Friday, November 21, 2014

Idiot of the week: James Coogan grand liar

I'm calling it early.

I expect better from WSWS.

James Coogan lies in print and the WSWS let's him get away with it.


We could address the issue of consent -- I stick my cock inside you while you're asleep, you haven't consented to s**t.

If James Coogan doesn't understand that, he's not just an idiot, he's brain dead.

But the lying whore also types this:


Assange left Sweden in November 2010 for Britain, to direct the publication of thousands of secret US diplomatic cables that revealed sordid intrigues and conspiracies organised from American embassies.
Prosecutor Ny, after informing Assange’s lawyers that he was free to leave, issued a European Arrest Warrant against him and demanded his extradition. From the time he was arrested in Britain until June 2012, Assange lived under effective house arrest while he fought legal cases through the courts to prevent being returned to Sweden.


Liar Coogan, there weren't "lawyers."  At that point, there was only one.

And Julian's lawyer was told, before Julian left, that Julian needed to be questioned and shouldn't leave.

The attorney lied in public repeatedly and got called in a London hearing when he was forced to admit he did lie.

That was over three years ago and Coogan's still lying.

We were just covering the attorney being exposed as a liar Monday in "John Pilger's a DAMN liar."


  Again, here's C.I.  on February 24, 2011:




Not only did they struggle with facts in their paperwork, they struggled it with facts in their presentation. And they got caught lying.  Repeatedly. Bjorn Hurtig has been Julian Assange's attorney for some time and fed the press repeated claims.  Any smart person would have realized that Hurtig, a defense attorney, can say anything to the press and it doesn't have to be true.  Instead, too many put faith in the claims Hurtig has been making since December.  Hurtig bumped up against a judge that wasn't pleased with being lied to.
 
Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle's ruling can be read [PDF format warning] here in full.  The big witnesses were Assange's attorney Hurtig and former judge Brita Sunderg-Weitman. The former judge didn't impress Riddle.  After listing the many things Sunderg-Weitman claimed, Riddle notes, "In cross-examination the witness told me she is not an expert in Mutual Legal Assitance.  She confirmed she had no direct personal knowledge of what happened in this investigation before Mr Assange left Sweden. Her evidence is based upon the facts supplied to her by the defence lawyers. [In her proof she said Ms Ny had made no effort to interview him before he left with her permission and knowledge on 27th September.]  She confirmed that if the defence lawyer had told the prosecutor that he was unable to contact the defendant for interview, then the position would be different."  The judge is referring to the fact that before Assange left Sweden, attempts were made to question him.  His attorneys have lied about that repeatedly to the press leading idiots like Naomi Wolf to insist that if Sweden was serious, they would have questioned him before he left the country.  As the court learned (and as Assange's attorney confessed), there was an attempt to question Assange.  Their chief expert offered testimony that she was not qualified to offer.  They brought an expert to the witness stand to give hearsay evidence.  No, that doesn't impress. Check out the following sentence fragments:
 
*Overall the witness appeared unclear . . .
 
*At first she appeared to avoid the question . . .
 
* Again she had difficulty directly answering the question.
 
These are just the first set.  The witness did not impress the judge for obvious reasons.  He was bothered by the fact that she didn't know the facts independently and that she relied (unquestioningly) on the defense to feed her information.  This was also an issue with witness Sven-Eric Alhem but the judge noted that, in his written evidence, Alhem had made it clear that he got his information from the defense.
 
Then there's the part of the judgment recounting when Hurtig had to admit that there was an effort to interview Assange and he'd been contacted September 22nd about it and agreed to it.  After agreeing to that what happened?  From the judgment:
 
In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message.  It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention.  He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent.
 
It only gets worse.  The judge notes, "Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Nye had made no effort to his client.  He denied saying that and said he has never met her."  Right there, you've got a huge problem.  Their star witness has her facts wrong and states she got them from Hurtig.  Hurtig, after being forced to admit the truth, then denies he ever spoke to the star witness.  It gets worse. Confronted with what he wrote down and submitted to the court, Hurtig has to admit "that is wrong.  He had forgotten [. . .] They must have slipped his mind." Slipped his mind?  The judge didn't buy that claim.
 
Riddle continues, "He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible."  The judge then notes that the witness asserted he had a flight to catch, "The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave."
 
As bad as that is-- and it's bad -- we're not even to the basic findings Judge Riddel offers -- 19 points on pages nine and ten.  We'll emphasize two.  First, here he is on Julian Assange's attorney Hurtig (the one Ray McGovern and Naomi Wolf have relied on when attacking the women who may have been raped):
 
10. Mr Hurtig [is] an unreliable witness as to what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September (see transcript pages 122-132). He has no record of those attempts.  They were by mobile phone, but he has no record. He cannot recall whether he sent texts or simply left answer-phone messages.
 
And point 15 goes along with that:
 
15. Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Nye made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue.  He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97).  However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant.  It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he sbumitted it.  I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake.  It cannot have slipped his mind.  For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter.  The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.  It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sunderberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem. Had they been given the true facts then they would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
 
When your attorney is ruled "an unreliable witness," you and your case have problems.  Now Assange had a respectable lawyer but he wouldn't play the game Hurtig will and that's why Julian Assange dropped him.  Now he's got a lawyer who lied repeatedly to the press and who the jugde caught in one lie after another.


 James Coogan is an idiot and so is WSWS for printing his falsehoods.

These are not 'new' details.  These emerged in court over three years ago.



Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


 
Thursday, November 20, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the Kurdish government is too eager to please the US government, VA officials attended a Senate hearing on veteran suicides without even bothering to brush up on basic figures (figures they should already know to perform their jobs), and much more.


AFP notes, "A suicide bomber driving a car packed with explosives blew himself up in the capital of Iraq’s Kurdistan region on Wednesday, killing at least five people in the first big attack there in more than a year."

