Thursday, November 18, 2010

Still on Desperate Housewives

"The Smell Of Burning Toes - Obama's Feet In The Fire" (Hillary Is 44):

On the day after the presidential election in 2008 we asked “So what is next?” We answered that question by saying:

“As Americans, as Democrats, some as former Democrats, we hold Obama’s feet to the fire.”

Read our complete answer from that day to more fully understand how correct we have been. We said to the Obama Hopium guzzlers that “they will soon learn they are not part of the “we” in “we won”. We told the Hopium Guzzlers they “will soon be presented with the fine print of Obama’s promises. They will soon read Obama’s legal escape clause…. Like with FISA, Obama will soon forget all those campaign promises and crib drown them in a sea of flowery words and say “it can’t be done now”.”

But it was not just Obama that we knew had to be exposed. Also in need of disinfectant are the theories and tactics and crackpot ideas of people behind Barack Obama. We knew it was necessary to rid ourselves of Obama and Obamaism.

It’s not just Obama that must removed from the body politic. We also have to remove the hypocrites and crackpots that enabled him.

When we declared that the next president had to be a “fighter” not a naive sloganeer the counterargument from Obama and his army of Hopium Guzzling hypocrites and crackpots was that we needed a “uniter not a divider”. Today James Carville repeated our argument when he said, “if Hillary gave (Obama) one of her balls, they’d both have two.”


Again to e-mails about Desperate Housewives. Bree has a lot of fans and appears to be the favorite of readers of this site. As I said yesterday, I do like Bree; however, it's been a real adjustment for me to get used to Marcia Cross as anything other than Kimberly because that was such a defining role (on Melrose Place).

After Bree, the most popular character is Susan. (That would probably be my pick.)

Vanessa didn't do so well, Vanessa Williams, with Renee but most of you noted her, noted you liked what she did but that she rarely got time to do anything on the show. And I understand that completely. I am worried that Vanessa may be just window dressing and it will be like the 80s when people got all excited about Diahann Carroll joining Dynasty only to wait and wait for Dominique to get a real storyline.

Lynette is the most disliked character -- by my e-mails -- and a lot of you wrote you agreed with me regarding how she's treating Susan.

Most popular guy on the show?

For readersit's Tom or Carlos.

For me it's Brian Austin Green and I was surprised no one mentioned him.

I really think he adds a great deal to the show.

Most of the time, Tom's scene are not really needed. They exist to glorify Lynette. But Brian Austin Green plays a real character and I just think he's doing a great job.

I also love Carlos. I don't mean I like him, I mean I love him. If Carlos came up to me and said, "Betty, let's go out on a date," I wouldn't say, "What about Gabby?" I would rush off with him without any need for talking. He's a very sexy man.

I don't care for Susan's husband (and I'm sorry I'm forgetting his name -- I've only been watching the show since the start of this season). I just felt like she deserved something better.

As somone who knew Terri first for Lois & Clark, I would hope when the show winds down, they find a way to sneak Dean Cain into a few episodes.

Oh, one e-mailer said she found Paul "very sexy" and wondered if she should be embarrassed? Please no. It's fantasy. You go for what you want in your fantasy.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Thursday, November 18, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, stronger analysts (including The Economist) weigh in on Iraq's political issues, Iraqi Christians continue to be targeted, Military Families Against the War calls for all US troops to be brought home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the whores of Beggar Media continue to avoid realites that would make them call out the War Hawk in the White House, and more.
Larry Kaplow (Foreign Policy) has a major essay on Iraq and we'll note the opening:
"Iraq Is a Democracy." In theory, but it doesn't work like one. Yes, it has had three, free national elections and a constitutional referendum and there are elements of democracy. I started covering Iraq in 1998, living there from the start of the war until late 2009, and it certainly feels freer than before. Saddam Hussein held his last election, a plebiscite in 2002, and claimed 100 percent of the vote (and maybe it was true -- who would risk voting against him?). Under the old regime, even when I could slip away from government minders, people were usually too scared of informants among their family and friends to speak openly. You weren't even allowed to keep your mouth shut. Failure to join the chanting crowds at pro-government rallies -- watched closely by neighborhood-level Baathists -- could cost you your job, admission to university, or worse. Now there's lots of open talk, government criticism, and widespread Internet access.
But Iraq is not democratic in a reliable or deep sense, where people can expect equal rights, legal protections, or access to their leaders. Free speech is still a dangerous pursuit. At least seven reporters or their staff have been killed this year in what appear to be direct attacks on news agencies, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Most others are afraid to get too specific in their criticisms of the leadership. Regulations are tightening, and the track record of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has just maneuvered himself into another term in office, is getting darker. The government has started requiring that news agencies register their staff and equipment. Media regulations ban quotations from anonymous sources. Human Rights Watch recently documented government efforts to ban public demonstrations and encourage security forces to violently disperse attempts at peaceful protest.
Some people, like Kaplow, claim three national elections. We don't. There was the 2005 elections (December 2005) and there was the March elections this year which were national elections. The way they're getting three is they're counting the 2009 elections which were provincial elections. Could they be considered "national elections"?
Most of the time a national election takes place on a set date. Whereas the 2009 provincial elections were held on two different dates, months apart. The KRG voted on their own and were not part of that. January 31, 2009 was election day for 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. The KRG held their elections July 25, 2009. And Kirkuk wasn't allowed to hold elections -- which is why only 17 of 18 provinces held elections in 2009. In addition, if we were going to count those, it would be four elections because January 30, 2005 saw governorate council elections. National elections, for our purposes here, were the December 2005 and March 2010 parliamentary elections. Only the parliamentary elections result in the creation of a national government so we only count the two parliamentary elections as "national elections" here. Others can count as they want.
Let's stay with the most recent elections. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, eleven days and counting.

