Lila Garrett, you are the missing link

Tuesday. Almost the weekend if we strain our eyes and try real hard to see it. Try real hard, you'll see it. Got it? Yeah. Looks nice. We'll make it. Until then . . .


Lila Garrett on KPFK's Connect The Dots made an ass out of herself which most people are used to. She pretends she holds Barack's feet to the fire but she (and Marci Winograd) are too busy sucking on Barry's toes to do much to accountability holding. There was Lila bellowing about Republicans opposed to Barry's Insurance bail out as "barbarians." It was mere minutes after a man on the show explained to her that the only winner from Barry's 'plan' was the insurance companies. I know about that. I live in Big Mass. Remember, we got the first Barry prototype. We fell for the 'changey' and the 'hopey' and we elected him. It does not look like he will be re-elected. What it did was force you to buy health insurance. Couldn't afford it? Too bad. That's how there was 'universal coverage'. Now the extreme poor did get some subsidy. But the working poor? No. And it was nothing but a big give away and yet Lila's attacking Republicans.



Lila Garrett, your problem isn't Republicans. They have no power. NO POWER. It's Barack. Quit jerking off on air and start informing your audience.



I don't need you to kick the Republican Party. Save it for 2011 when they're controlling one house of Congress. Right now, they have no power. This is Barry O's dance. Don't like the way it's going? I don't blame you but if you don't like the way it's going, blame the one who's leading.



US House Rep. Dennis Kucinich was on and he made a lot more sense speaking about opponents on the right. He did so without insulting them and while acknowledging some issues. "Crazies" "paid thugs," "the missing link" and "barbarians" are terms Lila was spitting out.



Dennis Kucinich: I think the miscommunications and the town brawls that have occurred, I don't think it really reflects the desire of the American people for information. It reflects a lot of anger that's out there. I 'd be careful about writing off all the anger as just the imagination of lunatics who've come to stir up trouble. I think you've got be we have to be aware that there are people out there that have lost their jobs, lost their retirement security, their investments and their health care and they're angry. And they're angry at a government that's given away tons of money to Wall St., that's let these bonuses fly that wealth's going to continue to be accelerated upwards. What in the world is this all about?





This is the latest from his office:


Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement in response to news reports that the Obama Administration plans to add increased oversight to the rendition program:
“Extraordinary Rendition is an illegal practice hailing from the misguided policies and practices of the previous administration,” Kucinich said. “As such, I am deeply concerned by the Obama administration’s decision to continue the practice of extraordinary rendition. As a democracy it is imperative that we end the use of the inhumane and immoral practice of extrajudicial detainee transfers to places where the potential use of torture as a part of detention and interrogation exists.
“However, instead of ending this misguided policy, the Obama Administration proposes reforms to bring oversight to this illegal practice. Specifically, the Special Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies recommends “clarifying and strengthening U.S. procedures for obtaining and evaluating” assurances from receiving countries that detainees will not be tortured. Moreover, the Task Force has recommended greater involvement by the Department of State in securing diplomatic assurances from the receiving country that detainees will not be tortured.
“The U.S. has an obligation to ensure that our actions are consistent with the rule of law. There is little reason to think that measures to reform rendition can ensure an end to the abuses caused by extraordinary rendition. It appears that under the reforms prisoners can still be transferred to countries who have previously engaged in torture. Furthermore, diplomatic assurances have been proven ineffective in the past. It is notable that the U.S. has engaged in extraordinary rendition of innocent individuals who were misidentified. It is also notable that no detainee transferred by the rendition process has ever had their case heard by a justice system.
“The people of the United States have clearly voiced and voted for a new direction in U.S. policy. The people of the U.S. did not choose the new administration based on the premise that rendition could be done better. The Obama administration must stop this illegal policy that leads to greater human rights violations.
“If the U.S. does not act to end extraordinary rendition we are simply playing a new rendition of an old song—torture.”



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


Tuesday, August 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Cindy Sheehan steps up to the plate again (where's everyone else?), Syria and Iraq move to pull ambassadors, al Qaeda in Iraq claims credit for last Wednesday's bombings, a new study finds a likelihood of increased risk of suicide for those suffering from PTSD, and more.

Starting in the United States. President Barack Obama is vacationing on Martha's Vineyard. Despite promising to end the Iraq War, he hasn't. He promised troops out in 16 months in his rah-rah speeches on the campaign trail and then, in Februrary 2008 speaking in Texas, suddenly said 10 months after being sworn in, he'd have the troops out of Iraq. Of course, he was lying. He is a politician. But that is what he promised. There are 130,000 US troops in Iraq currently, more than were present before Bully Boy Bush started his 'surge' in 2007. Barack was sworn in during the first month of the year, January. It's now August, the eighth month. It's possible to get 130,000 troops out before the tenth month but he's not planning on it. He wasn't planning even when lying through his War Hawk teeth. March 7, 2008, Sammy Power was suddenly out of Barack's campaign. The BBC was airing an interview. Though Tom Hayden would play dumb about the interview until July 4, 2008, we called it out in real time. Here's what she told the BBC:


Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?

Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.

From the March 7, 2008 snapshot:

Power was not a campaigner, she was a high level, longterm foreign policy advisor being groomed to be the next Secretary of State. As Krissah Williams (Washington Post) notes, Senator Clinton's response to Power's BBC interview was to note Power's agreement that Obama's pledge to have "combat" troops out in 16 months was never more than a "best-case scenario". Hillary Clinton: "Senator Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comments especially troubling. While Senator Obama campaigns on his [pledge] to end the war, his top advisers tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president. This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."

And the response from Panhandle Media -- the US' alleged "alternative" media? Silence. March 9, 2008, we editorialized on this at Third Estate Sunday Review in "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia." And we returned to the topic in July, after Tom Hayden 'suddenly' noticed Samantha Power's March BBC interview, "Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq." The old sellout Tom-Tom was insisting that this interview which he'd suddenly -- like Columbus -- discovered was ignored by "the media" and by "rival campaigns". Like his hero Barry O, Tom-Tom Hayden can lie through his teeth. And you can check Third's editorial ("Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq") to find examples of the Real Media outlets that covered it while Tom Hayden and all the beggars of Panhandle Media played dumb -- it's playing right? No one can really be that dumb, can they? What is known is that the watch doggies didn't bark in March 2009. Not Tom-Tom, not Jeremy Scahill, not the forever climbing on the soap box Naomi Klein, not Laura Flanders, not The Nation, not Amy Goodman, not Matthew Rothschild, not one damn radio show on KPFA, WBAI, KPFK, go down the list. (David Corn did cover it in real time for Mother Jones -- in order to insist it wasn't important. That everyone knew -- everyone, he insisted -- that Barack didn't mean any promise he made on the campaign trail.)

They played dumb then and they play dumb now. They refuse to use their power to speak out against the Iraq War. They've all written their books, apparently, and can no longer squeeze a dime out of the illegal war. They've all got 'better' things to do. And besides, as Naomi insisted to her imaginary anarchist friends (as made up as was her huge laughable lie about what she saw on election night -- and that says a great deal that The Progressive printed that obvious lie), she just wanted to enjoy Barack. Don't wake the Mall Rat, she thinks we're alone now, there doesn't seem to be anyone around.

