Thursday, June 03, 2010

Andrew Romanoff

Thursday! Almost the weekend! Almost. We'll get there. Stay focused.


Alright. CBS News' Brian Montopoli has an article about the White House bribe story:

Romanoff, who is challenging Sen. Michael Bennet, put out a statement alleging that the White House suggested he might have his choice of three jobs if he would drop out of the race.

He said White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina had called to discuss jobs that "might be available" if he dropped his primary challenge - and even provided to reporters the email Messina sent detailing those jobs.

While Romanoff, who stayed in the race, said "at no time was I promised a job," his statement left the impression that the White House has been engaged in craven political plays.

And this is Kimberly A. Strassel (Wall St. Journal) on the latest news about the offers to Andrew Romanoff:

He admitted Mr. Messina had indeed "suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race." He even released a Messina email that detailed the three jobs—posts at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as director of the U.S. Trade and Development agency.

This inspired the White House yesterday to issue an extraordinary statement claiming Mr. Messina had simply been following up on interest Mr. Romanoff had once expressed in USAID. Yes, the Senate race came up, but there was "no offer of a job." No answer as to why Mr. Messina, calling about USAID, felt compelled to email a description of a position at U.S. Trade and Development.

Political jobs-for-favors are, of course, as old as politics itself. The White House's real mistake was thinking it could practice such tactics as brazenly on the big stage as in the Windy City.


The New York Times has an editorial that opens with
:

With one questionable phone call to a Colorado Senate candidate, the White House has again found itself on the defensive over its maladroit political operation. If it does not want a reputation as a full-employment clearinghouse for unapproved candidates, or further invite an investigation, the administration needs to impose some common sense on that operation — and soon.

And don't forget Wally and Cedric from Wednesday night:

This isn't minor. The president of the United States is offering jobs if candidates he doesn't like will drop out to allow candidates he does like to win elections. You don't see the problem with that, Bob Somerby?

He's circumventing the will of the people. Colorado voters, not Barack Obama, should be the deciders about who should run for Colorado's senator. Same with Pennsylvania.

It's real cute the way Bob Somerby stretches the truth and reality from time to time. I'll probably name him idiot of the week tomorrow and explain why. And believe it or not, it's not even because of this scandal. It's because he's skirting the truth again just like he did when he attacked Joe Wilson over and over. Accused him of lying, said the record didn't bear out, blah, blah, blah.

Why did he attack Ambassador Wilson? Oh, that's right, his friend Matty Cooper was all up in the story. A detail he forgot to talk about when he kept insisting that there was no story to Plamegate. No story? A movie's about to come out on it. Bob Somerby is not perfect and this week he made a fool of himself again.

But that's tomorrow.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Thursday, June 3, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces multiple deaths, violence claims at least 4 Iraqi lives today and leaves at least 39 injured, the PKK calls off its ceasefire, and more.

The
Defense Dept announced late yesterday, "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pfc. Alvaro R. Regalado Sessarego, 37, of Virginia Beach, Va., died May 30 at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, of injuries sustained April 18 from a non-combat related incident at Dahuk, Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas. For more information, media may contact the Fort Bliss public affairs office at 915-568-4505." WAVY (link has text and video) adds:"It was his goal to give back to this country that was doing so much for him," said mother-in-law Jackie Dayton. "He saw it as way to take care of his family."He was not yet an American citizen when he enlisted in the Army at the age of 36."I never thought he would get into the Army at such a late age," Dayton said. "I never did, but his intellect spoke volumes for him."Bill Sizemore (Virginian-Pilot) reports he took his oath of citizenship one month prior to his deployment to Iraq and that his survivors include Teresa Dayton-Regalado, "a 13-year-old daughter who lives in Peru" and "three stepsons in Virginia Beach: Andrew Dayton, 19, Derrick Dayton, 17, and Richard Dayton, 13." In addition, the US military issued the following today: "BAGHDAD -- A U.S. Soldier died here Wednesday from injuries sustained in a non-combat related accident. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." Meanwhile AP reports that 1 US soldier died yesterday in Baghdad ("noncombat related incident") according to USF. Those deaths will bring the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4402. And the number may be 4403. Tim Stanley (Tulsa World) reports on the death of Spc Mark Andre Harding: ". . . on Friday, he died at St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa of complications from a cranial injury. His death has not yet been officially declared service-related, although he had been treated for a traumatic brain injury while in the service, according to a Veterans Affairs spokesman. Harding was 21." Were there not any deaths announced today the next paragraph would have been the opening because it's an important issue.