While Baghdad, the capital of central Iraq, and surrounding areas have been plagued with violence, the same has not been true of northern Iraq and the provinces making up the semi-autonomous Kurdish Regional Governments and especially not true of the city of Erbil.

The attack in the KRG capital on Wednesday should have caused some soul searching on the part of the government.


The Peshmerga are an elite Kurdish fighting force that's done a strong job protecting the KRG.

The attack yesterday should make the KRG re-evaluate the decision to send the KRG here, there, everywhere outside the KRG.

The attack should have the KRG questioning the decision to send the Peshmerga to Kobani.

Not only is that not a city bordering the KRG, it's not even in Iraq.

Why is the Peshmerga being deployed to Syria, to an area bordering Turkey?

This started at the beginning of the month.

The Peshmerga should be used to protect the KRG and any areas that immediately border the KRG.

Kobani is a Syrian border town -- it borders Turkey.  It's not even remotely near a Kurdish border.

Seems the Kurdish government's a little too eager to assist the US -- so much so that it's leaving their own region in danger.

Maybe it's the hope that, yet again, if they just try a little harder, the US will be a loyal partner?

That pathetic need has never accomplished anything for the Kurds.

And this week, they've been slamming the US government for not supplying them with weapons.

Press TV reports:

Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has blamed the West for failing to meet its promises about arming Kurdish fighters with sophisticated weaponry, Press TV reports.
KRG Masoud Barzani President criticized the West and the US-led coalition fighting the Takfiri ISIL group for not providing Kurdish Peshmerga forces with heavy weapons to help them counter the ISIL.


There has been an effort from some member of the US Congress to send arms to the Kurds.  Julian Pecquet (Al-Monitor) reports:


Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., and ranking member Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., introduced temporary legislation to arm the Peshmerga forces in their fight against the Islamic State (IS). Doing so would mark a reversal of current US policy, which has sought to reinforce the central government in a bid to stop the country from splintering along ethnic and sectarian lines.
"We thought a long time ago that our appeals to Baghdad to do the right thing would be heard and [former Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki's government turned a deaf ear month after month. We've reached the point where we have allies to our cause of defeating [IS] fighting in the field, without adequate equipment, and we are determined to see that they obtain it," Royce told Al-Monitor. "We want the weapons in the hands of the Peshmerga that are on the front line, now."
The bill comes in the wake of an international public relations push by the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). Top Kurdish officials — including Minister Falah Mustafa Bakir, Head of the Department of Foreign Relations, and presidential Chief of Staff Fuad Hussein — were in Washington this week handing out a list of demands to lawmakers and administration officials, while President Massoud Barzani berated western powers for not providing his forces enough weapons during an interview on French television Nov. 19.

 

They've gotten no weapons from the US.  All Iraq News notes the US government did issue a statement condemning the bombing, as did the United Nations and the United Kingdom.

None of those statements will provide protection to the KRG.

And there was one more important statement issued.

India TV reports the Islamic State issued a statement claiming credit for the bombing in Erbil -- claiming credit for the bombing All Iraq News notes is the worst Erbil's seen "since September 29, 2013." Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) adds, "The city has remained largely untouched by Iraq’s violence, even after the Islamic State seized nearby Mosul in June and pushed the front lines to within about 30 miles. Kurdish security officials, however, have feared a campaign of terror, noting that hundreds of thousands of refugees have pressed into Kurdish areas from regions now dominated by the Islamic State."


The issue of arming the Kurds was raised in today's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke:


QUESTION: Okay. Last night, I ran into the chief of staff of the Kurdistan president’s – Barzani, he’s the chief of staff of Barzani. And he talks about perhaps 100,000 – upward of 100,000 ISIL members in Iraq and Syria. Do you have any comment on that?


MR. RATHKE: I don’t have any update on numbers that --


QUESTION: Okay.


MR. RATHKE: We’ve spoken to numbers in the past --


QUESTION: Right.


MR. RATHKE: -- and the general estimates, but I don’t have an updated number to share.


QUESTION: Do you think these kind of figures that are staggering, I mean, would they, let’s say, influence U.S. policy in terms of having boots on the ground or having forces on the ground, at least in Iraq or in the near future?


MR. RATHKE: Well, again, I’m not going to comment on that particular number. I’m just not familiar with it. And I think also, the President and the entire Administration have been quite clear about our policy with respect to troops in combat roles.


QUESTION: Okay. I mean – okay. In view of the additions that took place last week – we’re talking about maybe an additional 1,500 whatever, advisors, military advisors and so on, and perhaps a discussion, as was done with General Dempsey last week, there is an indication that these forces might be involved in combat. Is there a likelihood that these forces might be involved in combat, if not directly, in an advisory kind of capacity?


MR. RATHKE: Again, I think the President has spoken to this quite clearly in just recent days. I don’t have anything to add to his words. There’s – we do not envision U.S. forces in combat roles.


QUESTION: Now, also, there are reports that the Iraqi forces, with American advisors, are getting ready to recapture Heet. It’s a town, a township called Heet or a city that’s called Heet. Do you have any comment on that?


MR. RATHKE: I don’t have a specific comment on that particular location. I did comment at the start about the success of Iraqi forces in breaking the siege at Baiji refinery, but I don’t have operational comments on every particular location.
Anything staying – wait, staying with Iraq?


QUESTION: Yeah.


MR. RATHKE: Okay. Go ahead.


QUESTION: Chairman Royce today introduced legislation that would provide the President with authority to give arms directly to the Kurds. Do you have any comment or reaction on that?