Always several decades behind the times, Canada gives us their own Tiffany, Little Miss Naomi Klein. Daughter of a war resister who can't even talk about that to most outlets and had to be cornered into the topic to begin with. Her father went to Canada to avoid being shipped to Vietnam. Back then, you didn't need refugee status, you could just go through the process and become a Canadian citizen. Coward and liar, Naomi refuses to do a thing to help today's war resisters other than sign a petition. Get that. Grasp it. Because a hell of a lot of us back in the day helped her father and others. But Mall Rat Naomi doesn't believe in pay it forward, she just believes in gimmie, gimmie, gimmie. And in her Selfish Paradise, she has no time to help end the Iraq War, let alone help US war resisters in Canada. But if you ask her to dish on which New Kid On The Block she found dreamy, she can go for an hour. (Joey! Yes, Joey was her NKOTB. No, I don't know which one that is. But I'm a functioning adult.)

So while they've all Walked On, WalkOn.org, hurried away from Iraq -- because, goodness, who knew it would be work to end a war? -- Cindy Sheehan's still standing.

Peace Mom's still fighting to end the Iraq War. And, take note those who thumbed a ride over to Afghanistan, Cindy's fighting to end that one as well. Today Cindy Sheehan lands on Martha's Vineyard and prepares to demonstrate against the continued wars.

Dave Cook (Christian Science Monitor) reports she will hold a news conference tomorrow "morning at the Oak Bluff's Elementary School on the island resort." Cape Cod Today adds that among the actions will be members of the peace movement sailing around Martha's Vineyard August 27 through the 29th and quotes her stating, "I am calling in the Peace Movement to encircle our country with our united demand for an immediate return of all U.S. forces around the globe. Bring every one of our troops home NOW! We need them in our families and towns. This world needs a permanent vacation from war." Jake Berry (Cape Cod Times) also reports on Cindy's impending arrival and quotes her stating, "The body bags aren't taking a vacation." Part of the demonstrations will include encircling the island on SS Camp Casey, named after Cindy's son Casey Sheehan who died April 4, 2004 in Iraq. IPA notes Cindy will hold a news conference tomorrow starts at 11:00 a.m. and quotes her stating, "I think that people are waking up to the fact that even if they voted for Barack Obama, he doesn't represent real change. July was the worst month for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing to be killed in these wars. These policies were wrong when Bush was president and they're wrong now that Obama is president." Speaking to Jennifer Harper (Washington Times), Cindy stated, "Our demand from the peace movement has always been 'troops home now,' and I am going to reassert the moral demands that we insisted upon from the Bush administration to an Obama administration." At her website, they note the following:

Her schedule of public events is as follows: Wednesday, Aug. 26, 11am, Press Conference at Oak Bluffs Elementary School. Wednesday, Aug. 26, 8pm, Peace Vigil, Ocean Park Bandstand, Oak Bluffs. Thursday, Aug. 27, Friday, Aug. 28 and Saturday, Aug. 29: Boat trips with Cindy for peace movement leaders, press and public. These 'shipboard peace summit' meetings will leave Vineyard Haven twice daily on the 105 foot sloop 'SS Camp Casey' in the afternoons. Call for details. No charge, so reserve ahead. 207-604-8988 or email: lauriegdobson@yahoo.com. Saturday Aug. 29, 9 to 5 Peace Vigil Ocean Park, Oak Bluffs and Walkabout around the Island Saturday, Aug. 29, 8pm Cindy Sheehan speaking event "Peace Now, Again", Katharine Cornell Theater, 54 Spring St., Vineyard Haven. Cindy is scheduling press and media interviews throughout the week. Call Laurie Dobson at 207-604-8988 or email: lauriegdobson@yahoo.com or Bruce Marshall at 802-767-6079. In addition to these planned events, there will be impromptu gatherings during the week. A memorial site will be present on the island with an outdoor area designated as 'Camp Casey', a living tribute to her son Casey Sheehan, who died in the Iraq War, as well as honoring others who were war casualties. The SS Camp Casey will welcome all those who wish to come to meet Cindy. She will be also available on the Vineyard for gatherings of visitors, which will be open to the public, the press, and anyone desiring to connect with those for whom the costs of war are a daily reality in their lives. For information on the events, please contact Chris Fried at (508)-693-7741 and for information about Cindy, please contact Laurie Dobson at (207)-604-8988 or email: lauriegdobson@yahoo.com.

What's the media reaction going to be? Have you heard Amy Goodman mention it? Even in her headlines? Nope. Well that's the Queen of Panhandle Media. And Real Media? Last week, Charlie Gibson issued the royal edict of "Enough already." Apparently grouchy due to the fact that no longer co-hosting Good Morning America means he's unable to nap on live TV, Queen Charlie Approximately showed just how nasty a TV reader who elected to leave the news department to go into entertainment (Good Morning America is produced by ABC entertainment) could be when forced to form an opinion that goes beyond, "Mmm. Smells good. In our next segment, we're joined by entertainer Joey Heatherton. And later, Shari Lewis joins us to talk about Lamb Chops brave battle with lint balls. Stay tuned!" Cindy responded to Charlie Gibson's nonsense and pointed out, "I certainly am not the anchor of a major network news show, but last time I checked, people are still dying at a heartrending clip in Iraq-Af-Pak. If my goal was '15 minutes of fame,' I could have gone quietly away a long time ago. I started because I wanted the wars to end, and I will figure I can go away when the wars end…but when is that going to be? In my lifetime, probably not." When will the war ends? The issue is raised in a letter today to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Times:


When I returned from Vietnam in the late 1960s, it seemed the deaths of soldiers and civilians were treated as though they were but the melodramatic nuance to somebody else's Aquarian Age. Today, the deaths seem cast as acceptable losses in the transition from the Bush to Obama policies. Protests are minimal, staunched by administrative promises proven insubstantial. One by one by hundreds, people are losing their lives, and still the wars go on. What was not accepted from Bush is tolerated from Obama. The United States needs to leave Iraq and withdraw from Afghanistan, now. Accusations of isolationism don't wash while American soldiers and Iraqi and Afghani civilians die to prove the falsehood that intervention is peacemaking.Jerry Maxham, Davie

We'll stay with the US for a big longer to address some of the damages from the illegal war.


"They gave me a gun" he said
"They gave me a mission
For the power and the glory --
Propaganda -- piss on 'em
There's a war zone inside me --
I can feel things exploding --
I can't even hear the f**king music playing
For the beat of -- the beat of black wings."
[. . .]
"They want you -- they need you --
They train you to kill --
To be a pin on some map --
Some vicarious thrill --
The old hate the young
That's the whole heartless thing
The old pick the wars
We die in 'em
To the beat of -- the beat of black wings"
-- "The Beat of Black Wings," words and music by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Chalk Mark In A Rainstorm.

