Chuck

Hump day, hump day. Roy e-mails me to ask, "Mike, how did you afford a place in Hawaii?" I didn't. It was a gift from C.I. She owns a big piece of estate out there. Along with the main house there are some guest houses. I was in heaven in Hawaii and when I got back, I couldn't stop raving and raving and raving. So she said, "Mike, what did you think about the little house on the east end?" I said that was really cool. And it was really cool. And she said, "You want it?" And I said, "No. No, that's too much." But she didn't let it go.

She told me I should think about moving there with Elaine and Elaine wants to live there too (I did not know that). So that's why our plan is when the sites go dark to move to Hawaii. My family knows. (I think my mother's even written about it at her site.)

What do I like about Hawaii? Everything. I like the weather. I like the people. I like the lush tropical look. I like the fact that there are parts of it that are kind of rural (like you'll come across a dirt road, for example). I just think it's a beautiful place and really want to make a life there.

Chuck?

Monday what happened was that we got to know Casey's new team. They're already gone. Except for this woman that looks like Robin Givens. I wonder if it is her. Hold on.

Okay, it is Robin Givens.

She's NSA. She's Casey's boss.

If you watched season one, you'll remember there was the general (she's still on) giving orders to Sarah and there was a man giving orders to Casey (both gave orders over the big screen TV). Then the man kind of disappeared. Robin Givens is taking that guy's role, he was NSA too.

So Sarah and Chuck notice that they're not going on assignments lately. They go in search of info about Casey and learn of his new team.

He has two "Gretas" (a man and a woman from Buymore) and Chuck goes to fight them and they have allof his moves.

How?

His father's computer. The NSA has stolen it and has put the intersect into the two Gretas.

Chuck proves he's the only one who can truly utilize the intersect and General Beckman takes Givens to task for doing an intersect program without consulting Chuck who is an expert on the intersect.

Chuck and Sarah are now the a-team again.

Meanwhile Ellie's trying to find her dad's computer. Awesome tells her he took it to the Buymore and that the store lost it. (He's lying.) Ellie goes up there to the nerd herd and Jeff & Lester promise to find it after she lies that it has a home made sex video of her on it. Jeff apparently has ESP. So Lester has him clear his head and write on paper who has the computer.

"Cia? Who is Cia?" Lester wonders and gripes out Lester for wasting their time. Yes, Lester was writing CIA.

Givens isn't ready to give up and thinks she can use a Bartowsky. But she means Ellie. So she shows up Ellie's with the computer, tells her Buy More accidentally delivered it to her. Ellie immediately gets on the computer.

And that was the episode. It has some really nice moments.

And we found out Casey felt Sarah and Chuck were in their own little world and shutting Casey out.

