Red Rosemary Potatoes
1 pound red potatoes
2 teaspoons crumbled rosemary
2 tablespoons butter
salt
pepper
Rinse potatoes (with peels on). Bring water and potatoes (with skins on them) to bowl in a dutch oven or large pan. (The water needs to be covering the potatoes.) Add a dash of salt as you wait for water to boil. When water comes to a boil, reduce to a simmer and cook for 15 minutes. Drain the potatoes and place back on the stove over the lowest burner setting. Place lid over dutch oven and pan and cook for 2 minutes. You will need to shake the pot or pan during this. The point is to get rid of the water. Add the butter and rosemary. Add a dash of salt and pepper. You're done and they're ready to eat.
That's for Janice who has a very understocked local grocery store. Potatoes they have all over the produce aisle. She's done everything she thought she could and this was one way of preparing them she hadn't tried yet.
In Thursday's "Iraq snapshot," C.I. noted a column by Ehren Watada, "Is the Iraq War Illegal?" (Pacific Citizen). I really enjoyed reading that and wanted to include an excerpt. He's addressing whether the illegal war and occupation are legal or not and, in the excerpt, tackling the legalities of the occupation:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki might like to think so because he requires American troops to prop up his weak and corrupt executive branch. The Iraqi legislative body or the elected representatives of the people might disagree however.
In 2006, Maliki requested the renewal of the UN Mandate without consulting with and gaining the approval of two-thirds of the parliament as required by the Iraqi Constitution. Outraged, a majority of Shiite and Sunni lawmakers joined together this past June and passed a binding resolution to affirm this constitutional provision.
Thereafter however, this resolution was not only ignored by Maliki, the Bush Administration, and mainstream American media, but by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon - even after a letter signed by a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians was sent to convince him otherwise.
If Iraq's Ministers of Parliament are ever given their day in assembly, it is certain that a majority will vote for a timetable for withdrawal as a precondition to any renewal as they did in a non-binding resolution this past May. If they are denied a voice, it can be rest assured that with the majority of Iraq's elected officials cut out of the deliberative process and by extension a majority of the people, Iraqis will see no hope in political resolution to their problems - only armed ones. This almost ensures an endless cycle of violence and in turn, continued rhetoric for why we can never leave.
I may not know much, but one thing is certain. Japanese American men and women did not sacrifice their lives and freedoms throughout history, so that today's leaders could invade and occupy another country, then strip the people of their democratic rights when it didn't suit their interests. To believe otherwise, is to bring dishonor upon their memory.
I was really surprised Thursday to find that and I know Watada has had to cut back on his public statements and interviews as a result of the court-martial and the threat of another. He still waits to find out what's going to happen. He still waits to find out whether the Constitution matters at all in this country or if it doesn't. If it matters, the military has to release him. His service contract ended in December of 2006. He still reports for duty on the base each day. If you aren't familiar with him, he is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the illegal war.
As a result of that decision, the US military decided to court-martial him. In February 2007, the court-martial began. The judge refused to let Watada explain his position. The judge refused to allow witnesses who would address the legality of the Iraq War. The judge stacked the deck against Watada before the court-martial even began. But a strange thing was happening when the court-martial was taking place: the government's own witnesses were not burying Watada and it appeared he stood a chance of walking -- a good chance. So, as he was about to testify on the third day, Judge Toilet (aka John Head) suddenly created a problem with a stipulation he had agreed to, both parties had agreed to and one he had explained to the court. When Watada refused to go along, Judge Toilet ruled a mistrial over defense objection in his attempt to hand the prosecution/government a do-over.
The double-jeopary clause of the Constitution does not allow for do-overs. It protects all citizens from do-overs. It rules that we can't be tried twice for the same offense.
Does the Constitution matter anymore? That's what Watada and the rest of us will be finding out.
I know it's easy to forget Watada and, in fact, all war resisters. Amy Goodman stopped caring in 2006. Today she's all about getting Barack Obama into the White House. Somehow lying and slanting her coverage passes for journalism in her world.
But war resisters do matter. They have put themselves on the line and you can't say that about many other people. You certainly can't say it about the people in 'independent' media. They won't stand up for anything.
It's a real shame that individuals like Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Joshua Key, Camilo Mejia, Carl Webb, Kimberly Rivera and others have stood up -- often alone -- but our system of Little Media, with so much less to lose, can't even cover their brave stands. It is why the illegal war drags on day after day. Amy Goodman interviewed John Nichols this week.
Did the world need an interview with John Nichols about anything? I mean, maybe how to have shiny and curly ringlets but otherwise?
No. And they certainly didn't need to hear John Nichols 'objectively' speak about Wisconsin's upcoming primary. 'Objectively' because Nichols is a Barack Obama supporter. But you already knew that because who else does Amy Goodman book?
So we got a segment on a vote that hadn't taken place. We didn't get war resisters. We didn't get the Iraq War. We never do. And she really seems to think her audience is stupid and can't follow what's happening. I think she's the stupid one. And hopefully she's headed for the fall she's earned.
I have no sympathy for those who prolong the illegal war. I have no symapthy for alleged 'news' outlets that can't cover what really matters.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:
Friday, February 22, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Turkey has invaded northern Iraq, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Courage to Resist interviews 24-year-old marine reservist Matt Mishler who has applied for CO (conscientious objector) status. Mishler had a religious awakening and is against wars now. He cites the Sermon on the Mount in explaining how he realized he was a CO: "I don't see serving my God --as doing God's word -- as . . . picking up a rifle and slinging it over my shoulder and walking through Iraq or Afghanistan and shooting other people with rifles and guns that are there." He explains that his beliefs mean he will go to jail before he will deploy. "If they tell me I'm not a conscientious objector it does not make me not a conscientious objector in my mind because that's a decision you make deep down inside yourself. It's not a decision that's up to someone else outside of you. It is a decision that you have to make and believe for yourself. And if you believe in it strong enough and if that is truly your beliefs than just by someone telling you that you're not a conscientious objector does not make you a conscientious objector."
Also interviewed is war resister Robin Long who went to Canada to seek aslyum. "I have no second thoughts at all. This is totally better than having to go to that war torn country and participate in the indiscriminate killing of the Arab people. It saddens me how so many people have been snowballed by it. They just . . . They don't, they don't realize that these people have brothers, they have sisters, they have kids, they have mothers and fathers just like us. And . . . I wouldn't have it any other way. This is -- I made the best decision, I know that. And regardless of what hardships I go through I could have easily put a family or someone else in that country through way more hardships. So I have no regrets." We'll note more from the interview next week but Long, like the other war resisters in Canada, was dealt a set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Son of gun. Cue the double pianos from Carly Simon's "You're So Vain." "Awakening" Councils are no more. The official US term now is "Sons Of Iraq." That was made clear in Col. Tom James' press briefing (via videolink) today at the Pentagon where he repeatedly used the terms "Sons Of Iraq" and "SOIs" repatedly. As to the "DOIs" -- or "Daughters Of Iraq" -- like every other Iraqi woman, they are ignored by the US. When asked about the continued reluctance of the central, puppet government in Baghdad to deal with the "Sons Of Iraq," James explaing the he is "dealing with the SOI program. We have just under 8,000" and he refers ("screened") them to "the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces . . . for potential employment". So, in other words, the puppet government doesn't want them but the US is adament about forcing them to take them. James claims 'progress' and "positive momentum" on that front. Whether or not the Iraqi government would at some point pay the SOIs is side-stepped by James who only acknowled "that we have paid" their salaries why swearing that that the US would soon "transition them to government institutions".
Meanwhile, Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) reports Moqtada al-Sadr has extended the truce/cease-fire for another six months today (taking it through August 15th). At his briefing today, James was very 'up' on this news, stating it was "very positive to the security situation. . . this is a very positive situation because al-Sadr understands that a peace and establishing peace in the future is the way to success in Iraq, not violence. And with the senior position that he holds, that will influence an enormous amount of the Shi'a population in AO Vanguard, and we see that as a being a very positive step in securing the security situation that we have now so that we can continue to exploit other things." "Exploit" may be the key word there from the US military's view. But there's also reality. Alexandra Zavis and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) note, "But in recent days, Sadr's followers, including loyalists in the national Parliament, have complained that their foes have used the cease-fire to try to crush his movement politically and militarily. Until the last minute, they had held out the possibility that Sadr might order his militia back into action." So the real issue isn't al-Sadr now. Having agreed to an extension, he is now out of the picture. He is also out of Baghdad and whether or not the Mahdi Army will continue to listen to him from out of town, while he labors away as a hotel clerk and busies himself with studies, is the real issue at this point. The anger and resentment that has been breeding in the Sadr City section of Baghdad has been doing so without al-Sadr's oversight. How much pull he will have, how much control, is in doubt. Residents of Sadr City have complained of mistreatment and abuses (including raids) throughout the truce/cease-fire and many noises were made by "aides" and "loyalists" throughout (made publicly to the press) that there was no way al-Sadr would renew the truce/cease-fire. He has now done that and how much weight he will have now as someone not living in Sadr City is up in the air. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports that his supporters are in the "thousands" and can al-Sadr control "thousands" via communiques he has delivered to mosques? Is he the remote-control leader? Haynes quotes Abu Zahra'a al-Saadi complaining of the cease-fire, "We decided on peace and they decided to put us in jail." "They" refers to "US and Iraqi forces". Despite the reports of al-Sadr being in Najaf (and working a hotel there), AFP notes, "Sadr did not appear publicly at Friday prayers" in Sadr City "and it is not clear where he is now based. Some reports have suggested that he has crossed the border into Iraq's neighbour Iran, but his group would not confirm this." AFP further notes that his announcement "was not universally welcomed by Sadr's supporters" and that goes to the issue that they're living in Sadr City and he isn't. Is he really going to be able to control the area from outside of it? Will a new leader emerge? Will it faction off instead with some following his latest decree and others ignoring it? Those are valid options under any study of resistance or rebellion. Mark Kukis (Time magazine) offers another, "Sadr could just as easily be simply biding his time until surge troops leave in July." At the White House today, flack Scott Stanzel held a press gaggle and declared of the cease-fire/truce, "We welcome any move that forswears violence and encourages peaceful participation. To the extent the announcement today serves to further isolate the groups that are engaging in violence, and to the extent that it helps enhance our intelligence to root out those groups, it's a positive development."
Of greater interest from that press gaggle may be Stanzel's announcement that the US was in 'the loop' of the Turkish military's latest bombings and attacks on the northern region of Iraq. Stanzeld explained, with little prompting other than being asked for his "reaction" to Turkish forces on the ground in Iraq, "Well, as you know, there's an ongoing dialogue between Iraqis and leaders in Turkey about how to best confront the threat of the PKK. We've worked cooperatively with both of our allies on these issues, and worked to make sure that there's regular coordination about how to best confront this threat. So this is something that we were aware of in advance. And as you know, the US agrees with Tukrey that the PKK is a terrorist organization and it is an enemy of Turkey, Iraq, and the United States. And we have demanded that the PKK end their attacks on Turkish soldiers and civilians." Stanzel noted that Turkey was "a NATO ally" which means "we have a longstanding intelligence sharing relationship with Turkey. That was intensified with respect to the PKK as indicated during the meetings between Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip]Erdogan and President Bush." Stanzel further stated that the US government had "urged" that the scope of the invasion be "limit[ed] to precise targetinf ot he PKK" and that the central government in Baghdad was in the loop on the upcoming attack as well.
The invasion and/or attack is described by Leila Fadel and Yassen Taha (McClatchy Newspapers): "Iraqi Kurdish troops on Thursday encircled Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq and threatened to open fire in the most serious standoff between the two nation's forces since Turkey threatened late last year to go after guerrillas from the Kurdistan Workers Party sheltering in Iraq. The standoff began when Turkish troops in tanks and armored vehicles left one of five bases they've had in Iraq since 1997 and moved to control two main roads in Dohuk province, Iraqi officials said. Kurdish soldiers from the peshmerga militia, which is loyal to the Kurdish Regional Government, moved to stop them. For an hour and a half, the two sides faced off before the Turkish soldiers retreated to their base, which is about 27 miles northeast of the city of Dohuk." Apparently the White House forgot to inform the puppet government in Baghdad that the cover story was "We were all told this was coming" because AFP has puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki phoning "Erdogan after the latest incursion was launched to urge him of 'the need to respect Iraq soveriegn authority." Steve Negus and Daniel Dombey (Financial Times of London) observe, "An incursion across the border by Turkish troops has long been in the offing, although it was not immediately clear how big the operation was or how long it would last" and they call it "a blow to the US, which last year made a series of efforts to persuade Turkey not to carry out a large-scale ground incursion." Tim Butcher (Telegraph of London) proclaims it Turkey's "biggest military incursion into the Kurdish north of Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein" while Mark Bentley (Bloomberg News) states it's Turkey's "first major incursion" into in Iraq "in 11 years." China's Xinhua quotes Erdogan declaring, "The TSK will rapidly return to Turkey as soon as it reaches its aims". CBS and AP inform, "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed concern about the escalation. He said he recognized Turkey's need for security, but appealed to Turkey and Iraq to work together to promote peace." Bentley also notes, "Crude oil futures rose as much as 1.2 percent in London because of concern the conflict may disrupt Iraqi oil production. Crude gained as much as $1.14 to $99.37 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange." India's Economic Times also notes the spike in the price of oil and notes it's "related to an incursion into Iraq by Turkish troops." Brian Baskin (Wall St. Journal) opens with, "Crude-oil futures setttled higher Friday, as tensions between Turkey and Iraq and cold weather in the U.S. Northeast snapped oil out of a one-day slump." Despite the long standing tensions and claims by the regional government in northern Iraq (KRG) that they've addressed the issue, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explained, "In the snowcapped Qandeel Mountains of northern Iraq, it's hard to see that the Kurdistan Workers Party -- the PKK, as it's known by its Kurdish initials -- has been on the U.S. terrorist list since 2002. Or that President Bush and the U.S.-backed Iraqi government promised Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that they'd crack down on the group, which has killed hundreds of Turks in its battle for an independent Kurdish homeland. No Iraqi troops patrol here. PKK men in uniform check the IDs of those who seek to visit. The image of the PKK's leader is emblazoned on a mountain slope, and a sign openly proclaims PKK headquarters. The peshmerga troops of the Kurdistan Regional Government, which officially rules northern Iraq, make no effort to enter. Indeed, there's little evidence in this tiny village inside what the PKK calls the Medya Defense Area that the Kurdish Regional Government has made any effort to cut off the group's supply lines. The regional government paves the roads and buses in teachers from nearby towns. Residents openly watch PKK television, with the sound up loud."