David Romano (Rudaw) offers his take on the power-sharing arrangements, "A Sunni Iraqiya parliamentarian, Osama Al Nujaifi, became Speaker instead. The Kurds remain weary of Al Nujaifi and his penchant for strident Arab nationalism, reminding them a bit too much of yesterday's Ba'athist discourse. Nujaifi will likely remain a fierce opponent of most of the Kurdistan Bloc's aspirations in the new government. Meanwhile, something clearly had to be done to placate Allawi, so a new 'National Security Council' was created for him to lead. The only problem is that no one seems to know what powers, if any, this new National Security Council will have. Muqtada Al Sadr's group of parliamentarians is also entering this new government, despite their bitterness towards Maliki for the offensive against them in 2008 as well as their abiding distrust of the Iraqiya bloc. They will want some important portfolios which no one trusts them enough to give them. Nuri al Maliki, once again, isn't particularly liked by any of the other groups, but somehow he has managed to engineer his resurrection as Prime Minister for another term. Finally, virtually all the other parties remain deeply suspicious of Kurdish aspirations, especially fearing that implementation of Article 140 could set the stage for eventual Kurdish secession from Iraq." The Economist emphasizes a number of issues -- including the Kurdish issues, "Mr Maliki has agreed to nearly all of the 19 demands made by the Kurds, including a commitment to hold a referendum on who should control the disputed city of Kirkuk. Mr Maliki is also said to have promised some powerful ministries to a Shia group led by a populist anti-Western cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr." Writing today, The Economist also grasps what few other outlets can:
A new government has not yet been born.
Why The Economist has the ability to grasp that and so many others don't is puzzling but credit goes to them for noting reality in their opinion piece when most pieces passing for reporting from news outlets continually hail the 'new' 'government'.
On the issue of the National Security Council, Alsumaria TV reports, "State of Law Coalition senior official Hassan Al Sunaid stated that the political parties have started the legislation of a special law for the national policy council which will play a major advisory role in shaping Iraq's future policies, he said." Bernard Gwertzman (Council on Foreign Relations) interviews Charles W. Dunne (NSC during the previous Bush administration) about the developments. Gwertzman notes of the power-sharing deal, "Allawi is supposed to have an important policymaking role, says Dunne, although it remains to be seen whether Maliki keeps his word and whether the Obama administration will press him to do so." Excerpt.
Bernard Gwertzman: A key question is how important this new National Council for Higher Strategic Policies that Allawi is supposed to head, will be, right?
Charles W. Dunne: This council has not yet been enshrined in Iraqi law. There is a school of thought that believes there will need to be a constitutional amendment to make it serve as an effective check on the prime minister's power. This is all going to be very contentious and the outcome is very uncertain, which is probably one of the reasons why Allawi said, before he departed for London, that the power-sharing deal is dead. In addition, there are very different views among the Iraqi political leadershipr about how this council should function. Maliki clearly sees it as an advisory body, whose advice he can ignore. Allawi and a number of his supporters see it as a venue in which national security decisions by the prime minister, and important economic decisions, can be altered or veteoed. Even if legislation has passed to create a fairly robust council, the concept of this council as it exists right now will require 80 percent consensus within the council in order to implement a decision, which in this political system -- as in any political system -- is going to be difficult.
At Foreign Policy, David Bender offers an analysis of the deal that sees the new council and other efforts themselves as being of little value and noting that the council -- under Allawi or another Iraiqya member -- is not going to have grand powers:
But formally changing the chain of command in Iraq would require a highly unlikely constitutional change, and it seems unlikely that Maliki will ultimately agree to a significant reduction in his powers. He has argued that the new council will function as an advisory panel with no independent authority. If Allawi decides he is powerless in his new position, he could resign and become a forceful leader of the opposition.
Between an unclear Iraqiya role, an uncomfortably large Sadrist contingent, rising Kurdish demands, and no unity of purpose among any of the political groups, the prospects for the next government are not great. But the overall situation in Iraq will probably improve anyway. The next government isn't going to resolve much of Iraq's deep social and political dysfunction, but having it in place will finally allow the oil sector, budget, and infrastructure projects to begin to move ahead.
Was it worth the eight (soon to be nine) month wait? No.
But is it a good thing that there's likely to be a government by the new year? Absolutely.
Meanwhile Currency Newshound reports that the Ministry of Planning declared today that 10 times the current allocation of the investment budget is needed to address issues of operations such as government salaries and the rations card system. Shashank Bengali (McClatchy Newspapers' Middle East Diary) crunches other numbers -- the latest Brookings Institution figures for Iraq -- and notes, among other things, that Iraq is "on track to exceed the 2009 death total of 3,000". Bengali picks many interesting figures. Some he doesn't note include that landlines are down in Iraq as compared to the middle of 2004 -- this may be partly due to the large increase in cellular phones (and there was no cell phone industry prior to the start of the Iraq War according to Brookings). The report finds that an estimated 20,000 Iraqi medical doctors have left the country since the start of the war and only 1,525 of that number have returned -- so (check my math) 18,475 doctors have left and not returned. In addition, 2,000 Iraqi medical doctors have been killed since the start of the Iraq War. So the Iraq War has resulted in the country losing an estimated 20,475 doctors. The most recent estimate finds approximately 16,000 medical doctors remain in Iraq. CIA estimates put the Iraqi population at between 26 and 30 million. Check my math but that should put the number of doctors at 0.053% of the population. The median age in Iraq is 20.6 years-old. In 2008, the official unemployment rate in Iraq was 15.2%. Though there are no figures for this year, there's been no improvement and that official figure is much lower than the actual unemployment figure (the CIA notes that the unofficial estimate is 30%). But in 2009, a number of Iraqis were surveyed and asked if they thought unemployment would improve in 2010? 37% hoped it would "fall slightly" or "fall a lot," 35% thought it would increase -- slightly or a lot) and 24% expected it would remain the same.
Turning to some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes a roadside bombing outside Baiji wounded one Sahwa leader while clashes at Baghdad's al-Tasfirat prison left twenty prisoners injured. Xinhua reports 2 Baquba bombings targeted Sahwa today with Firas Ahmed being killed in one and two other people being killed in the second one.
At Answers For The Faith, Dr. D. explains, "Tuesday a six-year-old girl and her Christian father were killed by a car bomb in Mosul. On Monday in Mosul, gunmen barged into a home and killed two Christian men in their living room. Today on Wednesday the bullet-riddled body of a 20-year-old Christian student was found on a street also in Mosul."
Natasha Dado (Arab American News via New America Media) reports on last week's rally in Detroit to protest the targeting of Iraqi Christians and quotes Patrick Lossia stating, "As a result of the U.S. occupying Iraq, its Christian population has declined from three percent to one percent. If America never invaded Iraq in 2003, we would have stabilization. We're almost less than one percent of the minority in Iraq, but we're the ones dying the most. I didn't like Saddam Hussein, but it's a fact Iraq was safer under his regime." October 31st, Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was attacked, over 70 people died, over 70 were wounded. Among the dead were two priests, one of which was shot in the back of his head "execution style." That event began the latest wave of attacks on Iraqi Christians.