MR. RATHKE: I’m not familiar with the legislation that you have referred to, so I don’t want to comment on that. But we have spoken on several occasions about the matter of arms for Kurdish security forces and overall to the Iraqi Security Forces. Our position on that hasn’t changed. We continue to be supporters of Iraq’s Security Forces, of the Kurdish security forces as well.
And it’s our understanding that there was some discussion yesterday, which you may recall, about whether there were delays in shipments. I’d just like to point out, to kind of close that loop from yesterday, that the Government of Iraq has cleared and inspected incoming aircraft carrying weapons deliveries, but we are not aware that it has constrained or delayed the emergency supply of weapons to the Kurdistan Regional Government. That was a point made or a question raised yesterday.
And as well, the Government of Iraq itself has delivered over 300 tons of supplies in Iraqi air force aircraft to the KRG. We are committed to helping the Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish security forces. Also, many of our coalition partners have been very supportive of Iraqi Kurdish forces. So we plan to continue that kind of support going forward.

QUESTION: Okay. So I guess the question is: Are you happy with the way things are currently going, with the current state of affairs, and thus do you not see any need for a change, any need for what’s contained in this legislation as a general proposition?


MR. RATHKE: Well, it remains the U.S. Government policy that all arms transfers should be coordinated through the sovereign, central Government of Iraq. We have no plans that I’m aware of to change that.


QUESTION: Yeah, but the legislation calls for direct supplies to the Kurds without the --


MR. RATHKE: I understand that question, but again, I’m not familiar with that legislation, so I don’t want to comment on it. But I simply want to indicate that our policy remains the same. Now, are we happy with the overall situation in Iraq? Of course not. That’s why we are leading a global coalition to disrupt and defeat ISIL. But that’s – we are very supportive of Iraqi and Kurdish security forces in that effort.
So  that was -- Uh, wait.  What was that about Heet?
QUESTION: Now, also, there are reports that the Iraqi forces, with American advisors, are getting ready to recapture Heet. It’s a town, a township called Heet or a city that’s called Heet. Do you have any comment on that?


MR. RATHKE: I don’t have a specific comment on that particular location. I did comment at the start about the success of Iraqi forces in breaking the siege at Baiji refinery, but I don’t have operational comments on every particular location.
Anything staying – wait, staying with Iraq?
Earlier today Iraqi Spring MC shared this on Tweet:







: اغتنام نحو (15) عجلة نوع همر تركتها القوات الحكومية بعد هروبها من معارك منطقة الدولاب في قضاء هيت .
0 replies32 retweets20 favorites





That's the Islamic State taking over the vehicles of Iraqi forces -- after Iraqi forces fled Heet to avoid combat with the Islamic State.  They fled, leaving behind 15 Hummers.



So much for the US government's propaganda effort -- amplified by the US press -- insisting the Islamic State is on the run.

As that propaganda effort falls apart, Johnlee Varghese (IBT) reports:

The US-led coalition against the ISIS seems to be crumbling as there have been reports on social media that several "Saudi pilots" have allegedly refused to fly missions to bomb ISIS targets.
The report, which was confirmed by an Iraqi journalist and political analyst, is bound to have severe repercussions not only on the coalition, but it may also spread the seeds of rebellion among other branches of the Saudi armed forces.


Violence continued throughout Iraq today.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports, "At least 142 people were killed across Iraq, and another six were wounded. Almost all the casualties belonged to militants; however, there is a report that several children died from exposure after being forced to flee their homes in Anbar province."


Let's move over to the US Congress.  David Swanson Tweets:











  • In other news, Katherine Skiba (Chicago Tribune) reports US House Rep Tammy Duckworth gave birth this week to a baby girl Abigail O'kalani Bowlsbey.  Duckworth was in the news last week and this week because House Democrats voted on various leadership positions this week and Tammy had requested to vote by proxy because she was unable to fly to DC per doctor's orders.

    That didn't matter for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who led the "no" against Tammy's request.  Tammy Duckworth is also an Iraq War veteran who lost both legs while serving in Iraq.  That didn't matter to Nancy either.

    Craven liar and plastic surgery victim Nancy Pelosi went on to Tweet this crap:





    No, the picture doesn't reflect the nation's diversity.


    Our nation has many returning veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- where are they in the photo?

    They're not there.

    And this week, the liar Nancy used weasel nonsense to weasel out of supporting veterans.


    US House Rep Tim Walz was running to be Ranking Member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

    He had the support of veterans groups and he himself had over 20 years in the Army National Guard.

    He was clearly qualified.

    Nancy Pelosi's pet US House Rep Corrine Brown is clearly not qualified.

    To ensure that the deeply ignorant Brown get the post, Nancy and her cronies insisted Tim Walz did not serve on the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

    Huh?

    Well, he had a waiver.  You can only serve on two Committees.  Tim served on the House Veterans Affairs Committee under a waiver.


    Because he served under a waiver, Nance and her goons argued, Tim didn't serve.

    No, that's not how it's supposed to work.

    But that is how whorish and crooked and unethical Nancy Pelosi is.

    She Tweeted the following earlier this month:




    As she proved by spitting on Tammy Duckwork and Tim Walz and on the publicly expressed wishes of veterans groups, her so-called claims to "salute" those who served are nothing but more lies from Nancy's mouth.

    She's an embarrassment to the country and she's lethal to the Democratic Party.

    Her disrespect of veterans will not be forgotten but will be her legacy, what the elderly woman will be remembered for.


    The House Veterans Affairs Committee needs real leadership.

    The VA has had one scandal after another in the last six years.

    When Corrine Brown managed to haul herself to a HVAC hearing, she didn't serve veterans.  She made excuses for the VA, she offered non-stop praise for the VA, she went out of her way to blame the VA's problems and scandals on veterans.

    And now this idiot -- thanks to Nancy Pelosi -- is a vote away from being the Democratic leader on the House Veterans Affairs Committee.


    If you don't get what liars the VA officials are, let's drop back to yesterday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.

    The first panel was the VA's Dr. Harold Kudler (Chief Consultant for Mental Health Service), Dr. Caitlin Thompson (Deputy Director, Suicide Prevention) and Dr. Dean Krahn (Deputy Director in the Office of Mental Health Operations).

    The topic was veterans suicides.

    This topic wasn't a surprise.