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

Wednesday, March 16, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US Congress continues to explore the White House's plan to gut the military's medical health care, more whining from the administration about their 'needs' to continue the illegal wars, more mistakes from the New York Times, more deaths from the war, the star witness against Bradley Manning continues to implode publicly, and more. Aswat al-Iraq reports an IED targeted a US military patrol in Basra yesterday and quotes a security source stating, "An IED blew up against a U.S. Army Patrol on the Hamdan Road, 10 kms south of Basra on Tuesday, but caused no human or material damage." The Iraq War continues. US service members remain stationed in Iraq. They remain in danger. Barack didn't end the violence, let alone the war. And they're looking at seeing their health care cut. Yesterday, the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcomittee met to discuss the Military Health System and the Defense Health Cost Program for the Fiscal Year 2012. Subcommittee Chair Joe Wilson observed, "The proposed TRICARE Prime fee increase for Fiscal Year 2012, while appearing to be modest, is a 13% increase over the current rate. The Dept of Defense proposes increasing the fee in the out years based on an inflation index. You suggest 6.2% but it is unclear exactly which index you are using? You plan to reduce the rate that TRIACARE pays Sole Community hospitals for inpatience care provided to our active duty, family members and retirees. Several of these hospitals are located very close to military bases -- in fact, some are right outside the front gates -- especially important for 24-hour emergency care." We'll note these statements by Maine's Chellie Pingree. US House Rep Chellie Pingree: I just want to say again, I understand how well you are all doing your job and the importance of all of you looking for cost efficiencies in what you do as we face a difficult time with the budget deficit and, uh, also where there's a lot of examination of the military budget and looking for places where we can cut. And maybe my first comment is more to my fellow Committee members then to all of you but I might see more places to cut the fat in the military budget than others of my colleagues but I am deeply concerned that we're going after medical care for both our active duty personnel and our retirees when I think there are other places to make more effective cuts. So I know you have to do your job and look for those cuts but almost everything that's before us today, either myself or one of my colleagues has mentioned a concern about, whether it's the changes to TRICARE, how we're going to deal with some of our Sole Community Hospitals I have two in my district, there are four in our state of only 1.2 million people, in a state where we have almost a fifth of our citizens are either active duty or retired military. So there's a very big dependance on this system in our state and I'm worried about that particular program. So for me, many of the efficiencies that you're talking about are going to reduce the level of medical care to people who have served us to whom we have made a huge promise. And there is going to be a -- I think -- a reduction in the services that they receive so I just -- I know you have to do your job but I don't like it and I don't think it's all necessarily good. That was yesterday. This morning the Subcommittee met again. We need to start with remarks by Subcommittee Chair Wilson. Chair Joe Wilson: Yesterday, we had an extraordinary hearing with Dr. Clifford Stanley and and Dr. Jonathan Woodson and Dr. Stanley is special to me, he's a graduate of South Carolina State University, one of the great universities of South Carolina and so I really am frustrated that with their capabilities that the president has named a health -- a military health care czar, the former governor of Maine, John Baldacci. I-I -- we don't need a health care czar. We've got veterans service organizations that can provide this information. And as stewards of the tax payers -- this is not government's money, this is tax payers' money -- $164,000 plus expenses, I think, are being diverted from the military health care system. As he notes, he hit on that yesterday. I was thinking Kat might grab that. I know Baldacci and didn't grab it for that reason. Do we need czars? No, not in this economic climate. Is Wilson correct about $164,000? No. Because Baldacci is not answering his own phones and doing his own filing and doing -- He has a staff. He is not a 'floater,' he has office space. John Baldacci's a hard worker and a nice person. As a czar, he would no doubt do a fine job. But when everything's under attack, the first thing that needs to go are the czars -- all of them. I avoided it because of conflict of interest but I do agree with Wilson that, at a time when needed programs are being cut, the White House needs to get rid of their czars. (All their czars, which may mean my position is more extreme than Wilson's. In yesterday and today's hearings, he only referenced the military health care czar.) Having taken care of that, we'll now address today's hearing. Ranking Member Susan Davis explained, "Today we'll hear first hand from the folks who really make the most difference here, from those who are the beneficiaries of the system and the experience that they are having with the military health care system and their thoughts on the health care proposals put forth by the Dept of Defense. As you alll know, our country is facing difficult economic times and we are now faced with making some hard decisions that will -- that could -- impact the lives of those who are currently serving and those who have served. I know that our beneficiary representatives here today understand the challenges that we face." The Subcommittee heard from Military Officers Association of America's Steve Strobridge, Fleet Reserve Association's Joseph Barnes, National Association of Uniformed Services' Rick Jones, Retired Enlisted Association's Deidre Parke Holleman, National Military Family Association's Kthy Moakler, Reserve Officers Association's Marshall Hanson and US Family Health Plan Alliance's Mary Cooke who attempted to convery the health care needs and how what was being proposed would hurt many, many people. As Rick Jones explained, the Department of Defense plans "to collect $450 million over the next five years from the pockets of 'working age' retirees by raising TRICARE Prime enrollment fees in the first year by 13 percent and in following years by the rate of medical inflation, which is projected by economists to run several points higher than general inflation at a minimum annual pace of 6.2 percent and as high as 10 to 14 percent over the next five years." This is on top of the Defense Dept's plan to increase the costs of co-pay for prescription drugs (for example, an additional $2 for generic drugs, an additional $3 for brand names and an additional $3 for non-formulary medications). Jones pointed out, "While it is true costs for military health care have increased over the past decade, the cause is not, repeat, not military retirees using their earned benefits. The true accelerant for risings costs is the war." Jones noted that for nearly a decade, the US has been waging two costly wars. He pointed out, rightly, that this is a betrayal of a promise, that health care is really not a 'benefit' for the military, it is part of the promise the government makes to those who serve in the military. Attempting to balance the budget on the backs of service members, veterans, retirees and their families is changing the rules once the process has already started and it's not fair. It's also, this is me -- not Jones, disgraceful. How dare you deploy people to war zones and talk your nonsense bumper sticker b.s. about 'support' when you turn around -- and, let's be clear, "you" is the Obama administration -- and then attempt to break the government's word. It's disgraceful and it's shameful and it certainly doesn't make for a good 'recruiting tool.' NAUS' Rick Jones called the proposal "a breach of moral contract." MOAA's Steve Strobridge called for "some statement in law, where there is none presently, that states explicitly that military health care is one of the cruical offsets to the adverse conditions of service -- that it is, in fact, an upfront and very substantial premium payment. And that would help defefeat some of these arguments that people want to devalue the service and only compare cash to cash which, to us, is an apple to orange comparison." We'll note this exchange from the hearing. US House Rep Niki Tsongas: Yesterday in the first of this series of hearings I said that before Congress could increase TRICARE fees for working age retirees, any proposal on the table would have to be proven to minimize impact. It would be inexcusable in my mind to deprive our retired heroes of the health benefits they have earned. I also question the disparate impact of any increases on service members who accrue less annual retirement benefits than others. As you all know, retirement benefits vary greatly depending on a number of factors such as how long a person served and whether they were decorated for extraordinary heroism. The key metric, however, is the rank they hold or held. Retired generals can earn robust, six figure sums in annual retirement benefits whereas enlisted personnel may only earn benefits in the teens. Yesterday, in the first part of this series, I asked Under Secretary Stanley and Assistant Secretary Woodson if the Department had seriously reviewed any proposals for a stepped-increase of TRICARE fees for working age retirees determined on the basis of rank at the time of retirement and retirement benefits earned? Assistant Secretary Woodson answered that the Dept did not consider this proposal because it would be difficult to administer since the Dept would want to take into consideration retirees' other streams of revenue -- a statement I do not agree with. More importantly, though, he stated it was unnecessary in this case because the fee increases