Fadel was noted in yesterday's snapshot for her article on the extra rules being placed on Iraqi Arabas in the northern region of Iraq. One battle in the region is over who will have Kirkuk -- the central government out of Baghdad or northern Iraq. A referendum has long been postponed though the vote will allegedly take place at some point in 2008 (in the meantime, the Kurdish region has been forcing Kurds into Kirkuk in anticipation of the vote -- in anticipation of weighting the vote in their favor -- see Stephen Farrell's December 9, 2007 report for the New York Times). Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports, "Iraq's Kurds are moving towards taking control of the vital oil city of Kirkuk as one of the most explosive disputes bequeathed by Saddam Hussein nears a resolution. The rigs and pipelines around Kirkuk account for about one third of Iraq's oil output, now running at 2.4 million barrels per day" and that's behind the cancellation of Arabs' ration cards in an attempt to force them out of Kirkuk and to settle more Kurds into the area. It won't be deemed violence for decades and even terms like 'resettling' won't be utilized.
In what's recognized as violence taking place today . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad donkey and cart bombing that claimed 1 life and left four wounded, a Baquba mortar attack that killed 1 six-year-old boy ("4 women and 4 children" wounded) and an Anbar Province bombing attacking "the motorcade of Ameriyah Chief of Police, Major Saadoun Subhi" who was injured in the attack. Reuters notes a bomber blew up near a mosque outside Falluja resulting in the deaths of 6 police officers with nine more injured (the bomber is 1 more death), a Garma bombing that claimed the lives of 2 civilians (and of the bomber), a Tikrit car bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers (eight more wounded) and also the life of the bomber
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot dead 12-year-old Omar Mohammed, "his two sisters Budur and Seleema, 17 and 20 years old" in Diyala Province.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Iskandariya.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related illness Feb. 21." The 4,000 mark is now 30 away with the ICCC total standing at 3970 since the start of the illegal war. 26 is the number for the month thus far.
On PBS tonight (in most markets) on Bill Moyers Journal: finds Moyers and company working with PBS' Expose for "a hard and fresh look at how earmarks really work. The broadcast profiles Seattle Times reporters on the trail of how members of Congress have awarded federal dollars for questionable purposes to companies in local Congressional districts -- often to companies whose executives, employees or PACs have made campaign contributions to the legislators. The segment also focuses on how earmarks for some products were added to the defense appropriations bill even in cases in which the military didn't want them in the first place. Example: a $4.56 million patrol boat the Coast Guard hadn't even asked for and decided it couldn't use was eventually given away by the Coast Guard to a California Sherrif's office. David Heath of The Seattle Times says: 'They're selling a product to the military that they're not even using.' The segment will available for viewing before the broadcast at [Expose] and airs on Bill Moyers Journal Friday, February 22. Viewers can post questions for Seattle Times reporters after the broadcast at The Moyers Blog at [Bill Moyers Journal]. Expose will premiere a new episode one Friday per month as part of Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday at 9 p.m. on PBS (check local listings)." Important for community members : As noted repeatedly (for instance here) The Nation decided the best way to kick off 2007 was with a book review by a Pig who wanted to talk about visiting bordellos in Afghanistan while also slamming Sarah Chayes and Ann Jones -- 'emotional' and 'conspiracy' blah blah blah. That nonsense offended many. Tonight (in most markets), you can watch Moyers interview Chayes about Afghanistan. So in addition to the segment already noted, you'll be able to enjoy that. Mentioning Chayes allows me to squeeze in that Ann Jones' latest article, "The War Against Women," is up at Mother Jones.
Independent journalist and artist David Bacon covers the the workers of Pacific Steel picketing outside a Berkeley City Council against a measure that might lead to Pacific Steel's closure. In addition, his photo exhibit has one more day at Galeria de la Raza (2857 24th St, San Francisco 94110). That's "Living under the trees" "Viviendo bajo los arboles." and February 23rd is supposed to be the last day at that gallery.
In a correction to yesterday's snapshot, the KPFA special was not live of the debate. My apologies. The special itself (the not-so-special -- except in a very bad way) was noted here at length including the booking of only pro-Obama guests while KPFA pretended that they were having an open discussion about a debate with two candidates. It was a joke. It was an embarassment and Larry Bensky couldn't even shut up long enough to take the calls that were promised to make up the broadcast's final hours. Instead, listeners were shut out. Along with the glee Laura Flanders took in distorting Hillary Clinton (she's a funny sort of feminist, that Laura Flanders, but she's a funny sort of out lesbian as well), there was Tom Hayden betting his future on two lines by Bambi. Most telling was the KPFA blog that they they created for the live broadcast. They appear to think it's gone and vanished but it's not. You know where to go to Sunday to see it.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
tina susmanthe los angeles timesalexandra zavis
bill moyersbill moyers journalpbs
sarah chayesann jones
david bacon
the new york timesstephen farrell
laura flanderstom haydenkpfalarry benksy
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Corn Chowder in the Kitchen
Last week, I noted a recipe for Jody that was easy and quick and, most of all, inexpensive. She tested some inexpensive soups this week and this was the hands down winner with her family.
The green onions which gives it a bit of a snap. Should green onions not be available or on hand, you can chop a regular onion.
Corn Chowder
4 slices of bacon*
1 green onion sliced
2 tablespoons dried thyme
dash of sea salt or regular salt
dash of pepper
dash of nutmeg
4 cups of milk
2 bakin potatoes that you've peeled and diced into small cubes
2 cups of fresh or frozen corn kernals or 2 15-ounce cans of corn
A dutch oven is your best bet but you can use a really large pan as well. You want to cook the bacon in it and you're just heating really. When it's brown, remove it, allow it to cool on paper towels and dice it. In the same pan with the bacon grease, add the green onion, thyme, salt, pepper and nutmeg. Be sure the heat is on the lowest setting possible as you stir for about 3 minutes. Add the diced bacon, stir for 2 minutes more. Then pour the milk in slowly. No faster than a 1/4 at a time. Slower if you have the time. Each time you add milk, stir again to blend the spices and green onions. When you've added all the milk, add the potatoes. With the burner still on low, allow the mixture to simmer for fifteen minutes. You'll need to stir occassionally. If you're using fresh or frozen, add the corn after 15 minutes. If you're using canned corn, be sure to drain it so that just the kernals go in or else the chowder will be watery. Once the corn is added, you need to let it simmer for five minutes. Add another dash of nutmeg, stir and begin serving.
This was a huge hit on Wednesday which made me very happy because I two had already proven less than popular. It was such a hit that Jody made it Thursday and her husband's brother showed up unannounced. She added milk (1 and 1/2 cups) to it to stretch it out and also topped each bowl with shredded Swiss cheese. There were no complaints. If you're looking for something to serve with it, you can consider a green salad and/or bread. Rolls or a loaf of French bread will work great but you can also just toast some bread. Kids love dipping and if you just toast some sliced bread, after it's toasted, cut it in half or quarters.
We'll try for one more easy and inexpensive recipe next week. *If you do not eat meat, substitute a cooking oil and a yellow or white onicon for the bacon. Continue to use the green onion.
After endorsing Dennis Kucinich, I learned my lesson and then some. I have been watching the Green Party with interest and may still vote for them in the general election. If Obama gets the nommination from the Democratic Party, I will be voting Green because I cannot vote for someone who insults me and flatters Republicans or someone who cannot stand up for reproductive rights (don't argue that popular lie about 'present' was a strategy). With the Greens, what concerns me is the what concerns Jess and Kat (among others), Cynthia McKinney declared and ran. She even switched her party membership. Yet it doesn't appear to have been enough. Ralph Nader, who has STILL NOT DECLARED, appears to have won in the states that held primaries. I'm insulted. I'm insulted for women. What does that say when someone who can't even announce "I'm running!" before a primary wins it? I think it shows disrespect for those who got off their asses and ran. I think Cynthia McKinney would make a wonderful president. I think it's disgusting that Nader has still not declared. He's won primaries. It's time for him to make an announcement.
In a year when women have been disrespected and slandered, I've decided I could live with Hillary Clinton as president and, yes, be happy about that. Paul Krugman's columns are the things that really got the point across to me. I am still furious over the fact that we didn't get universal health care in the 90s. But he is correct about the window of opportunity. I think he actually bites his tongue. There will be, a few years after 2010, another call for hits on people's programs and we won't be able to get health care in that climate. This is a very tiny window and if we don't push here, we won't get health care for all. I'm not crazy about mandates but Barack Obama's plan has mandates as well. Don't bother e-mailing to say, "Just for children!" I'm the mother of 8 children. All are adults now but telling me back then that we were 'only' mandated to have health care coverage for our children wouldn't have been any different from saying we were mandated for our children and us (the parents).
On the illegal war, I trust Hillary more than I do Barack. She voted on the Iran resolution last summer, which Barack ducked. As he goes on and on about 2002, his words seem more like "I was right!" and less about fixing anything. Mistakes will be made and how do you handle them? Barack's ducking the Iran vote indicates he may 'handle' mistakes by ducking out to avoid making them. I have not seen him take a stand for anything that matters to the left. (Ronald Reagan's legacy -- his praise for that -- may have been a stand but it was for the right.) Hillary's vote did not cause the illegal war. She shouldn't have voted for it. It was a BIG mistake. But the resolution was not -- despite the title -- "Go to war with Iraq!" The inspections were supposed to proceed (Bully Boy halted them). I do not think it was a proud moment. I do not want it to be repeated. But Hillary took action and Iran indicates she will make decisions while Barack will duck them -- just so he can have his 'pristine' record of "I was right!" (He wasn't right. He thought Saddam had WMDs.) In the Senate, their voting records on funding the illegal war are the same. I see more support for veterans from Hillary's votes (in fairness, if Barack had held meetings of any committees he chairs, maybe he could show support too). I don't think anyone's going to get the US out of Iraq other than the people.
I know she has a record on reproductive rights. I am insulted by the trashing of her 35-year record. I am the mother of eight children and some of those comments about her record have been downright offensive. Those snide remarks indicating she was just 'the wife of' are flat out sexism. Hillary has a record, Barack Obama doesn't.
Hillary's also a fighter as Rebecca and Kat have pointed out. (I'm speaking for my own vote. I don't know how they're going to vote. I know all the attacks have made them more supportive of her than they were prior.) I see the first serious and viable woman candidate of my lifetime treated as if she thinks the presidency is a lotto and she just wants the title. I don't know how anyone can doubt that Hillary is a worker. This would not be a Bully Boy president. She won't delegate to her Dick Cheney and go off on vacations and rush off for her daily nap time.
She has a commanding knowledge of policies which, for those too young or uninformed to know, is supposed to be a plus in a president. I think we've had eight years of seeing what happens when a 'nice talker' with no real understanding gets into the White House.
As Ava and C.I. noted, the attacks on her have included attacking her for being married. That commentary was as important as Krugman. I am someone who has detested Hillary for years. I do not believe the junk the right-wing circulates about her. I did have serious policy differences with her. But Ava and C.I.'s commentary got me to think, "What does this woman have to do to get a break?" That was a big shift for me as anyone who reads this site knows. After that, I was able to be receptive to Krugman's columns. Health care does matter.
So do other issues like who will sit on the Supreme Court. All of Bambi's reaching across the aisle does not indicate to me that he will fight for nominations. It indicates to me that he will go for the least offensive to the right nominee. And our Supreme Court will continue to tilt right. This may be the first election cycle I can remember where a nominee wasn't asked to pledge that they would nominate only pro-choice judges. Maybe it's another way to disrespect women this year. I can't see Obama making that pledge. I know Hillary would from her record.
I also think we've had enough half-assed men in the White House. Bambi's a half-ass. He doesn't do go full out on anything, he's too cautious and too timid. Hillary is ready from day one. She knows not only how her husband was attacked by the DC establishment, she also knows how his first 100 days were shredded apart. She knows what can happen and she's not going to be stumbling around for advisors to tell her what to do. Bambi hasn't completed his third year in the Senate. He is an unknown.