    This wasn't the Senate's attempt to spring a pop quiz on the VA.

    The topic was announced.

    The witnesses knew what it was.

    They offered written statements ahead of the hearing.

    Remember that as we go through this exchange.



    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  I want to pursue the line of questioning that Senator Johans began because I think it is absolutely critical. I've held meetings around my state with veterans. Some of them have occurred at what are called oasis which are basically college and school based centers. They're not medical, they're just meeting rooms.  They are literally a room where veterans can come together and call that place their own.  And they put up their posters, they have a coffee machine, they have doughnuts and they just come together "without medication" -- in quotes.  I met with a group just a week or so ago and they talked to me about -- in very graphic, moving terms -- about what it meant just to be with each other.  So I know that peer support specialists are part of this program.  With all due respect to the peer support specialist, I would respectfully suggest that this kind of resource may not always require a trained specialist but may just require a veteran -- and I have in mind the kind of veteran who got involved in part because I reached out to him at the suggestion of another veteran -- just made a call to him out of the blue.  And he came to one of these meetings.  So I don't think it involves necessarily a doctor, a nurse, a medical person but just a veteran who is empowered and enabled to perform this function.  So I don't want to use too much of my time with a statement about the importance of this topic but I would like to know -- and maybe you could provide this in writing -- specifically what the current peer support program embodies and how it could be expanded to fund meeting rooms on state campuses -- state schools which already which already should be a part of this program, private colleges and universities.  But then beyond the college or school setting, in communities, how that outreach function could be expanded and I -- I know this is a topic you are thinking about so I would appreciate your expanding on the testimony that you've given already.  I do want to ask you about your testimony because I do think that there are some very important questions about the age group that you don't cover.  We're talking about middle aged veterans which, as I understand it, are the 35 to 64-year-old group?  And in that group, rates of suicide have come down by 16% for those adults who use VHS services.  In the population as a whole, the rates have remained stable.  Correct?

    Dr. Dean Krahn:  [witness off mike]

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  Well they've gone up for the -- Exactly, they've gone up from 35.5 to 37.5 percent. Right?  So the rates are coming down for middle aged adults who use VA services.  Rates have gone up a little bit for the overall group.  But they seem fairly stable -- 35 to 37%

    Dr. Dean Krahn:  Uh -- authenticate the time with numbers -- uh, yeah, go ahead.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:   Well here's where I'm going, what that says to me is that among other age groups, suicide rates have risen dramatically for veterans who use your services. 

    Dr. Dean Krahn:  Yes.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  Not just women but men.

    Dr. Dean Krahn:  Yes.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  Can you tell me how much they've risen, for example, for -- and this is, so far as I can see, no where in your testimony for the age group 18 to 25 for 20 to 29, for the younger population of veterans because after all most of the veterans who are leaving the service right now are in that younger age group, right?  So what's the rate there 

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  Yeah, we are -- we are extremely concerned about this population --

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  Yes, I know you're concerned but --
    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  I don't have the actual -- I believe it's up to 70 -- uh -- and this is, uh, over time.  The rates -- uh . . . I'd have to find the exact number.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  I think that is a -- I think that is the elephant in the room.


    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:   Is . . what's . . .

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  The elephant in this room.   That younger group.  You're giving us middle aged veterans 

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  No --

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  -- who use your services .

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  We do -- I mean, we certainly do acknowledge that that rate is increasing and so what-what are we doing about this?  We need to provide and we are providing very, very specific outreach to those youngest veterans that --

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  Well we're talking about more than just outreach with all due respect.  We're talking about -- and this is the really critical point here -- we're talking about a group here that uses your services.

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  Absolutely.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  We've reached out to them.

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  Yep.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  They're in your doors, they're using your services -- 

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson: Yep.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  And they're committing suicide at a higher rate.

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  Yes.  So we're -- Yes.  We're trying to understand why is this?  We are -- We are at a loss as much -- as much as a lot of people are.  We --



    Senator Richard Blumenthal: This is -- with all of the publicity surrounding wait time, people dying -- are they dying because of the wait time, are they not?  People are dying at a higher rate --

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  Yes.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  -- who use your services.


    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  Yes.  Yes, in this youngest age group.  Aboslutely.  We are very, very focused on this.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  I don't know what more to say because my time has expired.  I apologize Mr. Chairman --

    Dr. Caitlin Thompson:  We hear you.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal:  -- but,--  okay, thank you. 



    They came to talk about suicides but they didn't have the basic figures?

    I don't believe "we hear you" from the VA.

    Not when the officials can't -- or more likely won't -- provide answers to basic questions like the suicide rate for young veterans.

    This was such a basic detail that if the VA officials really didn't have that figure handy at the hearing, that may be an even more damning example of how unprepared the VA is and how little thought and effort they put into addressing issues.

    Her job, Caitlin Thompson's job, is to know that figure.

    Forget that she should have prepared for the hearing by having that and other figures handy.

    Doing her day-to-day job requires her to know that figure.  Her failure to do so goes to her failure at the job.

    Senator Blumenthal questioned the VA.

    Corrine Brown only compliments and sees her role as to excuse its actions and blame VA problems on veterans.

























    Thursday, November 20, 2014

    Stalker

    The main story of Stalker on CBS tonight was about a man who left the KKK and tried to start a family.

    His stalker wasn't in love with him.

    His stalker was a man who'd been recruited and who saw the man as a father figure.

    It was an interesting episode.

    In terms of the long running elements, Dylan McDermott's ex has decided (at least for now) not to make trouble for him.

    That may change since his son heard his mother telling her boyfriend that, yes, Dylan was the kid's father.

    Maggie Q's character?

    I'm more excited about next week's episode.

    At the very end she finally began to realize that someone has been in her house.

    And next week is all about her trying to figure out who's stalking her.

    I can't wait for that episode.


    Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Men of NBC" went up Sunday.