that are proposed are modest. But he stated that "if we were proposing large fee increases, I would agree with you strongly." My question then, to all of you, is do you agree or disagree with Dr. Woodson's assessment? And if we could begin with you, Mr. Strobidge. Col Steve Strobridge: Yes, in fact, the Dept did propose tier-increases previously. The military coalition has been unanimus in opposing means-testing. of military benefits. We don't have that for federal civilian health care, the presidents pays the same as the lowest SGS employee One of the concerns, I think, is creating a situation where the longer you serve and the more successful you compete for promotion, the less your benefit is. And we don't think that's a good incentive. But more and more, as I said in my earlier statement, the military benefit package is considered the off-set for the adverse conditions of service. You earn the package mainly by your service. And I-I would have to agree with the answer that was given yesterday: Once you start trying to split, basically what you're saying is, "Who can afford to do what?" And I think they were accurate. Once you start to say, "Who can afford to do what?," you have to -- you have to look at all of your income and then it ultimately drives you to looking at last year's tax return. And to us, we don't think that ought to be based on what kind of job you get as a civilian, we don't think it ought to be based what your spouse's income, or how much you inherited from a parent. Your benefit derives from your service, not from your grade. Regarding the discussion above, it would probably be wise to ask Robert Gates -- who is spear heading the White House's attempt to gut the military benefits -- exactly what his own are. If he's proposing -- and he and the White House are -- that some veterans going into civilian life should be on civilian health care instead of on military health care, the American tax payers have a right to know which benefits Gates is receiving? Is it from his time in the 'Air Force' (Gates didn't serve in the Air Force, he was CIA already when he got his wings -- in fact, Gates is another Chicken Hawk but no one is ever supposed to point that out), it is from his time at the CIA, from his current position, from his college administration positions? If he wants to go after military benefits, he needs to open his hand before the American people and explain exactly what tax payer money he is consuming and how. When we first started noting the Obama administration's plan to gut veterans health care, a number of angry e-mails came in insisting it would never happen. Those e-mails continued even after the May 19, 2010 Senate Veterans Affairs Committee which should have put a rest to the denials from the Cult of St. Barack. Today's hearing was attended by a number of reporters and possibly it will finally get the coverage so that everyone can see just how the administration 'rewards' those who served. And maybe all those working their pet causes with online e-activism might try paying attention to some things actually do matter. NPR and PBS -- both of whom I support -- will get along. I'm a huge abortion rights supporter. Planned Parenthood will survive with cuts. You need to stop wasting your time and your fire on these little minor things. And if you're thinking, "I didn't serve so I don't have to worry," how this fight goes down is the test-run for how the attempt to gut Social Security will go down. Meanwhile Lara Jakes (AP) reports that the State Dept's William Brownfield, visiting Iraq, is whining that the Department budget is being gutted. The $1 billion they want for Iraq's "police and legal system" next year may not be approved, that this was "one of the oddest budget years" he'd seen (boo-hoo!) and that making cuts will jeopardize security in Iraq -- what security? First off, what gains? There are no gains, there's just the US propping up an illegitmate puppet who attacks his own people. There are no gains. And at a time when the people of the United States are being asked to give up this and give up that, it's past damn time that the Obama administration grasped they better get a little damn skin in the game as well. They can start by ending the silly functions at the White House. In this economy, it is in poor taste to entertain in the manner they have. A lack of taste doesn't excuse their inability to grasp that they need to show a little more restraint. Restraint would mean giving up your czars, your fly-in-from-Chicago trainer and much, much more. Nancy Reagan was crucified for doing much less than Michelle Obama has done (and I remember because I was one of the loudest critics of Nancy Reagan). Barack said he'd end the war (with footnotes but what Americans heard was he'd end the Iraq War). He hasn't done that. He wants to throw billions more to prop up the petty dicator first-installed by the Bush administration and now re-installed by Barack's. Why? Because Nouri will let the US stay. That was the agreement made. If that's hard to grasp, it may be hard to grasp in part because so few can get their basic facts correct. For example, Jack Healy and Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) offer, "President Obama, Mr. Maliki and top American officials have consistently said that all American soldiers will be out of Iraq by the end of the year, a departure specified in a security agreement signed by both countries in 2008." Forget Barack, he doesn't do a damn thing with Iraq. He tasked it to Samantha Power a week after the 2008 elections. Within the White House, Joe Biden is his point-person. Joe Biden has stated publicly -- many times -- that the US would like a new agreement and like to stay. If the reporters (and editor) of the New York Times need help, they can start by searching the archives of The NewsHour (PBS). Robert Gates, James Jeffrey and many, many more have made public statements about the US military remaining in Iraq past 2011. If that's confusing to the reporters and their editor, they can search their own paper's archives. We've covered all that repeatedly. I don't have time to spoon feed. We have spent less time covering Nouri on this. So let's get to Nouri. July 23, 2009, here's video of Nouri stating, "Nevertheless if the Iraqi forces require further training and support in the future we will examine that [US forces staying in Iraq past 2011] then based on the needs of Iraq. March 4, 2010, CNN reported: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has left open the possibility of asking U.S. forces to stay in Iraq longer than planned, depending on the security situation and the readiness of Iraqi troops. In an exclusive interview Thursday, CNN's Arwa Damon asked the prime minster whether he would ask the United States to extend any of its deadlines for withdrawing troops. "This depends on the future, on whether the established Iraqi army and police would be enough or not," he said, "so this issue is depending on the developments of the circumstances, and regulated by the Strategic Framework Agreement between the United States and Iraq." We can do this all damn day. In fact, let's drop back to the video statement. Need text of it? Then see Margaret Talev's "Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" (McClatchy Newspapers) and Anne Gearan coverd al-Maliki's remarks for AP. From the July 23rd snapshot: Does no one listen to Adm Mike Mullen, Gen Ray Odierno or even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Reading the articles today, it doesn't appear that anyone does. Uh-oh. Reality slaps them in the face. Aljazeera reports, "The Iraqi prime minister has admitted US troops could stay in the country beyond 2011." Yeah, he did it today and it's only a surprise if you've never grasped what the Status Of Forces Agrement does and does not do. The Washington Post, for example, has one person on staff who understands the SOFA completely. That's one more than the New York Times has. Drop back to real time coverage (Thanksgiving 2008) and you'll see the Washington Post could explain what it did and didn't do and get it right. No other US outlet can make that claim. (The Los Angeles Times hedged their bets but did appear to grasp it in an article co-written by Tina Susman.) McClatchy Newspapers? Oh goodness, Leila Fadel made an idiot of herself over the SOFA. Even more so than the New York Times (Elisabeth Bumiller -- in December and January -- offered some realities but they were lost on the other reporters at the paper). The Times just got it wrong. Fadel got it wrong and sang praises of it. It wasn't reporting, it was column writing passed off as such. Today, Nouri declared, "Nevertheless, if the Iraqis require further training and support we shall examine this at the time, based on the needs of Iraq." Sound familiar? It should. This month you should have heard Adm Mike Mullen make the same statement, you should have heard General Ray Odierno make it over and over beginning in May and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made it many times -- generally he's asked when he's visiting a foreign country because US reporters don't really seem to care. So the Times reporters today are wrong, completely wrong, it's a gross factual error -- and not the only one in their report. That's what happens when you send your A-team out of Iraq. And I think the paper may be feeling, "Oops we shouldn't have done that." No, you shouldn't have. At the time of the annivesary of the Iraq War, there was no need or reason to send your strongest Iraq reporters currently to Libya. And, now that they're missing the paper may be grasping that. Today the White House issued the following: The Vice President chaired a monthly Cabinet-level meeting today to discuss the current political, economic, and security situation in Iraq. Attendees included Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jacob Lew, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, and senior officials from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Energy, and Homeland Security; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; the Office of the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations; and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Ambassador Jim Jeffrey and General Lloyd Austin participated by video conference. The discussion included an update on the status of implementation of outstanding agreements related to government formation. The principals noted that the levels of violence remain at historic lows in Iraq and that Iraqi Security Forces are capably providing security for the country. They also discussed provision of U.S. technical and policy support for the economic and energy sectors pursuant to the Strategic Framework Agreement between the United States and Iraq. Today Kirkuk has been slammed with a car bombing. AFP reports that at least twenty-two people are injured and 1 woman is dead. In an update, AFP quotes Kirkuk police Gen Adel Zinalabedine stating that the number wounded has risen to thirty-three and that, "The car bombing outside the hospital killed a 35-year-old mother and her baby daughter. She had given birth this morning and was leaving the hospital." Some reports (including Lara Jakes', state the baby was four months old.) Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds that the wounded includes seven police officers. Kirkuk is not only oil-rich, it is also disputed with the KRG claiming it is their land and the central government or 'government' out of Baghdad claiming it belongs to them. Aswat al-Iraq quotes Brigadier Sarhad Qader stating that the bomb was "targeted against the Director of Kirkuk's Water Office, Abdul-Qader Mohammed Amin." Just yesterday AFP reported that Kirkuk's provinical council head Rizkar Ali Hamma had announced he quit his post citing the "lack of solutions for Kirkuk" and that this was followed by the governor of Kirkuk, Abdul Rahman Mustapha, stating he would do the same in the coming days. The issue of Kirkuk has long been divisive -- so much so, that the 2005 Constitution (which Iraq now operates under -- or is supposed to) addressed the issue. Per the Constitution, a census was supposed to be taken of the region and a referendum held. That was supposed to take place by 2007. 2007 came and went. Nouri al-Maliki was prime minister then. He became prime minister in the spring of 2006. He didn't meet the deadline. When the Democrats won control of both houses in the US Congress and began making noises about ending the war, the White House (Bush administration) came up with a list of benchmarks that Iraq would meet to show progress. If Iraq didn't meet those benchmarks, funding was supposed to cease. Nouri agreed to the benchmarks and then ignored them. Kirkuk was one of the benchmarks. Never met but the funding continued. In the lead up to the last provincial elections, Nouri was promising the issue would be delt with (January 2009 was when those provincial elections were held). Didn't happen. Most recently, while attempting to secure the post of prime minister for more four years, Nouri was insisting that the census would be held in December 2010. Days before it was time for the census, and just a little while after he was named prime minister-designate, Nouri called off the census. It's 2011. The Constitutionally mandated census and referendum is four years overdue. Meanwhile Iraq remains without a full Cabinet and the posts of Minister of the Interior, Minister of Defense and Minister of National Security remain empty. The March 7, 2010 elections were supposed to determine Iraq's next government and, over a year later, there's still no fully staffed Cabinet. Security positions might be considered important at a time when the violence is on the rise (31 people are said to have died last week). Aswat al-Iraq reports that MP Hussein al-Safi is stating Nouri will make his nominations for the empty posts to Parliament tomorrow and "the National Coalition had supported the nomination of Ahmed al-Chalaby for the Interior Minister's post and Riyadh Gharib for the National Security Minister's post, whilst al-Iraqiya Coalition (led by Iyad Allawi), had finalized its decision to nominate Khalid al-Obeidy for the Defense Minister's post." Maybe tomorrow will be the day? Equally true, that day has supposedly been coming over and over and over for months now. New Sabah also reports that al-Obeidi will be nominated for Minister of Defense. Dar Addustour reports all the same nominees -- not just al-Obeidi -- and notes that al-Obeidi was a commander in the Iraqi army and is now a professor at the University of Mosul. While three may or may not be named tomorrow, Ayas Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports on what appears to be efforts to oust Mohammed Tamim as Minister of Education. News of the ration card system appears to be bad and David Ali (Al Mada) reports the biggest threat to the program is officials who do not know how to properly store the goods which is allowing much of it to spoil. Turning to the US, the case against Bradley Manning may be getting even weaker. Attention seeking Adrian Lamo, the convicted felon, has given an interview with Al Jaeera (video only) where he comes off even more stupid than before and also as stoned. I'm not speaking of his Asperger's, that's not what's coming through in the video. What's coming through is someone struggling to maintain some limited connection with reality. If it goes to trial, Llamo's going to be hilarious on the stand, especially trying to defend statements made in interviews like this one. The US government has used convicted felon Llamo to make their case for them in the court of public opinion. Don't be surprised if they don't put him back in the institution for a little 'tune up' real soon because even the meds he's on -- and he's on a lot meds -- aren't allowing him to maintain at a functioning level. (I know what Asperger's is. I have not raised that issue with regards to Llamo. I'm not referring now to the fact that he has Asperger's. I'm referring to the fact that is drug cocktails -- unrelated to his Asperger's -- are no longer working. Lithium, for example, is not a treatment for Asperger's.) An incoherent, clearly stoned, convicted felon rambles through a taped interview revealing extreme psychosis and that's what the government plans to put on the stand? Llamo's been unraveling in public for some time, but it's now undeniable and that interview may have sealed the deal on him coming across as unreliable witness as he stretches and stretches to meet his own self-delusions of grandeur. (The clinical term would be megalomania.) When your case is weak, you try to scare the defendant, you try to frighten them, pressure them, force them. And when you're the federal government? Then that bullying goes far beyond a police interrogation room. Which is why Bradley's being tortured. As psychiatric expert Terry A. Kupers points out at CNN, what the federal government is doing to Bradley is torturing him: Manning is a pretrial detainee. The Constitution requires that innocence be assumed until guilt is proved, and that the defendant in criminal proceedings be provided with the wherewithal to participate in his legal defense. The Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment, and repeatedly, U.S. courts have found that overly harsh conditions of isolation and the denial of mental health treatment to a needy prisoner are Eighth Amendment violations. In international circles, for example, according to the U.N. Convention Against Torture (the United States is a signatory), the same violations of human rights are termed torture. Clearly, Manning's treatment violates these constitutional guarantees and international prohibitions against torture. Why? Have we permitted our government, under the cloak of security precautions, to set up a secret gulag where conditions known to cause severe psychiatric damage prevail? As a concerned psychiatrist, I strenuously object to this callousness about conditions of confinement that predictably cause such severe harm. Ed Pilkington (Guardian) notes Physicans for Human Rights is speaking out against the way Bradley's being treated and military doctors participating in it. Dr. Susan McNamara is quoted stating of what's being done to Bradley, "That is a huge problem, as it is designed to break a person down psychologically. Solitary confinement is a form of sensory deprivtaion, and if you are depriving a person of the human contact they need that can amount to torture. In the US, if a patient was treated in a psychiatric hospital in the same way the military is treating Manning, the federal government would stamp all over it." The White House fired Philip J. Crowley, State Dept spokesperson, over the weekend because he spoke out against the treatment of Bradley. US House Rep Earl Blumenauer shared his opinion on Twitter, "Outrageous - PJ Crowley leaving State Department for saying the truth about treatment of Bradley Manning. Obama needs to fix this." In the United States, the eighth anniversary will be marked with protests. A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in these action: March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries. The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war. While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people. Actions of civil resistance are spreading. On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C. Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine. Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. Click this link to endorse the March 19, 2011, Call to Action. And, I'm sorry, I was hoping to get to the topic of Iraqi women. But, like rushing to the joint-hearing of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee this morning, after the House Armed Service Subcomittee Hearing ended, and thinking I'd be able to catch it as well, there just wasn't time. (I walked in as US House Rep Phil Roe was explaining he lived one mile away from a VA hospital so he got a lot of input on VA issues just in his neighborhood. And then he adjourned the hearing.) I'll try for it tomorrow. My apologies. iraq afp cnn mohammed tawfeeq aswat al-iraq new sabah dar addustour al mada ayas hossam acommok david ali the new york times jack healy michael s. schmidt

