for VA appointments and being turned away because they had brought their children: "I know there were a couple of anecdotal incidents in where -- in which women veterans reported not being able to keep their appointments because they showed up with children and I can assure the chairman that guidance has gone out, correct any of that. Uh, women veterans showing up with children will be seen. With the exceptions that uh would make sense here and the exceptions being those settings uh in ICU or mental health where uh it would not be good to have children in that environment. We would find other ways to take-take the child and care for it. But right-right now the authorities are not within the department to be able to provide child care on our own and this may be one of those things that we uh have a discussion with the chairman and the committee on how we might look for some help here."
Meanwhile Al Jazeera notes, "At least 85,000 people have been killed in Iraq by bombs, murders and fighting from 2004 until 2008, Iraq's human rights ministry says." Really? Because Betty noted Aadel Rashid's "Finding Husbands for Iraq's Widows: As Some Iraqis Embrace the Program, Others Say Efforts to Help Widows Remarry Is Exploitative" (ABC News) last night and, as Betty pointed out, "The article tells us that Women and Child Committee head Samira al Musawi states Iraq saw more than 1 million women become widows since 2005. " Widows. To be a widow, your spouse has to die. So that would mean 1 million men have died since 2005. Which ministry is telling the truth? Or did 925,000 Iraqi males die since 2005 of natural causes? That would be a staggering number in a country's whose population is less than 26 million. Reuters notes the first count here. BBC News adds, "The BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse in Baghdad says the numbers may be staggering but they are relatively conservative."
Violence continued in Iraq today and some tried to mask it. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack mortars, gunfire and grenades on one Baghdad neighbourhood today was, according to the Defense Ministry's spokesmodel Mohammed al Askari, was "a normal one that could happen in any country." Right. I believe just yesterday, downtown Dulith was shelled with mortars, suffered gunfire and grenades. Hammoudi quotes cosmetic shop owner Maitham Abu Zahra stating, "I was in my shop when I heard the sound of the explosion. It was very loud sound followed by white smoke (that) covered market." Nada Bakri (Washington Post) notes 8 dead and nine injured, "A checkpoint was a few miles away, and many residents said they believed soldiers there had allowed the assailants to pass unhindered." Timothy Williams and Anwar J. Ali (New York Times) add 7 of the sodliers "assigned to the market" have been arrested.
In other reported violence?
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left Imam Abdul Sattar Abdul Jabbar and his driver wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured three people and three Karbala bombings which claimed 3 lives and left eleven people wounded. Timothy Williams and Anwar J. Ali (New York Times) report the bombs were homemade and that people had gathered for evening prayers. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports that the death toll has risen by 3 to six (with the injured toll placed at forty-two) and that it "could rise, as many victims were transported to hospitals and medical centers in the city, the source said."
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one security guard waskilled in a Mosul shooting.
CNN reports fears abound that if an election law is not passed quickly, there may not be national elections in January. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) has repeatedly reminded that the Parliament has until Thursday to pass the legislation (here and here for Chon's report). Now let's repeat, these elections were supposed to take place in December. US President Barack Obama has used these elections as his 'excuse' for breaking his campaign promise of US troops out of Iraq in ten months (sixteen on the campaign trail until Feb. 2008 when he dropped it down to ten). And there's no law passed. Dow Jones notes that Nouri's cabinet did ratify the 2010 budget -- $67.29 billion. Reuters explains that they came close to making the budget . . . sort of. Iraq's set the budget at $67.29 billion even though that means a $15.3 billion budget deficit. Remember that when the US Congress talks about loaning money to Iraq. (The US needs to make reparations for the Iraq War. Reparations do not need to be made to a puppet government that does nothing for the people.) The US Congress might give Iraq money but if they loan it, don't pretend like (a) Congress knows what they're doing or (b) there's any chance Iraq will ever repay their debt. (Ask Kuwait.)NPR's Quil Lawrence (Morning Edition -- link has text and audio) reports that as Iraqi children return to school, "[m]any of Iraq's schools lack electricity and running water, but they will be getting something new this year: a history book that reflects the enormous changes the country has been through and includes historical events that were once forbidden topics." Quil leaves out what Xinhua and others have been reporting since school started: Overcrowding, lack of desks, lack of supplies, etc. A modern history book? How about a modern school?
While he can't appear to address anything, let alone fix it, to improve the quality of life for Iraqis, Nouri al-Maliki isn't sitting around doing nothing. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports Nouri "suspended classes and banned political activities at" Mustraniriyah University and "banned the student union" on campus. Never forget all the blood that was spilled -- Iraqi and foreign -- for the US to install a thug with hopes of becoming the new Saddam.
In England, Stephen Adams (Telegraph of London) reports, "Parents of soldiers who died in Iraq have accused [former British Prime Minister] Tony Blair of lying to Britain over the decision to invade in 2003 and one said she wanted him indicted as a 'war criminal', in an emotional first day of the Iraq Inquiry." Caroline Davies (Guardian) adds that "it became clear that most, if not all, fingers were pointing to one man -- the former prime minister Tony Blair. And the clapping erupted. They had found a common voice -- and it was demanding 'accountability'." Meanwhile the Brussels Tribunal released the following last week:FOR JUSTICE FOR IRAQ: LEGAL CASE FILED AGAINST FOUR US PRESIDENTS AND FOUR UK PRIME MINISTERS FOR WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE IN IRAQ For immediate release [Spanish] - [Arabic] Date: 7 October 2009 MADRID: Today the Spanish Senate, acting to confirm a decision already taken under pressure from powerful governments accused of grave crimes, will limit Spain's laws of universal jurisdiction. Yesterday, ahead of the change of law, a legal case was filed at the Audiencia Nacional against four United States presidents and four United Kingdom prime ministers for commissioning, condoning and/or perpetuating multiple war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq. This case, naming George H W Bush, William J Clinton, George W Bush, Barack H Obama, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown, is brought by Iraqis and others who stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people and in defence of their rights and international law. Iraq: 19 years of intended destruction The intended destruction -- or genocide -- of Iraq as a state and nation has been ongoing for 19 years, combining the imposition of the most draconian sanctions regime ever designed and that led to 1.5 million Iraqi deaths, including 500,000 children, with a war of aggression that led to the violent deaths of over one million more. Destroying Iraq included the purposeful targeting of its water and sanitation system, attacking the health of the civilian population. Since 1990, thousands of tons of depleted uranium have been dropped on Iraq, leading in some places to a 600 per cent rise in cancer and leukaemia cases, especially among children. In both the first Gulf War and "Shock and Awe" in 2003, an air campaign that openly threatened "total destruction", waves of disproportionate bombing made no distinction between military and civilian targets, with schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, and historical sites all destroyed.Destroying Iraq included promoting, funding and organizing sectarian and ethnic groups bent on dividing Iraq into three or more sectarian or ethnic entities, backed by armed militias that would terrorize the Iraqi people. Since 2003, some 4.7 million Iraqis -- one fifth of the population -- have been forcibly displaced. Under occupation, kidnappings, killings, extortion and mutilation became endemic, targeting men, women and even children and the elderly.Destroying Iraq included purposefully dismantling the state by refusing to stop or stem or by instigating mass looting, and by engaging in ideological persecution, entailing "manhunting", extrajudicial assassinations, mass imprisonment and torture, of Baathists, the entire educated class of the state apparatus, religious and linguistic minorities and Arab Sunnis, resulting in the total collapse of all public services and other economic functions and promoting civil strife and systematic corruption. In parallel, Iraq's rich heritage and unique cultural and archaeological patrimony has been wantonly destroyed. In order to render Iraq dependent on US and UK strategic designs, successive US and UK governments have attempted to partition Iraq and to establish by military force a pro-occupation Iraqi government and political system. They have promoted and engaged in the massive plunder of Iraqi natural resources, attempting to privatize this property and wealth of the Iraqi nation. Humanity at stake This is but the barest summary of the horrors Iraq has endured, based on lies that nobody but cowed governments and complicit media believed. In 2003, millions worldwide were mobilized in opposition to US/UK plans. In going ahead, the US and UK launched an illegal war of aggression. Accountability has not been established. The persons named in this case have each played a key role in Iraq's intended destruction. They instigated, supported, condoned, rationalized, executed and/or perpetuated or excused this destruction based on lies and narrow strategic and economic interests, and against the will of their own people. Allowing those responsible to escape accountability means such actions could be repeated elsewhere. It is imperative now to establish accountability for US and UK war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Iraq because: Every Iraqi victim deserves justice. Everyone responsible should be accountable. We are before immoral and unlawful acts, contrary to the basis on which the international order of state sovereignty and peace and security rests. Whereas the official international justice system is closed before the suffering of those that imperialism makes a target, through this case we try to open a channel whereby the conscience of humanity can express its solidarity with justice for victims of imperial crimes. Ad Hoc Committee For Justice For Iraq Press contacts: Hana Al Bayaty, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal +34 657 52 70 77 or +20 10 027 7964 (English and French) hanaalbayaty@gmail.comDr Ian Douglas, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal, coordinator, International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq +20 12 167 1660 (English) iandouglas@USgenocide.orgAmanda Nuredin, +34 657 52 70 77 (Spanish) justiciaparairak@gmail.com Abdul Ilah Albayaty, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal +33 471 461 197 (Arabic) albayaty_abdul@hotmail.com Web:www.brusselstribunal.org www.USgenocide.org www.twitter.com/USgenocide www.facebook.com/USgenocide
Turning to the US where an woman whose husband was killed serving in the Iraq War may have some good news for herself and their son. Dropping back to the September 25th snapshot, "While some veterans go homeless, efforts are made to deport the spouses of some deceased veterans. Most recently, the September 17th snapshot, we noted Kristin M. Hall (AP) report Hotaru Ferschke, a military widow. Her husband, Sgt. Michael Ferschke, died serving in Iraq August 10, 2008. They had tried to have children for some time and when they learned she was pregnant, he was already in Iraq so they got married by proxy and the US military recognizes the marriage but the US Immigration and Naturalization Service plays dumb. She and their son Michael "Mikey" Ferschke III, are now facing deportation. INS is stating that the proxy marriage could be a fake because it wasn't consumated. Consumated? He remained in Iraq and they're not counting their long relationship prior to the proxy marriage. Her mother-in-law, Robin Ferschke told Hall, 'She's like my daughter. I know my child chose the perfect wife and mother of his child'."
Michael Collins (Knoxville News Sentinel) quotes Robin Ferschke stating, "I know my son would never want us to stop fighting for what is right. He fought for his country and now we have to fight our country for what is right." WJLA (link has text and video) quotes her stating, "Don't take my family away again. I lost one and I'm not going to lose his son out of my life." Hota, Mikey and Robin Ferschke now have three Senate allies. From Senator Jim Webb's office:
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced legislation to recognize the marriage of fallen U.S. Marine Sgt. Michael Ferschke and his Japanese wife who were married by proxy while Sgt. Ferschke was deployed in Iraq. The Ferschkes' marriage is formally recognized by the military but not the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- leaving the immigration status of Mrs. Ferschke in jeopardy.
Michael Ferschke and Hotaru Nakama were married by telephone on July 10, 2008, three months after the couple learned they were having a child. Sgt. Ferschke was killed in combat one month later. The couple's marriage is not recognized by DHS because it was never consummated as dictated by an outdated 1952 immigration law passed during the Korean War.
Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee joined Senator Webb in cosponsoring the legislation.
"Every now and then, there comes an issue that tells us a lot about who we are, and how we live up to our promised, great and small," said Senator Webb today in a speech on the Senate floor. "And particularly the promises we make to those who step forward and place their lives on the line in order to carry out the policies that we create."
Senator Webb's bill would allow Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke, who is currently here under a tourist visa, permanent residency in the U.S., a right granted to all military widows. Mrs. Ferschke and their 8-month-old son, Michael "Mikey" Ferschke III, are currently staying at the Tennessee home of Sgt. Ferschke's parents surrounded by photos and memories of the father Mikey will never meet.
The targeted legislation will have no impact on broader immigration policies. It will allow immigration authorities to recognize the Ferschkes' lawful marriage and, according to Senator Webb: "right a wrong for a Marine's family who paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country."
Travis J. Tritten (Stars and Stripes) reports that the bill was introduced in the Senate today. We'll close with this from World Can't Wait's "'The US Military is Out There Spreading Death Right Now':"Death, rather than nation building -- that is what the US army has brought to Iraq and is bringing to Afghanistan according to former US army sergeant and anti-war activist Matthis Chiroux. He shared his views with RT. For some, Matthis Chiroux is a hero. Others label him a US traitor. The 25-year-old is an army sergeant-turned-war-resistor, and one of roughly 8,000 US soldiers who have reportedly deserted the army since 2003. He accuses the US military of having become a corrupt institution built upon spreading death as a response to nations' problems by means of conducting illegal wars. "One hundred per cent, Afghanistan war is absolutely an illegal war under the same conventions that Iraq was an illegal war," Chiroux says."They are virtually the same thing," he continues. "They are both experiments in going in, smashing the country and trying to rebuild it in our own image as a trading partner. They are both about resources. They are both defined as illegal wars of aggression by the UN Charter -- that's something people don't understand."Speaking of President Obama's decision to deploy even more troops in Afghanistan, the activist has said that "more troops in an illegal war aren't going to somehow make it inherently right or even winnable."
iraq
abc newsaadel rashid
bbc newsgabriel gatehouse
cnnthe wall street journalgina chon
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
nprmorning edition
quil lawrence
xinhuamu xuequan
the new york timesanwar j. ali
timothy williams
the washington postnada bakri
world cant waitmatthis chiroux
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Selling widows in Iraq
I was reading Aadel Rashid's "Finding Husbands for Iraq's Widows: As Some Iraqis Embrace the Program, Others Say Efforts to Help Widows Remarry Is Exploitative" (ABC News) tonight and remembering how C.I. rightly called this program out. This is where Iraqi widows are 'helped' by marrying them off.