    We all forgot to note that.  :(


    Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

     
    Wednesday, November 19, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the US Democratic Party in the House yet again spits on a veteran, despite objections from veterans groups Nancy Pelosi moves to make Corrine Brown Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee, this is how The Nancy Pelosi story begins its final chapter, as it does she's called out by Jon Stewart,  US senators explore the suicide rate among veterans, and much more.




    Senator Bernie Sanders declared this morning, ". . . it's a very difficult hearing because what we are going to be touching on today is what happens to the men and women who come home from war, who have served us with great courage and what happens to them when they return to civilian life."

    He is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and they were talking about issues like military suicide.

    But let's use Sanders' words as a starting point -- and let's note that Senate Democrats actually do work to improve the lives of veterans.  The same cannot be said for the Democratic leadership in the House.

    How bad are things there?

    Last week, US House Rep Nancy Pelosi was in the news for denying US House Rep Tammy Duckworth the right to vote by proxy on party positions in the House:



    Tammy Duckworth is not only a member of Congress, she's also a veteran of the Iraq War.  Nancy Pelosi chose to 'honor' veterans this week by announcing that a veteran who lost both legs in combat would not be allowed to vote by proxy on the issue of who would hold what office -- for example, who would be the next Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
    Duckworth is at home in Illinois.  Why doesn't she just fly to DC?
    CBS News notes Duckworth "was told by doctor that it was unsafe for her to fly at this stage in her pregnancy."



    Last night on Comedy Central Jon Stewart was rightly mocking the disgraceful US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a segment of The Daily Show entitled "Petty Woman" which ended with Jon observing, "And that's how the precedent was set that a woman leader can be every bit as craven as her political male counterparts.  Let me say this, You go, girl.  Seriously, you should go."






    Erik Wemple (Washington Post) explains:

    His takedown of Pelosi’s denial of a pregnant woman’s vote in House Democratic elections proceeds in merciless fashion. Availing himself of Pelosi’s trail of accomplishments over the years, he documented how she has established herself on key issues that bear on the Duckworth situation. For instance: The National Partnership for Women and Families, noted Stewart, celebrated Pelosi’s advocacy for “working women.” Also highlighted by Stewart: Pelosi said at an event for the Voting Rights Act, “The right to vote must be the cornerstone of our democracy.”
    Stewart: “You’re a recognized champion of working women and voting rights.”
    From there, the rip was easy: “You rejected, you’re suppressing the vote of a minority pregnant woman who is a wounded war veteran. She is everything you supposedly stand for stuffed into one individual. She is a Democratic demographic tur-Duckworth,” said the host.

    Jaime Fuller (Washington Post) notes:

    She denied Rep. Tammy Duckworth's request to cast a proxy vote in the Democratic leadership elections. Duckworth was advised by her doctor not to fly to Washington in her eighth month of pregnancy. Duckworth (D-Ill.) also is a double-amputee Iraq War veteran, or, as Stewart put it, a Democratic demographic Turduckworth. The reason for denying the proxy vote? Pelosi said it would set a precedent ... and Duckworth happened to be supporting someone other than Pelosi's chosen candidate for a committee position.


    Poor Nancy, it's week two and it's not going away.

    Even worse for Nance, it's now her.

    This is her to America.

    It's as though she tripped at a party and knocked a table over and now every time she waivers a little when she walks, people will giggle.

    It's the New Nancy.  Somewhere lower on the evolution scale than Billy Carter or Dan Quayle.

    Not a good position to be in when over a third of Democratic members of the House want you gone.

    Not a good position to be in when Dems are gearing up for the 2016 elections and can't afford to have a leader be a laughingstock.

    And now she has an image as a person who trashes veterans.

    Senator Sanders today puzzled about "what happens to the men and women who come home from war, who have served us with great courage and what happens to them when they return to civilian life."

    What does happen to them?

    Last week, Nancy Pelosi made clear that they will not receive fair treatment, that the work environment will not change to meet their medical needs.

    Today, she demonstrated something else:  Their experience means nothing.

    Maybe you know of Senator Patty Murray's work on veterans employment?  The Hire A Hero campaign and other programs she's steered and implemented.

    Murray and others have worked very hard to stress that veterans have important skills they can offer employers.  In the House, US House Rep Gerry Connolly has stressed the skills veterans have and the need for these skills to be translated into the civilian workforce.

    Nancy Pelosi doesn't believe veterans have any skills or insight.

    Which is why she used an arcane rule to force US House Rep Tim Walz out of seeking the Ranking Member post on the House Veterans Affairs Committee in favor of Pelosi pet Corrine Brown.

    Native-born Corrine Brown struggles with the English language, attacks veterans in hearings (when she shows up for the Veterans Affairs Committee hearings), attacks witnesses, attacks the Office of the Inspector General and so much more.

    This is not a new development.

    Dona moderated a "Congress and Veterans" roundtable May 13, 2012 about a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing the previous week that we had covered in the community:

    Kat, Wally, Ava and C.I. attended the hearing.   Kat reported on it with  "Congress Member Gone Wild" and C.I. reported on it with "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot," "Congress is supposed to provide oversight"  and "Iraq snapshot." 


    From the roundtable:

    Dona: Thank you, Kat.  That perfectly set up a point I wanted to get to with Ava.  Kat and C.I. reported on US House Rep. Corrine Brown.  Ava, what was your take?

    Ava: Brown's an embarrassment.  I can't believe the crap she pulled.  She didn't give a damn about the veterans and made excuses for the VA and lied and misled.  She's an embarrassment, I hope to hell her sorry ass is voted out of Congress.

    Dona: She attacked a witness, what was that about?

    Ava: Another reason her sorry ass needs to be pulled out of Congress.  The second panel was people who worked outside of the government including Dr. Nicole Sawyer who is a psychologist.  Corrine Brown wanted to show that her bad wigs weren't the trashiest things about her.  She went off on Dr. Sawyer because Chair Miller asked about the comments Shinskeki made.  Corrine Brown cut off the doctor started screaming her head and acting like a crazy woman when usually she just sounds like an uneducated one.