BRDC

Tuesday. First up, an e-mail. Last week, C.I. noted that, when the war is finally over, Elaine and I plan to move to Hawaii. I had several e-mails on that.

I'm guessing the ones e-mailing don't read every post here (I wouldn't either! :D) because I've mentioned it here before.

I also mentioned that I've got a house in Hawaii (thanks to C.I.). When we went on our vacation there two years ago, we stayed at C.I.'s and I just fell in love with the place. It's a gorgeous state. And we'll be going there again this summer. And it's just where I want to live. I've written about that several times.

Why don't we go right now?

Elaine's not going anywhere until C.I. goes offline. She hates blogging. She is tired of an online life. But as long as C.I.'s one of the lone voices speaking out against the Iraq War online, Elaine's going to keep doing her site.

And I'm the same. Although I don't hate blogging. Some days I wish I didn't have to. But most days I love it. Including days like last night where I barely blogged not because I hated it but because my head was killing me.

Ari Cowan (Bill of Rights Defense Committee) writes:

When asked at a seminar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology what he thought about the United States “torturing a prisoner in a military brig,” Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley described the treatment of PFC Manning as “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.” Crowley has since “resigned” (read: been given the boot) for his straightforward and relatively mild response (is “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid” really an appropriate condemnation of torture through prolonged solitary confinement, forced nudity, harassment and sleep deprivation?). While Crowley’s public objection to the inhumane conditions under which Bradley Manning is being held is commendable, these words do not go nearly far enough.

In response to Crowley’s statement Obama himself assured the American public that “I’ve actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures . . . are appropriate. They assured me they are.” As BORDC advisory board member Daniel Ellsberg puts it:

If Obama believes that, he’ll believe anything. I would hope he would know better than to ask the perpetrators whether they’ve been behaving appropriately. I can just hear President Nixon saying to a press conference the same thing: “I was assured by the the White House Plumbers that their burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s doctor in Los Angeles was appropriate and met basic standards.”

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee is on a probationary period with me. This month, one of the leaders was all over speaking and apparently got that those of us on the left -- the real left -- as well as some on the right don't want to play, "Oh, whatever Barack wants . . ." Some of us believe in the Constitution. Some of us believe it must be followed.

And I'm told BRDC gets it (finally). So I'll be highlighting them from time to time on a probationary period. When Bush was occupying the White House, they were one of the best organizations out there. I hope they can become that again.

If people could have just not joined the Cult of St. Barack, imagine what we could have accomplished? Repeal of the Patriot Act. Prosecution for the illegal wire tapping. Prosecution for the illegal war.

Instead we have no justice at all and we've got Bush III in the White House.

For the record, remember, I never drank the Kool Aid. Community wide, we never fell for that crap Barack was squeezing out of his ass and calling toothpaste.