For those reasons and more, I am comfortable with Hillary as president. I voted for her on Super Duper Tuesday (my husband did as well but I haven't revealed my vote to my family). That's because I hadn't switched my party membership because I hadn't realized it was necessary. My entire voting life, I've been a registered Democrat. When I realized I was voting in the Democratic primary by default, I considered doing what Elaine did and voting for Mike Gravel. He is a wonderful man and Elaine's vote was not wasted but I knew from my friends that they were worried Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, our state's two senators, endorsing Bambi would result in a landslide. I didn't think that would happen because neither is as popular as outsiders think. (John Kerry's current fight demonstrates that.) As for our governor, he has to be the worst we've had in my lifetime. So his endorsement wasn't going to sway anyone either. But just the idea that they were both (Kerry and Kennedy) trying to tell us who to vote for was insulting. Kerry made a fool of himself repeatedly and Ted's only got the weight to blunt some of the anger at him. If I'd lived in Elaine's state, I might have voted Gravel. (And I do not think her vote was wasted or wrong, to be clear.) But here it was different as all of our big male politicians decided they knew better than the citizens of the state. So I voted for Hillary reluctantly.
In retrospect, I'm very proud of my vote. I know Ava and C.I. are not trying to influence anyone's vote but their commentary was the main reason I could vote for her reluctantly and Krugman's columns since are the reason I am happy with my vote. Voting for her was a huge, huge shift for me. Readers of this site will know that. But for the reasons listed above, I did. For the reasons I've outlined, I'm glad that I did.
I have nothing against Ralph Nader but if he gets the nomination from the Green Party and in November it's him, Hillary and whichever GOP candidate, I will vote for Hillary. If it's Cynthia McKinney, I will consider her. I won't consider Ralph. Not because I am anti-Nader or think he stole an election (he didn't steal anything). I'm just offended that he may be on the ticket and he still hasn't declared. It's like the 'good' news this week that Iraq passed a budget. The 2008 budget. It should have been passed in September. By the same token, Ralph Nader should have declared his intent to run or not before the primaries.
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to vote. I'm not saying, "Hop on board!" If Ralph's your candidate, more power to you. But creating the Myth of Bambi required tearing down and apart a woman. Hillary Clinton didn't deserve that (no woman does) and she has enough pluses that I can comfortably support her. If that's not the case for you or if there's a candidate you are behind already (even Bambi), that's your business. Everyone's welcome in the kitchen. And remember, you got the scoop here first. No one knows how I voted in my family. They'll learn it after this goes up. I normally never reveal how I voted. It's a private vote and it's no one's business. But I did feel that since my turnaround could be described as 'dramatic,' I did owe it to the people who read to tell them where I stood.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:
Friday, February 15, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US kills allies, the refugee crisis has a new wrinkle -- voting, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Brad McCall is a war resister who went to Canada because he could not serve in an illegal war. Yesterday he blogged about an e-mail he received from an angry Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Driggers whom McCall attempts to explain it again to, "I am protecting my nation by doing what I have done. I am also supporting my fellow soldiers that are serving in this war. By leaving and making it clear that I will not conform to this act of hate committed by my government, I make it clear that there are soldiers with conscience and that we (soldiers) should be kept safe in our own borders, and not in some country that we have no business in." Earlier this week, he addressed another e-mail from a soldier and responded, "You see, the military is built so that men, and women, have no chance to speak out against what is obviously wrong. In the Army there was this saying: 'Out of sight, out of mind'. Most lower ranking soldiers live on that principle. They believe that the quieter they stay, the smoother they will flow through, and essentially, the quicker they will get out. They are afraid to speak out. They know what can happen. I knew what would happen when I spoke up."
With Canada's Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters like McCall may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
IVAW calls for an immediate end to the illegal war, for reparations for the Iraqis and for full benefits for US service members. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the US House Armed Services Committee held a meeting on "Medical Care For Wounded Soldiers."
US House Rep Susan Davis is chair of the subcommittee and she opened with a statement which included: "The purpose of today's hearing is for members to get an update on the implementation of the Army's Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and hear how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are caring for their wounded warriors. At out last hearing on this subject back in June of last year, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, suggested that we have him back in October and January to testify on the progress of AMAP towards Full Operational Capability. Circumstances precluded such follow-up hearings, and we understand that General Cody has just returned from Iraq in the past few hours, but we will nonetheless push foward so that we may learn how far the AMAP has come, and how far it still has to go." Testifying were Vice Admiral Adam Robinson, Surgeon General of the Navy; Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, Surgeon General of the Army; and Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, Assistant Surgeon General of the Army. With those and members of Congress, you might think the hearing could get somewhere.
You would be wrong. Can someone offer US House Rep Joe Wilson a job with MoviePhone? How much time did he use talking about the documentary Fighting for Life? Did the limited time of the hour and 45 minute hearing really allow for Wilson to read from p.r. material for the film? To note a screening? But regardless of the Congress member, there appeared to be far too much concern with making nice and far too little concern about getting down to what was being done or what needed to be done.
Rep John McHugh broke from his peers to ask actual questions regarding demobilization and to address the stories the committee was hearing about servicemembers "being ordered to demobilze while still undergoing treatment." McHugh noted the information on this continues to come in despite the fact that "we brought those concerns to your predecessor and we were assured by Navy leadership that those practicies would end." Robinson claimed to be unaware of any such stories and insisted that care for those in the service was maintained before offering, "From the surgeon in me, I'm tell you that most of the time I don't think that anyone should leave the service until their medical condition has been delineated or treated." It was all a lively side-step by Robinson. The question wasn't 'What do you think?' Again, to McHugh's credit, he did show some focus and determination and followed up with, "To be clear, in general terms, it would not be the navy's policy to discharge a soldier who a few days later had surgery scheduled?" When pressed Robinson would answer and answered, "That is correct." However, he quickly followed with, "I would expect that we would care for them." You would expect? What is the policy and is the policy followed? This is the military appearing before Congress -- what is the policy, what are the orders. It's very basic.
Bethesda (National Naval Medical Center) was mentioned often. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is set to be closed and replaced with a systematic facility that would see Bethesda expanded. Schoomaker stated that the "full integration of services" has already began and used US Secretary of Defense Robert Gate's shoulder injury to illustrate the way the system flows. Robinson maintains that, under the new system, "there won't be anyone left behind" and that "inroads" are being made.
US House Rep Nancy Boyda started off noting that a one year ago the committee was informed "military to civilian transitions were supposed to be halted" but when she looks at the 2009 budget, she sees they "are still in there." In March of 2007, the subject was addressed with US House Rep McHugh endorsing the 'need' for military positions to be transitioned to civilians as 'cost-cutting' steps. At that time, McHugh noted that 5,500 positions had already been 'transitioned' to civilians with 2,700 left to go. Boyda's point was that, after previous hearings, this is still in the budget. The response was, for the Air Force, that the positions "not filled by 2009 will revert back to the military." Did Boyda have a point in asking the question? Apparently not because she mistook herself for a high school guidance counselor in all that followed -- non-stop repetitions of speaking-for-me-we-want-to-make-sure-your-needs-are-met. Over and over. Really, when you a member of Congress, why not try conducting yourself like one. Boyda went on to insist that we (but really her, remember, speaking for herself) want the military to have "the ability to make the decisions that you think are best for our military personnel." Boyda may see that as footage to run in her re-election campaign but the reality is not only does Congress have an obligation but there's also the fact that the Walter Reed scandal requires that Congress provide serious oversight. If anyone member of Congress other than McHugh (a Republican) had any idea what they were doing in that hearing, they hid it very, very well.
Having wasted so much time with 'Help-me-help-you' babble, there wasn't time for all the witness to answer her question on what they needed. Schoomaker stated "we need more latitude" when it came to mental health. It really would have been nice to have had a follow up to that but Boyda ensured that no follow ups would come as she wasted her time. Schoomaker also wanted to see "a medical suppliment".
Susan Davis, the chair, captured the mood of the hearing and it wasn't pretty as she asked, "Any additional thoughts on what the problems were? Whether there was a" here she laughs "misscomunication somewhere?" Exactly what was funny about that? And does Davis really think that's how to chair a committee? It was disgusting. Davis wanted to know about the "bedside training" of the military's CADRE.
Tucker explained that the CADRE comes "from all the ranks in the Army" and that the course-work is currently a 40 hour training; however, it is becoming a three week course based out of Houston beginning in October. The three week course will put "them through the bedside manner, like you've spoken about, ma'am." He explained the special duty pay which was not initially in place (this despite his terming the CADRE's work to be "the Lord's work"). Currently they get $300 of special duty pay a month the first year and $375 the second.
Schoomaker gave a complicated example that was meant to confuse but, judging by their performance, the committee showed up confused. Schoomaker's example rested around the fact that when you are in the military and found to have a health problem, say weak ankles, they discharge with a rating, say 30%. But a person usually has more than just that or, as Schoomaker termed them, a "total person," they have a "combination of problems." And the problem with military care for active duty service members, according to Schoomaker is that. After discharge, the same service member will begin receiving treatment in a VA hospital and the VA will certify him or her for additional health problems. Schoomaker appeared to be making an argument that both the VA and the military should work from the same table -- this was what he found "fundamentally flawed" in the process. It really shouldn't require a great deal of work on the part of Congress to ensure that the VA and the military work from the same disability tables. And it should be the VA's because, as Schoomaker pointed out, that table addresses the "total person" and the health in full. Why don't they use it currently? No one on the committee thought to ask. It's cheaper to discharge with one disability, cheaper for the military. It keeps the costs of beneifts down. Sure would have been nice if Davis or Boyda had thought to use their time for something that really mattered. Schoomaker cautioned of quick fixes, "When you speed up a bad process all you have is a fast bad process."
US Rep John Kline wondered if "we let this emphasis on PTSD . . . pull us away from this orthopedic effort?" Schoomaker disagreed that there was a signature injury to the Iraq War although he did feel there was a signature weapon "blasts." On "blast injury," Schoomaker wondered, "Are we keeping balanced? Are we looking at all the gaps? . . . And are we doing all the things for this singular weapon which is blast?" Robinson offered that "amputations are seen" which makes it appear to have an end point that conditions such as PTSD may not appear to have. He stated that "research needs to be done also in terms of the limbs and the bio-mechanics and the future is really bounding with opportunities." But TBI -- traumatic blast injury -- "is something that's unseen and we don't know what we don't know. With a limb there is an amputation . . . With" TBI "you don't know." Robinson also noted that PTSD was present during Vietnam and the veterans who developed it "were not treated . . . and now we're seeing . . . 35 years later that that was an important thing."
Davis was in wind-down mode (even though the hearing could have run for 15 more minutes) and wondered whether evaluations (she termed what had transpired an "evaluation") should be done yearly or every six months. All offering testimony agreed that a year was too long and that they should meet every six months on this topic. Davis' website notes, "A leading advocate for military families in San Diego and around the world, Davis intends to conduct thoughtful hearings which will focus on the needs of our servicemen and women and their families." That intention was not present in the hearing.
In today's New York Times, Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag continue to explore the violence taking place for veterans when they return and they open with the story of Sgt. Erin Edwards who, despite taking the necessary steps to keep her husband Sgt. William Edwards away from her, was killed by her husband in 2004. Steps she took were not followed through on and one example is the fact that William Edwards was not supposed to be allowed off base without an officer accompanying him but that wasn't enforced. The reporters observe that there was a minor wave of attention to domestic abuse and spousal homicide rates in the US military at the end of the 90s, but "just as the Defense Department undertook substantial changes, guided by a Congressionally chartered task force on domestic violence that decried a system more adept at protecting offenders than victims, the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq began." The reporters note that, "The fatalities examined by The Times show a military system that tries and sometimes fails to balance the demands of fighting a war with those of eradicating domestic violence. According to interviews with law enforcement officials and court documents, the military has sent to war service members who had been charged with and even convicted of domestic violence crimes. Deploying such convicted service members to a war zone violates military regulations and, in some cases, federal law." On January 27th, Alvarez and Sontag contributed "Combat Trauma Takes the Witness Stand," January 13th, they contributed "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles" and, February 14, 2007, Alvarez reported on the the increase for moral waivers allowing those with felony convictions to join the military.
Meanwhile, Ian Fisher (New York Times) gets a first for his paper, Iraqis killed by US forces are innocent -- and before an investigation! If you're thinking there's a major shift taking place at the paper of record, think again. The six dead aren't just any Iraqis, they're the heart of the counter-insurgency plans, the 'Awakening' Council. Fisher reports that the six "mistakenly fired on American soldiers in the north, the Iraqi police said. The American forces fired back, killing them and two women in nearby houses, the polic said." Contrast that with any other event even the September slaughter in Baghdad on the part of Blackwater. No Iraqi dead ever gets that sort of treatment from the New York Times but the "Awakening" Council isn't any mere Iraq, they are Iraqis on the US payroll, paid to drop arms against the US, and 'loyal' as long as the money's there. Those deaths were yesterday (and the two women are barely dealt with). Today, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports 3 'Awakening' Council members shot dead in Baghdad by "an American helicopter" which also wounded two more and notes, "Sheik Mohammed Ghuriari, who heads the so-called Awakening Councils that supply fighters to protect neighborhoods in north Babil province, said it was the third U.S.-led strike on one of their checkpoints in less than two months.".
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and left four more wounded. Reuters notes a Tal Afar bombing where 16 civilians were killed at a mosque. Sahar Issa reports that there were two bombers with one getting shot and the other detonating the bomb. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The attackers struck during the midday Friday prayers, the most important of the Muslim week." M-NF announces, "Attack helicopters responded to a small-arms fire attack on Coalition Forces near the town during the early morning hours Feb. 15. The helicopters engaged one structure with rockets."
Kidnappings?
Reuters reports aa family of four ("including two women") were kidnapped in Balad Ruz today.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses in Baghdad and 5 corpses in Diyala Province. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Balad Rus.