Friday's snapshot noted:Today the US military announced that Staff Sgt Enoch Chatman, Staff Sgt Bob Clements, Sgt Jarrett Taylor and Spc Daniel Weber are all "charged with cruelty and maltreatment of subordinates . . . The four Soliders are alleged to have treated Soldiers within their platoon inappropriately." CNN states they are accused of "cruelty and maltreatment of four subordinates in Iraq after a suicide investigation brought to light alleged wrongdoing, the military said Friday." Michelle Tan (Army Times via USA Today) reports, "The alleged mistreatment consisted of verbal abuse, physical punishment and ridicule of the subordinate soldiers, Lt. Col. Kevin Olson, spokesman for Multi-National Division-South wrote in an e-mail to Army Times."The soldier has been identifed as Keiffer Wilhelm. August 4th the US military announced: "A Soldier assigned to Multi-National Division - South died of a non-combat related injury August 4. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin." The Department of Defense announced August 5th: " Pvt. Keiffer P. Wilhelm, 19, of Plymouth, Ohio, died August 4 in Maysan province, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 13th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation." Andrew Kreighbaum (El Paso Times) reported August 6th, "Wilhelm, an infantryman from Plymouth, Ohio, enlisted in the army in December after graduating from Willard High School last year. His father, Adrian Wilhelm, said his son joined the Army to be like his older brother, who is in the U.S. Air Force. Adrian Wilhelm said Keiffer Wilhelm was the best man at his brother's wedding in Arizona on May 7 and was sent to Kuwait soon afterward. The wedding was the last time he saw his son." Chris Roberts (El Paso Times) reported Monday that Keiffer Wilhelm "was abused by his 'first-line supervisors,' Sgt. Brandon LeFlor wrote in an e-mail. He is a spokesman for Multi-National Division-South in Basra, Iraq." Roberts quotes Keiffer Wilhelm's parents stating, "We only want justice and to prevent this from happening to another family."

Thursday DoD identified Matthew Hastings as one of the fallen. Kevin Canfield (Tulsa World) reported on the death and quotes Hasting's mother Lawanda Lowry stating, "He was just an all-American kid. He was so proud to be in the Army and he was so proud to serve our country. [. . .] He called me when he was graduating from basic training and said, 'Mom, I have accomplished far more and greater things than I ever thought possible'." Saturday Manny Gamallo (Tulsa World) reported the family believes his death may have been a suicide and cited sister Michelle Brazil explaining that e-mails her brother sent to Kristy Moore (friend), Clark W. Hastings (grandfather) and herself "were basically the same. He said he couldn't take it anymore, and he was going to hang out with Clark tonight. [. . .] They were almost like twins. They wore the same clothes, had the same friends, did everything together." Clark was Matthew Hasting's brother who passed away. Earlier this month, Iraq War veteran Wesley David Gilson was shot dead by US authorities. His obit notes his survivors included his wife Carol Gilson, his children Christian, Danny, Emily, Mary, Ethan and Anna, his mother Joan Pass, a sister Karen Knoblich, an ex-wife Lisa Clark. Livingston Today reported he was "in a multihour standoff with police" and they later found they he had left a suicide note. Earlier this month, Jim Spellman and Wayne Drash (CNN -- link has text and video) reported on Iraq War veteran Thomas Delgado who is charged with attempted murder of his wife who states Delgado "needs medical help, not prison":

Shayla Delgado says her husband grabbed a gun and rattled off suicidal thoughts. "I've been thinking about how I'm going to do it," she recalled him saying. "I just can't live like this any more. I can't do it, I can't do it."
"He was telling me, 'Take our son and leave because you don't want to be here for this,'" she said, breaking down in tears. "I was really, really scared."

Iraq War veteran Jacob Gregory Swanson will be buried tomorrow. Glenda Anderson (Santa Rosa Press Democrat) reports, "Swanson turned a handgun on himself after shooting and killing his sometime girlfriend, Amy Salo, 36, Mendocino County law authorities said. Swanson's family said he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder before his discharge from the Army in 2005." Earlier this month, Kathy Mellott (Tribune-Democrat) reported Iraq War veteran Nicholas Adam Horner's defense in a murder trial will include his three tours of duty.

From American soldiers to British ones, Danny Fitzsimons is facing a trial in Iraq and could be sentenced to death. He served in the British military for eight years and was stationed in Afghanistan and Kosovo. He is accused of being the shooter in a Green Zone incident this month in which 1 British contractor, Paul McGuigan, and 1 Australian contractor, Darren Hoare, died and one Iraqi, Arkhan Madhi, was injured. Eric and Liz Fitzsimons spoke to the BBC (link has video) and noted that they are not asking for Danny to 'walk.' They stated that he has to take responsibility. But they want a fair trial and do not believe that is possible in Iraq. His legal defense team doesn't believe he can get a fair trial either stating today that the British military's presence in Iraq during the war means that Fitzsimons will be used as scapegoat. The Sunday Mail quoted Danny Fitzsimons yesterday stating, I see Paul and Darren's faces every night before I sleep and every morning when I wake up." Jonathan Owen (Independent of London) quotes him describing his cell, "There's 12 of us sleeping on the floor; some are sharing – two to a mattress. The guys that are in here with me are a really good bunch, but the water gets turned off at odd hours and the electricity goes off. It could be a lot worse – I'm not complaining. [. . .] The only thing that gets me stressed out is the amount of people in here. It's quite loud. I like to be able to escape somewhere on my own but I can't. In the scheme of things I know that's trivial. I've got nothing to moan about -- this is as good as it gets here." The Manchester Evening News adds, "His British lawyer, John Tipple, is stepping up efforts to have him extradited to Britain under an unused provision in the Iraqi legal code that dates back to the 1930s." Tipple is quoted stating, "We are not going to let the British government hang him out to dry. He is a British national and the right place for him to be tried, if at all, is at home." Today Matthew Cookson (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports on the issue:

John Tipple told Socialist Worker, "There is no way that a fair trial can take place in Iraq.
"We fear that Daniel will be scapegoated for the decision made by Tony Blair to make Britain a key part of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"Daniel spent eight years in the Parachute Regiment. He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder after seeing horrors in Bosnia and Kosovo.
"After he left the army he had a few brushes with the law, and his situation began to deteriorate when he became a private security contractor.
"The British government has abandoned its duty of care towards soldiers. When they return from war zones, often brutalised by their experiences, they are left to their own devices.
"That is why there are a disproportionate number of soldiers in the prison system, with mental health problems or homeless. They are victims of war as well as the people of Afghanistan and Iraq."