Like they're pets left behind after a move and need new owners?
The article tells us that Women and Child Committee head Samira al Musawi states Iraq saw more than 1 million women become widows since 2005.
That's interesting. It would appear to validate the claim (which I believe) that over 1 million Iraqis have died in the war.
But what's even more interesting is that out of this over a million, how many have decided to use the program? Over 40. That's not a very big number in a country that has over one million widows from the last three years alone, now is it?
From the article:
But not everyone thinks kindly of Al Ethar's program. Al Musawi said she "declared my full refusal to this idea," likening it to "showcasing and ... selling and buying women through making use of widows' economic status."
I encourage you to read the article and think hard as you attempt to figure out who besides C.I. (and now me) has called this crap out?
Tomorrow night on CBS, kicking off prime time, is The New Adventures of Old Christine and I'm doing a heads up reminder on that. Last week was so funny.
Christine was convinced she had breast cancer ("underboob cancer," Richard called it) but Christine had no mole, she had a piece of brownie stuck to her boob.
Before she found that out, she was in high drama and, as you can probably picture, that was hilarious. But only more so because Barb (Wanda Sykes) was having to put up with (endure) it. I love Christine's self-involvement.
She suggested Richard and New Christine sell the house they had purchased and Richard pointed out it wasn't a good time to sell a house today. Christine lamented that you miss the paper for one day and you're out of the loop.
She had no health insurance. What kind of a country is this, she wondered?
Barb explained to her that lots of Americans didn't have insurance. In fact, 45 million of them. Christine had no clue. It was so funny.
It really was a funny episode with a lot going on in it.
So remember the new episode airs tomorrow night.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, October 13, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Iraq's LGBT community garners some press attention, the refugee crisis continues, the British government prepares to force Iraqis out of England, the water crisis in Iraq creates even more refugees, Nouri can't pay his bills and more.
Today on New Hampshire Public Radio's Word of Mouth, Virginia Prescott spoke with Human Rights Watch's Scott Long and Matt McAllester about the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community. McAllester was noted in the October 6th snapshot on this issue, he's written "The Hunted" (New York Magazine) and he discussed the issue with Neal Conan on NPR's Talk of the Nation (here for audio and transcript links).
Virginia Prescott: Well Matt, what's it like to be a gay Iraqi in post-Saddam Baghdad?
Matt McAllester: Well earlier this year it was fatally dangerous potentially and many of them were indeed killed. What happened in 2003 when the invasion happened is that the center of-of power and fear in Iraq in many arenas of life but especially for gay Iraqis shifted from the State which, under Saddam Hussein, was never friendly to put it mildly towards gay people in Iraq. It wasn't actually illegal to be gay in Iraq. You very much kept a low profile if you could. And shifted from the State to the mosque and to the militia -- as did so much in Iraq. And so the power bases were less controlled and more violent and more dangerous.
Virginia Prescott: We mentioned the uptick earlier this year, pretty much focused in February, attacks against gay Iraqis and police harassment of gay men reached a fevered pitch in that time. You've mentioned homosexuality is still not illegal in Iraq, so what prompted this uptick in violence?
Matt McAllester: Well strangely and sort of paradoxically, the down-tick in violence generally prompted the uptick against gay people. What I mean by that is that American soldiers are much less visible to the Iraqi insurgency and militias so there's one target that's all but disappeared. The government of Iraq is much stronger and so this civil war between Sunni and Shia militias that was raging, that's also pretty much -- I wouldn't say "over," but it's not so much a factor. In the course of that last year, one of the main militias, the Shia militia, the Mahdi Army, which is headed by Moqtada al-Sadr, a very radical cleric with-with pretty much sidelined, politically and militarily and he seems to have, although there's no paper trail leading directly to his door, but it was clearly his guys that were doing this in the early part of this year, have decided that. he needed to increase his popularity by picking on the one population group in Iraq that no one likes. And they're-they're -- gays in Iraq are pretty much detested by every ethnic group, nationality, strata of society. So -- and so he thought this would cast his guys and himself as the moral arbiters of Iraq again.
Virginia Prescott: So it was -- it was a power grab mostly.
Matt McAllester: It was. And they -- gays in Iraq were used and manipulated in this way.
Virginia Prescott: Gay men and women looking to flee Iraq don't have many options. Homosexuality is illegal in most of the surrounding countries. The non-profit Human Rights Watch created an underground railroad to help gay Iraqis escape to safety. Joining us now is Scott Long. He's director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights program at Human Rights Watch. Scott, welcome to the program.
Scott Long: Thank you for having me.
Virginia Prescott: What inspired you to create this so-called underground railroad for gay Iraqis. This kind of direct action is a bit of a change for Human Rights Watch.
Scott Long: Well it was necessity really. I mean ordinarily when Human Rights Watch tries to do research on massive humanitarian violations, there are other groups that can provide direct support to people. But in this case, we're talking about folks in Iraq who have no one to defend them. The police won't protect them. Civil society is too weak to offer any effective assistance. They're basically alone and completely vulnerable to violence.
Virginia Prescott: There are, of course, Iraqi lesbians. Also not looked upon kindly but not being persecuted in the same way as gay men. Tell us a little bit more about the process here. How do you identify gay men looking to escape from Iraq?
Scott Long: Well basically we reached out to people through every means possible. Through the internet -- the internet has become a major social tool for men who want to preserve their anonymity and think they can preserve their safety. We reached out to personal contacts. And we just tried to evaluate the level of threat people were facing. But if people were, if people had been threatened directly, if there was reason to think their names were in the hands of the militia, we did everything we could to try to get them out.
Virginia Prescott: I know that you can't disclose the city that is now serving as a safe haven for gay Iraqis, but you have spent time there. Scott, how does it differ from Baghdad in terms of safety or openness for homosexuals?
Scott Long: Well there aren't militias roaming the streets with guns. That's the primary thing. But, as you've said, in all the surrounding countries there's still social prejudice and there's also criminal laws. In the last -- in the last six years, there have probably been more than two-and-a-half-million Iraqi displaced by the violence and of those people, the United States has accepted only about 20,000 as refugees. We're definitely hoping that the US will recognize that people aren't safe even when they flee to surrounding countries and that we have a responsibility to LGBT Iraqis to accept them to safety here as well as other categories of refugees.
Virginia Prescott: And that leads to another question. Matt McAllester, you spent time in this unnamed city as part of your reporting for New York Magazine. Many of the Iraqis living there hope to one day emigrate to the United States or Canada, Australia or Sweden but isn't it unlikely that they'd be accepted by Iraqi immigrant communities in those countries leaving them in a kind of state of limbo. .
Matt McAllester: You're -- you're absolutely right. The prejudice carries from Baghdad to-to Baltimore or where ever they end up. And that doesn't disappear. So they will be embraced, one hopes, by the mainstream gay communities in the United States or Sweden or Norway or Australia or where ever they end up. Some of them don't even want to meet other gay Iraqi refugees. They've been through such traumatic times there, there trust level is almost non-existent. And so they sort of want to disappear into society but I mean that's terribly difficult if your language skills aren't up to scratch initially and perhaps you don't have the work skills and you have -- and you are -- you can't even hang out, go to the cafes and drink tea and smoke shisa with your Iraqi friends.
Virginia Prescott: Many of them have returned to somewhat less dangerous parts of Iraq unhappy with how Human Rights Watch has helped them transition into their new lives as refugees. Matt, what's their complaint?
Matt McAllester: I think that it's terribly hard to be uprooted from your home.
and even if there are militias roaming the streets trying to kill you, it's terribly difficult to one week be living with your family -- albeit living a lie and a very scared lie -- and another
week to suddenly be sort of living in another city. And I think many of these guys have found that terribly difficult and understandably so. This is not specific to gay refugees, this is a thing I've seen happen in many countries -- refugees sort of leaving and moving back, albeit towards, back towards, danger --
Virginia Prescott: Scott. I'm sorry I have to interrupt because I want Scott, we have just thirty seconds for you to respond to that. How about you and other Human Rights Watch? What do you think?
Scott Long: Well it's not easy being a refugee. Being a refugee means being uprooted from everything you ever cared about. And that's, again, why I think it's really incumbent upon the United States and other countries that bear some responsibility for the violence in Iraq to start living up to their responsibilities by helping these folk make a new home.
Virginia Prescott: Scott, Matt, just one second please if you could, anything the Iraqi government could do to protect gay Iraqis or is it even on their radar?
Matt McAllester: They don't want to talk about it, to be perfectly honest. The ambassador in Washington gave me a written statement after -- after quite a long time of asking and it was impossible to get much more than that I'm afraid.
On the topic of Iraqi refugees, last week Human Rights Action and the Human Rights Institute at Georgetown Law Center issued [PDF format warning] a report entitled "Refugee Crisis in America: Iraqis And Their Resettlement Experience." It documented many obstacles for the small number of Iraqis granted asylum in the US. For example:
When researchers met Farrah, a former physical education teacher with a bachelor's degree, she said that all she and her elderly mother hope for is "enough help to get on [their] own two feet." After fleeing from Iraq to Syria in 2007, Farrah arrived in Detroit in June 2008 and has been trying unsuccessfuly to find a job and enroll at a community college to improve her employment prospects. "We don't want to depend on the government for everything," Farrah said; "we want a foundation to build our own future."
Unfortunately for Farrah, and other Iraqi refugees with whom researches spoke, the USRAP [US Refugee Admissions Program] does not devote enough attention to breaking down key barriers to employment for refugees. Employment services, provided by volags and state agencies, are seriously underfunded and unable to adequately help Iraqi refugees in their job search. Lack of transporation remains a significant barrier to securing and maintaining employment. English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, generally inadequate in both equality and duration, fail to help Iraqis build marketable language skills. In addition, the opportunity to pursue education and re-certification programs, prerequisites for many jobs, is either unavailable or eclipsed by more immediate needs. Given these barriers, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Iraqi refugees interviewed were unemployed despite expressing a strong desire to work.
The report notes that despite the Refugee Act calling for thirty-six months of assistance, most Iraqi refugees are receiving only eight months. On top of that, there are delays in terms of appointments with case workers. There is a thirty-day delay of initial payment after the paper work has been completed appropriately. Along with economic issues such as not providing enough funds to the refugees, the USRAP has a problem when it comes to planning. The report notes, "When the U.S. government announced in 2007 that tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees would soon be arriving in the United States, there was little doubt that Iraqis would seek to be placed in cities with large existing Iraqi and Arab communities like Detroit and San Diego. Even those working in overseas processing predicted as much." So why, when the refugees began arriving, was this a 'surprise'? One of the report's recommendations is for the new procedures to be developed by the lead agency which "outline a common, consistent strategy for the placement of individual refugees, taking into account the needs of each refugee, state and volag resources, and recent trends prior to a refugee's arrival."
Vincent T. Davis (San Antonio Express-News) reports on Iraqi Khalid Ali who had to leave Iraq after threats were made (he worked with CBS News in Iraq). Shortly after his family arrived in the US, his wife Sundas died of breast cancer. He is now raising the children by himself (the youngest is three-years-old) and attempting to find work. Davis reports, "There are moments away from his children when he sits and stares. He misses his wife. Ali relies on the words of the Quran, saying, 'God will enlighten and show the way.' He dreams of his children prospering in their new country, but first he has to help them deal with their loss. 'They miss the tender kindness of their mother,' Ali said. He hasn't told his two youngest girls their mother has died, he can't find the words to tell them the truth; after many hospital stays, the girls think she's still there."
In England, Owen Bowcott (Guardian) reports, "The UK Border Agency is preparing to send the first, mass deporation flight returning failed asylum seekers to Baghdad and southern Iraq, according to a refugee organisation that monitors expulsions." The group is the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees. They're calling for mass action tomorrow and they quote Iraqi refugee Yousuf stating, "Iraq's not safe for me. I am Shia'a and a Sunni group is after me. The same group has killed both my brothers and now they're after me. The government here won't let me work, and then they give me just [35 pounds] a week to live on, but I've got friends here and I'm safe. Why would they send me back?" Tomorrow in London, there will be a demonstration at 5:00 pm at Communications House: "The Stop Deportation network and the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees call upon all groups, organisations and individuals opposed to this brutal action by the UK government to stand with us in calling for all deportations to Iraq to be stopped. Join us on the first public demonstration against mass deportations to Iraq this Wednesday, at 5pm, at the local immigration reporting centre, where many deportees are first arrested without prior warning whilst signing on (Communications House, Old Street, London, EC1)."
Iraq isn't safe for anyone. Nouri strong-armed a man with the UN in Iraq into stating some parts were and, please note, that man is gone. But the damage he did continues. Iraq is not safe and no government should deport anyone back to Iraq.