Meanwhile, Moahmmed Abbas (Reuters) quotes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki who apparently -- possibly during his time as exile -- is a big fan of Donna Summer: "We must keep our fingers on the trigger." Because? Love is in control?
Picking up from yesterday, we'll return to the subject of the refugees. Over 4 milliion refugees have been created by the illegal war. The figure includes internal and external refugees -- both those displaced outside their country and those displace internally. The Iraqi Parliament is calling for provisional elections and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that among the unanswered questions are those pertaining to the refugees including where they would vote if they were allowed to vote? Would they be counted as voters in the provinces they hailed from or, if internally displaced, voters for the provinces they currently reside in? Rubin also notes, "The problem is that many of the nation's most powerful political parties have divided up most of the seats on the Independent Higher Election Commission, which oversees national election policy. That means there are few, if any, independent brokers overseeing the election process, according to Iraqi academics and lawmakers. Some other parties are not represented on the commission."
Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reminded that is still not safe for refugees to return to Iraq. IRIN quotes Guterres: "We have clear criteria for the promotion of returns -- those criteria are not met by the situation in Iraq now. So we are not promoting returns to Iraq in the present circumstances because we do not believe the conditions are there for that to be possible on a meaningfuly scale." Haifa Zangana (Guardian of London) explains:
The return of some refugees is not related to the success of the surge, the establishment of security or a reduction in "sectarian violence", the euphemism for death squads that have infiltrated the security services and local militias. The savings of most refugees have run out, and they face real poverty since they cannot compete for the few jobs available in countries that have historically been poorer than Iraq. While I was in Amman in June, I met an Iraqi engineer who now works as a cleaner to provide for his family. Others, especially the elderly and children, are exhausted by visa restrictions; Most refugees, being of urban backgrounds, rented flats at steep prices, forcing families to share, sometimes with up to five adults and children in one room. Many refugees, previously from professional backgrounds, have had to rely on charity donations or support from relatives living in Europe.
Refugees in Syria or elsewhere rely on pensions, requiring them to go back to their workplaces in Iraq once every couple of months, leaving their families behind. Some go back also to collect monthly food rations to partially sell in the country. In the past, due to corruption in various government offices, some employees didn't attend work but collected half their salaries. Their bosses collected the rest in exchange for allowing them not to show up except for occasional days. All these arrangements came to an end after neighbouring countries implemented visa restrictions and it is almost impossible to get a visa to the UK or the US, despite their responsibility in creating the mayhem in Iraq. Now many refugees who have survived so far with such arrangements are desperate, and their only remaining hope is to share life with their extended families inside Iraq. In most cases they are "internally displaced", ie still refugees.
The Myth of the Great Return. Or as Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) observed last weekend: "As a propaganda exercise designed to show that the Iraqi government was restoring peace, it never quite worked. The majority of the returnees said they were returning to Baghdad, not because it was safer, but because they had run out of money in Syria or their visas had expired. There has been no mass return of the two million Iraqis who fled to Syria and Jordan or a further 2.4 million refugees who left their homes within Iraq." The propaganda push did a lot of damage in real time.
Turning to US politics, as Mike, Marcia, Kat, Rebecca, Cedric and Wally noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton won New Mexico -- a Super Duper Tuesday state that only finished its count yesterday.
iraq
brad mccall
iraq veterans against the war
the new york timeslizette alvarezdeborah sontagalissa j. rubin
mcclatchy newspapers
sickofitradlzkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes it
The green onions which gives it a bit of a snap. Should green onions not be available or on hand, you can chop a regular onion.
Corn Chowder
4 slices of bacon*
1 green onion sliced
2 tablespoons dried thyme
dash of sea salt or regular salt
dash of pepper
dash of nutmeg
4 cups of milk
2 bakin potatoes that you've peeled and diced into small cubes
2 cups of fresh or frozen corn kernals or 2 15-ounce cans of corn
A dutch oven is your best bet but you can use a really large pan as well. You want to cook the bacon in it and you're just heating really. When it's brown, remove it, allow it to cool on paper towels and dice it. In the same pan with the bacon grease, add the green onion, thyme, salt, pepper and nutmeg. Be sure the heat is on the lowest setting possible as you stir for about 3 minutes. Add the diced bacon, stir for 2 minutes more. Then pour the milk in slowly. No faster than a 1/4 at a time. Slower if you have the time. Each time you add milk, stir again to blend the spices and green onions. When you've added all the milk, add the potatoes. With the burner still on low, allow the mixture to simmer for fifteen minutes. You'll need to stir occassionally. If you're using fresh or frozen, add the corn after 15 minutes. If you're using canned corn, be sure to drain it so that just the kernals go in or else the chowder will be watery. Once the corn is added, you need to let it simmer for five minutes. Add another dash of nutmeg, stir and begin serving.
This was a huge hit on Wednesday which made me very happy because I two had already proven less than popular. It was such a hit that Jody made it Thursday and her husband's brother showed up unannounced. She added milk (1 and 1/2 cups) to it to stretch it out and also topped each bowl with shredded Swiss cheese. There were no complaints. If you're looking for something to serve with it, you can consider a green salad and/or bread. Rolls or a loaf of French bread will work great but you can also just toast some bread. Kids love dipping and if you just toast some sliced bread, after it's toasted, cut it in half or quarters.
We'll try for one more easy and inexpensive recipe next week. *If you do not eat meat, substitute a cooking oil and a yellow or white onicon for the bacon. Continue to use the green onion.
After endorsing Dennis Kucinich, I learned my lesson and then some. I have been watching the Green Party with interest and may still vote for them in the general election. If Obama gets the nommination from the Democratic Party, I will be voting Green because I cannot vote for someone who insults me and flatters Republicans or someone who cannot stand up for reproductive rights (don't argue that popular lie about 'present' was a strategy). With the Greens, what concerns me is the what concerns Jess and Kat (among others), Cynthia McKinney declared and ran. She even switched her party membership. Yet it doesn't appear to have been enough. Ralph Nader, who has STILL NOT DECLARED, appears to have won in the states that held primaries. I'm insulted. I'm insulted for women. What does that say when someone who can't even announce "I'm running!" before a primary wins it? I think it shows disrespect for those who got off their asses and ran. I think Cynthia McKinney would make a wonderful president. I think it's disgusting that Nader has still not declared. He's won primaries. It's time for him to make an announcement.
In a year when women have been disrespected and slandered, I've decided I could live with Hillary Clinton as president and, yes, be happy about that. Paul Krugman's columns are the things that really got the point across to me. I am still furious over the fact that we didn't get universal health care in the 90s. But he is correct about the window of opportunity. I think he actually bites his tongue. There will be, a few years after 2010, another call for hits on people's programs and we won't be able to get health care in that climate. This is a very tiny window and if we don't push here, we won't get health care for all. I'm not crazy about mandates but Barack Obama's plan has mandates as well. Don't bother e-mailing to say, "Just for children!" I'm the mother of 8 children. All are adults now but telling me back then that we were 'only' mandated to have health care coverage for our children wouldn't have been any different from saying we were mandated for our children and us (the parents).
On the illegal war, I trust Hillary more than I do Barack. She voted on the Iran resolution last summer, which Barack ducked. As he goes on and on about 2002, his words seem more like "I was right!" and less about fixing anything. Mistakes will be made and how do you handle them? Barack's ducking the Iran vote indicates he may 'handle' mistakes by ducking out to avoid making them. I have not seen him take a stand for anything that matters to the left. (Ronald Reagan's legacy -- his praise for that -- may have been a stand but it was for the right.) Hillary's vote did not cause the illegal war. She shouldn't have voted for it. It was a BIG mistake. But the resolution was not -- despite the title -- "Go to war with Iraq!" The inspections were supposed to proceed (Bully Boy halted them). I do not think it was a proud moment. I do not want it to be repeated. But Hillary took action and Iran indicates she will make decisions while Barack will duck them -- just so he can have his 'pristine' record of "I was right!" (He wasn't right. He thought Saddam had WMDs.) In the Senate, their voting records on funding the illegal war are the same. I see more support for veterans from Hillary's votes (in fairness, if Barack had held meetings of any committees he chairs, maybe he could show support too). I don't think anyone's going to get the US out of Iraq other than the people.
I know she has a record on reproductive rights. I am insulted by the trashing of her 35-year record. I am the mother of eight children and some of those comments about her record have been downright offensive. Those snide remarks indicating she was just 'the wife of' are flat out sexism. Hillary has a record, Barack Obama doesn't.
Hillary's also a fighter as Rebecca and Kat have pointed out. (I'm speaking for my own vote. I don't know how they're going to vote. I know all the attacks have made them more supportive of her than they were prior.) I see the first serious and viable woman candidate of my lifetime treated as if she thinks the presidency is a lotto and she just wants the title. I don't know how anyone can doubt that Hillary is a worker. This would not be a Bully Boy president. She won't delegate to her Dick Cheney and go off on vacations and rush off for her daily nap time.
She has a commanding knowledge of policies which, for those too young or uninformed to know, is supposed to be a plus in a president. I think we've had eight years of seeing what happens when a 'nice talker' with no real understanding gets into the White House.
As Ava and C.I. noted, the attacks on her have included attacking her for being married. That commentary was as important as Krugman. I am someone who has detested Hillary for years. I do not believe the junk the right-wing circulates about her. I did have serious policy differences with her. But Ava and C.I.'s commentary got me to think, "What does this woman have to do to get a break?" That was a big shift for me as anyone who reads this site knows. After that, I was able to be receptive to Krugman's columns. Health care does matter.
So do other issues like who will sit on the Supreme Court. All of Bambi's reaching across the aisle does not indicate to me that he will fight for nominations. It indicates to me that he will go for the least offensive to the right nominee. And our Supreme Court will continue to tilt right. This may be the first election cycle I can remember where a nominee wasn't asked to pledge that they would nominate only pro-choice judges. Maybe it's another way to disrespect women this year. I can't see Obama making that pledge. I know Hillary would from her record.
I also think we've had enough half-assed men in the White House. Bambi's a half-ass. He doesn't do go full out on anything, he's too cautious and too timid. Hillary is ready from day one. She knows not only how her husband was attacked by the DC establishment, she also knows how his first 100 days were shredded apart. She knows what can happen and she's not going to be stumbling around for advisors to tell her what to do. Bambi hasn't completed his third year in the Senate. He is an unknown.
For those reasons and more, I am comfortable with Hillary as president. I voted for her on Super Duper Tuesday (my husband did as well but I haven't revealed my vote to my family). That's because I hadn't switched my party membership because I hadn't realized it was necessary. My entire voting life, I've been a registered Democrat. When I realized I was voting in the Democratic primary by default, I considered doing what Elaine did and voting for Mike Gravel. He is a wonderful man and Elaine's vote was not wasted but I knew from my friends that they were worried Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, our state's two senators, endorsing Bambi would result in a landslide. I didn't think that would happen because neither is as popular as outsiders think. (John Kerry's current fight demonstrates that.) As for our governor, he has to be the worst we've had in my lifetime. So his endorsement wasn't going to sway anyone either. But just the idea that they were both (Kerry and Kennedy) trying to tell us who to vote for was insulting. Kerry made a fool of himself repeatedly and Ted's only got the weight to blunt some of the anger at him. If I'd lived in Elaine's state, I might have voted Gravel. (And I do not think her vote was wasted or wrong, to be clear.) But here it was different as all of our big male politicians decided they knew better than the citizens of the state. So I voted for Hillary reluctantly.
In retrospect, I'm very proud of my vote. I know Ava and C.I. are not trying to influence anyone's vote but their commentary was the main reason I could vote for her reluctantly and Krugman's columns since are the reason I am happy with my vote. Voting for her was a huge, huge shift for me. Readers of this site will know that. But for the reasons listed above, I did. For the reasons I've outlined, I'm glad that I did.
I have nothing against Ralph Nader but if he gets the nomination from the Green Party and in November it's him, Hillary and whichever GOP candidate, I will vote for Hillary. If it's Cynthia McKinney, I will consider her. I won't consider Ralph. Not because I am anti-Nader or think he stole an election (he didn't steal anything). I'm just offended that he may be on the ticket and he still hasn't declared. It's like the 'good' news this week that Iraq passed a budget. The 2008 budget. It should have been passed in September. By the same token, Ralph Nader should have declared his intent to run or not before the primaries.
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to vote. I'm not saying, "Hop on board!" If Ralph's your candidate, more power to you. But creating the Myth of Bambi required tearing down and apart a woman. Hillary Clinton didn't deserve that (no woman does) and she has enough pluses that I can comfortably support her. If that's not the case for you or if there's a candidate you are behind already (even Bambi), that's your business. Everyone's welcome in the kitchen. And remember, you got the scoop here first. No one knows how I voted in my family. They'll learn it after this goes up. I normally never reveal how I voted. It's a private vote and it's no one's business. But I did feel that since my turnaround could be described as 'dramatic,' I did owe it to the people who read to tell them where I stood.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:
Friday, February 15, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US kills allies, the refugee crisis has a new wrinkle -- voting, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Brad McCall is a war resister who went to Canada because he could not serve in an illegal war. Yesterday he blogged about an e-mail he received from an angry Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Driggers whom McCall attempts to explain it again to, "I am protecting my nation by doing what I have done. I am also supporting my fellow soldiers that are serving in this war. By leaving and making it clear that I will not conform to this act of hate committed by my government, I make it clear that there are soldiers with conscience and that we (soldiers) should be kept safe in our own borders, and not in some country that we have no business in." Earlier this week, he addressed another e-mail from a soldier and responded, "You see, the military is built so that men, and women, have no chance to speak out against what is obviously wrong. In the Army there was this saying: 'Out of sight, out of mind'. Most lower ranking soldiers live on that principle. They believe that the quieter they stay, the smoother they will flow through, and essentially, the quicker they will get out. They are afraid to speak out. They know what can happen. I knew what would happen when I spoke up."