Some or all of above may have resulted from experiences in the war zones. And there are many more reports of violence aimed within and outside. The point in noting this is not to say, "Iraq War vets are crazy and dangerous!" That's not the point. The point is that experiences impact different people differently and that some conditions, such as PTSD, are easier to manage for some veterans than for all. PTSD is the topic of "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as a Rsik Factor for Suicidal Ideation in Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans" (Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 23, No. 4, August 2009, pp 303 - 306). For the study, 435 Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans were used for the sample. Half of the sample was diagnosed with PTSD (49.6%). The study notes:

Prior research with Vietnam veterans with chronic PTSD has established an association between PTSD and suicide (Bullman & Kang, 1994). This study extends these findings by demonstrating an association between suicidal ideation and PTSD in treatment-seeking OIF/OEF veterans with more acute forms of PTSD. PTSD was significantly associated with suicidal ideation after accounting for age, depression and substance abuse, with PTSD veterans over four times more likely to report suicidal ideation than veterans who did not screen psotive for PTSD. Among veterans who screen positive for PTSD, there was no significant increase in risk for suicidal ideation associated with a single comorbid disorder. However, the likelihood for suicidal ideation was 5.7 times greater in veterans with PTSD who screened positive for two or more comorbid disorders relative to veterans with PTSD alone. Results suggest that veterans with PTSD who have multiple psychiatric comorbidities may be at greater risk for suicidal ideation. This increased likelihood of suicidal ideation associated with comorbidity is notable because, of those OIF/OEF veterans diagnosed with a mental disorder, 27% have three or more different mental health diagnoses.

Repeating, a veteran with or without PTSD is not 'crazy' or 'dangerous' either to his or herself or others either because of being a veteran or because of having PTSD. But some suffering from the war -- with or without PTSD -- are really struggling and, a percentage of that struggling group, is obviously not getting the help they need.

Turning to Iraq, where the big story is apparently still yesterday's news that Nouri wasn't wanted in the new Shi'ite coalition. Ernesto Londono and K.I. Ibrahim (Washington Post) observe, "Maliki's exclusion from the alliance was not entirely surprising. Despite his considerable popularity, the prime minister has become a divisive figure, and a recent surge in violence has triggered criticism from Iraqis who view his administration as cocky and incompetent." Even the headline points to this, "Major Shiite Political Parties Exclude Maliki in Forming Coalition" but when we switch the channel to state-run media, we find Steven Myers of the New York Times spinning a yarn about how Nouri is the one who didn't want to join. Pick the knee-jerk reaction in defense of Nouri and there the paper will go. Nouri wants to continue as prime minister and the new coalition doesn't need him and made it known they wouldn't make any promises. But Myers frantically works as Nouri's p.r. man and scribbles, "Mr. Maliki's refusal to join the alliance, after weeks of negotiations behind the scenes, intensified a bitter political struggle over the leadership of the country's largest sect ahead of parliamentary elections in January." Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) add that Nouri "has so far been unable to sway any significant Sunni or Kurdish factions to join his prospective coalition." Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) observes of Nouri, "His stature, nonetheless, took a dent last week when suicide bombers detonated explosives in front of two government ministries, killing at least 95 and wounding more than 1,200, and undercutting the image of stability that Maliki has tried to convey while American forces reduce their presence in Iraq." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports on the new political coalition noting, "The 10-party Iraqi National Alliance includes two groups whose leaders are both in Iran -- the country's largest Shiite party, cleric Abdul Azis al-Hakim's Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, and the bloc of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr." Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) explains that one-time CIA asset Ahmad Chalabi is among the founders of the new coalition and he addresses the potential meanings of what is taking place:

First of all, although Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has so far opted not to join the pan-Shiite religious alliance, American Pollyannas who see Maliki as a nationalist, pro-American ally are wrong. Like the new INA alliance, Maliki is in thrall to the Iranians, too, only slightly less so. His secretive, cult-like Dawa Party -- which has split and split again -- provides nearly all of his inner-circle allies and advisers, and according to Iraqi sources Maliki is heavily vested in ties to Iran and its intelligence services. He shrewdly, though unconvincingly, positioned himself and his new party, State of Law, as a pro-unity, nationalist party during the January provincial elections, but although Maliki tried to find allies among secular Iraqis, religious Sunnis, and Kurds, nearly all of his votes came from Arab Shiites. He got votes from Iraqis who were unhappy with their country's religious-right drift and who rejected ISCI and its allies, in part by lavishing patronage to newly created tribal councils in the Shiite-majority provinces. As a result, Maliki has been riding high of late, and a well-placed former Iraqi official told me that Maliki felt strong enough to tell the founders of the Iraqi National Alliance that he'd refuse to join unless they let him run the show, with a guarantee that he'd be reelected as prime minister if the Alliance wins a majority in the January, 2010, election. Maliki may or may not have overestimated his strength, but in any case he may decide to join the Alliance at a later date -- or, alternately, he might join them after the election in a coalition government. In either case, Iran will be the big winner, especially as US forces move out.

In other news, who can pull out their ambassador first? That's the game Syria and Iraq are engaged in. Xinhua reports that upon learing Iraq was withdrawing their ambassador, Syria decided to withdraw its ambassador to Iraq and notes that Iraq is demanding Syria hand over Ba'athists living in Syria (it's neither a crime to be a Ba'ahist or to live in Syria) whom they insist are responsible for the last Wednesday's bombings. This as Khalid al-Ansary, Suadad al-Salhy and Missy Ryan (Reuters) report the al Qaeda in Iraq-linked Islamic State of Iraq has issued a statement claiming credit for the bombings: "As we announce our reponsibility for this blessed foray, we want to clarify, as we have said repeatedly, that we target the foundations of this evil state and those who supported it and helped establish it." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) quotes this from the group's statement, "The ground shook under their feet, their hearts were torn with fear, and the weakness of their states and their disputes were exposed to everyone." CNN, citing SANA (Syrian media outlet), notes the Syrian government response, "Syria had informed the Iraqi side of its willingness to host an Iraqi delegation to review the evidence it has on those who carried out that attacks [but] considers the evidence that is being broadcast in Iraqi media as fabricated for internal political agendas." The Syrian government is referring to the 'confession' televised. The sole confession and not even for the worst attack -- the 'confessor' 'confessed' to an attack on the Finanical Ministry when the attack on the Foreign Ministry did the most damage. (Iraq has a history of torturing prisoners to produce confessions. It also has a history of trumpeting 'captures' that turn out not to be what they were promoted as.)

In reported violence today, at least 5 dead and eighteen wounded,

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing which left four people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing which left five people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left four police officers wounded and a Baghdad sticky bombing which left one person wounded. Reuters notes a Samarra roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead and a police officer injured in Mosul today while last night a mosque invasion resulted in a Sheikh being wounded in a shooting. Reuters notes 1 Mosul hospital patient was shot dead in an attack today that also injured a hospital guard and an assailant and, dropping back to last night, they note 1 police officer shot dead in Baghdad and 1 university professor shot dead.

The US military has farmed out . . . a responsibility that probably wasn't their responsibility to begin with. US media outlets look at their staffing issues and determine whom to assign where. But a new hurdle's emerged for those they might want to embed with US troops. Charlie Reed (Stars and Stripes) reports the Rendon Group is now in charge of that decision, "Rendon examines individual reports' recent work and determines whether the coverage was 'positive,' 'negative' or 'neutral' compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005." And the US government is paying for that. Anyone remember Kenneth Tomlinson and his efforts to have Bill Moyers and Diane Rehm's work 'graded'? With tax payer money? And how outraged everyone rightly was? What's the difference? What's the difference between the outrageous actions of Kenneth Tomlinson and the US government farming the same tasks (plus access) to the Rendon Group?