Meanwhile Amnesty International's Turkish refugees affairs coordinator Volkan Gorendag speaks with Today's Zaman:
"There are almost 1 million Iraqi refugees in Syria, and they are able cope with it. Iran has a similar situation. Even in Iraq, there are almost 10,000 refugees there coming from Turkey. A country like Iraq, which has been devastated by war, is able to cope with this. Is Turkey less powerful then these countries?" he asks.
He says that if he had the power to change anything about refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey, he would start by passing a law on asylum and migration.
"There is no law in Turkey in this field. There are only some articles in various laws regarding the issue as well as many regulations. This makes the situation even more complex," he says.
When talking about the history of international regulations regarding refugees, Gorendag says he is saddened by the fact that Turkey was from the very beginning part of these debates but later chose to exclude itself from them.
"When the first international convention on refugees came on the agenda, Turkey was one of the countries which campaigned very hard for it from the beginning. It is one of the authors of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It addressed the topic of refugees because of events taking place in Europe. In 1967 geographical and temporal restrictions were removed, but Turkey kept them," he says.
Violence is among the drivers behind Iraq's refugee crisis -- the largest refugee crisis on the globe. Violence continued today in Iraq . . .
Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Kirkuk roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left four more wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing left two women wounded, another wounded a guard and a third left a police officer injured. Reuters adds that a suicide bombing in Buhriz claimed the life of the bomber and 6 other people with ten more left injured.
Simon Assaf (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) reports on Iraq violence and notes, "The country continues to be plagued by power cuts, high unemployment and ethnic and sectarian conflicts. Now a severe drought has destroyed the agricultural sector." Natalia Antelava (BBC News) notes the MidEast water wars and how the dams Turkey has built have negatively impacted Syria and Iraq. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) today announced, "Over 100,000 people in northern Iraq have been forced to evacuate their homes since 2005 because of severe water shortages, a UNESCO study finds. Drought and excessive well pumping have drawn down aquifer levels in the region, causing a dramatic decline of water flow in ancient underground aqueducts, known in Iraq as karez, upon which hundreds of communities depend." UNESCO also identifies 36,000 more Iraqis who may flee their homes in the near future due to the current water shortages. Iran's Press TV reported Sunday, "Iranian ships have started delivering drinking water to Iraq, as a Turkish pledge seems to have had little effect in solving Baghdad's water shortage problem. Tehran has agreed to send 650 thousand liters of water to Iraq by ship two or three times a week to help resolve the water shortage problem in southern parts of the country, the Iranian Tabnak news website reported on Sunday." Iran is shipping for southern Iraq, UNESCO is zooming in on the crisis in the north, to be clear.
Meanwhile Lynne Minion (Brisbane Times) attempts to draw attention to Iraqis few bother to notice. She recounts her time working in Iraq:
And by day I would work with local journalists and edit an online publication that told stories about the conditions for Iraqis, not those of the Western occupying forces. And every now and again, a translator would come to my desk to say that a woman was waiting outside, that she wanted to speak to me.
In a place where many women can't talk to men about their personal struggles, they came to speak to the Australian woman journalist and they asked me to give them a voice.
They told me about the little girl who was dragged into a house and held down on the kitchen table where her clitoris was removed using a dirty knife, without anaesthetic. They told me about the woman who had burned herself alive to escape the shame of divorce, whose ex-husband had instructed her to make sure she did it out in the backyard. They spoke of women paying up to $US400 for backyard "hymen reconstructions" to protect them from honour killings. Meanwhile, the local women's rights campaigner, Ala Noori Talabani, would wear a bulletproof vest for protection.
So if the pen is mightier than the sword, could it help these women to have their experiences told to readers worldwide? Regardless of lofty intentions, can words achieve anything when the powerful won't hear?
This was no peacekeeping mission, after all. The occupying forces with their Humvees and heavy weaponry, whose soldiers were said to be there to liberate the population, did little to liberate the women, quite the contrary. In addition to the estimated 1 million killed since 2003, about 4.5 million Iraqis have fled their homes, while more than 1 million widows and 3 million orphans have been left behind. Desperate women now beg in the streets.
And what has Nouri al-Maliki done to help the refugee crisis? And what has he done to help Iraqi women? To help Iraq's LGBT community? What has Nouri done? Has he done anything? UPI and Official Wire report that he's "been systemattically amassing control of Iraq's intelligence and security services in the classic mold of Arab strongment." They go on to explain how Nouri's firing people he sees as rivals and controlling the National Security Ministry, how he's imposed a Baghdad curfew to allow for nightly mass arrests and he's "recruited tribal militias that are funded directly by his office." He is said to see Jawad al-Bolani, Minister of the Interior, as a political rival and some are saying "his next target will be Bolani, widely seen as a close U.S. ally." So Nouri's enriched himself. At least there is that. No comfort to anyone but Nouri but he's not just been sitting around slacking. Nouri likes to claim there's no money for public services. He likes to claim money is tight. The New York Times loves to enable and encourage his lies. Today , Timothy Williams informs, "The semiautonomous Kurdish region has reopened a rift with the central government after announcing that it had halted all petroleum exports from Kurdistan until Baghdad pays the international companies that are pumping oil in the region." That's cute. A rift? Reopened by the KRG?Baghdad's not paying the monies they are supposed to pay to the KRG. Grasp that. Grasp that the KRG is saying no more oil through Baghdad until they're paid. It's amazing the way the paper 'reports.' You can be sure that no US business that said "no" to another company or government due to non-payment would be accused of causing a 'rift.' Nouri's the new Saddam indeed. Just as CNN kissed his ass to remain in Iraq back then (as Eason revealed in that embarrassing NYT column sometime back), NYT kisses Nouri ass to remain in his good graces. Don't mistake what appears for reporting. Williams even goes so far to vouch for Nouri: "At the same time, the [Baghdad] government needs all the revenue it can get to pay for a host of pressing needs." A host of pressing needs? Millions on weaponry? That's not pressing. They're not needed, get real. Who's going to attack Iraq?The United States has done so twice. Who else?Iran? While they're so tight with Nouri? While they're apparently providing Nouri with a plane to travel in?They need all these costly weapons to protect them from whom?They don't need these weapons and Nouri has not, in his nearly three year reign, provided Iraqis with potable water or any other basic services that a functioning society has a right to expect. Maybe part of the reason Nouri keeps attacking Syria is because he needs to create an external threat in order to justify the spending? A meeting of Iraq and its neighbors continues for the second day in Egypt. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports the 'big' thing on Iraq's agenda was again insisting they had evidence. Meanwhile Today's Zaman notes Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan begins a visit to Iraq on Thursday.
Nouri dug his own economic hole by throwing so much money at weapons. Strategy Page reminds, "Last year, Iraq ordered over $4 billion worth of of American weapons, mainly on the strength of high (over $100 a barrel) oil prices. The price of oil has since plummeted, and Iraq is seeking to get better payment terms. Many of the weapons ordered had to be paid for in advance, or on delivery. Now, many of these orders are at risk, because Iraq has a lousy credit score. Despite all that oil revenue, and a large chunk of global oil reserves, Iraq has very bad credit history with just about everyone. So the country cannot finance the huge weapons purchases. The U.S. weapons firms will not extend credit, and expect to be paid."
Ending with Sunday's DC rally. Democracy Now! is having some problem with the website currently. But this link should take you to their segment on Iraq War veteran Lt Dan Choi speaking at the equality rally Sunday. Choi is threatened with being drummed out of the military because he chose to tell. He chose not to live in a closet. In the segment, Amy Goodman and Sharif Abdel Koudous speak with Choi and they also play a segment of his Sunday speech. We'll note the speech:
Now, I know that there are many things that are worth fighting for, and I've fought for many of them, and I will tell you that some of those are very, very expensive. But of all those things that are worth fighting for, love is worth fighting for. Love is worth it. Love is worth it. Some of us have come from very far places to be here today. You've sacrificed a lot. But love is worth it. Some of us have just come out of the closet this year. Some of us are still in the closet. But I want to tell you that love is worth it. We've sacrificed so much. Some of us have been rejected by our families and our communities and our churches and our workplaces, but I will tell you that love is worth it. And many of us have been discharged from the service because we told the truth. But I know that love is worth it. We love our country, even when our country refuses to acknowledge our love. But we continue to defend it, and we continue to protect it, because love is worth it. Love is worth it. If you believe it, say it with me, "Love is worth it! Love is worth it! Love is worth it! Love is worth it!" Like so many others, I joined the military because my country beckoned me. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." But when we're telling the truth about our love, our country slaps us in the face and orders us, "Don't ask," and orders us, "Don't tell." Well I am telling you that the era and the time for asking is over. I am not asking anymore. I am telling. I am telling! I am telling! Will you tell with me? Asking is over. We will tell, because in the face of injustice and the face of discrimination, patience is not a plan. In the face of discrimination, silence is not a strategy. My plan today and my plan tomorrow and my plan forever is to tell, is to tell. And we will tell. We will tell! We will tell!
iraqnew york magazinematt mcallesternprtalk of the nationneal conan
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
laith hammoudi
simon assaf
the socialist worker
bbc newsnatalia antelava
timothy williamsthe new york timesxinhuamu xuequan
democracy now
Like they're pets left behind after a move and need new owners?
The article tells us that Women and Child Committee head Samira al Musawi states Iraq saw more than 1 million women become widows since 2005.
That's interesting. It would appear to validate the claim (which I believe) that over 1 million Iraqis have died in the war.
But what's even more interesting is that out of this over a million, how many have decided to use the program? Over 40. That's not a very big number in a country that has over one million widows from the last three years alone, now is it?
From the article:
But not everyone thinks kindly of Al Ethar's program. Al Musawi said she "declared my full refusal to this idea," likening it to "showcasing and ... selling and buying women through making use of widows' economic status."
I encourage you to read the article and think hard as you attempt to figure out who besides C.I. (and now me) has called this crap out?
Tomorrow night on CBS, kicking off prime time, is The New Adventures of Old Christine and I'm doing a heads up reminder on that. Last week was so funny.
Christine was convinced she had breast cancer ("underboob cancer," Richard called it) but Christine had no mole, she had a piece of brownie stuck to her boob.
Before she found that out, she was in high drama and, as you can probably picture, that was hilarious. But only more so because Barb (Wanda Sykes) was having to put up with (endure) it. I love Christine's self-involvement.
She suggested Richard and New Christine sell the house they had purchased and Richard pointed out it wasn't a good time to sell a house today. Christine lamented that you miss the paper for one day and you're out of the loop.
She had no health insurance. What kind of a country is this, she wondered?
Barb explained to her that lots of Americans didn't have insurance. In fact, 45 million of them. Christine had no clue. It was so funny.
It really was a funny episode with a lot going on in it.
So remember the new episode airs tomorrow night.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, October 13, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Iraq's LGBT community garners some press attention, the refugee crisis continues, the British government prepares to force Iraqis out of England, the water crisis in Iraq creates even more refugees, Nouri can't pay his bills and more.
Today on New Hampshire Public Radio's Word of Mouth, Virginia Prescott spoke with Human Rights Watch's Scott Long and Matt McAllester about the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community. McAllester was noted in the October 6th snapshot on this issue, he's written "The Hunted" (New York Magazine) and he discussed the issue with Neal Conan on NPR's Talk of the Nation (here for audio and transcript links).
Virginia Prescott: Well Matt, what's it like to be a gay Iraqi in post-Saddam Baghdad?
Matt McAllester: Well earlier this year it was fatally dangerous potentially and many of them were indeed killed. What happened in 2003 when the invasion happened is that the center of-of power and fear in Iraq in many arenas of life but especially for gay Iraqis shifted from the State which, under Saddam Hussein, was never friendly to put it mildly towards gay people in Iraq. It wasn't actually illegal to be gay in Iraq. You very much kept a low profile if you could. And shifted from the State to the mosque and to the militia -- as did so much in Iraq. And so the power bases were less controlled and more violent and more dangerous.
Virginia Prescott: We mentioned the uptick earlier this year, pretty much focused in February, attacks against gay Iraqis and police harassment of gay men reached a fevered pitch in that time. You've mentioned homosexuality is still not illegal in Iraq, so what prompted this uptick in violence?
Matt McAllester: Well strangely and sort of paradoxically, the down-tick in violence generally prompted the uptick against gay people. What I mean by that is that American soldiers are much less visible to the Iraqi insurgency and militias so there's one target that's all but disappeared. The government of Iraq is much stronger and so this civil war between Sunni and Shia militias that was raging, that's also pretty much -- I wouldn't say "over," but it's not so much a factor. In the course of that last year, one of the main militias, the Shia militia, the Mahdi Army, which is headed by Moqtada al-Sadr, a very radical cleric with-with pretty much sidelined, politically and militarily and he seems to have, although there's no paper trail leading directly to his door, but it was clearly his guys that were doing this in the early part of this year, have decided that. he needed to increase his popularity by picking on the one population group in Iraq that no one likes. And they're-they're -- gays in Iraq are pretty much detested by every ethnic group, nationality, strata of society. So -- and so he thought this would cast his guys and himself as the moral arbiters of Iraq again.
Virginia Prescott: So it was -- it was a power grab mostly.
Matt McAllester: It was. And they -- gays in Iraq were used and manipulated in this way.
Virginia Prescott: Gay men and women looking to flee Iraq don't have many options. Homosexuality is illegal in most of the surrounding countries. The non-profit Human Rights Watch created an underground railroad to help gay Iraqis escape to safety. Joining us now is Scott Long. He's director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights program at Human Rights Watch. Scott, welcome to the program.