Leila Fadel and Ali al-Qeisy (Washington Post) report, "The names of the dead are pasted on the floor in the center of the church and surrounded by lighted candles. But the window glass is missing, destroyed by blasts and gunfire, and craters dot the ground - all reminders of the four suicide bombers who carried out the deadly attack along with other gunmen." The response to the latest wave of attacks is no different from earlier responses: many Iraqi Christians attempt to relocate within and outside of Iraq. The government response? When the issue receives global attention, Iraqi politicians make a few public statments and nothing more is done. This has especially been the pattern since Nouri al-Maliki was installed as prime minister in 2006. Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) quotes the Syrian Catholic Archbishop Basile Georges Casmoussa of Mosul stating, "In terms of declarations, we are really saturated. What we are asking for are concrete actions. We must find a solution, solutions, effective ways to safeguard the security of Christians." Meanwhile Alsumaria TV reports that Iraqi president Jalal Talabani is whining over France's offer of asylum to victims of the October 31st attacks and their families and saying that Iraqi Christians are welcome in the KRG. But they're not always safe in the KRG. And they don't have all the bodyguards that Jalal does, do they? Jalal is one of the two types of stupid on display of late. The first is someone basically in Iraq but well protected who has a hissy that another nation might offer asylum to the defenseless persecuted. The second is the Iraqi Christian who has fled Iraq at some point and is now safely in another land (often a citizen of that land) and who insists that Iraqi Christians must stay in Iraq. The Detroit rally was made a joke by one of the leaders of the rally insisting that Iraqi Christians must remain in Iraq. The very obvious point is that that leader didn't remain in Iraq nor has he taken it upon himself to go back to Iraq. It's easy to call for someone to make what could be a last stand while you're safe elsewhere.
The latest wave of attacks is one in a series of ongoing attacks. Iraqi Christians have not been protected throughout the war. Anyone who feels they need to leave should have all the resources and support needed. Anyone who feels they want to stay should be encouraged and the Iraqi government should be offering them all the resources and support they need. But what shouldn't happen is for other people to be making the decisions for them. This is life or death and it will be blood on someone's hands if they attempt to make the decision for Iraqi Christians. Repeating, there is something highly offensive about an American-Iraqi who wants Iraqi Christians to remain in Iraq while he sits his happy little ass safe in Detroit. If what he now advocates had been done to him and his family, he'd still be in Iraq. That no one involved in planning the rally saw that rank hypocrisy is rather telling. (As was his cries that the US military must remain in Iraq for years to protect Iraqi Christians. The targeting is not an excuse to continue the illegal war.)

Kevin Menz (The Sheaf) reports on a Saskatoon protest against the violence and quotes Peter Kiryakos stating, "It's genocide, essentially. The Christian people, since the war began, have had no protection and have been targeted by terrorist groups wanting them out of the country." If it's genocide, it's criminal to suggest that Iraqi Christians should be forced to stay in Iraq. (Repeating, some may want to leave, some may want to stay. That is for them to decide and governments world should open their borders to those who make the decision to leave.)
In the US, Military Families Speak Out have started a petition calling for all troops to be brought home from Iraq and Afghanistan and noting that "These Wars Are Costing Us Too Much!":
Over the next several months we want to gather tens of thousands of signatures on the petition, which will also spread the word about the campaign and build participation.
(Text of the petition is below -- click here to sign).
Dear President Obama and Members of Congress:

As of November 2010, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lead to:
• the deaths of over 5,787 American service members
• the deaths of tens of thousands of Afghani and Iraqi civilians
• over 2,000 suicides of American veterans
• over 40,000 injuries to American service members

In financial costs:
• It costs $1 million to keep one soldier on the ground in Afghanistan for one year.
• The operational costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already surpassed $1 trillion.
• The total projected costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is $4 trillion, including an estimated $1 trillion to provide care for returning veterans.

These wars are not making us safer. They are betraying the values that lead many of our young men and women to volunteer for their country and are ransoming the futures of this generation and the next. These funds should be used to take care of the troops when they come home, rebuild our economy, and protect our communities.

Enough is enough! Bring our troops and our tax dollars home NOW!
Action is needed to end the wars. A lot of people are willfully deluding themselves, keeping their heads in the sand, refusing to call out War Hawk Barack.
Sometimes a leader emerges
And is followed for awhile
Doesn't matter what he encourages
As long as he's got style
Young ones conceived in a passion
Of directions we thought enlightened
Grown-up, they follow the mood in fashion
But beneath their bravado
You know they're frightened
I remember a time gone by
When peace and hope and dreams were high
We followed inner visions and touched the sky
Now we who still believe won't let them die
-- "Time Gone By," written by Carole King, first appears on her Touch The Sky album.
"Doesn't matter what he encourages as long as he's got style." Who knew Carole was a prophet? Barack's encouraged war, encouraged drone attacks and so much more. But so many are so damn scared to call the Christ-child out. Supposed life-long peace activists tremble in fear at the notion of pointing out that the emperor sports no peace symbols. They better grow the hell up pretty damn quick because they're not just being played for fools, they're risking lives around the world as they avoid calling out the War Hawk in the White House. This week, Gareth Porter (Dissident Voice) breaks new ground with his monumental scoop detailing how the White House has actively been working to decieve the US voters into believing the Iraq War would end when, in fact, it would not. NSC-er Puneet Talwar was dispatched to offer Iraq 15,000 US troops after the end of 2011 'withdrawal' and to explain that the would simply shove these 15,000 under the US Embassy to hide the remainders. As we've noted for months, Nouri got US-backing to remain prime minister because he promised to allow US forces to remain in Iraq past 2011. From Gareth Porter's article:
The Iraqis also asked whether the 15,000 regular combat troops could be augmented with Special Operations Forces, according to the Iraqi official's account. Talwar said the additional deployment of SOF troops after the withdrawal deadline would be possible, because the United States had never publicly acknowledged the presence of SOF units in Iraq.
The Pentagon signaled last summer that it was assuming the post-2011 U.S. military presence in Iraq would be less than 20,000 troops. In a press briefing last August, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East, Colin Kahl, said Iraq "is not going to need tens of thousands of [American] forces".
Talwar also told the Iraqis that any deployment of combat troops in Iraq beyond the termination date of the U.S.-Iraqi agreement would require a letter from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Iraqi officials said the letter would be sent.
How many times do you have to be lied to before you wake the hell up? How many lies can you stomach in order to avoid keeping your membership in the Cult of St. Barack?
Let's provide context. From the October 25th "Iraq snapshot:"