June 23rd, news broke that Heath Druzin, of Stars and Stripes, was being barred from an embedding assignment in Iraq. At that time, New West Boise's Jill Kuraitis declared, "In my opinion, it's a serious matter when the delivery of accurate and timely news is denied to the American people who always deserve the truth in accordance with our founding principles. We are funding the war with our tax dollars, which makes us even more deserving of the information. Druzin is a professional trained to do exactly what he is doing, and his efforts to be accurate should not be impeded, nor his priorities manipulated." She is correct and why is it that a firm is 'vetting' journalists? Stars and Stripes, to focus on them, isn't smart enough to know their own reporters? They assign someone to Iraq or wherever because they feel that is their best correspondent available. But the government needs to approve it? This is no different than the stomping of the feet by brutal governments that the US regularly decries but this is coming from the US. SourceWatch provides an overview of the Rendon Group and we'll excerpt their section on James Rendon and Iraq:Rendon was also a major player in the CIA's effort to encourage the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In May 1991, then-President George Bush, Sr. signed a presidential finding directing the CIA to create the conditions for Hussein's removal. The hope was that members of the Iraqi military would turn on Hussein and stage a military coup. The CIA did not have the mechanisms in place to make that happen, so they hired the Rendon Group to run a covert anti-Saddam propaganda campaign. Rendon's postwar work involved producing videos and radio skits ridiculing Saddam Hussein, a traveling photo exhibit of Iraqi atrocities, and radio scripts calling on Iraqi army officers to defect.A February 1998 report by Peter Jennings cited records obtained by ABC News which showed that the Rendon Group spent more than $23 million dollars in the first year of its contract with the CIA. It worked closely with the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an opposition coalition of 19 Iraqi and Kurdish organizations whose main tasks were to "gather information, distribute propaganda and recruit dissidents." According to ABC, Rendon came up with the name for the Iraqi National Congress and channeled $12 million of covert CIA funding to it between 1992 and 1996. Writing in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh says the Rendon Group was "paid close to a hundred million dollars by the CIA" for its work with the INC.[12]ClandestineRadio.com, a website which monitors underground and anti-government radio stations in countries throughout the world, credits the Rendon Group with "designing and supervising" the Iraqi Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) and Radio Hurriah, which began broadcasting Iraqi opposition propaganda in January 1992 from a US government transmitter in Kuwait. According to a September 1996 article in Time magazine, six CIA case officers supervised the IBC's 11 hours of daily programming and Iraqi National Congress activities in the Iraqi Kurdistan city of Arbil. According to a Harvard graduate student from Iraq who helped translate some of the radio broadcasts into Arabic, the program was poorly run. "No one in-house spoke a word of Arabic," he says. "They thought I was mocking Saddam, but for all they knew I could have been lambasting the US government." The scripts, he adds, were often ill conceived. "Who in Iraq is going to think it's funny to poke fun at Saddam's mustache," the student notes, "when the vast majority of Iraqi men themselves have mustaches?"[13] In any case, the propaganda campaign came to an abrupt end on August 31, 1996, when the Iraqi army invaded Arbil and executed all but 12 out of 100 IBC staff workers along with about 100 members of the Iraqi National Congress.

iraqcindy sheehanthe christian science monitordave cookcape cod todayinstitute of public accuracyjake berrycape cod times
south florida sun sentinel-times
joni mitchell
michelle tanel paso timesandrew kreighbaumchris robertstulsa worldkevin canfieldmanny gamallo
caroline alexanderbloomberg news
the sunday mailjonathan owenthe independent of londonthe manchester evening news
stars and stripescharlie reedjill kuraitisthe washington posternesto londonothe new york timessteven lee myersthe los angeles timescaesar ahmedliz slymcclatchy newspapersadam ashton

Bernanke gets a second term??? WTF!!!!

Monday, Monday. Vacation is over. I wish it wasn't. I wish that every week was a vacation. I know I wouldn't appreciate it that way or maybe they just tell you that so you don't realize how ripped off you are? I mean, I could eat sushi every day and would always love it.


Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack Speaks to the VFW" went up yesterday.






Vacationing Barry O. He's packed and ready to rock it. :D Also check out Kat's "Kat's Korner: John Fogerty rushes to country-lite."

Bloomberg's Julianna Goldman and Michael McKee report that tomorrow Barack will announce he's nominating Ben Bernanke for a second term as the Federal Reserve Chairman. Bernanke has been in the job almost four years (his term expires at the end of January 2010). Which means?

Which means he was in charge in 2008 and 2007 and . . . How badly do the banks have to fail? 81 banks have failed so far this year. And he's getting nominated for a second term. The economy has tanked and he's getting nominated to continue in his job?

This is from Ategah Khaki's "New Torture Documents, Same Old Story:"

So the big news today was the release of the CIA inspector general’s (IG) report from May 2004 (PDF) made public as part of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, and Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement of a decision to appoint a prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether federal laws were violated during the interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody.
But the IG report wasn’t the only big document dump the ACLU received today. This evening, we received more than 60 documents, dating from 2002 through 2007. Included are memos, letters, and documents between the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and the CIA about the torture and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody.
This document (PDF), a background paper sent by the CIA to the OLC, actually contains an official detailed account of the CIA’s detention, interrogation and rendition programs — from a detainee’s initial apprehension, to his transfer to a CIA “black site,” to his interrogation — and describes the use of abusive interrogation techniques including forced nudity, sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation and stress positions.
The May 2004 IG report provides a detailed description of torture and abuse of detainees and addresses the legality and effectiveness of the agency’s “enhanced interrogation” program under the Bush administration. Although we initially received this report as part of our FOIA case in May 2008, it was so heavily redacted (PDF), we learned very little. While the version made public today still contains heavy redactions, it does include newly unredacted sections and details of serious detainee abuse in CIA custody that were previously unknown.

Okay, let's talk Third. Dallas and the following people worked on the edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,

Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,

Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,

C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,

Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),

Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,

Mike of Mikey Likes It!,

Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),

Trina of Trina's Kitchen,

Ruth of Ruth's Report,

Wally of The Daily Jot,

Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,

Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends

and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.




The content? Most of us were returning to the East Coast. So the gang wanted everyone to get enough rest. We'd been out all day Saturday. So it was probably two in the morning Sunday when everyone went to bed. And then we all went to the airport and said our goodbyes. So it was a shorter edition.


Truest statement of the week -- Cindy Sheehan won for two weeks running. She's on Martha's Vineyard tomorrow protesting War Hawk Barack.

Truest statement of the week II -- This is Steve Inskeep who is probably the most high profile person to address Human Rights Watch's report last week.

A note to our readers -- Jim breaks down the edition.

Editorial: The Non-Working Barack Obama -- Ty told me C.I. added illustrations last night. I think the cartoon of Isaiah's works with this editorial. Little Giant. That's a movie about fumbling Lou Costello and that's what happens when someone unqualified is moved on up the ladder without earning it.