    Dona: What set her off?

    Ava: The reality was that Shinseki was being critiqued and she wasn't going to have that.  She lied and stated it wasn't fair for the doctor to critique Shinseki.  But, in the first round, when Shinseki was asked about Dr. Sawyer's written remarks, Shinseki offered a critique and Corrine Browne didn't say one damn word.

    Dona:  Wally, your take?

    Wally: The same as Ava's.  I'll pick up where she left off.  So Corrine Brown cuts off the witness who is answering Miller's questions --

    Dona: Brown doesn't even have the floor.  She just barged in while the witness was speaking?

    Wally: Correct.  And then after she has her rant, Jeff Miller, the Chair, sort of gives this look like, "Now that the crazy lady is done . . ."  He goes back to asking Dr. Sawyer a question.  Dr. Sawyer is sort of stunned and she replies to Miller's question, starts to, and tries to explain she wasn't trying to offend anyone when Brown cuts her off again and starts screaming her head off about how Miller needs to tell the witness to address her remarks to the Chair.  And it was just embarrassing.  I'm from Florida, Corrine Brown is the Congressional joke of our state.

    Dona: So, let's --

    Ava: Sorry.  It's not over, Dona.  Miller is attempting to calm down Crazy Corrine.  The hearing's at a complete standstill.  And the crazy woman is insulting Dr. Sawyer, stating she won't listen to Dr. Sawyer because Dr. Sawyer isn't a "doctor."  She calls the woman an "educator."  As an insult.  Miller notes that remark's not going to please educators and Brown doesn't care.  She was just so rude.  If you'd been in that hearing, you would have been shocked that a member of Congress would act the way she did.

    Dona: Okay, thanks for that.  C.I., is this typical Corrine Brown?

    C.I.: Since January 2009, it has been.  She makes excuses for the VA and rushes to excuse Eric Shinseki's many problems.  I remember an October 15, 2009 hearing on the VA's inability to get checks to veterans -- the GI Bill checks -- for the fall semester and how Corrine Brown was offering excuses for the VA in that hearing too.  That's just one example.  She's disgraced herself.  I have no use for her.

    Dona: Kat, closing thoughts?

    Kat: The hearing's not going to accomplish anything, the Committe's not going to, until everyone can agree that the veterans are the most important thing.  Corrine Brown was not serving veterans, she's usually not.  When a Republican is in office, there's the pretense that she's tough and will ask questions to protect the veterans.  But when a Democrat's in office, she reveals she's just a partisan and doesn't give a damn about veterans.



    And that was 2012.  It's only gotten worse.

    The Concerned Veterans of America issued the following open letter today:



    Open Letter to Leader Pelosi Regarding Representative Corrine Brown

    Dear Leader Pelosi,
    I am writing you on behalf of Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) to ask that you reconsider your decision to support Representative Corrine Brown (D-FL) for the position of Ranking Member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee (HVAC). Representative Brown in her public statements has consistently minimized and dismissed the deep cultural and structural problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) despite the overwhelming evidence that the VA is failing in its core mission to deliver health care and benefits to our nation’s veterans in a timely manner. Representative Brown even claimed at one point that there were no problems with the VA in Florida, in spite of the fact that the Gainesville VA Hospital that serves veterans in her district had some of the worst wait times in the nation. Clearly, Representative Brown is detached from the reality of delayed and denied health care that veterans around the country face, including many of those in her own congressional district.
    Despite the recent VA scandal and comprehensive VA reform bill, hundreds of thousands of veterans are still waiting more than a month for healthcare appointments and hundreds of thousands more are waiting over a year for disability benefits. Additionally, the VA has been slow to fire and discipline employees who are found to have engaged in misconduct and has left in place senior leaders who helped create the toxic culture within the VA. It is therefore essential that the House VA Committee has a Ranking Member who is committed to working to reform and fix the VA and not someone like Representative Brown who is an apologist for the status quo.
    CVA highly recommends that the House Democrat leadership considers appointing a reform-minded Democrat to serve as Ranking Member of the House VA Committee. Democrats like Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Rep. David Scott (D-GA), and Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) have all shown a willingness to question the status quo at the VA and support reforms that begin to address the structural and cultural issues within the VA. While CVA does not agree with them on everything, we consider these individuals far better candidates for the position of Ranking Member than Representative Brown and they should be taken into consideration when determining who will serve in leadership positions for the minority on the House VA committee.
    For the health and well-being of our nation’s veterans, it is absolutely essential that Congress continue to hold the VA accountable for its misconduct and failures. Placing strong, reform-minded leaders on the House VA Committee is essential to accomplishing that mission.
    Sincerely,
    Pete Hegseth
    CEO, Concerned Veterans for America
    Army Veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay  

    Concerned Veterans for America is a non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for policies that will preserve the freedom and liberty we and our families so proudly fought and sacrificed to defend.




    Corrine's lousy behavior is known by few (her ethical problems have been covered only slightly better).  She's been helped by the fact that very few reporters attend these hearings and those who do often 'report' using the written statements submitted for the record.  They generally miss Corrine Brown's antics.

    Veterans groups don't have that luxury.

    And they know they can't trust her.

    Which is why a number of them publicly backed Walz.  Jacqueline Klimas (Washington Times) notes,  "Mr. Walz’s bid for the ranking member’s post had the backing of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the current ranking member, Rep. Michael Michaud, Maine Democrat.


    Corrine Brown isn't qualified to work the counter at Jack In The Box, let alone to be the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee.


    Again, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Bernie Sanders declared this morning, ". . . it's a very difficult hearing because what we are going to be touching on today is what happens to the men and women who come home from war, who have served us with great courage and what happens to them when they return to civilian life."

    What does happen to them?