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

Tuesday, March 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, journalists and activists hold a press conference in Baghdad to draw attention to the abuse and torture conducted by Iraqi forces, US House Rep Chellie Pingree notes, "I am deeply concerned that we're going after medical care for both our active duty personnel and our retirees when I think there are other places to make more effective cuts" and more. Kutaiba Hamid (Al Mada) reports that a press conference was held yesterday by the February Youth Movement (young Iraqi activists) at the Women's Association Hall in Baghdad to detail the way Iraqi forces are torturing protesters and journalists. Journalist Ali Abdul-Zahra was taken by Iraqi forces after covering the protests earlier this month. He and three youth protesters were taken to the Eight Brigade's Baghdad headquarters where they were all four tortured with wooden sticks and electrical wires. Hanaa Edwar noted that if they do not stand up to it now, it will be the normal and it will effect every Iraqi. Youth protester Shawkat al-Bayati stated that the press conference was not about demands but about putting into the light these abuses. He likened the current conduct to that of the previous regime (Saddam Hussein's). New Sabbah covers the press conference and notes that the activists called for an end to silence. Youth activist and bodybuilder Mohammed Kazem David spoke of how he was pounced upon by two security forces who stated they were with the intelligence division of the Ministry of the Interior and they forced him to sign a statement after they tortured him, doing damage to his leg, to his ear and tearing ligaments in both of his hands. In another report, Kutaiba Hamid (Al Mada) details Ali Abdul-Zahra's statements which note, "Without any charge against me and without any court order, I was held just for covering the demonstration, being present as a reporter. At half past noon, I was detained on Saadoun Street and after I had identified myself and explained I was a journalist, I was informed this would not help me." Along with others, he was taken to the Eight Brigade-Third Regiment and then to another regiment. "They beat us and they took photos of us and a colonel told the soldiers to get the [electric] cables while the soldiers beat us on the sensitive parts of our bodies and insulted us in vulgar terms, calling us homosexuals. The Colonel told us, 'You want democracy and freedom, I'll show you democracy and freedom.'" And the beating continued. In other Iraq protest news, New Sabah reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani declared yesterday he will not meet with any government official until the demands of the protesters are met. He did meet with a member of the National Alliance on Friday; however, that visit was supposed to be based on passing on medical news. Al Mada adds that al-Sistani reportedly refused Ibrahim al-Jaafari (also of the National Alliance and a former prime minister of the country). Meanwhile Ali Hussein (Al Mada) pens an opinion piece warning that Saleh al-Mutlaq (Iraqiya) cannot be trusted and that, basically, al-Mutlaq offers meaningless crocodile tears for the protesters because he is part of the problem that created Iraq's current climate. As you read about the torture of protesters and journalists by Iraqi forces, you may wonder why the hell the US is still in Iraq? You may wonder it more if you read this article from Al Mada which explains that Mark Meevid with the US Embassy in Baghdad has explained on Al Sumaria TV that the US will do nothing to protect Iraqis from arrests or torture. Why is the US staying in Iraq? Why are Robert Gates, James Jeffrey, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama insisting billions are needed for this year (and for the next ten -- though the press has trouble reporting that, doesn't it?)? What's the point of it? Is the US supposed to be propping up a government they know is guilty of widespread abuse? Are US tax payers supposed to pay for that? Last week, Kelley B. Vlahos offered "Iraqi Protests Make Washington Squirm" (Antiwar.com) and discussed Iraq on Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton. Excerpt: Kelley B. Vlahos: And like I mentioned earlier, we helped Maliki basically destroy his political enemies through systematic, sort of ethnic cleansing and superior fire power. I mean, I remember going and seeing David Petraeus talk about how we won the surge and basically it was basically unleashing the mighty forces of superior US firepower on Baghdad, unlike anything that those people have ever seen and so basically we just pummeled the crap out of Iraq, out of the Sunnis, out of Sadr City and basically brought all of Maliki's enemies to heel so that he could basically create a central government with all the powers that came with and he's become an authoritarian strongman there. And now we're seeing his real, true colors come to be through these protests. And one way this is actually a good thing is it basically tears the veneer off of everything that we've been saying about what we've done over there and trying to do. It basically shows Maliki for who he really is and what's been going on there while the media has been ignoring it these past two years. That's where the money has gone, in protecting the US-installed puppet. And, more bad news, while puppet Nouri has denied repeatedly the existence of secret prisons, Dar Addustour reports that members of Parliament's Commission Human Rights visited a secret prison in the Green Zone and are calling for it to be closed -- many of the prisoners have been held for years. The secret prisons still going on were noted this year by it's Ned Parker, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Nouri's response to the revelations? Deny, deny, deny. The last one I'm aware of was on February 6th, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported, "The Iraqi government on Sunday denied a human rights organization's allegation that it has a secret detention center in Baghdad, run by Prime Minister Nur al-Maliki's security forces." The report then quoted Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi stating, "We don't nkow how such a respectable organization like Human Rights Watch is able to report such lies." The secret prisons and secret detentions helped spark the first protests of 2011 in Iraq, especially the ones featuring attorneys in three cities (Baghdad, Basra and Mosul). Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) broke the story of the secret prisons in Iraq and how they were run by Nouri's security forces, the Baghdad Brigade -- and how the Brigade was behind the prison he and the paper exposed in April 2010. Today Raheem Salman and Salar Jaffe (Los Angeles Times) note, "The jail in Baghdad's high-security Green Zone, called Camp Honor, fell under the nominal supervision of the Justice Ministry. But it was actually controlled by two elite security branches affiliated with Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's military office, the Baghdad Brigade and Counter-Terrorism Bureau. [. . .] After a scandal last spring over a secret prison at another military base, Maliki ordered that Camp Honor should be opened to detainees' families and lawyers. Instead, the jail remained closed to visitors and allegations of abuse emerged in late January in reports by the Times and Human Rights Watch." AP reports that the Minister of Justice's spokesperson is stating that "Camp Honor" will be shut down. New Sabbah quotes the spokesperson stating that the prison runs "contrary to international human rights standards." Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) examines Nouri's 100-days 'till reform pose and speaks with various experts who say the idea that any serious reform will be done is unbelievable leading Ibrahim to conclude that Nouri's made a few for-show measures to buy some time and to ditch some Cabinet ministers: "From the outset, he has said he was not satisfied with the cabinet, complaining he was forced to acept some ministers to win the blessing of parliament. The protests effectively give him an opportunity to revist the coalition agrement, blame ministers for Iraq's woes, and replace them." Mayada al-Askari (Gulf News) examines recent events and finds a country that is in real trouble: The country is simmering with anger while Al Maliki and his bloc are playing politics on a two way street. On the one hand, Al Maliki is assuming all the authority, and on the other, he is pressing all the other blocs' representatives to come up with solutions related to corruption and ill-management, a task which he alone controls. Regulatory authorities, the central bank and other vital bodies, which are supposed to hold the prime minister and his government accountable for its deeds (or misdeeds if you please) are all under Al Maliki, which seems very odd in a democracy which has come after 35 years of blood, sweat and tears. There are also stories of Iraqi prisoners telling human rights' groups about the existence of secret jails -- something that runs against Iraq's Constitution. Members of Iraqi Parliament no longer have the power to propose legislation. Instead, all new laws have to be proposed by the cabinet or the country's president and then passed on to parliament for a vote. New Sabbah reports that the Parliament has just discovered 22 billion dinars has vanished in various cities in various provinces. David Ali (Al Mada) reports that bickering plagues Parliament. Zainab Suncor (Al Mada) adds that the al-Sadr bloc in Parliament is blocking the move to create three vice presidents. Iraq still has no official vice presidents. An attempt by Jalal Talabani to create four positions was blocked by the Parliament (his fourth would have been a female Turkman). With that shot down, now it appears the three vice presidents plan is shot down as well. Which may mean that they will stick with naming just two. You would think this could have been established long ago, during the long, long political stalemate, for example. The long, long pattern of violence continues. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing injured five people, 2 Baghdad roadside bombings (one after the other) injured seven people, a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured two police officer, a Falluja bombing targeting police officers (their homes) which left one police officer and two girls injured, 5 Yazidis were kidnapped in Baaj by assailants wearing "military uniforms using civilian cars," and, after being injured by Syrian border guards, 1 man passed away in Mosul. On the Yazidi kidnapping, Aswat al-Iraq adds that three cars were attacked and the men pulled from them but women in the cars were left alone. "Today the Subcomittee meets to hear testimony on the Military Health System and the Defense Health Cost Program for the Fiscal Year 2012," declared US House Rep Joe Wilson as he brought to order the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcomittee hearing this morning. Subcommittee Chair Wilson noted his recent trips to Afghanistan and Iraq, his Iraq War veteran son and his Iraq War veteran nephew. He then stressed, "Even in this tight fiscal environment, the Military Health System must continue to provide world class health care to our beneficiaries. Even in this tight fiscal environment, the Military Health System must continue to provide world class health care to our beneficiaries and remain strong and viable in order to maintain that commitment to future beneficiaries." Must continue to? When has that ever been a doubt? Travel back with us to May 19, 2010 when the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee heard testimony from the VA's Associate Deputy Under Secretary Thomas J. Pamperin: Senator Scott Brown: I'm wondering if you could just tell me what benefits might be at risk at this point and time? Any specific issues that we need to focus on that we're missing or falling through the cracks? Thomas Pamperin: Benefits that are currently being delivered that might be taken away? Senator Scott Brown: Right. Things that we -- that you're saying, "You know what? We got to keep our eye on this." Thomas Pamperin: Uh - uh, we'd be glad to - to give you a more extensive response in - in the future. Uh . . . My - my concern is that the nation clearly -- Senator Scott Brown: Can I interrupt just for a second? As noted in that day's snapshot (in addition Wally covered the hearing at Rebecca's site), people needed to hear an answer to the question but before the answer was provided, Brown was cutting off Pamperin -- intentionally or not, you'd have to ask Brown -- and America, for a brief moment, may have realized that even veterans care wasn't safe under the current government. If they did, they might have wished (as we did at Third) that Brown had kept his mouth closed and allowed Pamperin to finish his statement. Instead, nearly a year later we learn that, in Subcommitte Chair Wilson's words: The proposed TRICARE Prime fee increase for Fiscal Year 2012, while appearing to be modest, is a 13% increase over the current rate. The Dept of Defense proposes increasing the fee in the out years based on an inflation index. You suggest 6.2% but it is unclear exactly which index you are using? You plan to reduce the rate that TRICARE pays Sole Community Hospitals for inpatient care provided to our active duty, family members and retirees. Several of these hospitals are located very close to military bases -- in fact, some are right outside the front gates -- especially important for 24-hour emergency care. What analysis have you done to determine whether reducing these rates will affect access to care for our beneficiaries and in particular the readiness of our armed forces? I would also like our witnesses to discuss the range of efficiency options that were considered but not included in the President's budget. There were four witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee: DoD's Cliff Stanley, Jonathan Woodson, Army Surgeon General Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker, Navy Surgeon General Vice Adm Adam Robinson and Air Force Surgeon General Lt Gen Charles Green. In 2003 and 2004, attempts by the Bush adminstration to slash veterans benefits was big news. This administration is going after active duty. This is the Armed Services Committee, not the Veterans Committee. These are the active duty personnel who can be -- and often are -- deployed to the current wars. We'll note this exchange near the end of the hearing. US House Rep Chellie Pingree: I just want to say again, I understand how well you are all doing your job and the importance of all of you looking for cost efficiencies in what you do as we face a difficult time with the budget deficit and, uh, also where there's a lot of examination of the military budget and looking for places where we can cut. And maybe my first comment is more to my fellow Committee members then to all of you but I might see more places to cut the fat in the military budget than others of my colleagues but I am deeply concerned that we're going after medical care for both our active duty personnel and our retirees when I think there are other places to make more effective cuts. So I know you have to do your job and look for those cuts but almost everything that's before us today, either myself or one of my colleagues has mentioned a concern about, whether it's the changes to TRICARE, how we're going to deal with some of our Sole Community Hospitals I have two in my district, there are four in our state of only 1.2 million people, in a state where we have almost a fifth of our citizens are either active duty or retired military. So there's a very big dependance on this system in our state and I'm worried about that particular program. So for me, many of the efficiencies that you're talking about are going to reduce the level of medical care to people who have served us to whom we have made a huge promise. And there is going to be a -- I think -- a reduction in the services that they receive so I just -- I know you have to do your job but I don't like it and I don't think it's all necessarily good. And the only other program that hasn't been brought up today that I might ask you to comment on is the pharmacy co-pay. I've seen a little bit about that and know that some of the co-pays will be reduced through using mail order pharmacies. I have concerns about that as well because I do believe people get better care when they go directly to a pharmacist in their community, that's where we catch a lot of redundancies or problems with the medications that people are taking particularly with retirees. So, in my opinion, having to go with mail order to get your pharmaceutical products is not always good treatment or good service. And one of the things I might ask is how much the Department is doing to negotiate for better prices with the pharmaceutical companies in bringing costs down in that way as opposed to this other option. That was my question. If you've got any comments about that. Asst Sec of Defense Jonathan Woodson: Uh -- we continue to have efforts to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. I think that in fact the mail order advances care because, uh, there's a large percentage of retail prescriptions that are never picked up and there's breaks in terms of, uh-uh, the supply of medications. Our proposal not only reduces the cost but it ensures timely supply of medicines and, of course, linked with our concept of the patient-centered home, they have a team of health care providers that can counsel, coach, monitor their medicines. We have new electronic -- electronic data bases that highlight, uh, medication, medication interactions and notify, uh, pracitioners of, uh, medications that may be unsafe. So I think there are a number of things that we're doing that are, uh, are going to enchance the quality of care while reduce the costs and provide a better service for the beneficiaries. US House Rep Chellie Pingree: I appreciate your perspective on that. That's - that's useful information in thinking about the program. Uh, back to the question of negotiating, is that an active activity that goes on today to negotiate for