Barack's silence on the slaughter of Iraqi Christians

Hump day. I'm just writing about Iraq tonight. Nizar Latif and Charles McDermid (Time) report:

A series of deadly attacks on Iraq's Christians has left the religious community, one with ancient roots in Mesopotamia, feeling vulnerable and reeling with fear. One expatriate cleric has even called for the remaining Christians of what is called the Assyrian Catholic Church to abandon Iraq. But Yonadam Kanna isn't going anywhere. "These attacks express the contempt and hatred of terrorist organizations for Christians," says Kanna, one of less than a dozen Christians in the 325-member Iraqi parliament, "but we will remain whatever they do. Iraq is our country and we won't leave."

If you missed it, Iraqi Christians were attacked again today. TODAY online offers, "Bombings and mortar attacks targeting Christians killed at least four people and wounded 19 others in Baghdad yesterday, Iraqi security sources said, 10 days after an assault on a Catholic cathedral that killed 52." This is from Adrian Blomfield's Telegraph of London article:

With yesterday's attacks giving extra gravity to the threat against them, Iraq's Christian clergy warned they were in danger of becoming forgotten by the West.

"It would be criminal on the part of the international community not to take care of the security of the Christians," said Athanase Matoka, the Syrian archbishop of Baghdad.

"Everybody is scared. People are asking who is going to protect them, how are they going to stay on in Iraq."

One of the world's oldest Christian communities, Iraq's Eastern Rite Catholics have long been in the sights of Islamist insurgents. Since Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003, their numbers have halved to just 400,000.

Do you you realize that while all of this is going on, Barack can't say a damn word?

Now someone wants to build something in New York City and he's all over it with opinions.

But he refuses to call out these attacks on Iraqi Christians.

And it's such a problem that even Patrick Cockburn hangs up the crazy to write:

Christians have called on the government to protect them and there is general anger in Baghdad that the 1,500 army and police checkpoints in the city are so ineffective in stopping bombers. It is also becoming clear that the Iraqi government's numerous intelligence organisations have failed to penetrate and disrupt al-Qa'ida's cells in Baghdad, Mosul and other cities with a large Sunni population. The Christians are particularly vulnerable because, outside rural areas in Nineveh province in northern Iraq, they are not numerous enough to have their own militia.

And this is Gerard Araud who is France's permanent rep on the UN Security Council speaking and answering questions:

As you know, the horrendous attack against the church of Our Lady of Salvation has created a lot of emotion in the French government, but also in the French public opinion. Let us be clear: any victim of terror deserves our attention, and any terrorist attack deserves utter condemnation. What is at stake with the attack against the Iraqi Christians is the deliberate will to destroy the Christian community there. Defending the Christians of Iraq is not only a moral and ethical choice, it is also a political necessity because when terrorists, Al-Qaida, are plotting to destroy the Christian community in Iraq, it is simply trying to attack the diversity and pluralism of the Iraqi society, which means the Iraqi democracy. The Christians in Iraq are on the front line of the fight for democracy and France wanted the Security Council to express its solidarity with the Iraqi Christians, which means with all the Iraqis and with the Iraqi democracy.

Q: On a related matter, what is France’s view of the request by the government of Iraq for the extension of immunity to the Development Fund for of Iraq ...?

We are going to discuss that now. I think we will be able to answer this question later on

Q: [Christians in Egypt, Western Sahara]

On the first question, we were focusing on Iraq. We were raising the issue of the Al Qaeda fight against the Iraqi Christians. On Western Sahara, there is a briefing which is due on the 23rd of November. There were some discussions that since we have had the talks between the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the other side in Greentree, this briefing could take place earlier... but it is up to the presidency of the Security Council to see with Mr. Christopher Ross if the agenda allows it. It is a question of agenda. And as you know next week is a pretty busy week, there is one day off and there is also the debate about Sudan, and the retreat of the Security Council. It is an agenda problem, it is not a political issue.

And again, Barack Obama has not said a word about the attacks on Iraqi Christians.

And he wonders why people doubt that he's a Christian?

The country watches him to deliver one speech after another about Islam and Muslims and blah blah and blah. But he's got nothing to say here. Zilch.