With Canada's Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters like McCall may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
IVAW calls for an immediate end to the illegal war, for reparations for the Iraqis and for full benefits for US service members. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the US House Armed Services Committee held a meeting on "Medical Care For Wounded Soldiers."
US House Rep Susan Davis is chair of the subcommittee and she opened with a statement which included: "The purpose of today's hearing is for members to get an update on the implementation of the Army's Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and hear how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are caring for their wounded warriors. At out last hearing on this subject back in June of last year, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, suggested that we have him back in October and January to testify on the progress of AMAP towards Full Operational Capability. Circumstances precluded such follow-up hearings, and we understand that General Cody has just returned from Iraq in the past few hours, but we will nonetheless push foward so that we may learn how far the AMAP has come, and how far it still has to go." Testifying were Vice Admiral Adam Robinson, Surgeon General of the Navy; Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, Surgeon General of the Army; and Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, Assistant Surgeon General of the Army. With those and members of Congress, you might think the hearing could get somewhere.
You would be wrong. Can someone offer US House Rep Joe Wilson a job with MoviePhone? How much time did he use talking about the documentary Fighting for Life? Did the limited time of the hour and 45 minute hearing really allow for Wilson to read from p.r. material for the film? To note a screening? But regardless of the Congress member, there appeared to be far too much concern with making nice and far too little concern about getting down to what was being done or what needed to be done.
Rep John McHugh broke from his peers to ask actual questions regarding demobilization and to address the stories the committee was hearing about servicemembers "being ordered to demobilze while still undergoing treatment." McHugh noted the information on this continues to come in despite the fact that "we brought those concerns to your predecessor and we were assured by Navy leadership that those practicies would end." Robinson claimed to be unaware of any such stories and insisted that care for those in the service was maintained before offering, "From the surgeon in me, I'm tell you that most of the time I don't think that anyone should leave the service until their medical condition has been delineated or treated." It was all a lively side-step by Robinson. The question wasn't 'What do you think?' Again, to McHugh's credit, he did show some focus and determination and followed up with, "To be clear, in general terms, it would not be the navy's policy to discharge a soldier who a few days later had surgery scheduled?" When pressed Robinson would answer and answered, "That is correct." However, he quickly followed with, "I would expect that we would care for them." You would expect? What is the policy and is the policy followed? This is the military appearing before Congress -- what is the policy, what are the orders. It's very basic.
Bethesda (National Naval Medical Center) was mentioned often. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is set to be closed and replaced with a systematic facility that would see Bethesda expanded. Schoomaker stated that the "full integration of services" has already began and used US Secretary of Defense Robert Gate's shoulder injury to illustrate the way the system flows. Robinson maintains that, under the new system, "there won't be anyone left behind" and that "inroads" are being made.
US House Rep Nancy Boyda started off noting that a one year ago the committee was informed "military to civilian transitions were supposed to be halted" but when she looks at the 2009 budget, she sees they "are still in there." In March of 2007, the subject was addressed with US House Rep McHugh endorsing the 'need' for military positions to be transitioned to civilians as 'cost-cutting' steps. At that time, McHugh noted that 5,500 positions had already been 'transitioned' to civilians with 2,700 left to go. Boyda's point was that, after previous hearings, this is still in the budget. The response was, for the Air Force, that the positions "not filled by 2009 will revert back to the military." Did Boyda have a point in asking the question? Apparently not because she mistook herself for a high school guidance counselor in all that followed -- non-stop repetitions of speaking-for-me-we-want-to-make-sure-your-needs-are-met. Over and over. Really, when you a member of Congress, why not try conducting yourself like one. Boyda went on to insist that we (but really her, remember, speaking for herself) want the military to have "the ability to make the decisions that you think are best for our military personnel." Boyda may see that as footage to run in her re-election campaign but the reality is not only does Congress have an obligation but there's also the fact that the Walter Reed scandal requires that Congress provide serious oversight. If anyone member of Congress other than McHugh (a Republican) had any idea what they were doing in that hearing, they hid it very, very well.
Having wasted so much time with 'Help-me-help-you' babble, there wasn't time for all the witness to answer her question on what they needed. Schoomaker stated "we need more latitude" when it came to mental health. It really would have been nice to have had a follow up to that but Boyda ensured that no follow ups would come as she wasted her time. Schoomaker also wanted to see "a medical suppliment".
Susan Davis, the chair, captured the mood of the hearing and it wasn't pretty as she asked, "Any additional thoughts on what the problems were? Whether there was a" here she laughs "misscomunication somewhere?" Exactly what was funny about that? And does Davis really think that's how to chair a committee? It was disgusting. Davis wanted to know about the "bedside training" of the military's CADRE.
Tucker explained that the CADRE comes "from all the ranks in the Army" and that the course-work is currently a 40 hour training; however, it is becoming a three week course based out of Houston beginning in October. The three week course will put "them through the bedside manner, like you've spoken about, ma'am." He explained the special duty pay which was not initially in place (this despite his terming the CADRE's work to be "the Lord's work"). Currently they get $300 of special duty pay a month the first year and $375 the second.
Schoomaker gave a complicated example that was meant to confuse but, judging by their performance, the committee showed up confused. Schoomaker's example rested around the fact that when you are in the military and found to have a health problem, say weak ankles, they discharge with a rating, say 30%. But a person usually has more than just that or, as Schoomaker termed them, a "total person," they have a "combination of problems." And the problem with military care for active duty service members, according to Schoomaker is that. After discharge, the same service member will begin receiving treatment in a VA hospital and the VA will certify him or her for additional health problems. Schoomaker appeared to be making an argument that both the VA and the military should work from the same table -- this was what he found "fundamentally flawed" in the process. It really shouldn't require a great deal of work on the part of Congress to ensure that the VA and the military work from the same disability tables. And it should be the VA's because, as Schoomaker pointed out, that table addresses the "total person" and the health in full. Why don't they use it currently? No one on the committee thought to ask. It's cheaper to discharge with one disability, cheaper for the military. It keeps the costs of beneifts down. Sure would have been nice if Davis or Boyda had thought to use their time for something that really mattered. Schoomaker cautioned of quick fixes, "When you speed up a bad process all you have is a fast bad process."
US Rep John Kline wondered if "we let this emphasis on PTSD . . . pull us away from this orthopedic effort?" Schoomaker disagreed that there was a signature injury to the Iraq War although he did feel there was a signature weapon "blasts." On "blast injury," Schoomaker wondered, "Are we keeping balanced? Are we looking at all the gaps? . . . And are we doing all the things for this singular weapon which is blast?" Robinson offered that "amputations are seen" which makes it appear to have an end point that conditions such as PTSD may not appear to have. He stated that "research needs to be done also in terms of the limbs and the bio-mechanics and the future is really bounding with opportunities." But TBI -- traumatic blast injury -- "is something that's unseen and we don't know what we don't know. With a limb there is an amputation . . . With" TBI "you don't know." Robinson also noted that PTSD was present during Vietnam and the veterans who developed it "were not treated . . . and now we're seeing . . . 35 years later that that was an important thing."
Davis was in wind-down mode (even though the hearing could have run for 15 more minutes) and wondered whether evaluations (she termed what had transpired an "evaluation") should be done yearly or every six months. All offering testimony agreed that a year was too long and that they should meet every six months on this topic. Davis' website notes, "A leading advocate for military families in San Diego and around the world, Davis intends to conduct thoughtful hearings which will focus on the needs of our servicemen and women and their families." That intention was not present in the hearing.
In today's New York Times, Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag continue to explore the violence taking place for veterans when they return and they open with the story of Sgt. Erin Edwards who, despite taking the necessary steps to keep her husband Sgt. William Edwards away from her, was killed by her husband in 2004. Steps she took were not followed through on and one example is the fact that William Edwards was not supposed to be allowed off base without an officer accompanying him but that wasn't enforced. The reporters observe that there was a minor wave of attention to domestic abuse and spousal homicide rates in the US military at the end of the 90s, but "just as the Defense Department undertook substantial changes, guided by a Congressionally chartered task force on domestic violence that decried a system more adept at protecting offenders than victims, the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq began." The reporters note that, "The fatalities examined by The Times show a military system that tries and sometimes fails to balance the demands of fighting a war with those of eradicating domestic violence. According to interviews with law enforcement officials and court documents, the military has sent to war service members who had been charged with and even convicted of domestic violence crimes. Deploying such convicted service members to a war zone violates military regulations and, in some cases, federal law." On January 27th, Alvarez and Sontag contributed "Combat Trauma Takes the Witness Stand," January 13th, they contributed "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles" and, February 14, 2007, Alvarez reported on the the increase for moral waivers allowing those with felony convictions to join the military.
Meanwhile, Ian Fisher (New York Times) gets a first for his paper, Iraqis killed by US forces are innocent -- and before an investigation! If you're thinking there's a major shift taking place at the paper of record, think again. The six dead aren't just any Iraqis, they're the heart of the counter-insurgency plans, the 'Awakening' Council. Fisher reports that the six "mistakenly fired on American soldiers in the north, the Iraqi police said. The American forces fired back, killing them and two women in nearby houses, the polic said." Contrast that with any other event even the September slaughter in Baghdad on the part of Blackwater. No Iraqi dead ever gets that sort of treatment from the New York Times but the "Awakening" Council isn't any mere Iraq, they are Iraqis on the US payroll, paid to drop arms against the US, and 'loyal' as long as the money's there. Those deaths were yesterday (and the two women are barely dealt with). Today, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports 3 'Awakening' Council members shot dead in Baghdad by "an American helicopter" which also wounded two more and notes, "Sheik Mohammed Ghuriari, who heads the so-called Awakening Councils that supply fighters to protect neighborhoods in north Babil province, said it was the third U.S.-led strike on one of their checkpoints in less than two months.".
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and left four more wounded. Reuters notes a Tal Afar bombing where 16 civilians were killed at a mosque. Sahar Issa reports that there were two bombers with one getting shot and the other detonating the bomb. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The attackers struck during the midday Friday prayers, the most important of the Muslim week." M-NF announces, "Attack helicopters responded to a small-arms fire attack on Coalition Forces near the town during the early morning hours Feb. 15. The helicopters engaged one structure with rockets."
Kidnappings?
Reuters reports aa family of four ("including two women") were kidnapped in Balad Ruz today.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses in Baghdad and 5 corpses in Diyala Province. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Balad Rus.
Meanwhile, Moahmmed Abbas (Reuters) quotes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki who apparently -- possibly during his time as exile -- is a big fan of Donna Summer: "We must keep our fingers on the trigger." Because? Love is in control?
Picking up from yesterday, we'll return to the subject of the refugees. Over 4 milliion refugees have been created by the illegal war. The figure includes internal and external refugees -- both those displaced outside their country and those displace internally. The Iraqi Parliament is calling for provisional elections and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that among the unanswered questions are those pertaining to the refugees including where they would vote if they were allowed to vote? Would they be counted as voters in the provinces they hailed from or, if internally displaced, voters for the provinces they currently reside in? Rubin also notes, "The problem is that many of the nation's most powerful political parties have divided up most of the seats on the Independent Higher Election Commission, which oversees national election policy. That means there are few, if any, independent brokers overseeing the election process, according to Iraqi academics and lawmakers. Some other parties are not represented on the commission."
Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reminded that is still not safe for refugees to return to Iraq. IRIN quotes Guterres: "We have clear criteria for the promotion of returns -- those criteria are not met by the situation in Iraq now. So we are not promoting returns to Iraq in the present circumstances because we do not believe the conditions are there for that to be possible on a meaningfuly scale." Haifa Zangana (Guardian of London) explains:
The return of some refugees is not related to the success of the surge, the establishment of security or a reduction in "sectarian violence", the euphemism for death squads that have infiltrated the security services and local militias. The savings of most refugees have run out, and they face real poverty since they cannot compete for the few jobs available in countries that have historically been poorer than Iraq. While I was in Amman in June, I met an Iraqi engineer who now works as a cleaner to provide for his family. Others, especially the elderly and children, are exhausted by visa restrictions; Most refugees, being of urban backgrounds, rented flats at steep prices, forcing families to share, sometimes with up to five adults and children in one room. Many refugees, previously from professional backgrounds, have had to rely on charity donations or support from relatives living in Europe.
Refugees in Syria or elsewhere rely on pensions, requiring them to go back to their workplaces in Iraq once every couple of months, leaving their families behind. Some go back also to collect monthly food rations to partially sell in the country. In the past, due to corruption in various government offices, some employees didn't attend work but collected half their salaries. Their bosses collected the rest in exchange for allowing them not to show up except for occasional days. All these arrangements came to an end after neighbouring countries implemented visa restrictions and it is almost impossible to get a visa to the UK or the US, despite their responsibility in creating the mayhem in Iraq. Now many refugees who have survived so far with such arrangements are desperate, and their only remaining hope is to share life with their extended families inside Iraq. In most cases they are "internally displaced", ie still refugees.
The Myth of the Great Return. Or as Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) observed last weekend: "As a propaganda exercise designed to show that the Iraqi government was restoring peace, it never quite worked. The majority of the returnees said they were returning to Baghdad, not because it was safer, but because they had run out of money in Syria or their visas had expired. There has been no mass return of the two million Iraqis who fled to Syria and Jordan or a further 2.4 million refugees who left their homes within Iraq." The propaganda push did a lot of damage in real time.