    Too often, they don't get the jobs they deserve, the jobs they're experts at.

    I don't believe veterans are asking for special treatment, they just want their skills to be recognized.  That's valid.  If you have a degree in something -- veteran or not -- and that goes to a job opening, you expect that degree to count for something.  If you have a work history in a certain field, you expect that to count for something if you're applying for a job in the same or a related field.

    These are basic beliefs that most Americans support.

    So let's be really clear that it's not just that Corrine Brown is unqualified, it's also that Tim Walz is qualified.

    24.

    That's the number of years he served in the Army National Guard.

    24 years.

    And that doesn't count for anything with Nancy Pelosi.

    She didn't want him to have the job so the fact that he was more than qualified, had the background and was a veteran, didn't matter at all to her.

    When the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives acts that way, it makes all the harder for veterans throughout America to get hired.


    24 years of service and Nancy doesn't think he's qualified to be the Democratic head of the Committee.

    If Democrats in Congress aren't going to hire veterans, they need to stop giving lip service pretending others need to.

    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Paul Rieckhoff Tweeted today:





    Pressure does work.

    Pressure should be placed on Pelosi.

    Pressure already is being placed on her from Dems in Congress.


    Nancy's made the whole party look like a hypocrite.

    The good news is Nancy realizes she went too far.

    She thinks a few good words about Walz will end it.

    It won't.

    But she's sent out spokespeople to assure everyone that Walz will be on the Committee and she values his work.

    No, she doesn't.

    If she valued his work -- or his experience -- she wouldn't have prevented him from running for the post.

    If she valued veterans, she wouldn't be pushing Corrine Brown for the post.

    Nancy is now the member of Congress who hates veterans.

    She was desperately hanging on to her leadership role and now she's just ensured that these will be her last two years.

    She's now harming the Democratic Party.  And high ranking members in both houses are saying she's going to have to go.

    Congratulations, Nancy, you've managed to do what your foes have been unable to do.  She's destroyed herself.  She is now toxic in a way she never was before.  "San Francisco Democrat" doesn't terrify most Americans.  But about 30% would oppose her because of that label.

    Now that she's established herself as the biggest Congressional obstacle for veterans, life's about to get a lot lonelier.

    She is a text book study in how power corrupts.  The Nancy first elected to Congress, even the Nancy of 2002, would never have made the decision to deny Tammy Duckworth a proxy vote or to prevent Tim Walz from running to be the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

    But that Nancy still had ethics.

    By 2006, they were gone.  She spent the first years as House Majority Leader threatening US House Rep John Conyers, bullying him, to prevent him from exploring impeachment against Bully Boy Bush.

    From there, it was a long slide into hypocrisy.

    And when she had no ethics left, when she had nothing left to stand for, the only thing that mattered to her was holding onto power.

    That desire, that corruption, is how The Nancy Pelosi Story ends.


    From disgraceful to courageous . . .

    Chair Bernie Sanders:  We have two very, very brave women who are with us.  And I cannot express to you my respect enough for their courage because both of these women -- Susan Selke Valerie Pallotta -- have experienced tragedies that are nightmarish for what they've gone through. But what they have chosen to do is to come forward and give us their best ideas in terms of how we can prevent the tragedies that they have experienced from happening to other families.  And we so much appreciate their courage and their willingness to come forward.


    He was speaking at this morning's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.


    Susan Selke's son Clay Hunt and Valerie Pallotta's son Joshua Pallotta were not given the help they needed after they returned to the United States and both men felt there was no hope left and took their own lives.

    Clay was deployed in both the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War and he suffered from Post Traumatic Stress.  We say PTS, not the other more popular term.  This is a condition developed in combat zones and under intense pressure which is in fact a coping skill -- a heightened awareness -- that becomes a hindrance in civilian life if treatment or coping methods are not introduced to assist the veteran in recognizing and handling moments which trigger this learned condition.  You can see it as a super power that can be an aid and a benefit -- like Superman's X-ray vision.  But if Superman can't turn off the X-ray vision, then he needs assistance in learning how to.  The stigma needs to be removed from this condition to (a) let veterans know this is a condition, it's not a sickness, it's not a weakness and (b) to encourage them to explore treatments or methods to manage this condition or even skill.

    Clay attempted to get assistance from the VA.  But even when he was finally rated 100% on PTS, his mother noted today, the VA just wanted to drug him, "He received counseling only as far as a brief discussion regarding whether the medication he was prescribed was working or not.  If it was not, he would be given a new medication. Clay used to say, 'I'm a guinea pig for drugs.  They'll put me on one thing, I'll have side effects, and then they put me on something else'."

    And then Clay moved to a different state.  Which meant a new VA and suddenly a refusal to prescribe medication.  Though he moved in 2010, it would be March of 2011 when he "was finally able to see a psychiatrist."  That's the lengthy delay -- the one US House Rep Corrine Brown has denied and blamed on veterans -- in action.

    "We cannot have someone call to get an appointment and be told that they can get one in five weeks when they have a problem," Senator Patty Murray stressed to the VA's Dr. Harold Kudler.

    Senator John Boozman noted that 22 veterans a day commit suicide in the United States.  Clay Hunt  and Joshua Pallotta are examples of two veterans who did not receive the needed help and assistance they had been promised.

    Valerie Pallotta explained two police officers came to her home at 3:37 a.m., September 23, 2014 and how she hoped they were there with the bad news that her son had been arrested but they were instead there to tell her that her son Joshua was dead.  The suicide has left her and her husband in a constant state of grief:

    Our minds are at the funeral home, crying on our son's body as it lays cold.  We are kissing him and hugging him and trying to wake ourselves up from this awful, horrible nightmare.  Our minds are at the Veterans Cemetery in Randolph, Vermont -- the place our son was laid to rest, a place we haven't yet been able to visit.  Our minds are in Afghanistan wishing we could have been there to protect him, to shelter him from the pain he endured for years 
    .
    The two women made up the second panel.  The first panel was the VA's Dr. Harold Kudler (Chief Consultant for Mental Health Service), Dr. Caitlin Thompson (Deputy Director, Suicide Prevention) and Dr. Dean Krahn (Deputy Director in the Office of Mental Health Operations).  We'll note this exchange from the first panel.