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

Wednesday, November 10, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi Christians are targeted in another wave of attacks, Robert Gates' statements about US forces remaining in Iraq past 2011 garner some media attention, rumors swirl that tomorrow is the day Iraq breaks their stalemate, and more. Yesterday, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a statement. As Mike noted last night, The NewsHour (PBS) led yesterday's headlines with it: HARI SREENIVASAN: The U.S. may be open to keeping American troops in Iraq past the end of 2011, the current deadline for withdrawal. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested today the timetable could slide, but he went on to say, "The initiative clearly needs to come from the Iraqis." Gates also urged Iraq's political factions to end eight months of deadlock and form a new government. Today on The Takeaway (PRI), retired Col Jack Jacobs joined John Hockenberry and Celeste Headlee to discuss Gates' remarks. Excerpt: Celeste Headlee: So what do you make of this comment from Defense Secretary Robert Gates? What do you think is motivating him to make this? Is he -- is he saying -- is this a message for the Iraqi government saying, "Put in the request"? Col Jack Jacobs: He probably already had a conversation with people over there and they have indicated that they might ask and what would be the American response if they did ask? But we had for a long time expected to leave troops either in Iraq or in and around Iraq for a long, long time past the deadline because we have so many obligations and opportunities in places like Kuwait and so on. We weren't going to completely pull out of this in any case. Yesterday Matthew Rothschild noted the development in his Progressive Point of View: Matthew Rothschild: I'm Matt Rothschild the editor of The Progressive magazine with my "Progressive Point of View" which you can also grab off our website at progressive.org Don't hold your breath next December for all US troops to get out of Iraq that's the exit date required by the US-Iraqi accord but the Pentagon's been asking for an extension for a long time now. This week Defense Secretary Robert Gates practically begged the Iraqis to ammend the accord to allow US troops to stay there well into the future. He told the AP, "We're ready to have that discussion when and if they want to speak with us." Bill Van Auken (WSWS) contributes a major essay on the latest: The reality is that the Obama administration is presently exerting intense political pressure aimed at breaking an eight-month-old deadlock in the formation of a new Iraqi government so that it can have a US client regime capable of taking the "initiative" of asking American troops to stay. US efforts have intensified in the aftermath of the midterm elections as part of a broad further turn to the right in both US foreign and domestic policies. Last August, the Obama administration had celebrated the withdrawal of a single Stryker brigade from Iraq, proclaiming that its members were the last combat troops deployed in the country and that the US combat mission had ended. The reality is that nearly 50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, the bulk of them with the same combat capabilities as the brigades that have been withdrawn. The US Air Force remains in control of Iraqi airspace and the US Navy controls its coastlines. Obama sought to exploit the drawdown of US forces from their peak of 170,000—many of them redeployed to the "surge" in Afghanistan—for political purposes, claiming in the run-up to the elections that the Democratic president had fulfilled his campaign promise to end the war in Iraq. This was a patent fraud. The timetable for the troop drawdown and the December 2011 final withdrawal was set not by Obama, but rather by a Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between the Bush administration and the US puppet government of Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad. The Obama administration is now moving to abrogate this Bush era treaty in order to secure an indefinite US military grip over Iraq. The immediate impediment to this plan is the absence of a government in Baghdad to sign a new agreement. Eight months after the election last March, the country's rival political factions have been unable to cobble together a viable coalition. Which brings us to the stalemate. 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. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's eight months and two days and still counting. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) notes the latest rumors that a deal has been reached and explains the expected process: "Legislators are expected to meet Thursday afternoon for only the second time since the inconclusive March 7 election. Under the deal reached Wednesday, the parliament is expected to appoint a speaker from Iraqiya, then name the current Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, as president. He, in turn, will name Maliki as prime minister. Maliki will then have to put together a cabinet that a simple majority in Iraq's parliament will have to approve." Whomever is named PM-designate -- whenever they're named -- will have 30 days to pull together a cabinet. Nouri's past history of ministers walking out -- as well as his own boasting in April 2006 that he'd put together a cabinet before 30 days -- are forgotten, apparently. Also forgotten is what this says: Elections are meaningless. If the rumors are true about the make up of the next government and that does come to pass, the message is: "Elections are meaningless, voters stay home." The president and the prime minister remain the same? Only the speaker changes? They didn't need a national election to change the speaker. Mahmoud Mashadani had been the Speaker and was repeatedly the victim of a disinformation campaign by the US State Dept -- with many in the media enlisting (such as in 2006 when he was in Jordan on business and a certain reporter at a certain daily LIED and said he was in Iraq, hurt and sad and refusing to see anyone -- that lie would have taken hold were it not for the Arab press). He stepped down. When he did so, Iyad Samarrai became the next Speaker and that was done by Parliament, no national elections required. So the message from the 2010 elections appears to be -- if rumors are correct -- that there is no point in voting. Iyad Samarrai got vanished from the narrative. Reporters and 'reporters' like Quil Lawrence (declaring victory for Nouri March 8th, one day after the elections) might have been a little more informed if they'd bothered to pay attention. Mahmoud Mashadani stepped down as Speaker. It took FOUR months for a new speaker to be appointed. And that was in the spring of 2009. Why anyone thought some magical mood enchancer would change things in 2010 is beyond me. In a bit of classic understatement, an unnamed Iraqi official tells Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor), "It looks a lot like the old government." And for that, people were imprisoned this year and died this year? Again, these results send a very clear message and it not democracy 'friendly' nor does it help build democracy. Arraf states the rumors are Iraqiya's Osama al-Nujaifi will be the new Speaker. Rumors. Suadad al-Salhy and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) note that the the stalemate "appeared to have broken" AFP's a little more specific. Throughout the day, they've filed reports including one where there was no indication of a deal (filed at approximately noon EST). What changed? They report Ayad Allawi showed for the meet up. But AFP also notes, as do al-Salhy and Ibrahim, that Iraqiya is saying they will iron out details tomorrow and make a decision of whether they accept any agreements -- in other words, the only thing clear is that Parliament is supposed to hold a session tomorrow afternoon. And Reuters states the Speaker post is one of the details that will be considered -- the whom of it. Hemin Babn (Rudaw) cites Iraqiya's Arshad Salihi as stating that final decisions will be made tomorrow by Iraqiya as to whether or not they will be "participating in the government". The targeting of Iraqi Christians continues today. Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports on "a coordinated series of attacks on Christian neighbourhoods in Baghdad" involving over 14 bombings. Jim Muir (BBC News -- link has text and video)adds, "Well a whole rash of bombs, in fact six different parts of Baghdad hit by them. Areas which are absolutely known to be areas of Christian concentration. Obviously no area is completely homogeneous in terms of it's population so among the three killed and the twenty-four we believed to have been wounded, we're not clear at this moment, exactly how many of them may be Christians. But what is very clear is that this was a coordinated attack aimed at areas known to have a Christian label on them and coming about a week after that warning from the Islamic State in Iraq which is a kind of umbrella group for al Qaeda [in Mesopotamia] and related groups that 'all Christians are now fair game.' It also comes just a few hours after Mr. Maliki, the incumbent prime minister visited the cathedral where the bloodbath took place two Sundays ago." Kelly McEvers (NPR's Morning Edition -- link has text and audio), speaking to Steve Inskeep, observed, "The city at one time was a mix of Jews, Christians and Sunni and Shiite Muslims. You know nowadays Jews are all but gone. And Sunnis and Shiites live completely separately from each other. But dozens of Christians who were wounded in the church siege have been flown to Europe for treatment. Some say they won't come back. But in a service this past Sunday, some Christians did vow to stay on. They said they have a mission to, you know, keep the faith alive." Gary Mitchell (Sky News -- link has text and video) quotes the Chaldean patriarch of Baghdad, Emmanuel II Delly, stating, "They are chasing Christians in every neighbourhood in Baghdad." Rawya Rageh (Al Jazeera) observes, "We have seen Christians fleeing Iraq between 2004 and 2006. Their numbers now are down to a third. This is a stepped-up attack to revive the chaos that has affected the Christian community in the past." Sammy Ketz (AFP) quotes Baghdad's St. Joseph's priest, Father Saad Sirap Hanna, stating, "People are panicked. They come to see us in the churches to ask what they should do. We are shattered by what has happened." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explains: Christians, most of them eastern rite Catholics, trace their history in this country to the earliest days of Christianity. Before the 2003 war, there were up to a million Christians here -- about 3 percent of the population. Half that number is estimated to have left in the past seven years, continuing an exodus begun after the 1991 Gulf War when Saddam Hussein's secular regime turned increasingly Islamic. Although thousands of Assyrian Christians and others were killed under Iraq's Ottoman rule a century ago, the attack on the church last week is the worst in the country's recent history. The attack, claimed by an Al Qaeda-linked group, was followed two days later by 16 bombings in Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad that killed at least 70 people. October 31st, Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was attacked. At least 58 people died during the assault. Following that, as Muir noted, the Islamic State of Iraq claimed credit for the siege and released a statement which included: "All Christin centres, organisations and institutions, leaders and followers, are legitimate targets for the muhadjideen wherever they can reach them. We will open upon them the doors of destruction and rivers of blood." Today would appear to be a continuation of efforts to make good on that statement. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN -- link has text and video) introduces a video segment featuring footage from the October 31st assault -- from inside the Church -- which Arwa Damon explains. The Church is where some are sought refuge today. Jane Arraf and Laith Hammoudi (Christian Science Monitor and McClatchy Newspapers) report on that group including Umm Danny who took her five children with her (three of her own and a niece and nephew) and states, "We were so afraid -- we left without taking anything. We went barefoot onto the roof and climbed onto our Muslim neighbor's house. They helped us and told us to stay with them but we were afraid." Martin Chulov (Guardian) quotes Christian Endowment Fund's Abdullah al-Nourfali stating, "I can't call on the Christians to leave their country. And I can't demand that they stay. If I call for them to levae, I should be responsible for their futures and if I call for them stay, it's the same thing. It's a very difficult position." The UN Security Council today issued a statement declaring, "No terrorist act can reverse a path toward peace, democracy and reconstruction in Iraq." Mark Lyall Grant, UN Security Council president, delivered the following: The members of the Security Council were appalled by and condemned in the strongest terms the recent spate of terrorist attacks in Iraq, including today's attack, in which scores of civilians lost their lives and hundreds more were wounded. The attacks deliberately targeted locations where civilians congregate, including Christian and Muslim places of worship. The members of the Security Council expressed their deep condolences to the families of the victims and reaffirmed their support for the people and the Government of Iraq, and their commitment to Iraq's security. The members of the Security Council condemned all incitement to and acts of violence, particularly those motivated by religious hatred, and expressed confidence that the people of Iraq will remain steadfast in their continued rejection of efforts by extremists to spark sectarian tension. The members of the Security Council additionally condemned the October 19 attack against the convoy of the Secretary-General's Special Representative and other UN staff. While all UN staff escaped without injury, one member of the Iraqi Security Forces was sadly killed and several others injured. The members of the Security Council also expressed their deep condolences to the families of the victims and their continued support to UNAMI. The Security Council strongly expressed its support for the continued efforts of the Iraqi Government to help meet security needs of the entire population of Iraq. In this regard, the Security Council acknowledges the efforts of the Iraq Security Forces whose members are also being targeted in ongoing attacks. The members of the Security Council underlined the need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of these reprehensible acts of terrorism to justice, and urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate actively with Iraqi authorities in this regard. The members of the Security Council reaffirmed the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The members of the Security Council reminded States that they must ensure that measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. The members of the Security Council reiterated that no terrorist act can reverse a path towards peace, democracy and reconstruction in Iraq, which is supported by the people and the Government of Iraq and the international community. The international response has been near uniform with leaders from Palestine (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) to the Vatican (Pope Benedict XVI) denouncing the attacks on Christians. Notable exceptions have been Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and US President Barack Obama, neither of whom could be bothered to utter a sentence -- at least publicly -- on the October 31st assault. Monday, for the first time, the US State Dept spokesperson Philip J. Crowley made a comment: So -- but we spoke out very significantly last week at -- when -- during -- in the aftermath of this tragedy and we continue to do whatever we can to help promote religious tolerance in Iraq and elsewhere. Despite his assertion, they did not speak out last week -- significantly or otherwise. Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, made a statement on November 1st and the National Security Council's spokesperson Mike Hammer made a statement the same day. That was it from anyone connected to the administration. Martin Chulov (Guardian) maintains, "As Iraq slides back towards sectarianism, al-Qaida has become a looming beast no one wants to speak of, while blaming everyone else for the rising bloodshed. A chilling picture of the group is taking shape -- crystallised by the attacks on Baghdad's Christians. Four weeks of interviews with the Guardian reveal an organisation that has emerged from a pounding from all sides -- and a severe shortage of funds -- to once again pose a lethal threat to almost anyone in Iraq." In other news of violence, Reuters reports Sunni Imam Abbas Mahmoud was shot dead in Garma, 1 man was shot dead outside his Mosul home, a Falluja roadside bombing left five people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing wounded three people and mortar attacks on the Green Zone resulted in seven people being wounded. Iraq Veterans Against the War have launched Operation Recovery and this week they're doing outreach: The Campaign Team and Chapters from across the nation are starting an effort to do regular outreach on and around military bases and universities. The Campaign is in the popular research and base building phase. To win this struggle, hundreds of IVAW Members, Veterans, Service Members, and Allies are needed to help organize. Service