Turning to US politics, as Mike, Marcia, Kat, Rebecca, Cedric and Wally noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton won New Mexico -- a Super Duper Tuesday state that only finished its count yesterday.
iraq
brad mccall
iraq veterans against the war
the new york timeslizette alvarezdeborah sontagalissa j. rubin
mcclatchy newspapers
sickofitradlzkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes it
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Chief Pesto in the Kitchen
Jody e-mailed explaining she just got placed on a 'pay freeze,' her whole company. She was due for a raise at the end of the month. She'll still have her 'performance appraisal,' but she's not getting a raise, no one working for the comapny is. Her husband was on a 'pay freeze' for three out of the last seven years. Their oldest child, they have three, needs braces.
"When we found that out, we said, 'Well that's what the raise and our tax return is going to be used on.' And now there's no raise. We are beyond scrimping and saving at this point. We've been doing that since 2001. We have gone from a family that took vacations and went to the movies, to a family that only gets videos from the public library. To give you an idea, I got a runner in my one good pair of hose this week and I went to the bathroom and cried. Even a needing a new pair of pantyhose is a need we really can't afford right now. We've gone from beef to chicken to Spam. The last years have seen us cut every corner we can and I'm at a loss of what else we can do at this point. If you have a recipe that's inexpensive, I don't care if it means I have to spend two hours in the kitchen, cooking from scratch, could you please share it with me? The only good news is we paid off the house so that's one less worry we have at a time when so many are worried about losing their homes."
To steal from Ava and C.I., it's a Bully Boy economy and his friends are doing great while the rest of us are suffering. My husband was once on strike for many weeks. Yes, I had a job but we also have eight kids. I know the frustration Jody's feeling. You want to cry and you want to scream. You've cut back on everything already and then something else comes along and you've got to figure out how to cut back some more?
I pulled out a recipe I used during the strike over and over. This is for pesto and it's not going to be served anywhere fancy but it will make for a tasy dish and it's simplified for economic reasons. We had it every other day while my husband was on strike. You need a blender or a food processor (Jody has both). But, in a worst case scenario, you can make it without either.
In a food processor or blender (or bowl, see note at the end), combine
6.2 ounces of dried basil leaves
2 garlic cloves
1/2 cup of walnuts
a dash of salt
a dash of pepper
Add olive oil and begin processing. Add olive oil throughout to have the paste. Continuing adding olive oil so it's more than a paste but less than a fluid. (Think of a watery paste.)
Cook dried pasta according to directions on the box or package. Linguine is great but if there's something that more easily fits your budget, go with that.
Either place the cooked pasta and the pesto in a bowl and stir to coat or serve the pasta on plates with the pesto added. What about cheese? Put a container of parmesan cheese on the table and people can use that.
Note that if you don't have a blender or food processor, you can make the above in a bowl. You'll need to chop up the walnuts and the garlic first and then you'll stir by hand as you add the olive oil.
I called it "Cheap Pesto" at the time and we had it every other day while my husband was on strike. We ate it, we enjoyed it. We might grow tired of it and some of the kids did. I usually served fresh bread (from scratch) with it but one day, in the middle of the strike, I was so tired and sick of it all, that I forgot the bread. My oldest son put sliced bread in the toaster and made bread that way which led the other kids to copy his lead and make it into sandwiches with two slices of bread and the pesto and pasta between them.
When the strike was over, I never planned to make the recipe again. Mike, my second youngest, had other plans. He was very young and I really did call it "Cheap Pesto." He heard it as "Chief Pesto." He kept asking when are we going to have Chief Pesto again. I didn't know what he was talking about. It was weaks after the strike ended and the question came out of the blue. Finally, my father figured it out. So it ended up being a dish we'd have about once a month just so Mike would stop asking. He now makes it for himself and usually does it as sandwiches. To him, this is important, it was just one more thing we ate.
That's important because I didn't see it that way and Jody may not either. I thought we were really suffering and, though I supported the strike, I thought it was the wrong time and the last thing we needed. The older kids did get we were cutting back big time. The younger kids didn't. All the kids, regardless of age, were able to adapt. My point is, and I shared this with Jody already, don't beat yourself up over this. Your kids will either see it as another dish or, if they're older, grasp that it's what necessary. The .62 ounces was because that was the spice size I was using -- I believe McCormick's. I would just buy dried basil leaves in a container and toss the whole thing in. That may be the most 'expensive' thing in the dish. At most grocer's that's probably a little less than two dollars today. The dish is quick to make, it's not expensive.
Want to fancy it up? Serve it with a green salad. In my house during the strike, that was a lettuce (usually Romaine -- and due to the size of my family, it was several heads) and to brighten it up, I'd chop up some radishes and carrots. We couldn't have tomatoes because when I tried to include some (some because we couldn't afford many in a salad during the strike), the kids would fight over them and accuse each other of picking them out of the bowl.
Jody served that Wednesday and Friday to her family and there were no complaints. She bought a loaf of garlic bread for one day and just toasted slice bread for the other. Next week, I'll probably be offering a soup that she's trying out today. If that goes well, we'll have a soup recipe next week. If not, we'll go with something else that is inexpensive. I take e-mails like Jody's more seriously than anything else. I'm happy to help you try to figure out what your grandmother used to make, for instance. But the economy is awful and I have been in Jody's position so I do identify (and remember) when I read those type of e-mails. So next week, there will be another recipe that may not be something you want to take to a gathering to blow off everyone's socks. But it's something that if you're struggling to make ends meet, you can fix easily and cheaply.
Do you know Senator Claire McCaskill? She's a supporter of Bambi. She was, in fact, with Barack Obama when he snubbed Hillary Clinton as the State of the Union address. When it became an issue, various excuses were offered for why he rudely turned his back on Hillary -- offered by his campaign. McCaskill lied and said she'd asked him a question. "Lied" because video has demonstrated she did not ask a question. She did, however, grin as he turned his back on Hillary Clinton. What a 'sweet' woman, no?
I'd heard about how McCaskill hated Bill Clinton (but was happy to use him to campaign for her when needed). But that and the fact that she was a bad liar was all I knew about her. She's one of those for-show-against-the-war types. That was explained to me by a member in McCaskill's home state who also suggested I link to this passage from "Both sides criticize McCaskill" (Joplin Independent):
Another of your constituents, Cloy Richards is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. As you know, Cloy is a friend of mine; I know his story well. He is a proud Marine who has served two deployments to Iraq and now speaks out about the atrocities committed there by the U.S. military under orders from the Pentagon and Bush Administration.
Senator McCaskill, you heard Cloy speak in Cape Girardeau and then asked him to be in a commercial for you. Without that commercial, and others in which U.S. military service members and veterans appeared, you may not have won the election.
Now, Cloy is asking you to end the war in Iraq, and to bring his fellow Marines home from a battlefield to which they never should have been sent. Senator McCaskill, Cloy is not the only person I know who has served in Iraq that is now taking a firm stand against the war in which they themselves were forced to fight. You need to seriously listen to the growing number of Iraq War vets from Missouri and across America. Both Cloy Richards and Brian Hill are among nearly 1300 soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors still under contract to the U.S. military (active duty/reserves/guard/IRR) who have signed the Appeal for Redress from the war in Iraq....."
Happy to use him in an ad (for her campaign), unwilling to end the illegal war. That tells us all we need to know about McCaskill.
Paul Krugman had a column this week that I clipped. I taped it up the cabinet over the sink and I keep underlining things in it. It's entitled "Clinton, Obama, Insurance." With no anti-war candidate in the Democratic race (Mike Gravel is a solid protest vote but I don't think he's getting the nomination), I'm having to decide whether I'm voting for a third party and to examine other issues. If I support a Democrat in the general election (we had our primary Tuesday and Hillary won it), I am obviously not supporting the untested Bambi who has no record -- due to the fact that he voted 'present' on issues important to me while in his state legislature -- but wondering about Hillary. Krugman's column is one I have read and re-read. I would suggest you read it as well. I found it interesting to catch Friday's Democracy Now! and hear Bambi praised for health care . . . until C.I. explained to me that the loser economist was (a) a Bambi supporter (not identified on air demonstrating that Amy Goodman is the Judith Miller of independent media) and (b) someone who has regularly attacked Krugman in print.
Krugman's column is important. I don't need Amy Goodman and her guest posing as 'objective' to tell me about my state's insurance program. I live here. I know the flaws, I know the pluses. (Neither Goodman nor her guest/schill knew anything -- it was, as my father said, a "talking out the ass segment.")
I would urge you to read his column and, as C.I. noted, take notice of the fact that Krugman has been on Democracy Now! many times before. He's done benefits in public with Amy Goodman (and with Goodman and Greg Palast) but he's not on the show these days. Goodman only has time for Bambi supporters (many of whom never are noted to be Bambi supporters). Like Sydney Blumenthal and many others, those not drinking from the Bambi kool-aid don't show up on Democracy Now! these days.
Krugman, in fact, has been under attack for some time for noting the realities of Bambi's campaign. Make a point to read the column and make a point to grasp how Little Media has censored and tilted the information to try to campaign for Bambi while calling themselves "news" and claiming that they provide information.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" from Friday:
Friday, Feburary 8, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Andy Sullivan loves John McCain and lies for him, will al-Sadr's cease-fire/truce hold when they're praying in some regions for it to end, Americans say "Save the economy by pulling out of Iraq," and more.
Starting with war resistance, Krystalline Kraus (The Rabble) traces the historical support Canada has provided to war resisters:
According to Lee Zaslofsky, a key organizer for the War Resisters Support Campaign and a Vietnam resister himself, he believes that Canada has a certain historical legacy to live up to by accepting war resisters.
It was Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party who opened Canada's doors during the Vietnam war to thousands of Americans war resisters, who were often motivated by the same feeling of objection to an unjust and illegal war.
"Of course, Canada's legacy extends back further to the [American] Civil War and before that when slaves came north via the underground railroad, and even before that with the United Empire Loyalists, so there is sort of a Canadian tradition of welcoming dissenters from the United States and this is another part of that," Zaslofsky explains.
With the Canadian Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on this issue in November, the country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers.
In the United States, a new poll may cause a stir. Jeannine Aversa (AP) reports that Americans surveyed by AP and Ipsos feel "The way to get the country out of recession -- and most people think we're in one -- is to get the country out of Iraq" and "Pulling out of the war ranked first among proposed remedies in the survey, followed by spending more on domestic programs, cutting taxes and, at the bottom end, giving rebates to poor people in hopes they'll spend the economy into recovery." The number saying ending the illegal war would pull the United States out a recession was 43% and included respondent Hilda Sanchez who declares, "Let's stop paying for this war. There are a lot of people who are struggling. We can use the money to pay for medical care and help people who were put out of their homes." [Marin of error on the poll was plus/minus 3/1%.]
In Iraq, a cease-fire/truce between the US military and Moqtada al-Sadr is close to expiring. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports that yesterday a raid conducted by US soldiers, with Iraqi support, was conducted in "the Shia distrcit of Sadr City" utilizing Humvees and helicopters to arrest 16 (one of which would die in 'custody') and doing so over the objections of local Iraqis such as Abu Sajjad who declares that the US military "detained people who are neutral and educated people. They care only about religion. They will never be witht he military wing." al-Sadr has issued a statement for all followers to continue the truce/cease-fire at present. Lebanon's The Daily Star notes a "report by the International Crisis Group think tank said the respite offered by the cease-fire was 'exceedingly frail' and that Sadrists -- many of whom complain they are targeted by security forces -- remain extremely powerful" and offers this description of the US military incursion into a civilian neighborhood yesterday: "Police and residents said that US soldiers in humvees, backed by helicopters, sealed off a block of the neighborhood and raided four house. The front-door lock on one of the houses was shattered by gunfire, and 22-year-old Arkan Abid Ali was shot in the chest and wounded. Diaa Shakir, 20, said he heard gunfire coming from inside houses US soldiers had entered, as he watched the operation from the window of his home nearby." The paper also notes that the military assualt on a civilian area left two women injured as well as an elderly person. Though the 16 arrested (that's counting the one who was reported to have died in US 'custody') have not been identified by name, the BBC runs with the US military command's boast that one of the 16 may be "a suspected leader of a Shia militia group allegedly backed by Iran." AP notes the toll from the assualt as 1 Iraqi who died in US custody, 1 Iraqi woman shot (but "treated and released"), "two women and an elderly man also had been wounded and tkane to a hospital, where one of them had died." Lauren Frayer (AP) explains that in Kufa today, prayers included condemning "the recent arrests and accused Iraqi officials of sectarian bias" quoting Sheik Abdul Hadi al-Karbalaei who believes the truce/cease-fire is leaving them vulnerable, "For the past six months there have been non-stop detentions of al-Sadr followers, day and night." Those who would like or require audio can refer to Jim Lehrer's News Summary (PBS) from The NewsHour which briefly includes the incident and also notes:
In Iraq, the US military announced an American soldier died Wednesday in a roadside bombing. There have been eight U.S. deaths so far this month. More than 3,950 Americans have died in Iraq since the war began.