Scott Long: Thank you for having me.
Virginia Prescott: What inspired you to create this so-called underground railroad for gay Iraqis. This kind of direct action is a bit of a change for Human Rights Watch.
Scott Long: Well it was necessity really. I mean ordinarily when Human Rights Watch tries to do research on massive humanitarian violations, there are other groups that can provide direct support to people. But in this case, we're talking about folks in Iraq who have no one to defend them. The police won't protect them. Civil society is too weak to offer any effective assistance. They're basically alone and completely vulnerable to violence.
Virginia Prescott: There are, of course, Iraqi lesbians. Also not looked upon kindly but not being persecuted in the same way as gay men. Tell us a little bit more about the process here. How do you identify gay men looking to escape from Iraq?
Scott Long: Well basically we reached out to people through every means possible. Through the internet -- the internet has become a major social tool for men who want to preserve their anonymity and think they can preserve their safety. We reached out to personal contacts. And we just tried to evaluate the level of threat people were facing. But if people were, if people had been threatened directly, if there was reason to think their names were in the hands of the militia, we did everything we could to try to get them out.
Virginia Prescott: I know that you can't disclose the city that is now serving as a safe haven for gay Iraqis, but you have spent time there. Scott, how does it differ from Baghdad in terms of safety or openness for homosexuals?
Scott Long: Well there aren't militias roaming the streets with guns. That's the primary thing. But, as you've said, in all the surrounding countries there's still social prejudice and there's also criminal laws. In the last -- in the last six years, there have probably been more than two-and-a-half-million Iraqi displaced by the violence and of those people, the United States has accepted only about 20,000 as refugees. We're definitely hoping that the US will recognize that people aren't safe even when they flee to surrounding countries and that we have a responsibility to LGBT Iraqis to accept them to safety here as well as other categories of refugees.
Virginia Prescott: And that leads to another question. Matt McAllester, you spent time in this unnamed city as part of your reporting for New York Magazine. Many of the Iraqis living there hope to one day emigrate to the United States or Canada, Australia or Sweden but isn't it unlikely that they'd be accepted by Iraqi immigrant communities in those countries leaving them in a kind of state of limbo. .
Matt McAllester: You're -- you're absolutely right. The prejudice carries from Baghdad to-to Baltimore or where ever they end up. And that doesn't disappear. So they will be embraced, one hopes, by the mainstream gay communities in the United States or Sweden or Norway or Australia or where ever they end up. Some of them don't even want to meet other gay Iraqi refugees. They've been through such traumatic times there, there trust level is almost non-existent. And so they sort of want to disappear into society but I mean that's terribly difficult if your language skills aren't up to scratch initially and perhaps you don't have the work skills and you have -- and you are -- you can't even hang out, go to the cafes and drink tea and smoke shisa with your Iraqi friends.
Virginia Prescott: Many of them have returned to somewhat less dangerous parts of Iraq unhappy with how Human Rights Watch has helped them transition into their new lives as refugees. Matt, what's their complaint?
Matt McAllester: I think that it's terribly hard to be uprooted from your home.
and even if there are militias roaming the streets trying to kill you, it's terribly difficult to one week be living with your family -- albeit living a lie and a very scared lie -- and another
week to suddenly be sort of living in another city. And I think many of these guys have found that terribly difficult and understandably so. This is not specific to gay refugees, this is a thing I've seen happen in many countries -- refugees sort of leaving and moving back, albeit towards, back towards, danger --
Virginia Prescott: Scott. I'm sorry I have to interrupt because I want Scott, we have just thirty seconds for you to respond to that. How about you and other Human Rights Watch? What do you think?
Scott Long: Well it's not easy being a refugee. Being a refugee means being uprooted from everything you ever cared about. And that's, again, why I think it's really incumbent upon the United States and other countries that bear some responsibility for the violence in Iraq to start living up to their responsibilities by helping these folk make a new home.
Virginia Prescott: Scott, Matt, just one second please if you could, anything the Iraqi government could do to protect gay Iraqis or is it even on their radar?
Matt McAllester: They don't want to talk about it, to be perfectly honest. The ambassador in Washington gave me a written statement after -- after quite a long time of asking and it was impossible to get much more than that I'm afraid.
On the topic of Iraqi refugees, last week Human Rights Action and the Human Rights Institute at Georgetown Law Center issued [PDF format warning] a report entitled "Refugee Crisis in America: Iraqis And Their Resettlement Experience." It documented many obstacles for the small number of Iraqis granted asylum in the US. For example:
When researchers met Farrah, a former physical education teacher with a bachelor's degree, she said that all she and her elderly mother hope for is "enough help to get on [their] own two feet." After fleeing from Iraq to Syria in 2007, Farrah arrived in Detroit in June 2008 and has been trying unsuccessfuly to find a job and enroll at a community college to improve her employment prospects. "We don't want to depend on the government for everything," Farrah said; "we want a foundation to build our own future."
Unfortunately for Farrah, and other Iraqi refugees with whom researches spoke, the USRAP [US Refugee Admissions Program] does not devote enough attention to breaking down key barriers to employment for refugees. Employment services, provided by volags and state agencies, are seriously underfunded and unable to adequately help Iraqi refugees in their job search. Lack of transporation remains a significant barrier to securing and maintaining employment. English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, generally inadequate in both equality and duration, fail to help Iraqis build marketable language skills. In addition, the opportunity to pursue education and re-certification programs, prerequisites for many jobs, is either unavailable or eclipsed by more immediate needs. Given these barriers, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Iraqi refugees interviewed were unemployed despite expressing a strong desire to work.
The report notes that despite the Refugee Act calling for thirty-six months of assistance, most Iraqi refugees are receiving only eight months. On top of that, there are delays in terms of appointments with case workers. There is a thirty-day delay of initial payment after the paper work has been completed appropriately. Along with economic issues such as not providing enough funds to the refugees, the USRAP has a problem when it comes to planning. The report notes, "When the U.S. government announced in 2007 that tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees would soon be arriving in the United States, there was little doubt that Iraqis would seek to be placed in cities with large existing Iraqi and Arab communities like Detroit and San Diego. Even those working in overseas processing predicted as much." So why, when the refugees began arriving, was this a 'surprise'? One of the report's recommendations is for the new procedures to be developed by the lead agency which "outline a common, consistent strategy for the placement of individual refugees, taking into account the needs of each refugee, state and volag resources, and recent trends prior to a refugee's arrival."
Vincent T. Davis (San Antonio Express-News) reports on Iraqi Khalid Ali who had to leave Iraq after threats were made (he worked with CBS News in Iraq). Shortly after his family arrived in the US, his wife Sundas died of breast cancer. He is now raising the children by himself (the youngest is three-years-old) and attempting to find work. Davis reports, "There are moments away from his children when he sits and stares. He misses his wife. Ali relies on the words of the Quran, saying, 'God will enlighten and show the way.' He dreams of his children prospering in their new country, but first he has to help them deal with their loss. 'They miss the tender kindness of their mother,' Ali said. He hasn't told his two youngest girls their mother has died, he can't find the words to tell them the truth; after many hospital stays, the girls think she's still there."
In England, Owen Bowcott (Guardian) reports, "The UK Border Agency is preparing to send the first, mass deporation flight returning failed asylum seekers to Baghdad and southern Iraq, according to a refugee organisation that monitors expulsions." The group is the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees. They're calling for mass action tomorrow and they quote Iraqi refugee Yousuf stating, "Iraq's not safe for me. I am Shia'a and a Sunni group is after me. The same group has killed both my brothers and now they're after me. The government here won't let me work, and then they give me just [35 pounds] a week to live on, but I've got friends here and I'm safe. Why would they send me back?" Tomorrow in London, there will be a demonstration at 5:00 pm at Communications House: "The Stop Deportation network and the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees call upon all groups, organisations and individuals opposed to this brutal action by the UK government to stand with us in calling for all deportations to Iraq to be stopped. Join us on the first public demonstration against mass deportations to Iraq this Wednesday, at 5pm, at the local immigration reporting centre, where many deportees are first arrested without prior warning whilst signing on (Communications House, Old Street, London, EC1)."
Iraq isn't safe for anyone. Nouri strong-armed a man with the UN in Iraq into stating some parts were and, please note, that man is gone. But the damage he did continues. Iraq is not safe and no government should deport anyone back to Iraq.
Meanwhile Amnesty International's Turkish refugees affairs coordinator Volkan Gorendag speaks with Today's Zaman:
"There are almost 1 million Iraqi refugees in Syria, and they are able cope with it. Iran has a similar situation. Even in Iraq, there are almost 10,000 refugees there coming from Turkey. A country like Iraq, which has been devastated by war, is able to cope with this. Is Turkey less powerful then these countries?" he asks.
He says that if he had the power to change anything about refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey, he would start by passing a law on asylum and migration.
"There is no law in Turkey in this field. There are only some articles in various laws regarding the issue as well as many regulations. This makes the situation even more complex," he says.
When talking about the history of international regulations regarding refugees, Gorendag says he is saddened by the fact that Turkey was from the very beginning part of these debates but later chose to exclude itself from them.
"When the first international convention on refugees came on the agenda, Turkey was one of the countries which campaigned very hard for it from the beginning. It is one of the authors of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It addressed the topic of refugees because of events taking place in Europe. In 1967 geographical and temporal restrictions were removed, but Turkey kept them," he says.
Violence is among the drivers behind Iraq's refugee crisis -- the largest refugee crisis on the globe. Violence continued today in Iraq . . .
Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Kirkuk roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left four more wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing left two women wounded, another wounded a guard and a third left a police officer injured. Reuters adds that a suicide bombing in Buhriz claimed the life of the bomber and 6 other people with ten more left injured.
Simon Assaf (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) reports on Iraq violence and notes, "The country continues to be plagued by power cuts, high unemployment and ethnic and sectarian conflicts. Now a severe drought has destroyed the agricultural sector." Natalia Antelava (BBC News) notes the MidEast water wars and how the dams Turkey has built have negatively impacted Syria and Iraq. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) today announced, "Over 100,000 people in northern Iraq have been forced to evacuate their homes since 2005 because of severe water shortages, a UNESCO study finds. Drought and excessive well pumping have drawn down aquifer levels in the region, causing a dramatic decline of water flow in ancient underground aqueducts, known in Iraq as karez, upon which hundreds of communities depend." UNESCO also identifies 36,000 more Iraqis who may flee their homes in the near future due to the current water shortages. Iran's Press TV reported Sunday, "Iranian ships have started delivering drinking water to Iraq, as a Turkish pledge seems to have had little effect in solving Baghdad's water shortage problem. Tehran has agreed to send 650 thousand liters of water to Iraq by ship two or three times a week to help resolve the water shortage problem in southern parts of the country, the Iranian Tabnak news website reported on Sunday." Iran is shipping for southern Iraq, UNESCO is zooming in on the crisis in the north, to be clear.
Meanwhile Lynne Minion (Brisbane Times) attempts to draw attention to Iraqis few bother to notice. She recounts her time working in Iraq:
And by day I would work with local journalists and edit an online publication that told stories about the conditions for Iraqis, not those of the Western occupying forces. And every now and again, a translator would come to my desk to say that a woman was waiting outside, that she wanted to speak to me.
In a place where many women can't talk to men about their personal struggles, they came to speak to the Australian woman journalist and they asked me to give them a voice.
They told me about the little girl who was dragged into a house and held down on the kitchen table where her clitoris was removed using a dirty knife, without anaesthetic. They told me about the woman who had burned herself alive to escape the shame of divorce, whose ex-husband had instructed her to make sure she did it out in the backyard. They spoke of women paying up to $US400 for backyard "hymen reconstructions" to protect them from honour killings. Meanwhile, the local women's rights campaigner, Ala Noori Talabani, would wear a bulletproof vest for protection.
So if the pen is mightier than the sword, could it help these women to have their experiences told to readers worldwide? Regardless of lofty intentions, can words achieve anything when the powerful won't hear?
This was no peacekeeping mission, after all. The occupying forces with their Humvees and heavy weaponry, whose soldiers were said to be there to liberate the population, did little to liberate the women, quite the contrary. In addition to the estimated 1 million killed since 2003, about 4.5 million Iraqis have fled their homes, while more than 1 million widows and 3 million orphans have been left behind. Desperate women now beg in the streets.