TV: According to Ava and C.I. -- Ava and C.I. take on According To Jim. This is really funny so be sure to read it and be so happy that the show is finally gone.

Roundtable -- We cover news and e-mails. There's a lot to cover. Mom, Rebecca and I cover Ted Kennedy and why we think he should resign.

Iraq -- We were all tired and, like Jim points out, we mainly hollered ideas (some of which were so bad they couldn't be used) at Ava and C.I. who really wrote this.

The music and book roundtable -- I didn't take part in this roundtable because I hadn't read the book. They're talking about a book on Joni Mitchell where the writer just goes off on Carly Simon.

Shame on Dennis Loo -- Shame on you, Dennis Loo. You shouldn't promote homophobia. That's not right, man, that's not right.

Cindy Sheehan to protest War Mongering President -- As I said before, Cindy's on Martha's Vineyard tomorrow to demonstrate against War Hawk Barack.

Highlights -- Ann joined us this week. This was written by Ann, Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Ruth, Marcia, Cedric, Stan, Wally, Elaine and me.

And that's it. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, August 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Cindy Sheehan gears up to protest the War Hawk president, a new 'change' on prisoners held by the US in secret really isn't a change and it says a great deal about the press (Big and Small) that they don't bother to tell you that, a new Shi'ite bloc forms but without Nouri, in the US 'brave' House Dems on the 'public option' aren't so brave according to Perry Bacon Jr. (they're eager to jump ship according to him), and more.

Today in Iraq, the media's attention is drawn to Kut. Outside the city, two bus bombings took place. Reuters says 11 are dead and, citing police sources, that the number may be 20. Al Jazeera gives the number wounded as twenty-five. BBC says the police are now insisting the death toll is 11. Marc Santora (New York Times) quotes bus passenger, Minem Salman stating, "I managed to get out from the window but all the others were burning. I couldn't help them." AFP states that the bombings took place "within half an hour of each other" and quotes police Lt Mohammed Fadhil stating they were sticky bombs. CBS and AP have the bombs exploding "minutes apart". Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) adds that a Baghdad roadside bombing left four police officers wounded.

Sunday the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died Aug. 23, from combat-related injuries while conducting a patrol in Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members killed in action are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defense.gov/. The announcements are made on the website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the Department of Defense. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brought the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4334.

This follows last week's violence which Third pointed out resulted in 211 reported deaths and 950 wounded. ("Last Sunday saw 13 reported dead and 41 reported injured. Monday saw 24 dead 59 wounded. Tuesday the reported death toll was 5 and 24 were reported injured. Wednesday 102 were reported dead and 572 wounded. By Thursday evening, 22 were reported dead with 67 injured. Thursday night 33 more deaths were reported and 145 wounded. Friday saw 8 deaths reported and 31 people wounded. Saturday saw 4 dead 11." Note that the US military announced the deaths of two US service members last week and they aren't included in the daily counts for last week in this parenthetical.) Wednesday's deaths were mainly from the Baghdad bombings which were largely an attack on the Foreign Ministry and the Finance Ministry. Today Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister of Iraq, "held meetings [Saturday] in a makeshift reception room with plastic sheeting for walls. Iraqi officials with their heads bandaged walked the halls exchanging news of more servely wounded colleagues" and that "10 percent of the ministry staff [was] injured or killed." She also notes, "Iraqi officials, who almost instantly announced arrests after the attacks, have given conflicting reports about how it was carried out, but all have blamed Baath Party loyalists for planning the bombing and Al Qaeda operatives for carrying it out." Saturday, Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation, appeared on Iraqi TV. Reuters quotes him stating, "I want to tell the Iraqi people we are still in an open war against them. I reassure the Iraqi people that the security forces can still keep up the battle and achieve victory despite breaches here and there." Reuters states "them" in the first sentence was supposed to refer to "terrorists." Zebari was also making public statements on Saturday. Khalid al-Ansary, Muhanad Mohammed, Michael Christie and Andrew Roche (Reuters) explained he denounced Nouri's previous decision (now on hold) to take down the Bremer walls throughout Baghdad and that he noted how it appeared to him that there was collaboration between whomever planned Wednesday's bombing attacks in Baghdad and Iraqi security forces. He is quoted stating, "According to our information, there has even been collaboration between security officers and the murderers and killers." While that was taking place, Liz Sly and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) reported on the Baghdad govenment announcing arrests which allegedlly took place "hours after the attacks Wednesday". Chip Cummins and Ben Lando (Wall St. Journal) reported that leaders of Parliament met on Firday (the press was kept out and the meeting was not televised). Meanwhile an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy (at Inside Iraq) pointed out the obvious, "Several people I talked to in Fallujah and Baghdad are full of doubt. They wonder how a truck loaded with more than one ton of explosives could escape more than 200 checkpoints throughout Baghdad?! If you are driving your car in Baghdad there will be one way to escape checkpoints without being searched properly, I mean after the explosive detectors point to your car, and that way is to show them a badge. A badge of an officer will be the perfect way. The fact that there were officers of the presidential guards involved in a bank theft and killing eight guards at the end of last month made people suspect anything." It's being called "Iraq's 9-11" by Iraqi officials and by US Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill while others are referring to it as "Black Wednesday." Click here for CNN video on Wednesday's attack. Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) spoke with Haider Chasibi whose home is near the Foreign Ministry and has experienced damages from three bombings on the Foreign Ministry in the last four years. He tells Ashton, "Next time it will fall on our heads and kill us. It cannot take another explosion."

Yesterday, the Baghdad-based government trotted out a suspect with the latest in their televised 'confessions'. This morning Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) serves up "Iraq Military Broadcasts Confession on Bombing" because Myers and the Times love forced confessions and are working overtime to become state media in Iraq. Real news outlets are less quick to swallow. Reuters headlined their story "Iraq shows video it says is confession of bomber." BBC goes with "Iraqi 'bomber confession' aired." Myers pants: "In brief, edited excerpts of videotaped remarks, the man, identified as Wisam Ali Khazim Ibrahim, calmly explained how he had organized one of the two bombings, which killed almost 100 people on Wednesday and wounded hundreds more." In the best Judy Miller style, it waits until paragraph five to point out that the 'testimony' cannot "be confirmed independently". Big surprise, the likely forced confession fingers Ba'athists (in Syria!!!!) for the attack. But here's the thing, if the confession was genuine, wasn't it stupid to air it? Iraq's not announced any other ringleaders and presumably were the 'confessor' telling the truth and doing so of his own accord, he would have supplied the names of all involved. Or are we not supposed to notice that? So shouldn't the 'confession' have been kept under wraps until after the Iraqi government announced a series of arrests? Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports that "many Iraqis expressed skepticism about the claims to CNN, asking why the government had the intelligence to make the arrests so quickly but was unable to prevent the attacks. In some previous incidents, the Iraqi government has announced arrests and aired confessions that did not hold up. In April, it claimed it had captured Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq's umbrella group, the Islamic State of Iraq. The Islamic State of Iraq denied it, and the capture was never confirmed by the U.S. military." Of the 'confessor,' Jane Arraf notes he "appeared strangely composed" and she also notes reports that some Sunni MPs may be arrested shortly. Oliver August (Times of London) adds, "Opposition politicians voiced doubt last night that the real perpetrators had been caught and asked if the confession was made under torture."