Philip J. Crowley: Well, we have a Status of Forces Agreement and a strategic framework. The Status of Forces Agreement expires at the end of next year, and we are working towards complete fulfillment of that Status of Forces Agreement, which would include the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of next year. The nature of our partnership beyond next year will have to be negotiated. On the civilian side, we are committed to Iraq over the long term. We will have civilians there continuing to work with the government on a range of areas – economic development, rule of law, civil society, and so forth. But to the extent that Iraq desires to have an ongoing military-to-military relationship with the United States in the future, that would have to be negotiated. And that would be something that I would expect a new government to consider. [. . .] Should Iraq wish to continue the kind of military partnership that we currently have with Iraq, we're open to have that discussion.

That should have sent off alarm signals immediately. Yet despite this being declared a press briefing at the US State Dept, Amy Goodman couldn't cover it. Of course, she used Barack's inaugaration to raise funds for her program Democracy Now! To raise big funds for her program -- or maybe you think it's normal to CHARGE $1,000 for a ticket when you're so-called 'independent media'? That's what she did. "For a donation of $1000, you can join this extraordinary celebration" insisted Goodman in her reach-in-your-pockets e-mail (entitled "Last Tickets for 1/20 Inaugural Peace Ball & VIP Reception" and sent out January 8, 2009 at 8:55 pm). This is the woman who makes millions -- in fact, Pacfica Radio would have a lot less economic problems if they still owned Goodman's program but she bullied, blustered and blackmailed in order to get ownership of it. Why? It's not like it does anything unless you need to hear what's going on in Aspen at the conference she and her program used to criticize but now Amy speaks at. She's feathered her nest very well and yet continues to beg non-stop. Pacifica is paying far too much for her middle-of-the-road Charlie Rose style program. And her whoring for the White House knows no end. In a functioning independent media -- as opposed to the Beggar Media we've had for the last years -- Goodman would have been called out for all of her whoring.
As we've long noted, she played a little game (she wasn't the only one, it was very popular in 'independent' circles) where when a Hillary supporter was on her show, they were asked about Hillary's votes for the Iraq War but despite the fact that Hillary supporters were only one when Barack supporters were (by contrast Barack supporters were often the entire show with no effort to balance), no Barack supporter was ever asked to justify his votes for the Iraq War. He wasn't in the Senate in 2002. He was in the Senate in 2005 and he voted repeatedly and consistently to continue the illegal war. But Amy played dumb. Same way she LIED to her audience in January 2008 when she brought LIE FACE Melissa Harris-Lacewell on as a 'college professor' who just happened to catch Barack's speech and compared it to MLK and blah, blah, blah. She never said a word about Hillary Clinton. She couldn't shut up about Barack. And Amy should have informed her audience -- the audience she repeatedly F**KS OVER -- that Melissa was part of the Obama campaign and had been since 2007. A week later, she would bring Melissa on -- back on -- to attack Gloria Steinem in a little bit that was scripted ahead of time by Melissa and Amy -- another 'detail' she forgot to inform viewers of, and Melissa -- in the midst of her Jerry Springer-style theatrics -- would point out that she'd been working for the Obama campaign since 2007. If Melissa hadn't gotten angry and lost it, viewer never would have known the little con Amy pulled on them. Trusted media? Before Melissa ever came on Democracy Now, Amy paired up with Melissa when both guested on Rev Jesse Jackson's radio program. She damn well knew Melissa was part of the Obama campaign but she didn't think her viewers required honesty or deserved it.
She whored and she continues to whore. (Which is why the WikiLeaks revelations were actually ignored on her program. She provided a distraction, she just avoided providing an actual service -- i.e. explaining to her audience that treaties were broken when the current White House turned over prisoners to suspected and/or known torturers.) Her program is useless and until her audience starts demanding accountability, they're not going to see any change. In the meantime, it's past time Pacifica made clear to her that she already has ownership of that program, they're not also going to fork over millions to air it.
People ask: "Where's the peace movement? Why did it flounder?" It floundered because whores in Beggar Media whored to get Barack in the White House and all this time later they still can't take accountability. Hearing the ridiculous Larry Bensky try to pontificate on KPFA two weeks ago about ethical standards was hilarious. Not only is he a sexist pig, he's also the cheating whore who booked a TWO HOUR 'analysis' of a Barack-Hillary debate and booked only people who had endorsed Barack and 'forgot' to inform people of that. He allowed them to present as 'independent' 'analysists' and they were in no hurry to tell KPFA audiences that they'd endorsed Barack. That's how you rig the analysis, that's how you ruin and destroy open debate and free speech. So it needs to be made very clear to Larry Bensky that his tired and whoring ass isn't a respected voice and he can't claim the high ground until he can take accountability for his whoring. For reasons, never clear to me, Howard Zinn decided to whore in the last five months of 2008. Howard Zinn died. For many of us, all his words about elections and politicians were rendered meaningless when he hopped on the Barack Obama wagon. He destroyed his own legacy and you'd think some of the other whores would look at that and think, "Damn, I better take accountability now before my whoring becomes my legacy." But thinking has never been Beggar Media's strong suit.
For those who missed Crowley's remarks, another administration figure soon spoke up. From the November 9th snapshot:
Anne Gearan (AP) breaks the news this morning that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated publicly today in Kuala Lumpur that the US military may stay in Iraq beyond 2011. She quotes him stating, "We're ready to have that discussion if and when they want to raise it with us." Donna Miles (Defense Dept's press department) adds, "But Gates said he wouldn't expect such a request, at least until the Iraqis have selected a president, prime minister and speaker of the council of representatives and made ministerial-level appointments."
Beggar Media's Cult of St. Barack better find its comfort zone to critique Barack from or they better start embracing these illegal wars because their silence allows these wars to continue. Finally, last month, we noted:
Another Times' journalist who has moved on from Iraq is Joao Silva. His photographs have illustrated (and often saved) many a Times' article filed in Iraq -- for example, in the Let's-Meet-The-Awakenings nonsense of 2007, it was Silva's photographs that told the larger truths. Today, the New York Times reports at their blog, Silva -- who has been covering Afghanistan -- was injured after stepping on a land mine.
J.J. Sutherland (NPR) reports this evening, "Joao Silva is the legendary New York Times photographer who stepped on a land mine last month in Afghanistan. He lost both legs among a host of other injuries. Amazingly. because of the incredible battlefield medicine available these days, he's going to live. And like most soldiers in his condition he's ended up at Walter Reed. "

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Still Desperate Housewives

If you're interested in attempting to make sense of the palace intrigue at MSNBC, you should read Howard Kurtz's article.