And what has Nouri al-Maliki done to help the refugee crisis? And what has he done to help Iraqi women? To help Iraq's LGBT community? What has Nouri done? Has he done anything? UPI and Official Wire report that he's "been systemattically amassing control of Iraq's intelligence and security services in the classic mold of Arab strongment." They go on to explain how Nouri's firing people he sees as rivals and controlling the National Security Ministry, how he's imposed a Baghdad curfew to allow for nightly mass arrests and he's "recruited tribal militias that are funded directly by his office." He is said to see Jawad al-Bolani, Minister of the Interior, as a political rival and some are saying "his next target will be Bolani, widely seen as a close U.S. ally." So Nouri's enriched himself. At least there is that. No comfort to anyone but Nouri but he's not just been sitting around slacking. Nouri likes to claim there's no money for public services. He likes to claim money is tight. The New York Times loves to enable and encourage his lies. Today , Timothy Williams informs, "The semiautonomous Kurdish region has reopened a rift with the central government after announcing that it had halted all petroleum exports from Kurdistan until Baghdad pays the international companies that are pumping oil in the region." That's cute. A rift? Reopened by the KRG?Baghdad's not paying the monies they are supposed to pay to the KRG. Grasp that. Grasp that the KRG is saying no more oil through Baghdad until they're paid. It's amazing the way the paper 'reports.' You can be sure that no US business that said "no" to another company or government due to non-payment would be accused of causing a 'rift.' Nouri's the new Saddam indeed. Just as CNN kissed his ass to remain in Iraq back then (as Eason revealed in that embarrassing NYT column sometime back), NYT kisses Nouri ass to remain in his good graces. Don't mistake what appears for reporting. Williams even goes so far to vouch for Nouri: "At the same time, the [Baghdad] government needs all the revenue it can get to pay for a host of pressing needs." A host of pressing needs? Millions on weaponry? That's not pressing. They're not needed, get real. Who's going to attack Iraq?The United States has done so twice. Who else?Iran? While they're so tight with Nouri? While they're apparently providing Nouri with a plane to travel in?They need all these costly weapons to protect them from whom?They don't need these weapons and Nouri has not, in his nearly three year reign, provided Iraqis with potable water or any other basic services that a functioning society has a right to expect. Maybe part of the reason Nouri keeps attacking Syria is because he needs to create an external threat in order to justify the spending? A meeting of Iraq and its neighbors continues for the second day in Egypt. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports the 'big' thing on Iraq's agenda was again insisting they had evidence. Meanwhile Today's Zaman notes Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan begins a visit to Iraq on Thursday.
Nouri dug his own economic hole by throwing so much money at weapons. Strategy Page reminds, "Last year, Iraq ordered over $4 billion worth of of American weapons, mainly on the strength of high (over $100 a barrel) oil prices. The price of oil has since plummeted, and Iraq is seeking to get better payment terms. Many of the weapons ordered had to be paid for in advance, or on delivery. Now, many of these orders are at risk, because Iraq has a lousy credit score. Despite all that oil revenue, and a large chunk of global oil reserves, Iraq has very bad credit history with just about everyone. So the country cannot finance the huge weapons purchases. The U.S. weapons firms will not extend credit, and expect to be paid."
Ending with Sunday's DC rally. Democracy Now! is having some problem with the website currently. But this link should take you to their segment on Iraq War veteran Lt Dan Choi speaking at the equality rally Sunday. Choi is threatened with being drummed out of the military because he chose to tell. He chose not to live in a closet. In the segment, Amy Goodman and Sharif Abdel Koudous speak with Choi and they also play a segment of his Sunday speech. We'll note the speech:
Now, I know that there are many things that are worth fighting for, and I've fought for many of them, and I will tell you that some of those are very, very expensive. But of all those things that are worth fighting for, love is worth fighting for. Love is worth it. Love is worth it. Some of us have come from very far places to be here today. You've sacrificed a lot. But love is worth it. Some of us have just come out of the closet this year. Some of us are still in the closet. But I want to tell you that love is worth it. We've sacrificed so much. Some of us have been rejected by our families and our communities and our churches and our workplaces, but I will tell you that love is worth it. And many of us have been discharged from the service because we told the truth. But I know that love is worth it. We love our country, even when our country refuses to acknowledge our love. But we continue to defend it, and we continue to protect it, because love is worth it. Love is worth it. If you believe it, say it with me, "Love is worth it! Love is worth it! Love is worth it! Love is worth it!" Like so many others, I joined the military because my country beckoned me. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." But when we're telling the truth about our love, our country slaps us in the face and orders us, "Don't ask," and orders us, "Don't tell." Well I am telling you that the era and the time for asking is over. I am not asking anymore. I am telling. I am telling! I am telling! Will you tell with me? Asking is over. We will tell, because in the face of injustice and the face of discrimination, patience is not a plan. In the face of discrimination, silence is not a strategy. My plan today and my plan tomorrow and my plan forever is to tell, is to tell. And we will tell. We will tell! We will tell!
iraqnew york magazinematt mcallesternprtalk of the nationneal conan
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
laith hammoudi
simon assaf
the socialist worker
bbc newsnatalia antelava
timothy williamsthe new york timesxinhuamu xuequan
democracy now
Monday, October 12, 2009
Gail Collins
"THE WAGES OF SIN ARE INFLATED COSTS! Will the Baucus Bill reduce health costs? The topic’s too tough for the Times" (Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler):
On Saturday, at the New York Times, Lady Collins surveyed the scene—and decided to focus on this:
COLLINS (10/10/09): Our question for today is whether it’s fair for a politician to point out that his opponent is fat.
An ad in the Jersey governor’s race seemed to concern one candidate’s weight. Inevitably, the simpering duchess focused on that. Soon, in accordance with Hard Pundit Law, The Lady was typing this:
COLLINS: Other people have argued that the ad will backfire and elicit sympathy for Christie among the multitudes of overweight voters even in the relatively fit state of New Jersey. (And God help the candidate who tries to pull this kind of thing in Mississippi.)
That’s happened in the past. Like the time Mitt Romney ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate during one of Kennedy’s particularly unslender periods. The Romney camp ran film of Kennedy struggling to squeeze behind a table. (Subliminal message: Too much fat in the budget.) Kennedy responded with workers who had been laid off after a factory takeover engineered by Romney’s firm. (Subliminal message: How do you like downsizing?)
Of course, Kennedy cleaned his clock. This is my second-favorite Mitt Romney story. I couldn’t figure out any way to bring up the one about him driving to Canada with the family dog strapped to the car roof.
It has been a long time since this simpering imbecile wasted your time on Mitt Romney’s dead dog, Seamus. How inane is Lady Collins? During the last campaign, she explored the topic at least eight separate times, typing columns with titles like these:
Haunted by Seamus (8/4/07)The Revenge of Seamus (2/9/08)Dear Old Golden Dog Days (10/11/08)
That's from today's DH and there are many parts but I had to go with this one because when this site was a comic, online novel about Betinna, I took on Gail Collins regularly. She really is one of the great wastes of all time.
She's focused only on her needs which is how she managed, when editor of the op-ed pages, to write an obit on her friend who died but, at the same time, ignore the passing of Coretta Scott King. Coretta Scott King was a historical figure.
Maybe if she'd tied a dog to her car roof, Gail Collins would have been interested?
Not only did Gail Collins not write about Coretta's passing, she brought no one in to cover it with a column. Coretta Scott King passed away and the New York Times ignored it on the op-ed pages that she controlled. (After the death, Bob Herbet would mention the passing in a few sentences. He would not write a column about it.)
Gail Collins really doesn't like women -- she doesn't even like herself but she really doesn't like women. If you ever doubt that, you just need to read that popular and passed around e-mail where Gail rants at a Times' subscriber for suggesting that when Maureen Dowd is on vacation, another woman should be her replacement and not a man (as Gail had provided) because the paper already had more than enough men. (At that time, during Gail's entire reign, in fact, NYT only had one female columnist: Maureen Dowd.)
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Prizes"
I really love that comic. Michelle's shoulders. :D
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, October 12, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, there is no election law in Iraq, the faux peace movement comes out in favor of US forces remaining in Afghanistan (just as they walked away from "Out Of Iraq Now!"), real peace activists weigh in on the Nobel Peace Prize and more.
Sunday Ramadi was rocked with violence. Mohammad al Dulaimy and Jamal Naji (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "First, they bombed a crowded parking lot outside the Anbar provincial government's headquarters. Seven minutes later, they detonated a car bomb aimed at the rescue workers. An hour later, a third bomb exploded outside the hospital where survivors were receiving treatment." The Los Angeles Times puts the death toll at 26 and McCatchy says over eighty were injured. Zhang Xiang (Xinhua) cites an unnamed Interior Ministry source stating 80% "of the wounded were policemen and 10 percent of the injured were in a critical condition". Uthman al-Mokhtar and Nada Bakri (Washington Post) explains, "Rumors spread through Ramadi and other parts of the province about who was behind the statacks. Some suggsted government officials were involved, part of the fallout from months of negotiations over creating alliances for Iraq's parliamentary elections in January." And with rumors come the denials. Timothy Williams (New York Times) quotes Anbar Province's Deputy Governor Hekmet Jassim Zeidan stating, "The police commanders are not doing their job the way it should be done. We have pointed out the mistakes and failures among the police, but no one has done anything to correct the problems." That was Sunday and we'll return to it later but we'll move over to today's violence right now.
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four people (one a police officer), a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded five people (including "a high-ranking officer in the ministry of interior" whose car the bomb was attached to), a Diyala province bombing targeted "sons of the mayor of Abu Khamees" killing two and wounded a third (the "sons of the mayor" are also members of Sahwa, "Sons Of Iraq," "Awakenings"), a Buhruz roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 construction worker and wounded two more and an Anbar Province home bombing (home "of one of the Sahwa leaders"). Reuters notes a Mosul home bombing which injured one woman and her four children, two Buhriz roadside bombings which claimed 3 lives and left three people injured (Reuters also notes the Buhriz roadside bombing Sahar Issa does -- there are three roadside bombings reported today in Buhuriz) and a tailor shop bombing in Mosul which injured one person.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 construction worker shot dead in Mosul.
The Iraqi Diaspora is the topic of the most recent Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) and host Jasim Azawi discussed it with Nidhal Garmo (For Victims of War and Poverty), Raed Jarrar (American Friends Service Committee) and Houzan Mahmoud (Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq).
Jasim Azawi: Nidhal, let me start with you. You are an Iraqi-American citizen. You are a pharmacist based in Detroit, Michigan. And for the past ten years, you have been involved in Iraq sending aid and money to Iraq. But since the invasion of 2003, you've been going to Iraq, taking surgical and medical equipment to Iraq. Exactly what draws you to Iraq? Is it your roots? Is it the desire to help? What is it?
Nidhal Garmo: It's a mixture of every good thing a human being can think. Years ago, I used to watch TV, especially Al Jazeera, and I used to get hurt when I see the African children are dying hungry, the people from Palestine are living this miserable life -- like refugees. I never thought that one day Iraq -- the safest, most beautiful country, my country, my family, all Iraqi people are my family -- would go through this ordeal so I decided to do something about it rather than watching the TV and crying every single day and night for them.
Jasim Azawi: I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands like you and one of them is Raed Jarrar. Raed, you are an architect, your masters thesis is in post-war reconstruction. In what way can you help Iraq, given your experience?
Raed Jarrar: I was in Iraq during the sanction years and during the invasion and I actually did do some reconstruction projects after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 based on community organizations and Iraqi efforts. Unfortunately all these attempts that I started and that many others started failed and could not continue because of the political and military situation in Iraq. Now my dissertation, I talked about how Iraq will go through three different phases of rebuilding. The first one is the immediate relief after the disaster and during the disaster that Iraq is going through and after that we will go to the reconstruction phase and after that it will allow us to reach to a development phase. Unfortunately six years into the occupation after the fall of Baghdad, we're still in the relief phase. The reconstruction phase did not start yet. So it is still very, very primitive and I think there are so many people with capacity to help rebuilding Iraq and initiate reconstruction campaign that would bring the country back to life. But they are marginalized, mostly outside the country and the ones inside the country cannot actually participate in a functioning campaign yet.
Jasim Azawi: Given what he said, Houzan, that reconstruction is still way off and you are involved with a human rights organization, is human rights a luxury for Iraqis right now? Is it too early to talk about it given that it is almost the bete noire of the Iraqi government? When you work in Iraq, are you watched by Iraqi government?
Houzan Mahmoud: Certainly. I mean, human rights is not a luxury. It's a basic rights for human beings to live with freedom and their rights be respected. I mean considering that people in Iraq have lived under dictatorship for thirty years followed by another six years of devastation war and occupation, these people deserve rights, they deserve freedom and they deserve a simple life with basic rights included. Of course when the Organization of Women's Freedom or any other organization tries to bring the violation of women's rights or children's rights or human rights into the attention and the authority of the international community, the Iraqi government don't like it because they think it's an exposition of their lack of governance of the country. And that's why the role of people like us who are involved in activism for human rights, for women's rights, for labor rights in Iraq is really vital because I think if a country -- if any given society, even if there's no war or any problems at all, if human rights is not respected, if women's rights is not recognized by the government than how can we talk about anything else really? So that's why I think human rights is fundamental. It's very, very detrimental for any other basically laws or rules in that country or that society.
Jasim Azawi: Nidhal, now that security is relatively better than in the past two years -- at least that's what the Iraqi government keeps telling us and US forces in Iraq. To what extent, security aside, are you facing bureaucracy, are you facing sectarian affiliation? For instance, say this medical equipment and surgical equipment you're bringing us, it should go to a certain part of Iraq, to a certain sect rather than given and distributed equally.
Nidhal Garmo: Any place that I can put my foot on it in Iraq, I would say 90% of Iraq is in need if it's not 100%. I will, if I'm able to do it, I will do it. Not any place that I specify. I look for the most needed areas and if I have the chance and a little bit of support from the government or the Ministries of Health, I'll do it. I have a chance to do it. There's nothing going to stop me from doing it. I'm not worried, I just believe I always hear from God.
Jasim Azawi: Do people tell you, Nidhal, that, "We are," for instance, "in northern Iraq, in the Chaldean Assyrian community, we need this and you are one of us, help us." You know that, "The Iraqi government can look after other people"?