cost-cutting. We-we still continue to pay some of the highest prices in the world in this country for prescription drugs and I know the military has done a better job of bringing down the costs but I just I wonder how engaged we are in the process and I wonder how much resistance there is to it? Lt Gen Eric Shoomaker: Ma'am, I'm told that's a commodity that's managed through the Defense Logistic Agency and the center in Philadelphia and I'm told that the Dept of Defense has some of the most favorable cost profiles of any organization in the United States because of our -- because of levarging and volume. An issue raised was the Pentagon's hiring of a consultant to conduct a year long study and US House Rep Walter Jones seemed to speak for many when he noted the endless studies while people wait and wait and for help. Walter Jones: My question, in just a moment, will be for you Adm Robinson. I appreciated the question by Congressman West. I remember 10 years ago, I think I was briefed by Dr. [Paul] Harch from LSU about hyperbaric oxygen as a treatment for our head wounds. And I know I had a conversation a couple years ago, I cannot remember the Air Force officer, about where the research is going. And I appreciate your statement, Gen Schoomaker, uh, that, uh -- My concern or interest is this Adm Robinson, I know that -- I want to thank Adm Mullen. Quite frankly, I brought this up at a full hearing about a year ago about a hyperbaric chamber down at Camp Lejeune, we do have one at Camp Lejeune. And I believe that they're in the process now of preparing to be part of a pilot program to treat Marines down at Camp Lejeune, which I am very grateful for. Help me understand when -- and I understand the need for studies, please understand, I do realize they are very, very important -- but when would the military get to a point after the study by the Air Force, maybe the Army, I don't know that, maybe the Navy as well? When do you get to the point that the study says -- and I'll tell you why and then I'm going to let you answer -- I've called numerous Moms and Dads whose sons and a couple of daughters had been in the hyperbaric chamber or treatment. One that really sticks with me -- and I want to use this and then you answer, please sir -- I called Col [George E.] "Bud" Day -- he's a Marine, won the Medal of Honor in Vietnam -- called and he told me his grandson had a severe brain injury from Iraq, I believe, at the time and he was just not satisfied with the treatment and as his own expense he sent his grandson to LSU to Dr. Harch and, I never will forget, Col Day said to me, "I'll go anywhere I need to go to testify that this treatment has given my grandson a quality of life that he would never have had if he had not had the hyperbaric treatment." So now -- this was the question I had just a moment ago -- when do we get to the point that we say -- meaning the Dept of Defense -- that this protocol does help, it does work? Vice Adm Adam Robinson: Congressman Jones, thanks for the question. This has been for me, as Surgeon General of the Navy, a four year question. We have looked at hyperbaric oxygen and Dr. Harsh who has been at several meetings -- and I've met him many times and looked at his results -- we've invited him to come through and participate in our double-blinded studies so that we can get away from the anecdotal results of individual patients, families and other anecdotal lessons and we can get down to what we have to have from an objective and definitive way so that we can base clinical practice guidelines both for the military health system and also for the private section. We need to base those therapies on objective clinical data that cannot be influenced by opinions of people who have benefited but we can't prove that benefit in a scientific way. So we need to employ a scientific method. What we have done -- and I can say that after --in my fourth year as Surgeon General -- we now have studies, we're now beginning to produce data from-from compentent studies that look at, number one, hyperbaric oxygen seems to be safe. So I think that that is a -- that is a clear improvement in terms of our knowledge. And now we need to go and look more deeply at the Air Force study and that study has been completed but the analysis has not been done. So I think we're very, very close to getting more data. I think when we can get some studies on the record that actually look at the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, I think at that point we can say that is an effective treatment, it is not an effective treatment but it is a treatment that can be utilized in complimentary medical ways so that the people who may benefit from it can use it it's certainly not going to harm them. We will have an array of answers I think we are literally months away from getting there but it normally takes -- and this is one of the issues with medicine -- it normally takes time to get to where we need to be and we have to base it on a scientific method in order to keep from having everything become a clinical practice guideline -- things that are not proven. So the scientific method is being utilized in this way. There will be protests in the US next weekend. A big one in DC and protests around the country. If you are in NYC or the surrounding area, you might consider this one that Joan Wile is the founder of Grandmothers Against the War and has written the book Grandmothers Against the War: Getting Off Our Fannies and Standing Up for Peace. She and others will be taking part in a peace celebration Sunday: It's encouraging to see the people uprisings abroad and in our own country. The Egypt revolt really sparked something, and, on its revolutionary heels, the workers of Wisconsin came to life and fought Gov. Walker's efforts to strip them of their rights. People in other states being subjected to the same onslaught rose into action, also. It seems as if we might be on the cusp of meaningful fightback in the U.S. against the new robber barons who don't give a damn about you and me but are only interested in swelling their over-bloated portfolios to even greater obscene proportions. This is a supremely opportune time to apply this welcome surge of People Power to the anti-war movement. We in the peace movement who have been conducting our futile struggle for almost 8 years to prevent, then end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, must grab this moment to pursue our cause with greater force. This does not take anything away from the battle to protect workers rights -- to the contrary, it is a wonderful support. Bring the troops and the war dollars home, and fix our broken economy. Remove all justification that way for cutting benefits and salaries -- then, the greedy scoundrels would have no rationale for busting the unions. Accordingly, I urge all those within travel distance of New York City who will not be going to the Washington rally on March 19 to attend our adjunct protest on the same day, coordinated by the local Chapter 34 of the Veterans for Peace and by Grandmothers Against the War. As we did on Dec. 16 in support of that day's protest at the White House, we will meet at the Times Square recruiting station at 5:00 pm. In December, 131 people were arrested in D.C. and 11 of us were arrested in New York. We will again carry out non-violent civil disobedience in our continuing efforts to thereby keep the issue alive and, hopefully, to nudge the sleeping citizenry with the urgent need to end these immoral and tragic wars. Let's turn out in massive numbers in Washington and in the Big Apple. They are doing it in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and other locales. We can, we must, get out on the streets, too, and finally stop the killing! DATE AND TIME: 5-6 pm, Sat., March 19 PLACE: Times Square recruiting station, Broadway at 44th St. SPEECHES BY PEACE LEADERS, ENTERTAINMENT AND NON-VIOLENT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE endorsed by Big Apple Coffee Party; Brooklyn For Peace; Catholic Workers; Chelsea Neighbors United to End the War; Grandmothers Against the War; Granny Peace Brigade; Gray Panthers; Pax Christie of Metro New York; Peace Action Bay Ridge Interfaith Peace Coalition; Peace Action Manhattan; Raging Grannies; Veterans for Peace Chapter 34 (NYC); War Resisters League In addition to that event, A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in these action: March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries. The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war. While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people. Actions of civil resistance are spreading. On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C. Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine. Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. Click this link to endorse the March 19, 2011, Call to Action. We'll cover this tomorrow. iraq al mada kutaiba hamid new sabah ali hussein david ali zainab suncor dar addustour kelley b. vlahos antiwar.com scott horton reuters muhanad mohammed waleed ibrahim amnesty international the los angeles times ned parker human rights watch joan wile