"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one." So reads the tombstone of Leonard Matlovich, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Air Force. After 12 years of outstanding service, Matlovich wrote a letter to his commanding officer explaining he was gay. This was March 6, 1975 and he was then subjected to a week long hearing (starting September 16, 1975) at Langley Air Force Base. Nearly 22 year before Ellen DeGeneres declared "Yep, I'm Gay" on the
cover of Time magazine (April 14, 1997), Matlovich appeared on the cover of Time magazine (September 8, 1975) announcing "I Am a Homosexual." ( where he was released from the military. Matlovich fought back for years, eventually taking a settlement (including an honorable discharge and $160,000 in back pay). (Martin Duberman covered the hearing for the New York Times Sunday magazine in "The Case Of The Gay Sergeant; Leonard Matlovich's strange trial betrayed a profound shift in American attitudes -- and not only toward sexuality" with an indepth look at the witnesses and events -- including Matlovich being asked to sign a statement swearing he would never practice same-sex relations and you can click here for Time magazine's much more brief September 1975 report on the hearing.) 35 years after Matlovich began his fight for equality within the military, the battle continues.

KPFT's Queer Voices (out of Houston -- and Mike covers it at his site) is among the programs that features This Way Out's weekly newswrap and we'll note this from the latest:

A critical US Senate Committee and the full House of Representatives each took steps this week to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in America's military. The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16 to 12 to approve a repeal admendment to the annual national defense authorization act earlier in the day on May 27 and the House voted 234 to 194 later that night comfortably above the required 217 to add the amendment to similar legislation. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican on the Senate panel to vote for the amendment while Senator Jim Webb of Virginia was the only Democrat to vote against it. Five Republicans in the House, breaking with their party's stated opposition, supported repeal. [. . .] The drama is far from over; however, some Republicans have vowed to filibuster on the entire defense spending bill if it includes the repeal provision when it comes up on the Senate floor in June and the White House issued a statement deploring some of the specific appropriations for military hardware in the House passed bill generally pushed by Congress members whose districts financially benefit from them. The statement warned that the Pentagon has indicated that it doesn't need nor want some of those military products and the president might veto the entire measure if those appropriations remain. Meanwhile Defense Secretary [Robert] Gates confirmed in a video message to the troops that the ban remains enforced and Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the pro-repeal Servicemembers Legal Defense Network cautioned that, "It is important for all lesbian and gay active duty service members including the reserves and the National Guard to know they are still at risk. They must continue to serve in silence under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law that remains on the books." While most LGBT advocacy groups applauded the progress made on repeal this week, not everyone was celebrating. Kip Williams, co-chair of the new grassroots queer rights group GetEQUAL was among the non-celebrants: "The sad fact remains that this vote in Congress won't stop the firings of lesbian and gay service members," he said in a media statement. "We keep asking the question 'When will the military discharges end?' -- and have not yet received an answer from the legislative and executive branches. It is the president's moral responsibility to issue an executive order banning the firings under Don't Ask, Don't Tell until the process can play itself out. LGBT Americans, especially those serving our country admirably in uniform, need their 'fierce advocate' now."
Lt Dan Choi and Capt Jim Pietrangelo -- each twice arrested for handcuffing themselves to the White House gates to protest Don't Ask Don't Tell -- announced that they've begun a hunger strike because the actions this week don't end the anti-les-bi-gay policy fast enough. Choi, a West Point graduate, fluent Arabic linguist and Iraq War veteran outlined their three demands to Newsweek magazine. "Stop firing people," he said. "Stop the study that insults everything America is by considering the question of whether or not discrimination is America. And replace the current military discriminatory policy with comprehensive non-discrimination policies."

Monday,
Marcia noted, "Again, I support Dan Choi. I like him. He's a real leader. But I wish he wasn't on the hunger strike. I just don't see this ending well. I hope I am wrong." This community supported the hunger strike staged by CODEPINK in the summer of 2006. But some of us took it seriously. Others, who swore they'd stay on it until the Iraq War was over didn't. (I am not referring to Diane Wilson or Cindy Sheehan who took the hunger strike very seriously.) Hunger strikes have a long political history but when that one ended, Ava and I made it clear that we would never endorse a hunger strike again and that we were surprised and caught off guard by that one. (The US has enough eating disorders without further equating strength with starvation through political action.) We're noting Dan's hunger strike now. What does that mean?