Nidhal Garmo: Yes.
Jasim Azawi: Do you face that?
Nidhal Garmo: Oh, I hear that, I hear that not only from my own community, the Chaldean community, which been supportive a lot of me but not everybody -- Everybody wants to benefit their own people. That's something natural. But I've been facing some hardships, being Christian, Chaldean and with the situation with the war, it's not only hitting the Iraqi people, the problem is not only between Sunni and Shia and Christians and Muslims, it's also there in America. In Michigan, my own community, I hear it from people and I tell them, "Listen, the war doesn't know Muslim and Christian." When you go to a hospital, I'm taking medical and surgical supplies and medication. Anybody in need in any country, in any place, you need to help them. You want to help the poor? There are a lot of poor in Iraq. You want to help the sick? My God, I've been visiting hospitals and when you see a child that is dying of cancer, you're not going to look at his face or you ask his parents, "Where is he from?" He's Iraqi child that needs help. That will not stop me. And of course, this is part of hardships but if you are strong and you believe in God and you want to help people, you'll do it. You'll not worry about this kind of things because we need to educated people and help them. They've already been suffering in Iraq --
Jasim Azawi: Yes
Nidhal Garmo: So we are there for them. I don't discriminate and we are heading to the south very soon hopefully. They need us the most. Especially in Basra.
Jasim Azawi: We wish you the best, Nidhal, in all of your efforts but, Raed Jarrar, the history of Iraq and the United States is forever entwined because of the invasion of 2003. I'm almost reminded by the linkage between the United States and Vietnam. The two names have become synomous. In Washington, where you live, there is a powerful organization called AIPAC and that is the Jewish-Israeli lobby that promotes Israeli interests. Can we dream and can we think about one day the Iraqis will establish a powerful organization promoting Iraqi interests in the US?
Raed Jarrar: I mean, some people have been trying to do that. There are a number of Arab or Muslim pressure groups and some groups that try to promote Iraqi interests. I personally think that that is important, to have groups to promote dialogue between Iraq and the United States --
Jasim Azawi: But given the division among the Iraqi community, will that be, will that be possible?
Raed Jarrar: Yeah, it will be possible but not following the same model that AIPAC has been doing. I don't think -- as a US citizen as well, not just someone who was born in Iraq -- I don't want to create yet another group that leeches on the US and takes the United States' interests as second to -- as AIPAC has been doing. Through my work, I've been thinking about how the US can play more -- a smarter role in the region. To stop occupying and destroying nations like Iraq and to have better channels of dialogue. Now unfortunately, so far, the Iraqi community in the United States has not been organized enough to start a strong dialogue group. They're not united enough, unfortunately, to ask for ending the occuption. We still have a lot of different opinions within the Iraqi community in the US so it's more complicated than that. Where we stand now, I think that's too early to talk about. What we talk about now is the US should first stop its crimes, its occupation, its daily destruction of Iraq and then, once that done, we can talk about rosy future and the groups --
Jasim Azawi: Indeed you're right, Raed Jarrar, because the question of occupation versus liberation is still reverbarating not only in Iraq but across the world. But Houzan, let us talk about the future. In January there will be a Parliamentary election. In what ways Iraqis living abroad can help? Some people are volunteering as eleciton monitors. Given the fact that the election of 2005 and even before, it was not cordial, it was not Westminister type of election, was it?
Houzan Mahmoud: That;'s true. I mean the first election that was held it was held in a very terrible situation where there was absolutely no security and these political parties available there were even not known properly to the people in Iraq. I mean there was absolutely lack of security. Whereas considering that somehow the situation is calmed down now, there is a chance for people to know who to vote for and there's a chance for political parties and groups and organizations as well as individuals to put forward themselves basically to represent people's interest in the Iraqi Parliament and we -- in our organization -- we will be discussing soon, how to actually be part of the monitoring of this coming election by, as you said, to become a volunteer to monitor the elections. And I think people abroad, they can take positive steps and they can be part of something. It's really a matter of responsibility towards people in Iraq and towards the political processes there. I mean, I might not agree with every single political party or people who are on the list to be elected but then as individauls, as campaigners, as political groups, as people who are progressives and we want Iraqi people to have a better future, we are responsible, we feel like we have responsibility to do something.
And now we're back to Sunday's bombings in Ramadi. A number of people are arguing the violence is related to or wanting to impact upon 'planned' elections. No one in the press knows why the attacks are happening so it's all speculation. There is a pattern though for those who paid attention. (Not spoon feeding the lazy press here. See Hilda's Mix tomorrow morning, it's covered there.) Quil Lawrence (NPR's Morning Edition -- link has transcript and audio) grasps that there are no knowns at this point and, speaking with Steve Inskeep this morning, explained, "With all of these bombings there are questions in Iraq. There are still too many violent actors here to really be able to point a finger. In some ways it could have been one of the parties that wants to embarrass the current government and show that they aren't really delivering the security, which is the main plank of their campaign platform -- is that they've pacified Iraq. At the same time, there are a lot of people who have been released from detention as America has been transferring its custody of detainees to the Iraqis. A lot of people have been released. One police chief in Anbar told me that he thought the America prison camp in Camp Bucca in the south of the country was essentially a training camp for jihadis, and that some of them are now back on the streets in Anbar province." Telegraph of London insists, "A reinvigorated insurgency would pose a grave danger to the country's fragile stability as it prepares for crucial parliamentary elections early next year." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) adds that the bombings are being seen by some as an attempt to influence elections while the United Nations is saying that the 'scheduled' January 16th elections might "have to be delayed because of squabbling within Iraq's legislature over what kind of election law to adopt and the composition of the commission that will oversee the poll." Here's the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq's statement in full:Baghdad - 11 October 2009 - Today the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, Ad Melkert expressed UNAMI's concerns that with 96 days before the election there remains no clarity on the election law. Mr. Melkert reiterated the United Nations' support for election preparations and promised continued technical advice to the IHEC in all the essential areas of its activities. He stated that "holding parliamentary elections on 16 January appears to be something that is strongly desired by the people of Iraq, will be a vital milestone for the Iraq's democratization process, and called for by the Iraq Constitution".UNAMI fully respects last week's parliamentary process and the desire of members of the Council of Representatives to question the IHEC Board of Commissioners. The SRSG suggests that a thorough evaluation of IHEC's performance in carrying out all electoral activities in Iraq since 2008 should be undertaken by the Council of Representatives once the results of the January 2010 elections have been officially announced. At this stage, however, UNAMI believes that significant changes to the institutional set-up in IHEC would severely disrupt the ongoing electoral preparations to the point that it would not be possible to hold credible elections until a considerably later date.UNAMI is optimistic that, with its continued and indeed expanded support, the IHEC should be able to deliver credible election results in January 2010 that will be broadly accepted by all political factions and the Iraqi voters. But to achieve this, preparations will need to be accelerated in a number of areas, and support is required from many parts of the Government. At the same time, the SRSG once again urges the Council of Representatives to clarify the legal framework for the elections in the coming week.
So now the elections might be on hold? For those who have forgotten, these elections were supposed to take place this December and have already been pushed back a month. That was among the excuses US President Barack Obama gave for breaking his campaign promise of US troops out of Iraq in 10 months. (He dropped it from 16 months to 10 months while speaking in Houston, Texas in February 2008.) And now elections might have to be put on hold? Wait, are elections even scheduled. Testifying to the US House Armed Services Committee September 30th, the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, explained the upcoming (or 'upcoming') vote.
General Ray Odierno: I'll wal -- Congressman, I'll walk you through in general terms. First, the el - by the [Iraqi] Constitution, the election is supposed to occur no later than the 31st of January. Right now, it's scheduled for the 16th of January. Again, pending the passing of the election law.
That was September 30th. Tick-tock, tick-tock. It's twelve days later, where's the election law? Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports, " Iraqi legislators face a Thursday deadline to approve an election law for January's parliamentary polls, while opposition grows against plans for a so-called closed-list ballot." That's 'progress'? Jim Muir (BBC News) reports on the sticky points of any election law, "They include differences over the minimum age for candidates and their educational qualifications, and over what constituency basis should be adopted. There are also concerns over arrangements for the disputed city of Kirkuk in the north and the question of whether electoral lists should be 'open' or 'closed'." Kirkuk? That issue was supposed to have been resolved long ago. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution dictated that there be a referendum on the matter. The 2007 White House benchmarks that Nouri al-Maliki signed off mandated that he resolve the issue as dictated by the Iraqi Constitution. These election will take place (at some point) in 2010 and Kirkuk's never been "resolved." 'Progress'? US forces have been kept on the ground in Iraq with the American people repeatedly lied to that the US forces were just there currently for peace, to give space for the (installed) government (of exiles) to conduct political business. They've done no such thing. There's been no movement. And this lie that US forces need to stay for political movement is as much a lie Bush's WMD assertions.
Barack and other War Hawks like to talk "safe withdrawal" and "responsible withdrawal." Bulls**t. Like there's anything "safe" or "responsible" in dropping bombs on people? In using drones? In using counter-insurgency? We expect that from the War Hawks. Expect it from I Need Attention Benjamin as well. Jodie Evans' personal maid already walked away from Iraq, long gone is the cry of "Out Of Iraq" now. Apparently Afghanistan isn't offering I Need Attention and CODESTINK enough opportunities for press. Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio) interviewed Medea Benjamin and was confused going into the interview due to a report quoting Medea in the Christian Sciene Monitor. Medea insists she was misquoted but goes on to repeat the same crap she claims was a misquote. Scott Horton's radio program and a transcript of it can be found here. In the excerpt below, you may have to repeatedly remind yourself that it is Medea Benjamin speaking and not George W. Bush.
Horton: What did they ever do to the United States?
Benjamin: Well see, if your perspective is just from the United States. My perspective is also from what they did to the women of Afghanistan. But if your perspective is truly from the United States, what people say is that if we allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan then that will be a safe haven for Al Qaeda.
Horton: Yeah, but that's no different is it than the National Review saying, you know, Saddam Hussein was really bad to the people in Iraq. I think this is why all over Facebook today they're saying, "Ha, ha, and again, for those tuning in late, she did say, it's Medea Benjamin from Code Pink. She did say the Christian Science Monitor's reporting was not altogether accurate here. But all over Facebook they're saying, "Ha, ha, I guess she'll have to apologize to Condoleezza Rice now. And "Ha, ha, I guess this proves that obviously that McChrystal is right. If Code Pink and McChrystal both agree that the occupation has got to be better in order to quell the violence, then by golly we know it's right." Like when Bill Clinton and George Bush agree about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Benjamin: Well I think it's just full of distortions, because what we say is we want a responsible pulling out of U.S. troops and we certainly are against what McChrystal is calling for. We're against sending in more troops, we're against troops being visibly present in the villages because we think their presence is more of a threat to people there and puts them at risk. And we want our troops to pull out. We just want to do it in a way that is not going to lead to a Taliban takeover that will put women back inside the home.
Let me be clear, concern for Afghan women? You should have raised the issue much earlier this year the way some of us with guts did, Medea. But you're a coward and you're a publicity whore. You're tired and you need to sit your ass down. US forces need to leave Iraq and to leave Afghanistan NOW. Not tomorrow, not a year from now, not three years from now. The US cannot fix either 'problem' and that's even if it wanted to; however, nothing in Afghanistan over the last eight year or in Iraq over the last six has indicated the US wants to fix one damn thing. (And regardless of 'desire,' it's not any foreign country's place to 'fix' another country.) The US put thugs in charge of both countries because thugs could intimidate the people and bring some form of 'stability' to the country. US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have never, NEVER, concerned themselves with the people of either country. Stop the lying, stop the bulls**t. I'm not in the mood for liars. Thank you to Medea for not just being such a craven little whore but for being so publicly. We started calling out her and CODESTINK some time ago and of course those who check in on Iraq once every three months couldn't understand that. Listen to the Horton interview or read the transcript. Medea Benjamin and CODESTICK are officially trash now. They're not about ending any war, they are about providing cover for Barack Obama. They have made themselves clear. What was obvious to many of us some time ago is now transparent.
The woman who ensured the Green Party would not have a viable candidate in 2004 and would not have a real shot at being a third party is now doing her part to wreck the peace movement. Greens may have put up with her s**t but the peace movement won't. You take trash to the curb, you don't let it (mis)lead a movement. Medea and her ilk were allowed to turn the peace movement into an Elect Barack campaign and then, after Barack was elected, they went around lying that Iraq War was ending. The Iraq War has ended. Friday Elaine noted that AP's Jennifer Loven reported, "He said he would end the Iraq war. But he has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012, and that's only if both the U.S. and Iraq stick to their current agreement about American troop withdrawals." Only if. And there's no indication that they will -- either side. But we do know that last week, Matthew D. LaPlante (Salt Lake Tribune) was reporting, "And some Utah units have been told to anticipate deployments to Iraq as far off as 2012." And we do know that the Iraq War continues to drag on.