Other than that, I'm still on the topic of Desperate Housewives because I had some e-mail on it.

Favorite character? Three people asked that.

Renee ties with Susan.

I hope Renee's going to get a storyline. I didn't see any indication of that in Sunday's episode. Susan? She's really the one you root for. Lynette's just too pushy, too judgmental and thinks too highly of herself.

I'm beginning to like Marcia Cross as Bree. It was a huge step for Melrose Placer me to get used to Crazy Kimberly as another character. But I do like her. That's due to two things: her romance with Brian Austin Green and her frenemy status with Renee.

What about the blond who married the guy who's the killer and back on Wistoria Lane?

If she'd stood with her mother (who wants to get the goods on him), I could've seen it. But she walked out on her own mother and now I hope the guy kills her.

She adds very little to the show, if you ask me. (If you haven't watched this season, she's a new character who fell in love with the jailbird Paul. She's Beth and her mother is Felicia.)

I also think that, in this economy, Lynette's a joke. They can't afford a nanny! Oh, look, she'll quit her job and go into business with Renee. And not only can she afford to quit her job but minus a pay check, she can also now get that nanny.

I've left Gabby out of the above. Love the actress, starting to hate the character. I just feel very defensive about Juanita. If you've missed this season, Gabby and Carlos' daughter Juanita isn't their daughter. Supposedly. Supposedly, their baby was swaped with another baby at the hospital. Okay, I can go along with that. But when Grace looks like a little china doll while Juanita's an energetic child who likes to play and roughhouse, and when Gabby's all over Grace and ignoring Juanita, I just can't stand Gabby. Again, great actress but that character is not sympathetic or relatable -- my opinion.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, November 17, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the State Dept nots violence against religious minorities, the stalemate continues in Iraq, a US general speaks of Iraq's (still not ready) Air Force and more.
Today in DC, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted (link has text and video) a new department report on religion:
Because we believe in religious freedom and because we are committed to the right of all people everywhere to live according to their beliefs without government interference and with government protection, we are troubled by what we see happening in many, many places. Religiou sfreedom is under threat from authoritarian regimes that abuse their own citizens. It is under threat from violent extremist groups that exploit and inflame sectarian tensions. It is under threat from the quiet but persistent harm caused by intolerance and mistrust which can leave minority religious groups vulnerable and marginalized. During the past year, al-Qaida issued calls for further violence against religious minorities in the Middle East. Sufi, Shia, and Ahmadiyya holy sites in Pakistan have been attacked. So was a Syriac Catholic Church in Baghdad just a few weeks ago. We received reports from China of government harassment of Tibetan Buddhists, house church Christians, and Uighur Muslims. And several European countries have placed harsh restrictions on religious expression.
The new report is entitled "2010 Report on International Religious Freedom" and we'll note these basics on the Iraqi population from the report:
The country has an area of 168,754 square miles and a population of approximately 28.9 million. According to statistics provided by the government, 97 percent of the population is Muslim. Shi'a Muslims--predominantly Arabs but also Turkmen, Faili (Shi'a) Kurds, and other groups--constitute a 60 to 65 percent majority. Arab and Kurdish Sunni Muslims make up 32 to 37 percent of the population; of these 18 to 20 percent are Sunni Kurds, 12 to 16 percent are Sunni Arabs, and the remaining 1 to 2 percent are Sunni Turkmen. Approximately 3 percent of the population is composed of Christians, Yezidis, Sabean-Mandaeans, Baha'is, Shabaks, Kaka'is (sometimes referred to as Ahl-e Haqq), and a very small number of Jews. Shi'a, although predominantly located in the south and east, are also a majority in Baghdad and have communities in most parts of the country. Sunnis form the majority in the west, center, and the north of the country.
Reported estimates from leaders of the Christian population in 2003 ranged from 800,000 to 1.4 million. Current population estimates by Christian leaders range from 400,000 to 600,000. Approximately two-thirds of Christians are Chaldeans (an eastern rite of the Catholic Church), nearly one-fifth are Assyrians (Church of the East), and the remainder are Syriacs (Eastern Orthodox), Armenians (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), Anglicans, and other Protestants. Most Assyrian Christians are in the north, and most Syriac Christians are split among the Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Ninewa Provinces. Christian leaders estimated that as much as 50 percent of the country's Christian population lives in Baghdad, and 30 to 40 percent lives in the north, with the largest Christian communities located in and around Mosul, Erbil, Dohuk, and Kirkuk. The archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox Diocese reported that 15,000 to 16,000 Armenian Christians remained in the country, primarily in the cities of Baghdad, Basrah, Kirkuk, and Mosul. Evangelical Christians reportedly number between 5,000 and 6,000. They can be found in the northern part of the country, as well as in Baghdad, with a small number residing in Basrah.
Yezidi leaders reported that most of the country's 500,000 to 600,000 Yezidis reside in the north, with 15 percent in Dohuk Province and the rest in Ninewa Province. Shabak leaders stated there are 400,000 to 500,000 Shabaks, who reside mainly in the north, near Mosul. Estimates of the size of the Sabean-Mandaean community vary widely; according to Sabean-Mandaean leaders, 3,500 to 7,000 remained in the country, reduced from an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 in 2003. The Baha'i leadership reported their members number fewer than 2,000 and are spread throughout the country in small groups. A sizable portion of the Jewish community, which once had a significant presence in the country, left in the years immediately following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Eight Jews remain in Baghdad, and none are known to live in other parts of the country.
As of March 2010, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported 223,000 active refugee cases for Iraqis living outside of the country and estimated that approximately 1.5 million Iraqis had fled and remain outside the country. In March 2010 the UNHCR reported that 58 percent of all registered Iraqi refugees (in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt) were Sunni, 21 percent were Shi'a, 4 percent were nonspecified Muslim, 13 percent were Christian, 3 percent were Sabean-Mandaean, and fewer than 1 percent were Yezidi. As of April 2010, the Ministry of Migration and Displacement (MDD) had registered 1.55 million internally displaced persons since 2006. In March 2010 the UNHCR, using the UNHCR, MDD, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as sources, estimated there were 2.8 million internally displaced persons in the country. An estimated 59 percent of the internally displaced are Shi'a Muslims, 35 percent are Sunni Muslims, 5 percent are Christians, and fewer than 1 percent are Yezidis, according to the IOM.
Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) observes, "The situation for Christians in Iraq is becoming bleaker. The violence directed against them is no longer limited to the captal city of Baghdad, but has been spreading throughout the country." Hadani Ditmars (Globe and Mail) reflects on the violence:
When I met Maryam last spring, she was desperate. "Please help me get out of here," she pleaded. She was continually harassed, she told me, by her new neighbours, rural Shia Muslims who had come to Karradeh from the south after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. "They tell me I'm a bad woman, and that I will go to hell."
But as Maryam tearfully blurted out her story of living alone as a virtual shut-in, terrorized by local militias and longing to join family members abroad, she already seemed to be in hell.
Ditmars explains Maryam had left Iraq for Syria due to the violence but money issues ("her meagre United Nations stipend") forced her to return to Baghdad where she found the violence had neither vanished nor merely diminished. AP reports that Berlin's Interior Minister Ehrhart Koerting issued a call today for Germany to provide refuge to 2,500 Iraqi Christians. The current wave of violence targeting Iraqi Christians -- one in a long line of waves -- appears to have begun with the October 31st assault on Baghdad's Our Lady of Salvation Church. Father John Boyle (Caritas in Veritate) posts a letter from friends in Iraq who were in the church during the attack:

The terrorists were in the Church from about 5 pm until 11 pm when their weapons ran out and they began to blow themselves up. They Iraqi Security forces were all the while standing outside paralysed with fear and confusion but by about 10 pm the security forces attacked the Church with huge fire power and no one knows how many innocent people they killed when they stormed the Church but by then most of the terrorist were already dead and they had run out of weapons to use.
At about 1 am the army was sure that all of the terrorist were dead and that they had rescued any of the people who were still alive inside the Church.
One army officer described the scene as follows; "I entered the Church and can hear loud screams of women and children but I could not see them because of the intense smoke, I then slipped and noticed that I slipped in a pool of blood just then I was hit by the most awful smell, it was a smell that I had become familiar with but it was nevertheless awful it was the terrible stench of death. I saw body parts, limbs and many bodies piled up at the entrance. The people there looked like they had been dead for sometime as their bodies had become quite stiff when we tried to move them".

The link will also provide you with photos of the violence including the dead (and one of the two priests killed -- after he was killed; the one who was shot in the back of the head execution style). The Underground debunks two popular rumors about the motivation for the attacks. Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) quotes Father Firas Benoka stating, "There is a climate of terror that fills the Christian homes not only in Mosul and Baghdad, but also those on the plain of Nineveh." Holdren explains, "The plain of Nineveh, where Mosul is located, is one of the ancient cradles of Catholicism. The towns and villages that dot the plain are home to some of the world's original Christian communities, dating back nearly 2,000 years to the dawn of Christianity." Meanwhile Asia News interviews Monsignor George Basile Casmoussa, the Syrian Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, who notes that there is a "dangerous growth" in the attacks with people being assaulted "directly in their homes" and that Christians are first fleeing their own cities and some then take the step of fleeing Iraq. He states, "We are asking the United Nations to seriously discuss the issue of Iraqi Christians. To send a real commission for an inquiry. To put pressure on the Iraqi government to ensure attention and the highest security to churches and Christian villages. And to pursue the murderers, to the very end."
On Monday, Today (BBC Radio) spoke with the Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham William Kenny about the targeting of Iraqi Christians.
Evan Davis: One of the priests who was killed in Iraq was a friend of yours and I gather you are in touch now regularly with other Christians who fear for their lives there.
Bishop William Kenny: Yes, I am. I knew one of the priests quite well. I know his family. I've eaten dinner with them. I've been with them. They've been ringing me. It's a matter of sorrow.
Evan Davis: And what are you able to tell them? What are you asking them of our government?
Bishop William Kenny: What I'd ask of our government is a nuanced approach -- which is nearly always impossible. It's not as easy as saying, "Should the Christians leave or should they stay?" The situation -- as everything else in Iraq -- is terribly complicated. The sort of things I'd be looking for is -- as one of your interviewees said in the report -- alleviation of poverty, things to make it worthwhile to stay, even on an economic level. I would be looking for help for the many Christians who fled to Jordan and Syria because they are still on the borders. They will return should things better. And it must be in everybody's interest to make sure that they are not living in utter poverty -- otherwise, they will move.
Evan Davis: But it will get better presumably only if the government of Iraq -- such as it is -- I say "such as it is" because it hasn't effectively had a government for a very long time. It does have now but it isn't doing anything or it appears not to be doing anything to help these people.
Bishop William Kenny: Unfortunately I agree with you. Security is the major issue. Once people have got security, they can set about leading their own lives. At the moment that security doens't exist and the temptation must be enormous to flee.
Evan Davis: Isn't there an argument -- at least for this government -- offering some of them some sort of asylum?
Bishop William Kenny: I think there is. And I mean they're under perseuction, they are in need of protection. As I say, I don't think it's something where there's one element that will solve all cases. I think there needs to be a quite complicated package of the efforts put in to solve this problem.
Evan Davis: Indeed but given that there's a limited amount a government like this can do, you think asylum for some might be the answer? Will the Archbishop -- your own Archbishop [Bernard Longley] -- support you in that, do you think?
Bishop William Kenny: I think he would. I haven't spoken to him about the matter but I'm quite sure that that is quite possible. But also as I say help to keep the Christians where they are and to keep them in dignity.
Moving over to the issue of the government in Iraq, a power-sharing deal supposedly will result in a government being formed. Ahmed Habib (ZNet) shares some opinions on the politicians:
From Al Maliki and Allawi, one can also get a sense of the entire Iraqi political spectrum that is killing its way to power. Different variations of religious fundamentalism, ultranationalism, hyperactive capitalism, and incompetency define democracy in the country. And despite their differences in delivery, the outcome is still the same: greater suffering for the people of Iraq. Al Sadr, Al Chalabi, Talibani, Al Dulaimi, Al Hakim, Al Alousi and Al Jaafari are just some of the crooks that have terrorized Iraq for the better part of the last decade.