Members and Veterans are in our communities and looking to be part of a community of people that understands them. If you are a member of IVAW and want to learn more about how to get involved and do outreach click here. The realities of PTSD were addressed on Monday's Fresh Air (NPR --link has audio and text) and we'll note this from Terry Gross' conversation with psychologist Craig Bryan: Terry Gross: Dr. Craig Bryan welcome to FRESH AIR. In the documentary "Wartorn," which is about post-traumatic stress disorder, the mother of a vet who killed himself says, the Army taught him how to kill to protect others; they didn't teach him how to stop having that instinct. Has she managed to sum up a serious issue -what happens to you after you come home, when you've been taught to kill? Dr. CRAIG BRYAN (Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center): Well, I think it is a pretty remarkable insight into sort of the paradox of working with service members. You know, part of being an effective warrior, an effective service member, and having an effective military is training our individuals to no longer fear death, to use violence and aggression in controlled manners, and then an individual's return from war zones, combat zones, using those skills. And they're not necessarily taught how those skills fit within, you know, the culture and the context of the United States, where violence and aggression have a very different role to play within daily basis in contrast to a combat zone. GROSS: Now you've said that, you know, soldiers are trained to face death with fearlessness. But does that training also make it easier to take your life? Dr. BRYAN: We think in some ways, that it is. Yes. We do know that one protective factor for suicide is fear of death. If someone is afraid to die, they tend not to kill themselves. And so when you have a group of individuals who have been conditioned to overcome that fear, in many ways they sort of have what it takes to kill themselves. Now, of course, you know, fearlessness about death is not enough. A person also has to want to kill themselves. You know, just because you know how to, or youre capable of killing yourself ,doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to do it because if you dont ever desire suicide, you know, suicide never becomes an option. So it's a little bit more complex than just pure capability. GROSS: So what are some of the things that you've come across from vets who you've worked with, that have made them think about or succeed in taking their lives? Dr. BRYAN: Yeah. Well, I guess first I would say that there is no such thing as succeeding in taking one's life. And they kill themselves and they have a fatal outcome, but... GROSS: Yeah. I was so sorry about that word when I used it. Yeah. Dr. BRYAN: ...there's no such thing as a successful suicide. What we do know about some of the factors that contribute to those who die as a result of self-inflicted injury, there tends to be intense psychological and mental suffering. There is an extremely high level of agitation. Oftentimes, there's mood disturbance, a sense that things are never going to get any better. We see what we call cognitive constriction within the clinical field, which is - it's sort of like tunnel vision - an inability to solve problems and to kind of think of options, and select a solution that would be optimal. When I work with suicidal service members, I often, you know, tell them if you are able to solve this problem effectively, you know, suicide wouldn't even be an option. It would be obsolete, in many ways. And so what we often find with the service members is they just - they're suffering intensely. It's an agonizing suffering, and they haven't been able to figure out how to eliminate that suffering in a way that doesn't require them to die. And we'll close with this from Stop These Wars: During the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King called our government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." True then—and even more so today. A few years before that, in 1964 Mario Savio made his great speech at Berkeley; at the end he says, "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!" There are children being orphaned, maimed or killed every day, in our name, with our tax dollars; there are soldiers and civilians dying or being maimed for life, in order to generate profits for the most odious imperialistic corporate war machine ever, again in our name. How long are we going to let this go on? Until it is too late, until this destructive machine destroys all of us and the planet to boot? Wikileaks has revealed the documented horror of U.S. war-making, beyond what any of us imagined. It's time veterans and others express our resistance directly and powerfully by putting ourselves on the line, once again—honestly, courageously and without one drop of apology for doing so. It is not we who are the murderers, torturers or pillagers of the earth. Profit and power-hungry warmongers are destroying everything we hold dear and sacred. In the early thirties, WW1 vets descended on Washington, D.C., to demand their promised bonuses, it being the depths of the Depression. General Douglas MacArthur and his sidekick Dwight Eisenhower disregarded President Herbert Hoover's order and burned their encampment down and drove the vets out of town at bayonet point. We are today's bonus marchers, and we've coming to claim our bonus–PEACE. Join activist veterans marching in solidarity to the White House, refusing to move, demanding the end of U.S. wars, which includes U.S. support—financial and tactical—for the Israeli war machine as well. If we can gather enough courageous souls, nonviolently refusing to leave the White House, willing to be dragged away and arrested if necessary, we will send a message that will be seen worldwide. "End these wars – now!" We will carry forward a flame of resistance to the war machine that will not diminish as we effectively begin to place ourselves, as Mario Savio said, "upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus." and we will make it stop. We believe that the power of courageous, committed people is greater than that of corporate warmongers. But we will only see our power when we use it collectively, when we stand together. With courage, persistence, boldness and numbers, we can eventually make this monstrous war machine grind to a halt, so that our children and all children everywhere can grow up in a peaceful world. Join us at the White House on December 16th! For a world in peace, Nic Abramson – Veterans For Peace, Elliott Adams – Past President,Veterans For Peace, Laurie Arbeiter-Activist Response Team, Ken Ashe -Veterans For Peace, Ellen Barfield-Veterans For Peace, Brian Becker-ANSWER Coalition, National Coordinator, Frida Berrigan-War Resisters League, Bruce Berry-Veterans For Peace, Leah Bolger-Veterans For Peace, Elaine Brower-Anti-war Military Mom and World Can't Wait, Scott Camil-Veterans For Peace, Ross Caputi- Justice For Fallujah Project, Kim Carlyle-Veterans For Peace, Matthis Chiroux-Iraq War Resister Veteran, Gerry Condon-Veterans For Peace, Will Covert-Veterans For Peace, Dave Culver-Veterans For Peace, Matt Daloisio-War Resisters League, Ellen Davidson-War Resisters League, Mike Ferner-President, Veterans For Peace, Nate Goldshlag-Veterans For Peace, Clare Hanrahan-War Crimes Times, Mike Hearington-Veterans For Peace, Tarak Kauff-Veterans For Peace, Kathy Kelley-Voices For Creative Nonviolence, Sandy Kelson-Veterans For Peace, Joel Kovel-Veterans For Peace, Erik Lobo-Veterans For Peace, Joe Lombardo-United National Antiwar Committee, Ken Mayers -Veterans For Peace, Nancy Munger-co-President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Fred Nagel-Veterans For Peace, Pat O'Brien-Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Bill Perry-Vietnam Veterans Against The War, Vito Piccininno -Veternas For Peace, Mike Prysner-co-founder, March Forward, Ward Reilly-Veterans For Peace, Laura Roskos-co-President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Cindy Sheehan-Founder, Peace of the Action, David Swanson-author, Debra Sweet-National Director, World Can't Wait, Mike Tork-Veterans For Peace, Hart Viges – Iraq Veterans Against the War, Jay Wenk-Veterans For Peace, Linda Wiener- Veterans For Peace, Diane Wilson -Veterans For Peace, Col. Ann Wright-Veterans For Peace, Doug Zachary-Veterans For Peace iraq pbs the newshour hari sreenivasan pri the takeaway john hockenberry celeste headlee wsws bill van auken the progressive matthew rothschild al jazeera rawya rageh deutsche welle the guardian martin chulov bbc news jim muir al jazeera rawya rageh cnn jomana karadsheh arwa damon sky news gary mitchell afp sammy ketz npr kelly mcevers morning edition steve inskeep the christian science monitor jane arraf mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi fresh air