In an attempt by a foreign government to bribe a US sitting president (one million dollars is a bribe -- whether Barack donates it to charity or keeps it), Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Debra Sweet (World Can't Wait) is calling for signatures and letters on the topic though she probably would have positioned herself better by remembering the Iraq War. Kenneth J. Theisen (also World Can't Wait) offers, "I've been around awhile so I am not easily shocked, but this did shock me at first. I have been writing about Obama for a few years and have followed his career in politics and could not imagine why he had been chosen. But as I was more fully awake it made perfect sense to me, given some of the past winners of the Prize. Past U.S. winners have included Teddy Roosevelt (1906), Woodrow Wilson (1919) and Henry Kissinger (1973) and Jimmy Carter (2002). These winners did much to advance U.S. imperialism, as Obama is trying so hard to do as President and Commander-in-Chief." Also at WCW, Cindy Sheehan declares, "The US Peace Movement was put on life support with the election of Democrats. I hope now that we have a president who is just a tool of the war machine AND a Nobel Peace Laureate that it hasn't put the final nail in the coffin of the Peace Movement." At her own site, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan adds:
It's true, Obama did not begin the wars, but he is sending more troops to all theaters. That doesn't sound too peaceful to me. Torture, indefinite detention, "crippling sanctions," threats towards Venezuela and Iran; silent support of a military coup that overthrew a democratically elected President in Honduras and so on, ad nauseum, are all the "accomplishments" of this Nobel Laureate.
I was tear-gassed and chased down by US stormtroopers in Pittsburgh for wanting to express my opinion when the leaders of the G20 were assembled a couple of weeks ago. I saw those same imperial stormtroopers shoot children with rubber bullets or bean-bags filled with steel b.bs in the Empire's new game of, not protest suppression, but protester attack. Are these the actions of a country that is "led" by a Nobel Laureate?
It also comes to me that I chained myself to the White House fence last Monday and was arrested, along with 61 others, protesting the Laureate's war polices, as he met with his "War Council." Five hundred more of us were there. We were and still all are adamantly opposed to the war policies of The Laureate.
What does that make us candidates for?
The Bizzarro World Peace Prize?
The only "vision" that has come true today, is George Orwell's 1984: War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength and Freedom is Slavery.
iraq
raed jarrar
al jazeerainside iraqjasim al-azzawi
uthman al-mokhtarthe washington postnada bakri
mcclatchy newspapersmohammad al dulaimyjamal naji
timothy williamsthe new york times
the los angeles timesliz slycindy sheehan
xinhuazhang xiangthe wall street journalgina chon
bbc newsjim muir
nprmorning edition
quil lawrence
scott horton
On Saturday, at the New York Times, Lady Collins surveyed the scene—and decided to focus on this:
COLLINS (10/10/09): Our question for today is whether it’s fair for a politician to point out that his opponent is fat.
An ad in the Jersey governor’s race seemed to concern one candidate’s weight. Inevitably, the simpering duchess focused on that. Soon, in accordance with Hard Pundit Law, The Lady was typing this:
COLLINS: Other people have argued that the ad will backfire and elicit sympathy for Christie among the multitudes of overweight voters even in the relatively fit state of New Jersey. (And God help the candidate who tries to pull this kind of thing in Mississippi.)
That’s happened in the past. Like the time Mitt Romney ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate during one of Kennedy’s particularly unslender periods. The Romney camp ran film of Kennedy struggling to squeeze behind a table. (Subliminal message: Too much fat in the budget.) Kennedy responded with workers who had been laid off after a factory takeover engineered by Romney’s firm. (Subliminal message: How do you like downsizing?)
Of course, Kennedy cleaned his clock. This is my second-favorite Mitt Romney story. I couldn’t figure out any way to bring up the one about him driving to Canada with the family dog strapped to the car roof.
It has been a long time since this simpering imbecile wasted your time on Mitt Romney’s dead dog, Seamus. How inane is Lady Collins? During the last campaign, she explored the topic at least eight separate times, typing columns with titles like these:
Haunted by Seamus (8/4/07)The Revenge of Seamus (2/9/08)Dear Old Golden Dog Days (10/11/08)
That's from today's DH and there are many parts but I had to go with this one because when this site was a comic, online novel about Betinna, I took on Gail Collins regularly. She really is one of the great wastes of all time.
She's focused only on her needs which is how she managed, when editor of the op-ed pages, to write an obit on her friend who died but, at the same time, ignore the passing of Coretta Scott King. Coretta Scott King was a historical figure.
Maybe if she'd tied a dog to her car roof, Gail Collins would have been interested?
Not only did Gail Collins not write about Coretta's passing, she brought no one in to cover it with a column. Coretta Scott King passed away and the New York Times ignored it on the op-ed pages that she controlled. (After the death, Bob Herbet would mention the passing in a few sentences. He would not write a column about it.)
Gail Collins really doesn't like women -- she doesn't even like herself but she really doesn't like women. If you ever doubt that, you just need to read that popular and passed around e-mail where Gail rants at a Times' subscriber for suggesting that when Maureen Dowd is on vacation, another woman should be her replacement and not a man (as Gail had provided) because the paper already had more than enough men. (At that time, during Gail's entire reign, in fact, NYT only had one female columnist: Maureen Dowd.)
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Prizes"
I really love that comic. Michelle's shoulders. :D
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, October 12, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, there is no election law in Iraq, the faux peace movement comes out in favor of US forces remaining in Afghanistan (just as they walked away from "Out Of Iraq Now!"), real peace activists weigh in on the Nobel Peace Prize and more.
Sunday Ramadi was rocked with violence. Mohammad al Dulaimy and Jamal Naji (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "First, they bombed a crowded parking lot outside the Anbar provincial government's headquarters. Seven minutes later, they detonated a car bomb aimed at the rescue workers. An hour later, a third bomb exploded outside the hospital where survivors were receiving treatment." The Los Angeles Times puts the death toll at 26 and McCatchy says over eighty were injured. Zhang Xiang (Xinhua) cites an unnamed Interior Ministry source stating 80% "of the wounded were policemen and 10 percent of the injured were in a critical condition". Uthman al-Mokhtar and Nada Bakri (Washington Post) explains, "Rumors spread through Ramadi and other parts of the province about who was behind the statacks. Some suggsted government officials were involved, part of the fallout from months of negotiations over creating alliances for Iraq's parliamentary elections in January." And with rumors come the denials. Timothy Williams (New York Times) quotes Anbar Province's Deputy Governor Hekmet Jassim Zeidan stating, "The police commanders are not doing their job the way it should be done. We have pointed out the mistakes and failures among the police, but no one has done anything to correct the problems." That was Sunday and we'll return to it later but we'll move over to today's violence right now.
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four people (one a police officer), a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded five people (including "a high-ranking officer in the ministry of interior" whose car the bomb was attached to), a Diyala province bombing targeted "sons of the mayor of Abu Khamees" killing two and wounded a third (the "sons of the mayor" are also members of Sahwa, "Sons Of Iraq," "Awakenings"), a Buhruz roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 construction worker and wounded two more and an Anbar Province home bombing (home "of one of the Sahwa leaders"). Reuters notes a Mosul home bombing which injured one woman and her four children, two Buhriz roadside bombings which claimed 3 lives and left three people injured (Reuters also notes the Buhriz roadside bombing Sahar Issa does -- there are three roadside bombings reported today in Buhuriz) and a tailor shop bombing in Mosul which injured one person.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 construction worker shot dead in Mosul.
The Iraqi Diaspora is the topic of the most recent Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) and host Jasim Azawi discussed it with Nidhal Garmo (For Victims of War and Poverty), Raed Jarrar (American Friends Service Committee) and Houzan Mahmoud (Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq).
Jasim Azawi: Nidhal, let me start with you. You are an Iraqi-American citizen. You are a pharmacist based in Detroit, Michigan. And for the past ten years, you have been involved in Iraq sending aid and money to Iraq. But since the invasion of 2003, you've been going to Iraq, taking surgical and medical equipment to Iraq. Exactly what draws you to Iraq? Is it your roots? Is it the desire to help? What is it?
Nidhal Garmo: It's a mixture of every good thing a human being can think. Years ago, I used to watch TV, especially Al Jazeera, and I used to get hurt when I see the African children are dying hungry, the people from Palestine are living this miserable life -- like refugees. I never thought that one day Iraq -- the safest, most beautiful country, my country, my family, all Iraqi people are my family -- would go through this ordeal so I decided to do something about it rather than watching the TV and crying every single day and night for them.
Jasim Azawi: I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands like you and one of them is Raed Jarrar. Raed, you are an architect, your masters thesis is in post-war reconstruction. In what way can you help Iraq, given your experience?
Raed Jarrar: I was in Iraq during the sanction years and during the invasion and I actually did do some reconstruction projects after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 based on community organizations and Iraqi efforts. Unfortunately all these attempts that I started and that many others started failed and could not continue because of the political and military situation in Iraq. Now my dissertation, I talked about how Iraq will go through three different phases of rebuilding. The first one is the immediate relief after the disaster and during the disaster that Iraq is going through and after that we will go to the reconstruction phase and after that it will allow us to reach to a development phase. Unfortunately six years into the occupation after the fall of Baghdad, we're still in the relief phase. The reconstruction phase did not start yet. So it is still very, very primitive and I think there are so many people with capacity to help rebuilding Iraq and initiate reconstruction campaign that would bring the country back to life. But they are marginalized, mostly outside the country and the ones inside the country cannot actually participate in a functioning campaign yet.
Jasim Azawi: Given what he said, Houzan, that reconstruction is still way off and you are involved with a human rights organization, is human rights a luxury for Iraqis right now? Is it too early to talk about it given that it is almost the bete noire of the Iraqi government? When you work in Iraq, are you watched by Iraqi government?
Houzan Mahmoud: Certainly. I mean, human rights is not a luxury. It's a basic rights for human beings to live with freedom and their rights be respected. I mean considering that people in Iraq have lived under dictatorship for thirty years followed by another six years of devastation war and occupation, these people deserve rights, they deserve freedom and they deserve a simple life with basic rights included. Of course when the Organization of Women's Freedom or any other organization tries to bring the violation of women's rights or children's rights or human rights into the attention and the authority of the international community, the Iraqi government don't like it because they think it's an exposition of their lack of governance of the country. And that's why the role of people like us who are involved in activism for human rights, for women's rights, for labor rights in Iraq is really vital because I think if a country -- if any given society, even if there's no war or any problems at all, if human rights is not respected, if women's rights is not recognized by the government than how can we talk about anything else really? So that's why I think human rights is fundamental. It's very, very detrimental for any other basically laws or rules in that country or that society.
Jasim Azawi: Nidhal, now that security is relatively better than in the past two years -- at least that's what the Iraqi government keeps telling us and US forces in Iraq. To what extent, security aside, are you facing bureaucracy, are you facing sectarian affiliation? For instance, say this medical equipment and surgical equipment you're bringing us, it should go to a certain part of Iraq, to a certain sect rather than given and distributed equally.
Nidhal Garmo: Any place that I can put my foot on it in Iraq, I would say 90% of Iraq is in need if it's not 100%. I will, if I'm able to do it, I will do it. Not any place that I specify. I look for the most needed areas and if I have the chance and a little bit of support from the government or the Ministries of Health, I'll do it. I have a chance to do it. There's nothing going to stop me from doing it. I'm not worried, I just believe I always hear from God.
Jasim Azawi: Do people tell you, Nidhal, that, "We are," for instance, "in northern Iraq, in the Chaldean Assyrian community, we need this and you are one of us, help us." You know that, "The Iraqi government can look after other people"?
Nidhal Garmo: Yes.
Jasim Azawi: Do you face that?
Nidhal Garmo: Oh, I hear that, I hear that not only from my own community, the Chaldean community, which been supportive a lot of me but not everybody -- Everybody wants to benefit their own people. That's something natural. But I've been facing some hardships, being Christian, Chaldean and with the situation with the war, it's not only hitting the Iraqi people, the problem is not only between Sunni and Shia and Christians and Muslims, it's also there in America. In Michigan, my own community, I hear it from people and I tell them, "Listen, the war doesn't know Muslim and Christian." When you go to a hospital, I'm taking medical and surgical supplies and medication. Anybody in need in any country, in any place, you need to help them. You want to help the poor? There are a lot of poor in Iraq. You want to help the sick? My God, I've been visiting hospitals and when you see a child that is dying of cancer, you're not going to look at his face or you ask his parents, "Where is he from?" He's Iraqi child that needs help. That will not stop me. And of course, this is part of hardships but if you are strong and you believe in God and you want to help people, you'll do it. You'll not worry about this kind of things because we need to educated people and help them. They've already been suffering in Iraq --
Jasim Azawi: Yes
Nidhal Garmo: So we are there for them. I don't discriminate and we are heading to the south very soon hopefully. They need us the most. Especially in Basra.
Jasim Azawi: We wish you the best, Nidhal, in all of your efforts but, Raed Jarrar, the history of Iraq and the United States is forever entwined because of the invasion of 2003. I'm almost reminded by the linkage between the United States and Vietnam. The two names have become synomous. In Washington, where you live, there is a powerful organization called AIPAC and that is the Jewish-Israeli lobby that promotes Israeli interests. Can we dream and can we think about one day the Iraqis will establish a powerful organization promoting Iraqi interests in the US?
Raed Jarrar: I mean, some people have been trying to do that. There are a number of Arab or Muslim pressure groups and some groups that try to promote Iraqi interests. I personally think that that is important, to have groups to promote dialogue between Iraq and the United States --
Jasim Azawi: But given the division among the Iraqi community, will that be, will that be possible?