Meanwhile Alsumaria reports, "In a meeting with ministers, MPs, scholars and tribal Sheikhs, Prime Minister Al Maliki noted that some politicians cashing on Iraq attacks saps national interest of the country." Cashing in? On security? Nouri wants to play that card? Really? Who rushed to take credit for security previously? I believe that was Nouri. Now that the situation is different, suddenly he's concerned that some might make political hay out of 'security'. Now he's concerned. Poor Nouri. Ernesto Londono reports at the Washington Post that a Shi'ite coalition of politcal parties does not include Nouri. Apparently, they didn't want him to play in their reindeer games. This was made clear when they refused to promise that they'd re-appoint Nouri as Prime Minister should they secure the needed majority in the January 2010 elections. The New York Times repeately fails to grasp that last part: the prime minister is not elected by the people. Londono reports that the new coalition is thought to have closer ties with Iran.

Turning to the non-Change administration in the US. Yesterday Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported the US government wants credit for allegedly supplying information on prisoners they are holding "in secret at detention camps in Afghanistan and Iraq" -- and it's more smoke and mirrors from Barack. Amy Goodman (Democracy Sometimes!) will play the fool all her life as she again demonstrated this by mangling what took place in her headlines, "The new disclosure took effect this month after years of denying the Red Cross access to the prisoners." Reading's hard for the likes of Amy Goodman or maybe it's just the latest in her strained relationship with the facts. Regardless, for any 'information' the government's supplying the Red Cross to be solid, it needs to be verifiable. It's not. DeYoung explained -- PAY ATTENTION, AMY GOODMAN -- that the US government "will continue to deny the" International Committee of the Red Cross "access to the prisoners". BBC explains, "Despite the change in policy, Red Cross officials are still not getting access to the highly secretive sites - something they do get at most other US military detention centres." Eric Schmitt (New York Times) makes the same point and adds, "The New York Times reported in 2006 that some soldiers at the temporary detention site in Iraq, then located at Baghdad International Airport and called Camp Nama, beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces, and used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball." David Schaper (NPR) reports that Gen David Petraeus is responsible for the 'change'.

Recapping: The Barack administration says the Red Cross will be denied access to the secret prisons but they will supply the Red Cross with the names of the prisoners they are detaining. For those who don't recall, the previous administration tried this song and dance of offering similar 'bargains' with human rights groups. It was crap then and it's crap now. Nothing has changed in the White House. Though Amy Goodman is unable to comprehend what she reads, many more can't even recall five years ago. June 17, 2004, PBS' NewsHour was exploring the issue of 'off the books' prisoners (link has text, audio and video options) and before Ray Suarez began the discussion, a clip of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld holding a press conference was played.

Donald Rumsfeld: I was requested by the Director of Central Intelligence to take custody of an Iraqi national who was believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar Al-Islam, and we did so. We were asked to not immediatelly register the individual, and we did that. It would . . . it was . . . he was brought to the attention of the department, the senior level of the department I think late last month, and we're in the process of registering him with the ICRC at the present time.

Thanks, Donnie, that fixed everything. Of course it didn't. It never did and this happened over and over. You can pick multiple instances under the previous administration when this issue resulted in the nonsense Barack just issued. But back then, people were a little smarter. Barack's still continuing the policy of refusing to allow the Red Cross access. He didn't change anything. Now, supposedly, the hide-away prisoners will be registered but, supposedly, that was already supposed to be happening under the previous administration and, when caught, they'd assure that from this moment foward, starting and starting now, they were going to let the Red Cross know about prisoners. On that 2004 segment of The NewsHour, Ray Suarez spoke with US News and World Reports' Edward pound who outlined the way it's supposed to be.

Edward Pound: Well, what is normally done with these detainees in Iraq and in any other facility where we have these detention facilities around the world and what other countries are supposed to do is when a prisoner comes in, he is registered and put into an electronic database and given a serial number. That information is provided to the Red Cross. The Red Cross then is allowed to come to this facility and interview this prisoner and check on the conditions.

Is that complicated? Is that hard to follow or difficult to comprehend? No? Then let's face the obvious fact that the Barack Obama administration is doing the same smoke and mirrors dance of the previous administration and it is not in compliance. The Red Cross is supposed to be able to visit the facility and to interview the prisoner. DeYoung reported that the US government "will continue to deny the ICRC access to the prisoners" which means they are in noncompliance. This is not something to praise or to read with a stupid grin on your face the way Amy Goodman did. It's something to be appalled by.

And we were appalled by it under the previous administration. On The NewsHour's May 12, 2006 broadcast, Ray Suarez included in this news summary, "The International Committee of the Red Cross sharply criticized the U.S. today over terror suspects held in secret. The agency's president said in a statement: 'No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person's whereabouts'." As the BBC noted that day, "The Geneva Conventions says the ICRC should be allowed to visit prisoners-of-war." As usual, Amy Goodman was a little slow. But May 15, 2006, she did stumble across the story and, her face telegraphing serious outrage, read the following, "The International Committee of the Red Cross is accusing the Bush administration of ignoring requests from the organization to have access to detainees being held in secret U.S. jails around the world." Hey, Goody-Goody, no one has to accuse the Barack administration of refusing access, they're admitting to it. How about a little outrage from the People's Republic of Brooklyn, hmmm?

Barack Obama has landed on Martha's Vineyard and is vacationing. Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan lands tomorrow and begins taking part in a demonstration:


From her home in California, Ms. Sheehan released this statement:"There are several things that we wish to accomplish with this protest on Martha's Vineyard. First of all, no good social or economic change will come about with the continuation or escalation of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We simply can't afford to continue this tragically expensive foreign policy.Secondly, we as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies. Thirdly, the body bags aren't taking a vacation and as the US led violence surges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so are the needless deaths on every side.And, finally, if the right-wing can force the government to drop any kind of public option or government supported health care, then we need to exert the same kind of pressure to force a speedy end to the occupations." Cindy Sheehan will arrive on the Vineyard on Tuesday, August 25th.For more information, or to request an interview with Cindy Sheehan please contact: Laurie Dobson lauriegdobson@yahoo.com(207) 604-8988 or Bruce Marshall brmas@yahoo.com(802) 767-6079

Good for Cindy. Sad for those thinking Congress Dems 'libs' -- who swore they'd end the illegal war -- are going to save the (weak) public option in ObamaInsuranceCare. No, we're not talking about "Blue Dogs," we're talking about those 'progressives.' We'll get to it, hold on. First, John J. Monahan (Worcester Telegram & Gazette) reports on US House Rep Jim McGovern and notes that the timeline the Barack Obama administration is using is not one he endorses: "They are talking about leaving a pretty significant force behind and I'm worried about that. [. . . .] We still have 30,000 troops in Korea. We are going to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. How do we sustain that? I think we need to get out of Iraq and let them run their own country." Barack's 'plan' is, of course, Bush's plan. And we weren't thrilled about when it was Bush's plan so why do so many support it today? Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway (at the Financial Times of London) write about the proposed vote (in Iraq) on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement and they walk you through some of the now forgotten US history on that:

In contrast, George W. Bush defied the US constitution by insisting that he -- and he alone -- could commit the US to the Iraqi agreement. He refused to ask Congress to approve it even though the American constitution -- like the Iraqi one -- requires legislative consent. He even refused to give Congress any information about the agreement's terms until the deal was done. Leading congressmen were forced to follow the negotiations by reading English translations of Arabic texts published in Iraqi newspapers.
Joseph Biden, who was then chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, responded by introducing legislation declaring that the bilateral agreement with Iraq "should involve a joint decision by the executive and legislative branches". Hillary Clinton, then a senator, went further, asserting that it was "outrageous that the Bush administration would seek to circumvent the US Congress on a matter of such vital interest to national security". Her bill would have denied all funding to any military agreement that Mr Bush negotiated unilaterally.
Mrs Clinton's bill gained the support of nine co-sponsors, including Barack Obama, also then a senator. Mr Obama continued his opposition during the autumn presidential campaign, insisting that Mr Bush's agreement "should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home". Indeed, Mr Obama and Mr Biden campaigned for a more rapid withdrawal than Mr Bush was contemplating. They set the summer of 2010, not the winter of 2011, as their deadline.

And this is the White House 'plan' for Iraq? The person sitting in the Oval Office may have changed but the 'plan' remained the same. Oona Hathaway and Bruce Ackerman wrote about this earlier this year for the San Francisco Chronicle. (That was not the first time they addressed the issue, but the Chronicle column was directed to the then-incoming administration.)

Now to health care and we'll bring it back around to veterans health care, bear with me. The Washington Post's Perry Bacon Jr. appeared online today in a chat and we'll note two things from it (as a personal favor to a friend). Discussing ObamaInsuranceCare, Bacon blogged the following about the 65 members of the US House who have publicly stated "no public option, we won't support it:"

I have real doubts 65 house members are going to vote against a bill that would expand health insurance to millions of Americans if it doesn't have a public option. I consider this a threat and a negotiating tactic. I've talked to a few of these members who have signed this letter, and they don't seem as committed to a public option as you would think. Reconciliation is one route; I think the more obvious route remains a bill with no public option that gets the votes of Snowe, Collins, and a few other Republicans.
[. . .]
The House liberals want a public option in their bill in part because that becomes a bargaining chip; it means that if they drop that as part of the bill, they may not have to drop other issues they care about. If any Republicans back the Senate version, those changes are likely to be protected in the conference. And if neither chamber can pass a bill in the first place, an increasingly likely possibility, that of course is a big story.

Chris Hedges (at Information Clearing House) reports:

The current health care debate in Congress has nothing to do with death panels or public options or socialized medicine. The real debate, the only one that counts, is how much money our blood-sucking insurance, pharmaceutical and for-profit health services are going to be able to siphon off from new health care legislation. The proposed plans rattling around Congress all ensure that the profits for these corporations will increase and the misery for ordinary Americans will be compounded. The corporate state, enabled by both Democrats and Republicans, is yet again cannibalizing the Treasury. It is yet again pushing Americans, especially the poor and the working class, into levels of despair and rage that will continue to fuel the violent, proto-fascist movements leaping up around the edges of American society. And the traditional watchdogs -- those in public office, the press and citizens groups -- are as useless as the perfumed fops of another era who busied their days with court intrigue at Versailles. Canada never looked so good.
The Democrats are collaborating with lobbyists for the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and for-profit health care providers to craft the current health care reform legislation. "Corporate and industry players are inside the tent this time," says David Merritt, project director at Newt Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation, "so there is a vacuum on the outside." And these lobbyists have already killed a viable public option and made sure nothing in the bills will impede their growing profits and capacity for abuse.
"It will basically be a government law that says you have to buy their defective product," says Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Plan. "Next the government will tell us a Pinto in every garage, a lead-coated toy to every child and melamine-laced puppy chow for every dog."
"Health insurance is not a race to the top; it is a race to the bottom," he told me from Cambridge, Mass. "The way you make money is by abusing people. And if a public-option plan is not ready and willing to abuse patients it is stuck with the expensive patients. The premiums will go up until it is noncompetitive. The conditions that have now been set for the plans include a hobbled public option. Under the best-case scenario there will be tens of millions [who] will remain uninsured at the outset, and the number will climb as more and more people are priced out of the insurance market."

Related, In today's Boston Globe, Bryan Bender reports on veterans of the Iraq War and Afghanistan War who are reluctant to participate in studies. Experts insist it's the stigma but it might just be the screw-you nature has gotten to them. For example, using a 'technique' tried out on grade school children as the 'answer' to PTSD? Insulting. Insulting and not applicable. That's when you stretch a field to the point that it breaks. When you're taking studies on unsuspecting children (raising a whole other set of issues) and attempt to apply it to the battlefield. In terms of logic, this would fall under the always ridiculed by the MSM inductive reasoning. But you didn't see anyone question it last week, did you? Of course not. When the goverment pimps it, the press waves cash. Today the Dept of Veterans Affairs announced that compensation claims for PTSD would be simplified: "The VA is publishing a proposed regulation today in the Federal Register to make it easier for a Veteran to claim service connection for PTSD by reducing the evidence needed if the stressor claimed by a Veteran is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted over the next 60 days. A final regulation will be published after consideration of all comments received. Under the new rule, VA would not require corroboration of a stressor related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity if a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the stressful experience recalled by a Veteran adequately supports a diagnosis of PTSD and the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor."

We're not the Afghanistan snapshot, but as a favor to another friend, we'll note the opening of this item from Feminist Majority Foundation's Feminist Wire Daily:

The Taliban allegedly cut off the fingers of at least two Afghan women that voted in last week's presidential election. Election officials confirmed that the two women voted in the southern province of Kandahar and that they are investigating reports of a third incident in the eastern part of the country, reported Los Angeles Times. Voters' right index fingers were dipped in ink in an intended fraud prevention measure. According to the National Democratic Institute, extremist election-day violence erupted primarily in the south and southeast regions of Afghanistan, particularly repressing voter turnout among women. Across the country, at least 650 women's polling stations never opened, in part because there was a dearth of women to staff the locations. Nader Nadery, president of the Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan told the Associated Press.




the common illsthe third estate sunday reviewlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never endsthe world today just nutsiraq
iraq
jomana karadshehcnn
the christian science monitorjane arraf
the washington posternesto londono
mcclatchy newspapersadam ashton
the washington postkaren deyoung
pbsthe newshourray suarez
khalid al-ansarymuhanad mohammedmichael christieandrew roche
the los angeles timesliz slysaif hameedthe wall street journalben landochip cummins
mcclatchy newspapers
the times of londonoliver august
cindy sheehan
the new york timeseric schmitt
perry bacon jr.
chris hedges
john j. monahanthe wrocester telegram and gazette