Jessic Green (Pink News) reports it has thankfully ended and that he and James Pietrangelo "abandoned the protest yesterday evening after supporters voiced fears for their health. Unfortunately, Dan has "hinted" it may come up again. It is a political action but we won't support it. I'm sorry I've spoken to too many groups over the years about body issues and eating disorders. It used to just be young girls and young women. Then it became more and more boys and young men. Some of the males -- not all - are gay. I just cannot personally support a hunger strike again. We'll continue to note Dan, he's a wonderful leader but this is a longterm issue (eating disorders) that many people struggle with and I am very uncomfortable sending any sort of message that we show strength or garner attention by starving ourselves. That's me. Others can do what they want, especially if they're adults. (But I am very glad Dan and Jim are off their hunger strike and think it would be great if they would stay off but they're going to do what they think is best and more power to them on that.) And to be very clear (because as usual Lez Get Real is yet again attacking Dan -- we're not linking to that site ever again), I am sure the strike was powerful and sparked many thoughts, I just personally do not support hunger strikes (for reasons outlined above). Overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell will require a variety of actions and each person should pursue the ones they can tolerate (go beyond comfort zone). Rev. Irene Monroe has long covered issues of equality and she breaks down the basics on where things really stand for San Fransico Bay Times:

But at the end of the day of all this historic voting, last week, the plight of our LGBTQ service members remained unchanged. Investigations and discharges for being an openly LGBTQ service member will continue on as usual. Why? Because the Pentagon has not completed its study, reviewing how to maintain the military's "unit cohesion" while integrating LGBTQ service members. December 1 is the day the country will know the results of the Pentagon study. We will also know if the welcoming mat will truly begin to unfold for our LGBTQ service members.

That's the reality. For fantasy, see
this ridiculous editorial in the Vacaville Reporter. Nothing is "virtually assure[d]." Nothing except a year long study will take place. A study? Has anyone ever done a study? You start out with one set of beliefs, that doesn't mean you end with them. The study is supposed to find out what the military rank and file feel about the issue and about how to best implement a change. The study could very well argue that the best way to implement a change has yet to arrive and that the policy (discrimination) should continue. USA Today offers a much more reality-based editorial here. Sean Kennedy (New York Magazine) notes that the bill doesn't include an anti-discrimination measure (would it be covered by Bill Clinton's executive order -- possibly unless a future president issues an executive order nullifying Clinton's). Today Ryan Grim (Huffington Post) outlines some of the craven deal making that led to the nothing yet to brag about moves by Dems and informs that one-time KKK cover boy Senator Robert Byrd insisted that there be sixty days after the review is released before any repeal can take place. So in other words, you can attempt to legally buy a gun and submit to a background check quicker than Byrd would have people come out. You can get your hands on a gun quicker than you can be open about who you are? Some old men in the Congress really need to retire and Robert Byrd is one of them. In fact, maybe we need to pass amendments wherein death in office might result in state's seeking compensation from the Congress member's estate for the costs of special elections?

Adm Mike Mullen is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he spoke at Fort Bragg yesterday.
Martha Quillin (Raleigh News & Observer via Miami Herald) reports, "Openly gay recruits will likely be admitted into the military, and the services will adjust to their presence, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a group of soldiers at Fort Bragg on Wednesday." The military's Sgt 1st Class Michael J. Carden quotes Mullen stating, "The law needs to change. Fundamentally, it's an issue of our values. It's very critical for us as an institution, and I'm hard-pressed not to support policy and a law that forces individuals to come in and lie everyday." At Iraq Veterans Against the War, Wes Davey offers a look back at the policy and he's incorrect when he writes of Bill Clinton, "Members of Congress from both sides of the political aisle did everything but pour boiling oil over him, and in the end he settled for a compromise that did absolutely nothing for gays and lesbians serving in the military." If it did nothing, Bill's actions wouldn't have outraged anyone. The "Don't Ask" aspect was never seriously implemented (and court cases should have resulted from that) by the military. But to say it did nothing is to rewrite history. George H.W. Bush was against gays serving in the military and so was Ronald Reagan (decorating his house and dining with him or comforting them over the loss of longterm partner were apparently different for Reagan) and you can go back further on that. But the policy was that the witch hunts were taking place. Don't Ask, Don't Tell revolved around the premise that your sexuality was your business.