Raed Jarrar: Yeah, it will be possible but not following the same model that AIPAC has been doing. I don't think -- as a US citizen as well, not just someone who was born in Iraq -- I don't want to create yet another group that leeches on the US and takes the United States' interests as second to -- as AIPAC has been doing. Through my work, I've been thinking about how the US can play more -- a smarter role in the region. To stop occupying and destroying nations like Iraq and to have better channels of dialogue. Now unfortunately, so far, the Iraqi community in the United States has not been organized enough to start a strong dialogue group. They're not united enough, unfortunately, to ask for ending the occuption. We still have a lot of different opinions within the Iraqi community in the US so it's more complicated than that. Where we stand now, I think that's too early to talk about. What we talk about now is the US should first stop its crimes, its occupation, its daily destruction of Iraq and then, once that done, we can talk about rosy future and the groups --
Jasim Azawi: Indeed you're right, Raed Jarrar, because the question of occupation versus liberation is still reverbarating not only in Iraq but across the world. But Houzan, let us talk about the future. In January there will be a Parliamentary election. In what ways Iraqis living abroad can help? Some people are volunteering as eleciton monitors. Given the fact that the election of 2005 and even before, it was not cordial, it was not Westminister type of election, was it?
Houzan Mahmoud: That;'s true. I mean the first election that was held it was held in a very terrible situation where there was absolutely no security and these political parties available there were even not known properly to the people in Iraq. I mean there was absolutely lack of security. Whereas considering that somehow the situation is calmed down now, there is a chance for people to know who to vote for and there's a chance for political parties and groups and organizations as well as individuals to put forward themselves basically to represent people's interest in the Iraqi Parliament and we -- in our organization -- we will be discussing soon, how to actually be part of the monitoring of this coming election by, as you said, to become a volunteer to monitor the elections. And I think people abroad, they can take positive steps and they can be part of something. It's really a matter of responsibility towards people in Iraq and towards the political processes there. I mean, I might not agree with every single political party or people who are on the list to be elected but then as individauls, as campaigners, as political groups, as people who are progressives and we want Iraqi people to have a better future, we are responsible, we feel like we have responsibility to do something.
And now we're back to Sunday's bombings in Ramadi. A number of people are arguing the violence is related to or wanting to impact upon 'planned' elections. No one in the press knows why the attacks are happening so it's all speculation. There is a pattern though for those who paid attention. (Not spoon feeding the lazy press here. See Hilda's Mix tomorrow morning, it's covered there.) Quil Lawrence (NPR's Morning Edition -- link has transcript and audio) grasps that there are no knowns at this point and, speaking with Steve Inskeep this morning, explained, "With all of these bombings there are questions in Iraq. There are still too many violent actors here to really be able to point a finger. In some ways it could have been one of the parties that wants to embarrass the current government and show that they aren't really delivering the security, which is the main plank of their campaign platform -- is that they've pacified Iraq. At the same time, there are a lot of people who have been released from detention as America has been transferring its custody of detainees to the Iraqis. A lot of people have been released. One police chief in Anbar told me that he thought the America prison camp in Camp Bucca in the south of the country was essentially a training camp for jihadis, and that some of them are now back on the streets in Anbar province." Telegraph of London insists, "A reinvigorated insurgency would pose a grave danger to the country's fragile stability as it prepares for crucial parliamentary elections early next year." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) adds that the bombings are being seen by some as an attempt to influence elections while the United Nations is saying that the 'scheduled' January 16th elections might "have to be delayed because of squabbling within Iraq's legislature over what kind of election law to adopt and the composition of the commission that will oversee the poll." Here's the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq's statement in full:Baghdad - 11 October 2009 - Today the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, Ad Melkert expressed UNAMI's concerns that with 96 days before the election there remains no clarity on the election law. Mr. Melkert reiterated the United Nations' support for election preparations and promised continued technical advice to the IHEC in all the essential areas of its activities. He stated that "holding parliamentary elections on 16 January appears to be something that is strongly desired by the people of Iraq, will be a vital milestone for the Iraq's democratization process, and called for by the Iraq Constitution".UNAMI fully respects last week's parliamentary process and the desire of members of the Council of Representatives to question the IHEC Board of Commissioners. The SRSG suggests that a thorough evaluation of IHEC's performance in carrying out all electoral activities in Iraq since 2008 should be undertaken by the Council of Representatives once the results of the January 2010 elections have been officially announced. At this stage, however, UNAMI believes that significant changes to the institutional set-up in IHEC would severely disrupt the ongoing electoral preparations to the point that it would not be possible to hold credible elections until a considerably later date.UNAMI is optimistic that, with its continued and indeed expanded support, the IHEC should be able to deliver credible election results in January 2010 that will be broadly accepted by all political factions and the Iraqi voters. But to achieve this, preparations will need to be accelerated in a number of areas, and support is required from many parts of the Government. At the same time, the SRSG once again urges the Council of Representatives to clarify the legal framework for the elections in the coming week.
So now the elections might be on hold? For those who have forgotten, these elections were supposed to take place this December and have already been pushed back a month. That was among the excuses US President Barack Obama gave for breaking his campaign promise of US troops out of Iraq in 10 months. (He dropped it from 16 months to 10 months while speaking in Houston, Texas in February 2008.) And now elections might have to be put on hold? Wait, are elections even scheduled. Testifying to the US House Armed Services Committee September 30th, the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, explained the upcoming (or 'upcoming') vote.
General Ray Odierno: I'll wal -- Congressman, I'll walk you through in general terms. First, the el - by the [Iraqi] Constitution, the election is supposed to occur no later than the 31st of January. Right now, it's scheduled for the 16th of January. Again, pending the passing of the election law.
That was September 30th. Tick-tock, tick-tock. It's twelve days later, where's the election law? Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports, " Iraqi legislators face a Thursday deadline to approve an election law for January's parliamentary polls, while opposition grows against plans for a so-called closed-list ballot." That's 'progress'? Jim Muir (BBC News) reports on the sticky points of any election law, "They include differences over the minimum age for candidates and their educational qualifications, and over what constituency basis should be adopted. There are also concerns over arrangements for the disputed city of Kirkuk in the north and the question of whether electoral lists should be 'open' or 'closed'." Kirkuk? That issue was supposed to have been resolved long ago. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution dictated that there be a referendum on the matter. The 2007 White House benchmarks that Nouri al-Maliki signed off mandated that he resolve the issue as dictated by the Iraqi Constitution. These election will take place (at some point) in 2010 and Kirkuk's never been "resolved." 'Progress'? US forces have been kept on the ground in Iraq with the American people repeatedly lied to that the US forces were just there currently for peace, to give space for the (installed) government (of exiles) to conduct political business. They've done no such thing. There's been no movement. And this lie that US forces need to stay for political movement is as much a lie Bush's WMD assertions.
Barack and other War Hawks like to talk "safe withdrawal" and "responsible withdrawal." Bulls**t. Like there's anything "safe" or "responsible" in dropping bombs on people? In using drones? In using counter-insurgency? We expect that from the War Hawks. Expect it from I Need Attention Benjamin as well. Jodie Evans' personal maid already walked away from Iraq, long gone is the cry of "Out Of Iraq" now. Apparently Afghanistan isn't offering I Need Attention and CODESTINK enough opportunities for press. Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio) interviewed Medea Benjamin and was confused going into the interview due to a report quoting Medea in the Christian Sciene Monitor. Medea insists she was misquoted but goes on to repeat the same crap she claims was a misquote. Scott Horton's radio program and a transcript of it can be found here. In the excerpt below, you may have to repeatedly remind yourself that it is Medea Benjamin speaking and not George W. Bush.
Horton: What did they ever do to the United States?
Benjamin: Well see, if your perspective is just from the United States. My perspective is also from what they did to the women of Afghanistan. But if your perspective is truly from the United States, what people say is that if we allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan then that will be a safe haven for Al Qaeda.
Horton: Yeah, but that's no different is it than the National Review saying, you know, Saddam Hussein was really bad to the people in Iraq. I think this is why all over Facebook today they're saying, "Ha, ha, and again, for those tuning in late, she did say, it's Medea Benjamin from Code Pink. She did say the Christian Science Monitor's reporting was not altogether accurate here. But all over Facebook they're saying, "Ha, ha, I guess she'll have to apologize to Condoleezza Rice now. And "Ha, ha, I guess this proves that obviously that McChrystal is right. If Code Pink and McChrystal both agree that the occupation has got to be better in order to quell the violence, then by golly we know it's right." Like when Bill Clinton and George Bush agree about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Benjamin: Well I think it's just full of distortions, because what we say is we want a responsible pulling out of U.S. troops and we certainly are against what McChrystal is calling for. We're against sending in more troops, we're against troops being visibly present in the villages because we think their presence is more of a threat to people there and puts them at risk. And we want our troops to pull out. We just want to do it in a way that is not going to lead to a Taliban takeover that will put women back inside the home.
Let me be clear, concern for Afghan women? You should have raised the issue much earlier this year the way some of us with guts did, Medea. But you're a coward and you're a publicity whore. You're tired and you need to sit your ass down. US forces need to leave Iraq and to leave Afghanistan NOW. Not tomorrow, not a year from now, not three years from now. The US cannot fix either 'problem' and that's even if it wanted to; however, nothing in Afghanistan over the last eight year or in Iraq over the last six has indicated the US wants to fix one damn thing. (And regardless of 'desire,' it's not any foreign country's place to 'fix' another country.) The US put thugs in charge of both countries because thugs could intimidate the people and bring some form of 'stability' to the country. US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have never, NEVER, concerned themselves with the people of either country. Stop the lying, stop the bulls**t. I'm not in the mood for liars. Thank you to Medea for not just being such a craven little whore but for being so publicly. We started calling out her and CODESTINK some time ago and of course those who check in on Iraq once every three months couldn't understand that. Listen to the Horton interview or read the transcript. Medea Benjamin and CODESTICK are officially trash now. They're not about ending any war, they are about providing cover for Barack Obama. They have made themselves clear. What was obvious to many of us some time ago is now transparent.
The woman who ensured the Green Party would not have a viable candidate in 2004 and would not have a real shot at being a third party is now doing her part to wreck the peace movement. Greens may have put up with her s**t but the peace movement won't. You take trash to the curb, you don't let it (mis)lead a movement. Medea and her ilk were allowed to turn the peace movement into an Elect Barack campaign and then, after Barack was elected, they went around lying that Iraq War was ending. The Iraq War has ended. Friday Elaine noted that AP's Jennifer Loven reported, "He said he would end the Iraq war. But he has been slow to bring the troops home and the real end of the U.S. military presence there won't come until at least 2012, and that's only if both the U.S. and Iraq stick to their current agreement about American troop withdrawals." Only if. And there's no indication that they will -- either side. But we do know that last week, Matthew D. LaPlante (Salt Lake Tribune) was reporting, "And some Utah units have been told to anticipate deployments to Iraq as far off as 2012." And we do know that the Iraq War continues to drag on.
In an attempt by a foreign government to bribe a US sitting president (one million dollars is a bribe -- whether Barack donates it to charity or keeps it), Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Debra Sweet (World Can't Wait) is calling for signatures and letters on the topic though she probably would have positioned herself better by remembering the Iraq War. Kenneth J. Theisen (also World Can't Wait) offers, "I've been around awhile so I am not easily shocked, but this did shock me at first. I have been writing about Obama for a few years and have followed his career in politics and could not imagine why he had been chosen. But as I was more fully awake it made perfect sense to me, given some of the past winners of the Prize. Past U.S. winners have included Teddy Roosevelt (1906), Woodrow Wilson (1919) and Henry Kissinger (1973) and Jimmy Carter (2002). These winners did much to advance U.S. imperialism, as Obama is trying so hard to do as President and Commander-in-Chief." Also at WCW, Cindy Sheehan declares, "The US Peace Movement was put on life support with the election of Democrats. I hope now that we have a president who is just a tool of the war machine AND a Nobel Peace Laureate that it hasn't put the final nail in the coffin of the Peace Movement." At her own site, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan adds:
It's true, Obama did not begin the wars, but he is sending more troops to all theaters. That doesn't sound too peaceful to me. Torture, indefinite detention, "crippling sanctions," threats towards Venezuela and Iran; silent support of a military coup that overthrew a democratically elected President in Honduras and so on, ad nauseum, are all the "accomplishments" of this Nobel Laureate.
I was tear-gassed and chased down by US stormtroopers in Pittsburgh for wanting to express my opinion when the leaders of the G20 were assembled a couple of weeks ago. I saw those same imperial stormtroopers shoot children with rubber bullets or bean-bags filled with steel b.bs in the Empire's new game of, not protest suppression, but protester attack. Are these the actions of a country that is "led" by a Nobel Laureate?
It also comes to me that I chained myself to the White House fence last Monday and was arrested, along with 61 others, protesting the Laureate's war polices, as he met with his "War Council." Five hundred more of us were there. We were and still all are adamantly opposed to the war policies of The Laureate.
What does that make us candidates for?
The Bizzarro World Peace Prize?
The only "vision" that has come true today, is George Orwell's 1984: War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength and Freedom is Slavery.
iraq
raed jarrar
al jazeerainside iraqjasim al-azzawi
uthman al-mokhtarthe washington postnada bakri
mcclatchy newspapersmohammad al dulaimyjamal naji
timothy williamsthe new york times
the los angeles timesliz slycindy sheehan
xinhuazhang xiangthe wall street journalgina chon
bbc newsjim muir
nprmorning edition
quil lawrence
scott horton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)