Banana Splits, Fringe and Iraq

Tuesday!!! Get me to end of the week, Snorky!

Snorky? My friend Tony passed on a DVD set of The Banana Splits -- a live action and cartoon calvacade. The Banana Splits were these people wearing suits. That was the live action part. And they had other live action bits and comics too. Snorky was a Banana Split. Let me see if I can find something online. Hold up.

Okay WikiPedia:

The Banana Splits were four comedic animal characters who featured in a late 1960s children's variety show made for television. The costumed hosts of the show were Fleegle, Bingo, Drooper and Snorky (respectively, a dog, gorilla, lion, and elephant).

The Banana Splits Adventure Hour was an hour-long, packaged television program that featured both live action and animated segments. The series was produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions, and ran for 31 episodes on NBC Saturday mornings, from September 7, 1968 to September 5, 1970. The series costumes and sets were designed by Sid and Marty Krofft and the series' sponsor was Kellogg's Cereals.^[1] The show was Hanna-Barbera’s initial foray into mixing live action with animation.

Speaking of TV, there's a Fringe I missed. I caught it on Hulu yesterday while I was looking for something to watch. It was another real Olivia episode (trapped on the alternate universe). They had Peter appear to her, talking to her in her head. He's her memories. And that was good because it allowed them to have time together. The show suffers otherwise. She realized that she may not be that world's Olivia and that WalterNet may not be a good guy. She did that after Peter kept telling her she belonged to the other universe and telling her things from that universe. So when she transported to her own world briefly (as a result of WalterNet's experiments) and Peter has told her it's her niece's birthday. She picks up the phone and dials a number she remembers and speaks to her niece. When she got back, I think WalterNet knew she was lying when she claimed nothing happened. And Fringe is back this week, don't forget.

Okay, the lead headline on PBS' NewsHour tonight was this:

HARI SREENIVASAN: The U.S. may be open to keeping American troops in Iraq past the end of 2011, the current deadline for withdrawal. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested today the timetable could slide, but he went on to say, "The initiative clearly needs to come from the Iraqis."

Gates also urged Iraq's political factions to end eight months of deadlock and form a new government.

C.I. told you this. She has taken so much s**t for two years over the SOFA. She refused to go along and join the "Iraq War is over! The SOFA tells me so!" And a lot of attacks resulted. But she knows contract law and she was correct. The SOFA could be replaced, could be extended, could be honored as written, could be cut off by either party. There were always options to it. Only C.I. was telling you that and she's been telling you that since November 2008.

While a lot of other people have LIED. And attacked her for telling the truth and said she doesn't understand the SOFA.

Raed Jarrar and other liars, C.I. was right and you were wrong. It's past time you owned up to that fact.