The solution to Iraq's woes goes beyond its borders, stretching from the impoverished streets of Cairo, over the Apartheid wall in Palestine, and all the way to the coalition killing fields near Kabul. Without an internationalist and radical awakening in the fields and factories of Iraq, the people will continue to be victims to the vote. Without a concerted central effort to rebuild the country's infrastructure, Iraqis will continue to live in near apocalyptic conditions, waiting hopelessly for their imminent death. Without control of the country's resources, Iraq will operate infinitely as a one stop shop for vultures vying for easy profits.

One could argue that choosing a government is a necessary precursor for all these things to take place, but the mechanisms that govern Iraq are far away from the hands of the government. Elected officials are nothing more than glorified pimps that are holding down Iraq's head while it is being violated by dozens of dollar driven demons. In the absence of a progressive, radical, grassroots political program, the death of Iraq will continue to evolve from one election booth to the next.
March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with via "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, ten days and counting.
Ned Parker's "Iraqi prime minister celebrates Eid holiday in palatial setting" (Los Angeles Times) paints Little Nouri as the "new Saddam." Excerpt:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki sat in a gilded chair Tuesday at the start of the three-day Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha, the festival of sacrifice.
He rose to greet his guests in a newly furbished palace, built under the late dictator Saddam Hussein.
Politicians came in their elegant dark suits; sheiks approached in their brown robes; generals marched in crisp uniforms, emblazoned with swords and epaulets. All kissed him twice on both cheeks. And Maliki smiled and whispered into their ears, or chuckled.
Nouri and his crowd traffic in lies and, should you doubt that, Alusmaria TV reports, "National Alliance MP Hadi Al Amiri held the media responsible for creating tension over the government formation talks. The eight-month political debate in Iraq was normal and recurrent around the world, Al Amiri told Alsumaria News." It has set a new world record for longest time between an election and sitting a government -- but Amiri thinks he can lie and get away with it, he thinks can call it "normal" and it will be accepted as such -- probably accepted as such out of fear.

Meanwhile Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is stating, "I will not sign Tariq Aziz's death sentence. I will sign no death sentence at all, because as a social democrat, I'm against the death penalty." Talabani noted that Aziz is 70-years-old and an Iraqi Christian. Aziz was the Foreign Minister before the start of the US war. He grandstands very well; however, he didn't sign death warrants during his first term as president but that didn't stop the executions from taking place. Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) pointed out at the end of last month, "The hanging judge in this particular kangaroo court is a former aide to Prime Minister Maliki, who ran for election on Maliki's misnamed State of Law coalition. It's clear that Maliki wants to use the execution of Tariq Aziz, a Roman Catholic, to build support for his party among the most extreme Shiite partisans. Like Maliki's support for the pre-election shenanigans in January, when Iran and Ahmed Chalabi maneuvered to exclude hundreds of legitimate candidates from running over charges of connections to the old Baath Party, Maliki wants to wave the bloody shirt of Tariq Aziz to rally his supporters. The fact that he's not a Muslim makes that even more popular among Shiite radicals." Vivian Salma (Bloomberg News) notes, "The Vatican asked the Iraqi government to spare Aziz, citing the Roman Catholic Church's objection to the death penalty."
In the United States, US House Rep Patrick Murphy's office has issued the following press release:
(Washington, DC) -- In response to an inquiry from Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8th District), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is clarifying their official policy to ensure that veterans who serve in Iraq as part of Operation New Dawn receive the full range of benefits to which they should be entitled.
In September, Murphy sent a letter to the VA Secretary Eric Shinseki expressing his concern regarding the impact that the name change from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) to Operation New Dawn could have on our servicemembers and veterans' benefits. Murphy's concern stemmed from the fact that some benefits are tied directly to service in OIF but that the danger inherent in deploying to Iraq -- despite the official end of combat operations -- qualified New Dawn veterans for benefits equal to those who served in OIF. He called on Secretary Shinseki to ensure that veterans who serve in Operation New Dawn receive benefits that were previously tied directly to service in OIF.
"As a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I am acutely aware of the dangers all soldiers face when deployed in theater. Therefore, I respectfully request clarification as to whether these remaining troops and others who deploy to complete operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after conclusion of OIF and OEF will still be eligible for veterans benefits that are attached to OIF or OEF service," Murphy wrote.
In response, Secretary Shinseki reviewed VA regulations and clarified that troops who serve in Operation New Dawn will be eligible for benefits that pertain to OIF, preventing any possible obstacles to veterans receiving the benefits that they have earned. Shinseki thanked Murphy for bringing their attention to this issue and for the Congressman's "distinguished service and continued work on behalf of our Nation's Veterans."
Back to Iraq, US Brig Gen Jeffrey Buchanan spoke with AFP, "Iraq, which has no combat aircraft, will be vulnerable to an air attack for at least a year after Amercian troops leave at the end of 2011, the spokesman for US forces in the country said on Wednesday." And what's he want to do about it? Since 2007 -- check the archives -- we've noted the Iraqi Air Force wouldn't be ready by the end of 2011 -- in fact, back then, it wouldn't be ready until at least 2014. From the June 14, 2007 snapshot:

The Pentagon report has many sections and one of interest considering one of the 2007 developments may be this: "There are currently more than 900 personnel in the Iraqi Air Force. . . . The fielding of rotary-wing aircraft continued with the delivery to Taji of five modified UH II (Iroquois) helicopters, bringing the total delivered to ten. The final six are scheduled to arrive in June. Aircrews are currently conducting initial qualifications and tactics training. The Iroquois fleet is expected to reach initial operation capability by the end of June 2007." By the end of June 2007? One of the developments of 2007 was the (admission of) helicopter crashes. US helicopters. British helicopters. Some may find comfort in the fact that evacuations and mobility will be handled by Iraqis . . . whenever they are fully staffed and trained. Four years plus to deliver the equipment, training should be done in ten or twenty years, right?
Buchanan's idea of "ready" may simply mean combat planes purchased arrive. In July 2009, Elisabeth Bumiller wrote a major article on this subject "Iraq Can't Defend Its Skies by Pullout Date, U.S. Says" (New York Times):
The Iraqis will be unable to handle their own air defenses after all American troops withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, the top commander of American forces in Iraq said Tuesday.
Gareth Porter (go to Dissident Voice which won't try to hide the report) covered new ground with his scoop this week detailing how the White House has actively been working to decieve the US voters into believing the Iraq War would end when, in fact, it would not. NSC-er Puneet Talwar was dispatched to offer Iraq 15,000 US troops after the end of 2011 'withdrawal' and to explain that the would simply shove these 15,000 under the US Embassy to hide the remainders. From the article:
Talwar's remarks suggest the Obama administration was planning to adopt a ruse to keep combat troops in Iraq after the expiration of the U.S.-Iraq troop withdrawal agreement on December 31, 2011, while assuring the U.S. public that all U.S. troops had been pulled out by the deadline.
It's an important article about a War Hawk who attempted to put one over on the citizens. We'll note the article all week in the snapshots and that may include noting the one mistake Gareth Porter made in his report. (It's minor.) Here's another excerpt from the article:
When the Iraqi participants in the September 23 meeting asked how many troops might be left in Iraq, Talwar said preferably one brigade but that it could be two brigades. When asked how many soldiers that would mean per brigade, however, the NSC official said the number could be open-ended.
An Iraqi military official told Talwar the military understood the minimum number of troops needed for a self- contained U.S. combat force was 15,000 to 28,000. They asked Talwar whether the U.S. could keep at least 15,000 in the country, and Talwar answered that it was possible.
Each U.S. combat brigade team has 3,500 to 4,000 troops. Thus the 15,000 regular combat troops discussed as a possible post-2011 troop presence would represent between three and four brigades.
We'll close with a book plug:
David Swanson, author of "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union," which rose to #1 among nonfiction books on Amazon.com the day it was published, will publish a new book called "War Is A Lie" on Monday, November 22nd and encourage readers to purchase it that day on Amazon.
More information as well as a variety of audio and eBooks, and bulk purchasing are available at http://warisalie.org
WAR IS A LIE is a thorough refutation of every major argument used to justify wars, drawing on evidence from numerous past wars, with a focus on those wars that have been most widely defended as just and good. This is a handbook of sorts, a manual to be used in debunking future lies before future wars have a chance to begin.
"David Swanson despises war and lying, and unmasks them both with rare intelligence. I learn something new on every page." — Jeff Cohen, founder of FAIR and author of Cable News Confidential.
"While Americans elect leaders whom they trust are honest, truthful and really care about the kids they send to kill for our country, War Is A Lie reveals decade after decade the sordid side of our history — that our elected officials lie us into war with stunning and embarrassing regularity and are little concerned about the harm to innocent civilians, much less to members of our own military." — Colonel (retired) Ann Wright, author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience.
Table of Contents
Introduction 7
1. Wars Are Not Fought Against Evil 15
2. Wars Are Not Launched in Defense 47
3. Wars Are Not Waged Out of Generosity 86
4. Wars Are Not Unavoidable 106
5. Warriors Are Not Heroes 131
6. War Makers Do Not Have Noble Motives 168
7. Wars Are Not Prolonged for the Good of Soldiers 196
8. Wars Are Not Fought on Battlefields 212
9. Wars Are Not Won, and Are Not Ended By Enlarging Them 235
10. War News Does Not Come From Disinterested Observers 250
11. War Does Not Bring Security and Is Not Sustainable 267
12. Wars Are Not Legal 291
13. Wars Cannot Be Both Planned and Avoided 312
14. War Is Over If You Want It 323
Notes 337
Index 352
Acknowledgments 369
About the Author 371
"This book is every American's best defense against the greatest danger we face as human beings: the threat of war. Swanson reveals how American leaders (from both major political parties) have confused the public to create the illusion of consent for endless destruction and slaughter. Behind the fear-mongering, flag-waving and lies of George W. Bush and the blandishments of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama lies the ugly reality that our leaders have been seduced by political ambition, delusions of military superiority, and the promise of secrecy and impunity to commit otherwise unthinkable crimes." — Nicolas J. S. Davies, Author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
"David Swanson is an antidote to the toxins of complacency and evasion. He insists on rousing the sleepwalkers, confronting the deadly prevaricators and shining a bright light on possibilities for a truly better world." — Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
"This book is revolutionary, and certainly truth-telling in a remarkable and brave way. The writing is so clear and easy-to-read, too. A pleasure to read, except that the content is so devastating, because it all means that not only are we utterly deceived but our entire reality is based on that deception. Swanson has gotten to the core of something. The only thing is I'm not sure he realizes how hopeless it is to expect a change -- and yet that is part of the appeal of his writing: his hopefulness in the face of lies and repression and denial." — Jennifer Van Bergen, author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America.
"War Is A Lie is an important and compelling book that arrives at a time when America is engaged in its longest running war to date. Swanson offers an incisive examination of the rationalizations, justifications, and outright lies that have led the United States, and other nations, into battle. And he shows the personal cost to the current generation of combatants returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." — Cynthia Wachtell, author of War No More: The Antiwar Impulse in American Literature 1861-1914.
"David Swanson has taken the mantle of AJ Muste, who had the guts and the audacity to declare World War II to have been unnecessary and wrong. Swanson takes Muste's argument further to make the audacious claim that all wars are not just unnecessary, but a crime. He is correct, of course. Just as no good outcome (whether the ouster of a tyrant or the freeing of captive nations) can compensate for the death of millions of innocents, which of course is the argument made in defense of calling World War II a 'good' war, no good (whether the ousting of a tyrant or the claimed improvement in the rights of oppressed women) can compensate for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq or of tens of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan. This is a book that every American should read, especially those who think the United States is the good guy." — Dave Lindorff , journalist, author of The Case for Impeachment, and founder of the online newspaper ThisCantBeHappening!
REVIEWS, INTERVIEWS, TOUR DATES
Swanson is planning a very limited book tour, including an event in Los Angeles on December 9, 2010. For more information or to request a review copy or an interview, contact david@davidswanson.org


--

David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie" and needs your help to make it #1 on Amazon on November 22:

http://warisalie.org

http://davidswanson.org

http://warisacrime.org

http://facebook.com/pages/David-Swanson/297768373319

http://twitter.com/davidcnswanson

http://youtube.com/afterdowningstreet