In the New York Times today, Alissa J. Rubin leaves out the total but makes a similar claim re: 1 death announced. Repeating from yesterday's snapshot:
Today the US military announced [PDF format warning]: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed when the Soldier's vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in western Baghdad Feb. 6." As noted this morning: "The ICCC total since the start of the illegal war for US service members killed while serving in Iraq is 3950 with 6 for the month. 50 away from the 4,000 mark but since Ted Koppel stepped down from Nightline does the media -- big or small -- even bother to let those numbers register?" The numbers have gone up -- due to DoD namings, not M-NF announcements. Currently the total is 3952 since the start of the illegal war and 8 for the month thus far. On the 7th day of the month, the number of US service members who have died in the illegal war this month is 8.
The US military wasn't eager for the deaths to be widely noted (AEB the fact that M-NF didn't make the announcements) but they're eager for everyone to know something else. Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) notes the US military is stating that al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia is instructing its followers to 'play nice' out of concern that potential Sunni allies might be turned off and Paley speaks with a man named Riyadh al-Ogaidi whom is identified by the paper as a senior leader of the group who claims, "The Americans have not defeated us, but the turnaround of the Sunnis against us had made us lose a lot and suffer very painfully" and also asserts that the Iraqi membership accounted for 12,000 last year but has fallen "to about 3,500 today."
In political news, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that Thursday Iraq's "Parliament again deferred a vote on the budget of Thursday as political blocs argued about how to divide financing among the provinces, but legislators did make headway toward approving a law that would outline provincial powers. . . . The debate on Iraq's 2008 budget, which was supposed to have been resolved with a vote in December, has revolved around how much of the money to allocate to the Kurds and whether the central government will pay the costs of the pesh merga soldiers, the Kurdish militia. Lawmakers said Thursday that the Planning Ministry had collected date showing that Kurdistan had 14 percent to 15 percent of Iraq's population, and that it should get that share of the nonfederal part of the budget." Along with deferring a vote -- on the 2008 budget, the 2008 budget -- they also had a walk out. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times via San Francisco Chronicle) reports the walk out took place "to protest parts of a draft law that would lay out rules for provincial elections later this year, marking another potential setback for U.S.-backed proposals to ease Iraq's sectarian rifts. The walkout postponed a vote on the measure to redistribute power in Iraq."
"The delay in the budget is harming everyone," stated Adel Abdel-Mehdi, Iraq's Shi'ite vice president according to Lebanon's The Daily Star which also notes that legislation put on hold also included a bill "that would release thousands of mainly Sunni Arabs from Iraqi jails . . . The law that would free prisoners who have not been charged with or convicted of major crimes, like murder or treason, is also seen as a step toward reconciliation because most of the 23,000 people held in Iraqi jails are Sunni Arabs" and this is among the legislative demands that the Sunni Accordance Front made before walking out of puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack. Reuters notes that yesterday people in police uniforms conducted a home invasion in Baquba, shot dead 5 people and then exploded the home and today a Hawija car bombing injured two police officers.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person and 1 police officer in Anbar Province following a clash with unknown assailants and, last night in Baghdad, the "Head of Sahwa," was shot dead in Baghdad (two bodyguards of the 'Awakening' Council chiefton were also injured). Reuters notes a college student was shot dead in Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 Christian missionaries ("with the Norwegian Churches Organization") were kidnapped last night in Basra.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Today the US State Department issued "Background Notes: Iraq" which contained many amusing 'interpretations' but we'll note this section:
The focus of United States policy in Iraq remains on helping the Iraqi people build a constitutional, representative government that respects the rights of all Iraqis and has security forces capable of maintaining order and preventing the country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists and foreign fighters. The ultimate goal is an Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, with institutions capable of providing just governance and security for all Iraqis and is an ally in the war against terrorism. U.S. forces remain in Iraq (under a UN Security Council mandate) as part of the Multi-National Force-Iraq to assist the Government of Iraq in training its security forces, as well as to work in partnership with the Government of Iraq to combat forces that seek to derail Iraq's progression toward full democracy. The U.S. Government is carrying out a multibillion-dollar program to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq.
"Under a UN Security Council mandate" is a good time to again note the treaty that the Bully Boy is attempting to prepare with Nouri al-Maliki -- without US Congressional consent (a violation of the US Constitution) or the Iraqi Parliament's consent (ditto). As noted in Wednesday's snapshot, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Stafff Michael G. Mullen went before the US Senate's Armed Service Committee on Wednesday to beg for even more money and claimed that there was no interest in the permanent bases being established in Iraq or that the treaty (neither used that term) didn't call for them. Yesterday, Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) covered the Wednesday hearing as well as the Wednesday House Armed Service Committee hearing, noting that "Gates denied Wednesday that the Bush administration was seeking a treaty with Iraq that would require long-term secuirty commitments forcing future U.S. presidents to continue sending troops. Instead, Gates told lawmakers, a new agreement with Baghdad would give the U.S. military continuing legal authority to operate in Iraq, much like the current United Nations resolutions, which expire at the end of the year." Why not simply renew the resolution isn't dealt with. At the end of 2006, al-Maliki by-passed the Parliament and the Iraqi Constitution by renewing it all on his own. Though the Constitution makes clear he does not have the power to do that, the Parliament passed legislation which they hoped would prevent that from taking place agian. Instead, al-Maliki went around them again. It needs to be noted that the United Nations was aware of that and should have rejected the renewal (which would legally mean US forces could not be in Iraq) . Because Parliament is even angrier at al-Maliki this time and because Bully Boy's reign at the White House will come to a close next January, the two are cooking up a scheme that by-passes the United Nations, both countries' Constitutions and both countries' legislative bodies. As Spiegel notes, "Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has made the proposed agreement an issue in her presidential campaign, accusing the administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection with U.S. forces" and that to Gates denial that this is a "treaty," "Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, has countered that the Iraqi foreign minister has termed the agreement a treaty and that, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is required to ratify any treaty that provides such security guarantees." Charlie Savage (Boston Globe) interpreted the Senate Committee hearing to mean that the White House "is backing off its unprecedented plans to commit the US military to defending Iraq's security for years to come without submitting the agreement to a vote in Congress" citing Gates' testimony after Gates first attempted to debate what qualified for a treaty.
Staying with the US, Andy Sullivan (Reuters) reports that US Senator John McCain ("his victory as Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency virtually assured"????) has "turned his sights on his Democratic challengers" today claiming that "they were weak on national security and their Iraq stance would hand al Qaeda a victory." Senator Insane is a little slow on the draw -- possibly due to age? -- and Sullivan misses a lot himself. Sullivan goes on to quote a statement by US Senator Barack Obama (singing the same song he always sings and has it gotten old: "On the most important foreign policy decision in perhaps a generation, I strongly believe John McCain got it wrong") but seems to miss Hillary Clinton.
Sullivan forgets in his ENTIRE article is a sitting US senator and not just "former first lady" and a presidential contender. It's cute the way he also refuses to quote Clinton's statements. But Sullivan IS WRONG. Bambi may or may not have 'fired back' today. Hillary Clinton raised the issue yesterday.
Get it straight, McCain didn't lay down a 'marker' -- a mythical narrative to paint him as a 'leader.' Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post), Julie Bosman (New York Times) and, most important to this community, our own Kat noted that Hillary laid down the marker yesterday declaring, "I have the greatest respect for my friend and my colleague Senator McCain. But I believe that he offers more of the same, more of the same economic policies, more of the same military policies in Iraq." Reuters needs to figure out (A) how Sullivan is so grossly uninformed that he's not aware of that and today paints Hillary as responding to McCain's 'leadership' and how Sullivan manages to credit Barack Obama as a US Senator when he's only been that since Jan. 2005 but Hillary Clinton, a US Senator since Jan. 2001, is just "former first lady." Reuters really needs to figure that out -- especially since the press has a long history of bending over backwards in favor of Senator Crazy, the Showboat Express. Kat's finishing her explanation tonight (on the "She's boxed someone in" via the statemtns) tonight, just FYI. We (Kat, Ava and myself) heard that (Hillary's statement) on NPR yesterday evening but I'm not seeing any article of it online (and it may have been local news and not the national news feed). Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) takes a look at McCain's public statements and winds down noting, "Now he espouses the belief that the U.S. can stabilize regions -- with enough troops. The lesson of Vietnam and Iraq, he said in a May 2007 speech, is that 'we must never again launch a military operation with too few troops to complete the mission and build a secure, stable and democratic peace. When we fight a war, we must fight to win'." That is a revisionary take on Vietnam. And it's one that avoids issues such as legalities and treaties. Senator Crazy, despite Andy Sullivan's mad crush from him, is not yet the GOP presidential candidate and may not yet become it. Again, Reuters needs to take a serious look at how that nonsense ran to begin with.
Tonight on Bill Moyers Journal, the program looks at viewers recommendations for what book the next president of the United States should take to the White House. Among the books noted thus far by viewers at the show's blog are Anthony Arnove's IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal and Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism.
Winding down, Angelina Jolie's visit to Iraq. Noted in yesterday's snapshot and we were supposed to continue it today. No time. Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) shares what she thinks of the visit. This was addressed earlier today -- from that entry, among the coverage the Iraqi refugee crisis received as a result of Jolie's visit: Here's a gossip column in the Miami Herald that mentions Jolie's visit. Here it is in India's The Economic Times. Here's AP at MSNBC. Here's the British tabloid Hello! Here's a Seattle Post-Intelligencer gossip column. Here's Australia's Herald Sun. Here's AP in the Toronoto Star. Here's E! (gossip channel). Here's Reuters. And, of course, Fadel's write up.
Lastly. In DC today, at the US State Dept, this question was asked, "I wondered if you wanted to comment on a memo that was sent by a former contractor at the U.S. Embassy, Manuel Miranda, to Ambassador Crocker at the U.S. -- a former contractor at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. And he, in this memo, complains that the Foreign Service is not competent to do the job that they have undertaken in Iraq. He talks a lot about how Foreign Service officers do not have enough management experience so that they're not equipped to management programs, hundreds of millions of funds and the capital assets needed to help the Government of Iraq to stand up. So do you have any comment on that?"
The State Dept's deputy spokesperson Tom Casey responded by first attempting to make a joke of it ("Yeah, I guess he needs to tell us how he really feels") and then declaring, "Look, Mr. Miranda, was, as you note, a 3161 -- that's a contracting employee -- in Iraq, I guess, for about -- I guess for about a year. Obviously, he's expressing his own views and he's entitled to his opinions. What I can tell you is that you've heard from the President, Secretary Rice and many others about the job that Ryan Crocker is doing as the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad. We think he and his team are doing a tremendous job" blah, blah, blah.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
leila fadel
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspaperstina susmanthe los angeles times
alissa j. rubin the new york times
charlie savage
the los angeles times
the washington postamit r. paley
sudarsan raghavan
danny schechter
bill moyers journal
anthony arnove
naomi klein
kats korner
"When we found that out, we said, 'Well that's what the raise and our tax return is going to be used on.' And now there's no raise. We are beyond scrimping and saving at this point. We've been doing that since 2001. We have gone from a family that took vacations and went to the movies, to a family that only gets videos from the public library. To give you an idea, I got a runner in my one good pair of hose this week and I went to the bathroom and cried. Even a needing a new pair of pantyhose is a need we really can't afford right now. We've gone from beef to chicken to Spam. The last years have seen us cut every corner we can and I'm at a loss of what else we can do at this point. If you have a recipe that's inexpensive, I don't care if it means I have to spend two hours in the kitchen, cooking from scratch, could you please share it with me? The only good news is we paid off the house so that's one less worry we have at a time when so many are worried about losing their homes."
To steal from Ava and C.I., it's a Bully Boy economy and his friends are doing great while the rest of us are suffering. My husband was once on strike for many weeks. Yes, I had a job but we also have eight kids. I know the frustration Jody's feeling. You want to cry and you want to scream. You've cut back on everything already and then something else comes along and you've got to figure out how to cut back some more?
I pulled out a recipe I used during the strike over and over. This is for pesto and it's not going to be served anywhere fancy but it will make for a tasy dish and it's simplified for economic reasons. We had it every other day while my husband was on strike. You need a blender or a food processor (Jody has both). But, in a worst case scenario, you can make it without either.
In a food processor or blender (or bowl, see note at the end), combine
6.2 ounces of dried basil leaves
2 garlic cloves
1/2 cup of walnuts
a dash of salt
a dash of pepper
Add olive oil and begin processing. Add olive oil throughout to have the paste. Continuing adding olive oil so it's more than a paste but less than a fluid. (Think of a watery paste.)
Cook dried pasta according to directions on the box or package. Linguine is great but if there's something that more easily fits your budget, go with that.
Either place the cooked pasta and the pesto in a bowl and stir to coat or serve the pasta on plates with the pesto added. What about cheese? Put a container of parmesan cheese on the table and people can use that.
Note that if you don't have a blender or food processor, you can make the above in a bowl. You'll need to chop up the walnuts and the garlic first and then you'll stir by hand as you add the olive oil.
I called it "Cheap Pesto" at the time and we had it every other day while my husband was on strike. We ate it, we enjoyed it. We might grow tired of it and some of the kids did. I usually served fresh bread (from scratch) with it but one day, in the middle of the strike, I was so tired and sick of it all, that I forgot the bread. My oldest son put sliced bread in the toaster and made bread that way which led the other kids to copy his lead and make it into sandwiches with two slices of bread and the pesto and pasta between them.
When the strike was over, I never planned to make the recipe again. Mike, my second youngest, had other plans. He was very young and I really did call it "Cheap Pesto." He heard it as "Chief Pesto." He kept asking when are we going to have Chief Pesto again. I didn't know what he was talking about. It was weaks after the strike ended and the question came out of the blue. Finally, my father figured it out. So it ended up being a dish we'd have about once a month just so Mike would stop asking. He now makes it for himself and usually does it as sandwiches. To him, this is important, it was just one more thing we ate.