Today we can rightly see it didn't go far enough (something Bill himself admitted and listed as a regret in his final presidential interview with Rolling Stone). But with the climate at that time, this was a huge step. It went from "You're sick and disgusting!" to "You have no right to stick your nose into my sexuality." When the policy is repealed (which may or may not be in December), it'll be a futher step forward. But it's wrong to say that it did nothing ("absolutely nothing"). It also helped establish new boundaries (ones of respect) for a national dialogue that's been taking place since 1993 on this issue. Bill took a hit on it, he didn't walk away from it. He pushed it as far as he could at that time. I personally wish he would have brought back it up but I'm also aware that gas bags like Michael Tomasky were already sharpening their knives on gay rights and that the balance in Congress was shifting away from Democrats (whom Wes Davey rightly notes did not all agree that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly). And to clarify, Michael Tomasky (and Toad Gitlin and other left, White, male, presumably straight gas bags) led an attack on LGBT rights (and on feminism and Latinos and all subgroupings except African-Americans -- they were too scared to attack the Civil Rights Movement but not to say it's work was "done") following the Don't Ask, Don't Tell passage. That's not noted in any of the histories. These screaming mimis hissing "identity politics" and attacking those attempting to work towards equality had quite the platform and very few people confronted them directly (Ellen Willis, as always, didn't run scared from the crazies and did reject their nonsense). History is the tale of progression. Before 1993 (immediately before), the military's policy was that any gay male or lesbian wasn't fit to serve. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a step away from that. And the attacks on this step did not come solely from the right-wing, centrists and supposed leftists attacked the policy as going too far, as distracting from 'real issues' and much more. That's the real history and it goes beyond what Congress did and what Bill did and what a few others did. This was a national dialogue and there were many, many players. (And the Tomaskys big fears were that the Democratic Party -- by embracing equality -- was running off White male voters and would never win an election that way.)

How does this relate to Iraq? Well the LGBT community is persecuted. You have LGBTs in the US military and they are Iraq War veterans. So you can justify it that way if you need a reason for why it's in the Iraq snapshot and in it at such length. But this is a really important issue (and I'm glad Wes Davey and IVAW weighed in -- I've only picked apart one sentence of Davey's and that just because I do not care for the revisionary history that's set in on that time period and is now being taught to other people -- such as Davey -- as fact) and there are a lot of people (including Tomasky) who are starting to whisper that Democrats need to move away from it now as election season creeps up on the country. So we'll probably go into this issue in this much length many more times this year.

Moving on to . . . Turkey.
KRG President Masoud Barzani is in Turkey on a five-day visit, his first since 2004 and his first since becoming president of the KRG which notes, "President Barzani, who is heading a senior KRG delegation in this visit, will discuss with the Turkish leadership several issues of mutual concern including bilateral trade relations between Turkey and the Kurdistan Region, border security and Iraq-Turkey relations." AFP adds, "The separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has fought Ankara since 1984, has bases in remote mountains in Barzani's autonomous region in northern Iraq, which it uses as a launching pad for attacks on Turkish targets across the border." AP reports that Barzani met today with Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's Foreign Minister, and the PKK was one of the topics the two discussed. Today's Zaman adds:"Turkey wants all regional relations and the historical course in its region to normalize," Davutoglu told a joint press conference with Massoud Barzani, head of the regional administration in the north of Iraq, in Ankara.Davuto─člu said, "of course, we will respect our borders, and implement all factors that are the requirements of international law, but we will know that we can build our common future with all the sister nations."

Meanwhile a not unexpected announcement was made today.
Shamal Arqawi (Reuters) reports that the cease fire the PKK had with Turkey is now off according to "PKK spokesman Ahmed Danees [. . .] in Kurdistan." Not unexpected? Over the weekend PKK leader (one of them) Abdullah Ocalan, in prison in Turkey since 1999, stated he was no longer engaging in any dialoge with the government of Turkey. That announcement laid the groundwork for the PKK in the KRG's announcement today.

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The winner was Iraqiya with 91 seats in the new Parliament, followed by State Of Law with 89. To rule, the a power-sharing coalition -- there are 325 seats in Parliament -- must be built and must number at least 163 MPs. Nouri al-Maliki heads State Of Law and wants to continue as Prime Minister of Iraq. He has formed an alliance with the Iraqi National Alliance (which puts him 4 seats short of the needed 163).
Alsumaria TV reports that there are rumors -- which State Of Law is denying -- "that talks between State of Law and Iraqi National Alliance have failed." The current discussion have been over how to select candidates for prime minister. While the Iraqi National Alliance does not say they have split, they do say that "negotiations are not progressing." The United Nations notes, "The Security Council today welcomed the certification of the results of Iraq's parliamentary elections, three months after the polls were staged, and urged the country's political leaders to re-double their efforts to form an inclusive and broad-based government.The 15-member panel calls on 'all political entities to respect the certified election results and the choices of the Iraqi people,' according to a statement to the press read out by Ambassador Claude Heller of Mexico, which holds the Council's rotating presidency this month." The US military issued the following yesterday:

The Commander of U.S. Forces-Iraq, General Ray Odierno, congratulated the people of Iraq and the Iraqi Supreme Court after the high court announced the certification of the March 7th election results. When Iraqis voted in large numbers at the polls on March 7th, they demonstrated their desire to build a brighter future with a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq. The elections were viewed by the Iraqi people, Iraq's regional neighbors, and the international community as credible and legitimate, and today's certification of the results formally affirms this fact. The leaders of Iraq continue to demonstrate that they support a transparent political process for all Iraqis carried out in accordance with the Iraqi constitution and the rule of law. The Iraqi people strongly support a participatory form of government that holds elected officials accountable for their actions and benefits all Iraqis. They reject the bankrupt philosophy of violent extremists. It is time for all parties involved with the political process to form an inclusive and representative government that will work together toward Iraq's future. We look forward to the seating of the Iraqi government and the opportunity to strengthen the long-term strategic partnership between the sovereign nation of Iraq and the United States of America.


Voting has not resulted in a new government and Nouri's cabinet really didn't do anything to improve Iraqi lives. An
Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy notes that the ration program has again been cut: "The Iraqi ministry of trade decreased the number of food substances provides by the card. Now, Iraqi families are given only flour and oil because for many months, the ministry which is renowned for corruption failed in providing the other basic needs like sugar, rice and many other things. In fact, the ministry canceled all other staples formerly included in the monthly rations like tea, cleaning substances, legumes and other things. Moreover, the ministry decided to deprive those whose monthly income is more than two million Iraqi Dinars ( about $ 1700) from their share of the rations because their high income."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Reuters notes a Sinjar car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left twelve people injured in an area "mostly inhabited by Yazidis," a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four police officers, a Mosul cart bombing which injured three people, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one police officer, a Baghdad bombing (targeting a train) which injured fourteen people, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four people (and apparently targeting "a deputy agriculture minister") and a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured one person.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul.

Meanwhile in England,
Owen Bowcott (Guardian) reports on what would be England's second known deportation of Iraqis -- forcible deportation. The last one, you may remember, resulted in a British plane landing in Iraq and Iraqi guards refusing to allow everyone to disembark so the plane returned to England. Bowcott notes that approximately 70 Iraqis will be forcibly deported Wednesday, June 9th: "The operation, deporting them via the central provinces of Iraq, is in direct contravention of United Nations guidelines. The UN high commissioner for refugees opposes forced returns to the area because of continuing suicide bombings and violence. The UN guidance was explicitly restated last autumn after the UK attempted to deport 44 men to Baghdad. That abortive operation resulted in Iraqi airport officials refusing to admit all but 10 of the men. The rest were told to reboard the plane and flown back to the UK."

We'll close with this from Tina Susman and Nicole Santa Cruz' "
New Orleans: Protesters Rage at BP" (World Can't Wait):Despite pelting rain and occasional blasts of thunder, some 200 people gathered in New Orleans' French Quarter on Sunday to hear speakers demand the ouster of BP and other oil giants from the gulf region and to plead for volunteerism to save turtles, birds and other wildlife. Organized by locals in the last week, the rally was publicized through social networking sites, including Twitter and a Facebook group, BP Oil Flood Protest. Homemade signs waved by the boisterous crowd spoke to the anger: [. . .] "BP oil pigs" and "Kill the well now." And one sign, "BP sleeps with MMS" spoke to what President Obama has called a "cozy" relationship between oil companies and federal regulators at the Minerals Management Service. Many speakers, including the president of the United Commercial Fishermen's Assn. and an environmental studies professor from Loyola University in New Orleans, assailed what they saw as the inadequacy of BP's response to the spill. More people took the stage after showing up and asking to have their say. "I'm a little upset that the perpetrators of a crime that killed 11 people are still in charge of the crime site," said musician Dr. John, an impromptu speaker, referring to the crew members who died after an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig April 20.

iraqwavythe virginian-pilotbill sizemorekvaltulsa worldtim stanley
the raleigh news and observermartha quillin
reutersalistair lyontodays zaman
the guardian
the world cant waittina susmannicole santa cruz