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

Tuesday, November 9, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the political stalemate continues with a meetup finding no-shows and seeing walkouts, a female Iraqi MP wonders why women aren't being represented in the process, Robert Gates explains the US is happy to stay in Iraq beyond 2011, veterans suffering from PTSD are not getting the treatment and care they need, and more. We'll start with war and politics and games. Last Friday, Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio) interviewed Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan. For the excerpt, they're discussing Cindy Sheehan's Al Jazeera column "US: Myth of the two party system:" Scott Horton: Right and it asks the question in the subheadline: "Would America look much different if Republican John McCain had beaten Democrat Barack Obama to become president?" And so what do you think? How do you measure that? Cindy Sheehan: Well I don't think it would look that much different because it sure doesn't look much different when we have a Democrat Barack Obama then when George Bush was president except that many things have gotten worse. Unemployment's gotten worse, the foreclosure crisis has become worse, the wars have gotten worse, he's tripled troop strength to Afghanistan, the drone bombings in Pakistan have gone up 300% in real numbers in the less than 2 years that Barack Obama's been president, he's declared himself judge, juror and excutioner over any American citizen without a fair trial. I mean, it's just -- I can't really think how things could be much worse if McCain was president. And then you have to think, too, if McCain had won the presidency, which of course he wasn't supposed to win, but if he had won the presidency, there theoretically would have been an opposition Congress and there theoretically would have been an opposition in the grassroots movement. We might have been able to rekindle some kind of antiwar movement if John McCain had won. But now, Barack Obama and the Democrats, their purpose, I think, is to kill these social, antiwar movements, to co-opt them and to just render them irrelevant and ineffective and they've been very good at doing that. Scott Horton: Well, you know, if you look at the recent past and how, say, the Democrats took the House in the first place in 2006, it seems like the principle of endless warfare always outranks even the interests of the Democratic Party itself. John V. Walsh, at CounterPunch, did excellent work on the fact that Rahm Emanuel from his position in the House of Representatives worked to undermine every anti-war Democrat in the primaries in 2006 and support the pro-war Democrat. And in every case where he succeeded in doing so, the pro-war Democrat lost the general against the Republican and the anti-war Democrats that he failed to defeat in the primaries all won. But they wanted as few anti-war voices in the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives as they could possibly get. They're determined from the get-go to betray what they promise their constitutents which is that, "Oh yeah, it'll look like Daily Kos or something around here once we're in power." Cindy Sheehan: Well and the thing is too with these recent elections is that there were still a few people who were very outspoken and openly anti-war in Congress and two of those people were defeated. Alan Grayson -- whom we both know is not perfect but he was a voice -- an anti-war voice -- and Russ Feingold. And they were both defeated. And I just think it is the plan of the regime to, more and more, the parties become almost indistinguishable from each other. But they still serve a purpose -- they serve a purpose where the Republicans might be able to come in now and extend the tax cuts which, you know, we can argue about that, but they could be able to invade Iran now, could be able to just push harsher austerity measures here in the United States where the Democratic Congress would have gotten more flack for that but now there's Republicans and that's what their Republican base put them in to do and now Barack Obama can say, "I didn't want to do it but the Republicans made me." And then the Republicans can conversely also say, "Well we wanted to reform the health care legislation but the president vetoed it." So they just play, they play this game to support each other, support the establishment, support the elites, while they keep robbing us because most of the people in our class, they believe that there is a difference between the parties, that Barack Obama really would do good if he could. But for the last two years, he had a super majority and they didn't end the wars or pass any progressive legislation. But they still blamed the Republicans even though the Republicans were in a distinct minority for the last two years. Playing games? 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." You can put that with the remarks made by US State Dept spokesperson Philip J. Crowley said October 25th: 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." And with public remarks made by US Vice President Joe Biden and former US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and . . . October 27th the Christian Science Monitor's editorial board urged Barack to prepare the Congress for the possibility that the US may remain in Iraq and the editorial board noted that "many experts predict Iraq will soon ask Mr. Obama to extend the time for US forces to stay, not only to protect the nation's fledgling democracy but to help Iraq survive as a nation in a hostile neighborhood. Iraq is far behind the schedule set in the 2008 security pact with the United States to bolster its military and police. Its ability to defend its borders and its oil fields -- both of which are critical to US interests -- is years away. And there is much doubt in Washington about the US State Department's ability to take over the American military's role in managing key security aspects of Iraq, such as Kurdish-Arab friction or forming new police forces." Better question: Are the people prepapred? The SOFA may be followed to the "t" and not renegotiated. It may also be extended. US forces may remain in Iraq past 2011 -- something Gates, Crowley and Biden have all voiced this year -- all serving in the current administration. Something Barack alluded to as candidate but few have been listening apparently. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) has been noting the various statements and sleights of hand and points out today, "Though President Obama made much of the fake ends to the Iraq War in August, some 50,000 US troops remain on the ground, and despite being formally renamed 'non-combat' troops they continue to engage in combat missions and receive combat pay." Again, Saturday we noted: "Matt Chittumm (Roanoke Times) reports members of the Virginia National Guard will deploy to Iraq in the new year. Cindy Clayton (Virginian-Pilot) explains that it will be approximately 850 members of the state's National Guard who will be active June 1st and 'The order calls for 240-day tours of duty, but the mobilization could be adjusted, the release says.' Wow. Even if the mobilization isn't adjusted, that would put them in Iraq past the alleged end of 2011 departure. If you don't do math and are extremely gullible, you to can pretend like the White House is invested in getting all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011." Yesterday Andrew Tilghman (Army Times) reported that second in charge of US forces in Iraq, Lt Gen Robert Cone declared today, "The current brigade roation of one-year sets will continue. We have analyzed it, and what we're telling all units is to plan on a 12-month rotation over there and I think that's prudent." He thinks that's prudent. Who will ask why? No extension is possible without a government in Iraq to ask it of. Ben Birnbaum (Washington Times) reminds, "Meanwhile, in the northern Kurdish city of Irbil, top figures from Iraq's major parties met behind closed doors Monday in a bid to break the political deadlock that has gripped the country for eight months. The three-day talks begin as the Iraqi Parliament prepares to resume work Thursday, following an order by the country's Supreme Court." 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. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's eight months and one day and still counting. Today, meetings continued. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reminds, "Leading up to Monday's meeting, officials had said they were close to completing an agreement, but remarks made by a number of the leaders indicated that they have yet to address key sticking points that remain unresolved ahead of this week's parliament session." And Raheem Salman and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) point out, "If they fail to strike a deal, the stalemate could drag on for months." Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports the US is pressuring Kurds to step aside regarding the presidency so that someone from Iraqiya can be president -- Fadel names US Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain (in person in Baghdad) and US President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden -- and that Nouri "is trying to garner the backing he needs [from Iraqi politicians] to keep his post without ceding any of his power. Maliki emerged as the likeliest candidate for the top job in the new government when he secured the support of the Sadrists, a populist Shiite political movement opposed to the U.S. presence here." BBC News reports that Allawi and Tareq al-Hashemi did not show for today's meet up (al-Hashemi is also a member of Iraqiya as well as Iraq's Sunni Vice President) and that "[a]nother issue still to be resolved is whether parliament will meet on Thursday as previously announced." Sammy Ketz (AFP) reports that Iraq's Shi'ite Vice President, Adel Abdel Mehdi, walked out of today's meeting. Alsumaria TV reports that MP Saifya Al Suhail spoke out about the absence of women present in the deal making and that she stated, "A democratic Iraq cannot be built without women contribution to the political decision." Mazin Yahya (AP) adds, "Producing a deal by Thursday's scheduled parliamentary session will be difficult and while legislators have watched other deadlines come and go, there is a marked sense of urgency about meeting this court-appointed deadline to hold the session." So, reports indicate, day two was actually less productive than day one since all players were not present and no big announcement was made. When this was originally planned, it was thought it would be three days with main principles participating for the first two days only -- during which time, it was promoted, all the big points would be ironed out. That does not appear to have happened. Especially when Alsumaria TV is reporting that Iraqiya stated today "that the possibility of withdrawing is still open". CNN reports, "About three dozen survivors of last month's brutal attack on a Baghdad church have found refuge in France, where they have been given temporary status as asylum seekers." France's Ministry of Immigration issued a statement which includes: Following the initiative taken by the President of the Republic in fall 2007 to welcome Iraqis belonging to vulnerable religious minorities, France has thus far weclomed 1300 people. Under this program, and following the October 31, 2010 attack, Eric Besson has asked staff to accommodate 150 additional people with priority to those who were injured in the assault and their families. With this program, France demonstrates once again solidarity with those persecuted for opinion and religion -- especially with the Christians of the Middle East. With this program, France extends support and friendship. France has not forgotten the daily hardships they endure and supports their legitimate desire to live in peace on the land where Christians have been present for centuries. The release goes on to provide some basic stats including that they're working from an initial list of 57 injured people; 36 critically injured, the average age of the 150 is 35-years-old, the oldest person is 76-years-old and the youngest is 11-years-old. Yesterday at the US State Dept, spokesperson Philip Crowley was asked about the US and stumbled through, "Well we have a very significant resettlement program here in the United States, but I'll take that question as to --" Finally he worked his way back to Iraq to note, "So -- but we spoke out very significantly last week at -- when -- during -- in the aftermath of this tragedy and we continue to do whatever we can to help promote religious tolerance in Iraq and elsewhere." Bulls**t. And catch that "last week at -- when -- during -- in the" -- when P.J.? When did the State Department speak out? October 31st was the massacre -- a Sunday. November 1st, Monday, nothing was said at the daily press briefing -- in fact, yesterday was the first time Philip Crowley weighed in -- and no statements were issued. Robert Gibbs spoke last week with a statement and, at the US Embassy in Iraq, Mike Hammer spoke. Is Hammer now part of the State Dept? That would explain the militarization of diplomacy -- Mike Hammer is the Nationsl Security Council spokesperson. Yesterday, Crowley declared: "So -- but we spoke out very significantly last week at -- when -- during -- in the aftermath of this tragedy and we continue to do whatever we can to help promote religious tolerance in Iraq and elsewhere." So when was that? And if UPI is going to run with Crowley's claims, two questions. One, why did they clean up his quote? He did not say: We spoke out very significantly last week in the aftermath of this tragedy and we continue to do whatever we can to help promote religious tolerance in Iraq and elsewhere. He said: So -- but we spoke out very significantly last week at -- when -- during -- in the aftermath of this tragedy and we continue to do whatever we can to help promote religious tolerance in Iraq and elsewhere. Refer to this State Dept page for both the official transcript and for the video. So why did UPI clean up the quote? Second question, why are they taking him at his word? He can't back that claim up because he did not address it until yesterday. And a meager sentence is not speaking "out very significantly" -- last week or this week. AFP reports that Nouri has spoken out against . . . leaving Iraq: "The countries that have welcomed the victims . . . of this attack have done a noble thing, but that should not encourage emigration." Actually, the fleeing is encouraged by the violence. Nouri's turned a blind eye repeatedly. Why is he still in the running for prime minister? Oh, that's right because he's told the US that if he remains prime minister, he will allow US forces to stay in Iraq longer. Yesterday on The Takeaway (PRI), Celeste Headlee and John Hockenberry spoke with the Chaldean Federation of America's executive director Joseph Kassab and Andre Anton about the October 31st assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad which resulted in at least 58 deaths. Two of Andre Anton's cousins were killed in the assault, one of which was a priest (two priests were killed in the assault). Andre Anton declares, "There's no plan [. . .] There's no real plan for the Christian Assyrians in Iraq. We're being slaughtered and we told the administration -- people I know who have personally worked on President Obama's campaign as a senator. There's no plan. There needs to be a plan." The first step? Letting go of the idea that Samantha Power's your friend. Or that Barack's going to do a damn thing because you asked nicely. Around the world, leaders have spoken out to condemn the assault. The only ones who haven't that spring to mind are Barack Obama and the Iranian president. Celeste noted that Archbishop Athanasios Dawood called in England Sunday for Iraqi Christians to leave Iraq and for England and the United Nations to help with the departures and to provide asylum. She pointed out that there seemed to be a split in what was being said by some voices and Joseph Kassab insisted she was wrong but quickly revealed she was correct, "The reality is not a divide, actually we're converging together we are united we are stating exactly what you heard from Andre. our people there should be protected, there should be a plan to protect them. This is our land before the Arabs and the Muslims and therefore we should stay there." Therefore we should stay there? But he's not there. He lives in America. And 'deed of land, deed of land, deed of land' or 'mine, mine, mine' may feel great to yell from the shores of the US but those living in Iraq may feel very differently. He's equally ridiculous when he maintains that a change to the Constitution will improve the lives of Iraqi Christians. Iraq already has laws against murder. The issue is Nouri doesn't see that they're enforced unless it's his own chosen sect. It's always been that way but -- again -- he promises to keep US troops on Iraqi soil so he gets the US backing for remaining prime minister. If you believe ethnic cleansing is taking place in Iraq -- and I do -- your main concern really isn't "mine, mine, mine!" Your main concern is pressuring governments to accept the refugees and making it clear that the world is watching. It does come down to dead people in 'the homeland' or living survivors. (As noted this morning, Iraqi Christians in Iraq will do as they feel is right. That is their right. I'm condemning those stating that the problem can be fixed by tweeking the country's Constitution and/or that the Iraqi Christians must stay in Iraq.) the UK's Ekklesia notes that "hundreds" gathered in England outside Westminster today demanding the British government take steps to protect Iraqi Christians. A spokesperson for the organizers is quoted stating: We appreciate how compassionate and caring the British public is, however we are asking the government to do more to protect those that wish to stay in their own country but at the same time welcome some of those that wish to leave and accept them into this country. So far the British government has been silent and the British media almost indifferent. We urge those with a voice to shout loud enough so the government can take notice. Even the French government offered to treat the wounded in France, and in fact 38 of the injured, including the heroic Father Qutaimi, were taken to France yesterday by special medical plane for treatment. We wish the British government had made a similar gesture. Cecil Angel (Detroit Free Press) reports on yesterday's rally in support of Iraqi Christians which took place in downtown Detroit: At a news conference at the St. Toma Syriac Catholic Church in Farmington Hills before the rally, U.S. Rep. Gary Peters called the church killings "despicable" actions. The Bloomfield Township Democrat said the U.S. government has to develop a comprehensive policy that will protect Christians in Iraq. "We have to step up and step up and be firm," he said. Peters said it's especially important to do something now that U.S. forces in Iraq are being drawn down. "We have to be sure those religious minorities that live in Iraq have the protection they need," he said. Representatives from U.S. Sen. Carl Levin's office and U.S. Rep. Candice Miller, a Harrison Township Republican, read letters at the news conference expressing support for action that will ensure the safety of Iraq's Christians. Miller called for the U.S. to help the Iraqi government better train its security forces to prevent future tragedies. David LewAllen (WXYZ -- link has text and video) reports a video report of the Detroit rally, "They chanted, marched and prayed. A couple hundred Chaldean and other American Arabs staged a rally to protest genocide against Christians in Iraq." Andre Anton is shown insisting that the US military should "stay there for however many years, they have to provide it for us." Uh, no. They don't. That's not how it works. But, Andre, if you want to go back to Iraq and fight for your people, as the song says, "There's a train, every day, leaving either way" (Jackson Browne, "My Opening Fairwell," first appears on his self-titled debut album). It really does take a lot of gall for an able bodied adult to stomp their feet demanding the US should military protect their country "for however many years" while they themselves aren't living in said country. And it takes a lot of gall to take your ass out of Iraq, to run to safety, but to insist that others aren't allowed to do the same. Turning to some of today's reported violence in Iraq . . . Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured, a 17-year-old male was shot dead in a Mosul attack, a Mosul grenade attack injured two people, athe owner of a Mosul goldsmith shop was shot dead at his work and a Baghdad sticky bombing injured three people. Friday October 22nd, WikiLeaks released 391,832 US military documents on the Iraq War. The documents -- US military field reports -- reveal torture and abuse and the ignoring of both. They reveal ongoing policies passed from the Bush administration onto the Obama one. They reveal that both administrations ignored and ignore international laws and conventions on torture. They reveal a much higher civilian death toll than was ever admitted to. Media Lens has released a review of the documents (and of how the media handled them or mishandled them). Excerpt: The leaks reveal, not just a staggering level of violence and criminality in occupied Iraq, but also the determination of the Iraqi government and US forces to hide civilian casualties. This is hardly surprising and fits with evidence that the US and UK governments have worked hard to smear credible scientific analysis of the likely death toll. A recent study by Professor Brian Rappert of the University of Exeter reported of the UK government: "deliberations were geared in a particular direction -- towards finding grounds for rejecting the [2004] Lancet study [estimating almost 100,000 Iraqi deaths from the war] without any evidence of countervailing efforts by government officials to produce or endorse alternative other studies or data". (http://www.landmineaction.org/resources/A%20State%20of%20Ignorance.pdf) Nevertheless, with a near-uniform intellectual sleight of hand, journalists have managed to turn evidence that civilian casualties are likely +much+ higher (as much as ten times higher) than most media have been reporting into evidence that casualties are perhaps 15 per cent higher. As one seasoned journalist told us privately, "WikiLeaks has been Guardianised" - their true significance has been disarmed, defanged and contained by the media. This has been achieved by ignoring obvious implications of the leaks for the media's preferred death toll source, Iraq Body Count (IBC), and by ignoring much higher death counts altogether, notably those offered by the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies. It has been achieved by turning to IBC spokespeople and by blanking alternative sources offering a very different view. Why does someone self-check out? Why does someone self-medicate? For Iraq War veteran Jeff Hanks the answer to both is the lack of treatment for his PTSD. Sarah Lazare (Truthout) reported on Jeff last week: Jeff, who grew up in Beebe, Arkansas, deployed to Iraq in 2008, a tour that eventually earned him a Combat Infantry Badge. During his time in Iraq, Jeff saw "the most brutal things of any of his deployments," he says. "It really bothered me. I think about it all the time." Jeff's Iraq deployment was marked by stressful combat patrols that kept him "always on edge." In 2008, he was witness to the aftermath of a car bomb explosion in a crowded marketplace in Balad, Iraq. It resulted in what he describes as "mass casualties." He saw one little girl, the age of his oldest daughter at the time, who had been gravely injured by the bomb, but still alive. "I can still see that little girl," he says. "I dream about her to this day." Jeff says that he and others in his unit were not given adequate care for the mental wounds they sustained in battle, with mental health professionals only coming for short visits once a month. He describes his only experience seeing a therapist in Iraq: "It was a total joke," he says. "The guy just sat there and wrote stuff down and nothing ever came of it." Jeff tells of one person in his unit who developed a severe drinking problem during his tour. "I know it stemmed from stuff he saw in Iraq," says Jeff. The command never pursued mental counseling of any kind for him. They told us not to speak to him and they eventually just kicked him out. He probably didn't get disability pay or anything." Around the country, veterans are not getting the help they need. Like Jeff, they have to treat themselves and do it the best way they can because the system is failing them. Take Iraq War veteran Zachary Hershley who had a flashback and called 9-11.KFSM reports that despite it being clear to the 9-11 operator and to the police who arrived on the scene that Zachary clearly thought he was in Iraq, despite the fact that no one was -- thankfully -- hurt in the episode, the Platte Country District Attorney's office wanted a conviction fo some sort for Zachary with Eric Zahnd pompously declaring, "Post-traumatic stress disorder cannot equal a get out of jail free card. I did something I've never done to somebody accused of a DWI assault and that is allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor." A KFSM reader (Martha) shows far more common sense than does the prosecutor: This young man should be put on probation and ordered to stay in treatment. This prosecutor obviously does not fully understand the nature and behaviors often associated with PTSD. I am sure there are multiple DUI's given a walk back to the streets who have done more damage than this young man did. Drug dealers and celebreties get by with much more heinous acts than this man has committed. Iraq Veterans Against the War have launched Operation Recovery and this week they're doing outreach: The Campaign Team and Chapters from across the nation are starting an effort to do regular outreach on and around military bases and universities. The Campaign is in the popular research and base building phase. To win this struggle, hundreds of IVAW Members, Veterans, Service Members, and Allies are needed to help organize. Service Members and Veterans are in our communities and looking to be part of a community of people that understands them. If you are a member of IVAW and want to learn more about how to get involved and do outreach click here. We opened with realities of peace and war and we'll close with them. At World Can't Wait, Chris Floyd ponders Barack's trip to India and whether it might have been a peace trip? He concludes: No: he has come to seal the deal on the sixth largest sale of war weapons in the history of the United States: $5 billion for the bristling, burgeoning Indian military, currently waging war on millions of its own people in Kashmir and the poverty-devastated state of central India, where the despair is so deep that suicide among the poor is epidemic. Five billion dollars could have transformed the lives and futures of millions; instead it will go into the pockets of a few American war profiteers -- who will of course spread the wealth around to their favorite politicians ... such as Barack Obama, the leading recipient of war industry money in the 2008 campaign, outdoing even that old soldier and ardent militarist, John McCain. And of course the Indian arms deal comes hot on the heels of the largest transaction of death-machinery in American history: Obama's $60 billion war-profiteering bonanza with Saudi Arabia, one of the most suffocatingly repressive and inhumane regimes on the face of the earth. But the Peace Laureate doesn't care about that. He knows what is truly important -- and it isn't the blighted lives of the Saudi people, or all those affected by the corruption and extremism that the Saudi royals have spread around the world (with the connivance, cooperation -- or at the command of -- the bipartisan American power structure). What matters most to the progressive paragon of peace is the sixty billion dollars stuffed into the coffers of his militarist backers. If Obama wins re-election in 2012, it will not be because he "made a mid-course correction" or "learned the lessons" of the 2010 vote or "moved to the center" or any such witless expectoration of conventional wisdom. It will be because his militarist backers have judged his arms deals and Terror War operations sufficiently profitable to justify his retention. As is always the case with the War Machine that rules us, follow the money -- and the blood. iraq the associated press anne gearan antiwar.com jason ditz the washington post leila fadel the washington times ben birnbaum cnn jomana karadsheh the los angeles times raheem salman ned parker pri the takeaway celeste headlee john hockenberry