    Senator Patty Murray: I wanted to ask you, we are seeing the suicide rate of middle-aged veterans who use the VA decrease -- you mentioned that.  But [the suicide rate for] female veterans who use the VA has increased by 31%.  What is happening?

    Caitlin Thompson: Yeah, thank you so much for asking that, Senator. We are as concerned as you are and trying to better understand that, why that is.  Why the rates of -- rates of suicide among women are increasing as well as that youngest male population.  One thing that I just also want to say is that we also know that veterans use firearms more than non-veterans during -- when they are feeling suicidal.  And we know that women veterans are using firearms at an increased rate than non -- than non-women veterans.  And we know that, uhm, firearms in fact -- If you use a firearm when you're suicidal, there's a 90% chance that you will die.  If you use prescriptions, medications, which is what most women non-veterans tend to use, there's a 3 to 4% chance that you will die because there's that opportunity to reach them before they die --

    Senator Patty Murray:  I --

    Caitlin Thompson (Con't): -- and so -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

    Senator Patty Murray:  I appreciate that response but I think we also have to look at if the VA is meeting women's specific needs --

    Caitlin Thompson: Absolutely.

    Senator Patty Murray (Con't):  -- and why are they increasing dramatically?  Are the programs not effective? Are they not feeling that they should ask about it?  Is it something else?  This is really concerning to me and it's something I'll be following very closely as well. 


    The suicide rate of women veterans has gotten a bit of attention from the press, not that much.  (Probably homeless women veterans are the only group of women veterans that the press has focused serious attention on.)


    We're not done with this hearing.

    We will cover it tomorrow (hopefully) and Friday (for sure).  But the whole point of covering these hearings is holding them accountable -- the VA officials, the Congress, etc.  And we have followed US House Rep Corrine Brown's repugnant behavior for years now so we do need to weigh in -- and do so at length -- when she is on the verge of being named Ranking Member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

    Equally true, I think people should hold their own accountable.  We mock the (former) Australian blogger who blogged daily trashing Bully Boy Bush but never could blog about Australia's Prime Minister John Howard who also sent troops into Iraq.  Nancy Pelosi is my Congressional rep.  It's my duty to hold her accountable.

    Back to today's hearing,  Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee and the former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office issued the following today:




    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                      CONTACT: Murray Press Office
    Wednesday, November 19, 2014                                                        (202) 224-2834
    VETERANS—MENTAL HEALTH: Murray Concerned That VA and Local Communities Unprepared to Help Veterans in Crisis
     
     
    (Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, a senior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, attended a hearing to examine mental health and suicide among veterans. According to recent data, suicide rates have continued to increase among female veterans who use VA care and among male veterans ages 18-24 who use VA, the rate has skyrocketed to 79 per 100,000.
    “There is no issue as pressing as providing quality, timely mental health care and suicide prevention programs to our nation’s heroes. The problem is familiar to all of us, but the solutions still seem elusive,” Senator Murray said at the hearing. “Just one suicide, just one veteran in crisis, or just one family struggling to make it through is just one too much.”
     
    Senator Murray’s full remarks as prepared:
    “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. There is no issue as pressing as providing quality, timely mental health care and suicide prevention programs to our nation’s heroes. The problem is familiar to all of us, but the solutions still seem elusive.
     
    “Twenty-two veterans per day die by suicide. Rates have continued to increase among female veterans who use VA care. Among male veterans age 18 to 24 who use VA, the rate has skyrocketed to 79 per 100,000. And finally, according to VA’s access data, wait times for new mental health patients are virtually unchanged -- at 36 days -- over the five months that VA has provided this data.
     
    “Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about whether VA and local communities are prepared with the resources, policies, and training to help veterans in serious crisis. When our men and women in uniform have the courage to come forward and ask for help, VA must be there with not only high quality and timely care, but also the right type of care to best meet the veteran’s needs. We must demand progress on each of these areas.
     
    “Mr. Chairman, a few months ago we passed a VA reform bill to help veterans get into care.  It included a temporary authority to improve access to community providers for veterans having trouble accessing VA care.  However, a recent report by the RAND Corporation raises serious concerns about whether private sector providers are ready to give high quality care to veterans. It suggests we need to do more to expand use of evidence-based treatments - and much more to help providers understand the unique needs and culture of servicemembers and veterans. The reform bill also included critically needed funds to build and strengthen the VA for the long-term. 
     
    “But there will be more needs going forward. VA must start planning and requesting the necessary resources now, so it will be prepared to meet the growing demand for mental health care far into the future. There is clearly much, much more work to be done. 
     
    “Just one suicide, just one veteran in crisis, or just one family struggling to make it through is just one too much. So I want to take a moment to thank Mrs. Selke, Mrs. Pallotta and Mr. and Mrs. Vanata for being here today. It’s incredibly difficult to talk about these issues. We admire your courage and your strength for being willing to share your stories with us.
     
    “Thank you, and your family, for your service and sacrifice to our nation.
     
    “Mr. Chairman, I hope as we head into a new Congress that stories like theirs will continue to be told as we work together to fulfill the promises we have made to those who have served. Thank you.”
    ###
    ---
    Meghan Roh
    Press Secretary
    Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
    Mobile: (202) 365-1235
    Office: (202) 224-2834



    In Iraq, the Kurds should have learned a hard lesson today.  I don't think their leadership did.  We'll cover it tomorrow.

    Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports, "A rare bombing took place in the Kurdistan capital of Arbil today. Islamic State militants are suspected to be behind it. At least 114 people were killed there and elsewhere. Another 53 were wounded."