That's important because I didn't see it that way and Jody may not either. I thought we were really suffering and, though I supported the strike, I thought it was the wrong time and the last thing we needed. The older kids did get we were cutting back big time. The younger kids didn't. All the kids, regardless of age, were able to adapt. My point is, and I shared this with Jody already, don't beat yourself up over this. Your kids will either see it as another dish or, if they're older, grasp that it's what necessary. The .62 ounces was because that was the spice size I was using -- I believe McCormick's. I would just buy dried basil leaves in a container and toss the whole thing in. That may be the most 'expensive' thing in the dish. At most grocer's that's probably a little less than two dollars today. The dish is quick to make, it's not expensive.
Want to fancy it up? Serve it with a green salad. In my house during the strike, that was a lettuce (usually Romaine -- and due to the size of my family, it was several heads) and to brighten it up, I'd chop up some radishes and carrots. We couldn't have tomatoes because when I tried to include some (some because we couldn't afford many in a salad during the strike), the kids would fight over them and accuse each other of picking them out of the bowl.
Jody served that Wednesday and Friday to her family and there were no complaints. She bought a loaf of garlic bread for one day and just toasted slice bread for the other. Next week, I'll probably be offering a soup that she's trying out today. If that goes well, we'll have a soup recipe next week. If not, we'll go with something else that is inexpensive. I take e-mails like Jody's more seriously than anything else. I'm happy to help you try to figure out what your grandmother used to make, for instance. But the economy is awful and I have been in Jody's position so I do identify (and remember) when I read those type of e-mails. So next week, there will be another recipe that may not be something you want to take to a gathering to blow off everyone's socks. But it's something that if you're struggling to make ends meet, you can fix easily and cheaply.
Do you know Senator Claire McCaskill? She's a supporter of Bambi. She was, in fact, with Barack Obama when he snubbed Hillary Clinton as the State of the Union address. When it became an issue, various excuses were offered for why he rudely turned his back on Hillary -- offered by his campaign. McCaskill lied and said she'd asked him a question. "Lied" because video has demonstrated she did not ask a question. She did, however, grin as he turned his back on Hillary Clinton. What a 'sweet' woman, no?
I'd heard about how McCaskill hated Bill Clinton (but was happy to use him to campaign for her when needed). But that and the fact that she was a bad liar was all I knew about her. She's one of those for-show-against-the-war types. That was explained to me by a member in McCaskill's home state who also suggested I link to this passage from "Both sides criticize McCaskill" (Joplin Independent):
Another of your constituents, Cloy Richards is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. As you know, Cloy is a friend of mine; I know his story well. He is a proud Marine who has served two deployments to Iraq and now speaks out about the atrocities committed there by the U.S. military under orders from the Pentagon and Bush Administration.
Senator McCaskill, you heard Cloy speak in Cape Girardeau and then asked him to be in a commercial for you. Without that commercial, and others in which U.S. military service members and veterans appeared, you may not have won the election.
Now, Cloy is asking you to end the war in Iraq, and to bring his fellow Marines home from a battlefield to which they never should have been sent. Senator McCaskill, Cloy is not the only person I know who has served in Iraq that is now taking a firm stand against the war in which they themselves were forced to fight. You need to seriously listen to the growing number of Iraq War vets from Missouri and across America. Both Cloy Richards and Brian Hill are among nearly 1300 soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors still under contract to the U.S. military (active duty/reserves/guard/IRR) who have signed the Appeal for Redress from the war in Iraq....."
Happy to use him in an ad (for her campaign), unwilling to end the illegal war. That tells us all we need to know about McCaskill.
Paul Krugman had a column this week that I clipped. I taped it up the cabinet over the sink and I keep underlining things in it. It's entitled "Clinton, Obama, Insurance." With no anti-war candidate in the Democratic race (Mike Gravel is a solid protest vote but I don't think he's getting the nomination), I'm having to decide whether I'm voting for a third party and to examine other issues. If I support a Democrat in the general election (we had our primary Tuesday and Hillary won it), I am obviously not supporting the untested Bambi who has no record -- due to the fact that he voted 'present' on issues important to me while in his state legislature -- but wondering about Hillary. Krugman's column is one I have read and re-read. I would suggest you read it as well. I found it interesting to catch Friday's Democracy Now! and hear Bambi praised for health care . . . until C.I. explained to me that the loser economist was (a) a Bambi supporter (not identified on air demonstrating that Amy Goodman is the Judith Miller of independent media) and (b) someone who has regularly attacked Krugman in print.
Krugman's column is important. I don't need Amy Goodman and her guest posing as 'objective' to tell me about my state's insurance program. I live here. I know the flaws, I know the pluses. (Neither Goodman nor her guest/schill knew anything -- it was, as my father said, a "talking out the ass segment.")
I would urge you to read his column and, as C.I. noted, take notice of the fact that Krugman has been on Democracy Now! many times before. He's done benefits in public with Amy Goodman (and with Goodman and Greg Palast) but he's not on the show these days. Goodman only has time for Bambi supporters (many of whom never are noted to be Bambi supporters). Like Sydney Blumenthal and many others, those not drinking from the Bambi kool-aid don't show up on Democracy Now! these days.
Krugman, in fact, has been under attack for some time for noting the realities of Bambi's campaign. Make a point to read the column and make a point to grasp how Little Media has censored and tilted the information to try to campaign for Bambi while calling themselves "news" and claiming that they provide information.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" from Friday:
Friday, Feburary 8, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Andy Sullivan loves John McCain and lies for him, will al-Sadr's cease-fire/truce hold when they're praying in some regions for it to end, Americans say "Save the economy by pulling out of Iraq," and more.
Starting with war resistance, Krystalline Kraus (The Rabble) traces the historical support Canada has provided to war resisters:
According to Lee Zaslofsky, a key organizer for the War Resisters Support Campaign and a Vietnam resister himself, he believes that Canada has a certain historical legacy to live up to by accepting war resisters.
It was Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party who opened Canada's doors during the Vietnam war to thousands of Americans war resisters, who were often motivated by the same feeling of objection to an unjust and illegal war.
"Of course, Canada's legacy extends back further to the [American] Civil War and before that when slaves came north via the underground railroad, and even before that with the United Empire Loyalists, so there is sort of a Canadian tradition of welcoming dissenters from the United States and this is another part of that," Zaslofsky explains.
With the Canadian Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on this issue in November, the country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers.
In the United States, a new poll may cause a stir. Jeannine Aversa (AP) reports that Americans surveyed by AP and Ipsos feel "The way to get the country out of recession -- and most people think we're in one -- is to get the country out of Iraq" and "Pulling out of the war ranked first among proposed remedies in the survey, followed by spending more on domestic programs, cutting taxes and, at the bottom end, giving rebates to poor people in hopes they'll spend the economy into recovery." The number saying ending the illegal war would pull the United States out a recession was 43% and included respondent Hilda Sanchez who declares, "Let's stop paying for this war. There are a lot of people who are struggling. We can use the money to pay for medical care and help people who were put out of their homes." [Marin of error on the poll was plus/minus 3/1%.]
In Iraq, a cease-fire/truce between the US military and Moqtada al-Sadr is close to expiring. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports that yesterday a raid conducted by US soldiers, with Iraqi support, was conducted in "the Shia distrcit of Sadr City" utilizing Humvees and helicopters to arrest 16 (one of which would die in 'custody') and doing so over the objections of local Iraqis such as Abu Sajjad who declares that the US military "detained people who are neutral and educated people. They care only about religion. They will never be witht he military wing." al-Sadr has issued a statement for all followers to continue the truce/cease-fire at present. Lebanon's The Daily Star notes a "report by the International Crisis Group think tank said the respite offered by the cease-fire was 'exceedingly frail' and that Sadrists -- many of whom complain they are targeted by security forces -- remain extremely powerful" and offers this description of the US military incursion into a civilian neighborhood yesterday: "Police and residents said that US soldiers in humvees, backed by helicopters, sealed off a block of the neighborhood and raided four house. The front-door lock on one of the houses was shattered by gunfire, and 22-year-old Arkan Abid Ali was shot in the chest and wounded. Diaa Shakir, 20, said he heard gunfire coming from inside houses US soldiers had entered, as he watched the operation from the window of his home nearby." The paper also notes that the military assualt on a civilian area left two women injured as well as an elderly person. Though the 16 arrested (that's counting the one who was reported to have died in US 'custody') have not been identified by name, the BBC runs with the US military command's boast that one of the 16 may be "a suspected leader of a Shia militia group allegedly backed by Iran." AP notes the toll from the assualt as 1 Iraqi who died in US custody, 1 Iraqi woman shot (but "treated and released"), "two women and an elderly man also had been wounded and tkane to a hospital, where one of them had died." Lauren Frayer (AP) explains that in Kufa today, prayers included condemning "the recent arrests and accused Iraqi officials of sectarian bias" quoting Sheik Abdul Hadi al-Karbalaei who believes the truce/cease-fire is leaving them vulnerable, "For the past six months there have been non-stop detentions of al-Sadr followers, day and night." Those who would like or require audio can refer to Jim Lehrer's News Summary (PBS) from The NewsHour which briefly includes the incident and also notes:
In Iraq, the US military announced an American soldier died Wednesday in a roadside bombing. There have been eight U.S. deaths so far this month. More than 3,950 Americans have died in Iraq since the war began.
In the New York Times today, Alissa J. Rubin leaves out the total but makes a similar claim re: 1 death announced. Repeating from yesterday's snapshot:
Today the US military announced [PDF format warning]: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed when the Soldier's vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device in western Baghdad Feb. 6." As noted this morning: "The ICCC total since the start of the illegal war for US service members killed while serving in Iraq is 3950 with 6 for the month. 50 away from the 4,000 mark but since Ted Koppel stepped down from Nightline does the media -- big or small -- even bother to let those numbers register?" The numbers have gone up -- due to DoD namings, not M-NF announcements. Currently the total is 3952 since the start of the illegal war and 8 for the month thus far. On the 7th day of the month, the number of US service members who have died in the illegal war this month is 8.
The US military wasn't eager for the deaths to be widely noted (AEB the fact that M-NF didn't make the announcements) but they're eager for everyone to know something else. Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) notes the US military is stating that al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia is instructing its followers to 'play nice' out of concern that potential Sunni allies might be turned off and Paley speaks with a man named Riyadh al-Ogaidi whom is identified by the paper as a senior leader of the group who claims, "The Americans have not defeated us, but the turnaround of the Sunnis against us had made us lose a lot and suffer very painfully" and also asserts that the Iraqi membership accounted for 12,000 last year but has fallen "to about 3,500 today."
In political news, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that Thursday Iraq's "Parliament again deferred a vote on the budget of Thursday as political blocs argued about how to divide financing among the provinces, but legislators did make headway toward approving a law that would outline provincial powers. . . . The debate on Iraq's 2008 budget, which was supposed to have been resolved with a vote in December, has revolved around how much of the money to allocate to the Kurds and whether the central government will pay the costs of the pesh merga soldiers, the Kurdish militia. Lawmakers said Thursday that the Planning Ministry had collected date showing that Kurdistan had 14 percent to 15 percent of Iraq's population, and that it should get that share of the nonfederal part of the budget." Along with deferring a vote -- on the 2008 budget, the 2008 budget -- they also had a walk out. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times via San Francisco Chronicle) reports the walk out took place "to protest parts of a draft law that would lay out rules for provincial elections later this year, marking another potential setback for U.S.-backed proposals to ease Iraq's sectarian rifts. The walkout postponed a vote on the measure to redistribute power in Iraq."
"The delay in the budget is harming everyone," stated Adel Abdel-Mehdi, Iraq's Shi'ite vice president according to Lebanon's The Daily Star which also notes that legislation put on hold also included a bill "that would release thousands of mainly Sunni Arabs from Iraqi jails . . . The law that would free prisoners who have not been charged with or convicted of major crimes, like murder or treason, is also seen as a step toward reconciliation because most of the 23,000 people held in Iraqi jails are Sunni Arabs" and this is among the legislative demands that the Sunni Accordance Front made before walking out of puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack. Reuters notes that yesterday people in police uniforms conducted a home invasion in Baquba, shot dead 5 people and then exploded the home and today a Hawija car bombing injured two police officers.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person and 1 police officer in Anbar Province following a clash with unknown assailants and, last night in Baghdad, the "Head of Sahwa," was shot dead in Baghdad (two bodyguards of the 'Awakening' Council chiefton were also injured). Reuters notes a college student was shot dead in Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 Christian missionaries ("with the Norwegian Churches Organization") were kidnapped last night in Basra.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Today the US State Department issued "Background Notes: Iraq" which contained many amusing 'interpretations' but we'll note this section:
The focus of United States policy in Iraq remains on helping the Iraqi people build a constitutional, representative government that respects the rights of all Iraqis and has security forces capable of maintaining order and preventing the country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists and foreign fighters. The ultimate goal is an Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, with institutions capable of providing just governance and security for all Iraqis and is an ally in the war against terrorism. U.S. forces remain in Iraq (under a UN Security Council mandate) as part of the Multi-National Force-Iraq to assist the Government of Iraq in training its security forces, as well as to work in partnership with the Government of Iraq to combat forces that seek to derail Iraq's progression toward full democracy. The U.S. Government is carrying out a multibillion-dollar program to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq.
"Under a UN Security Council mandate" is a good time to again note the treaty that the Bully Boy is attempting to prepare with Nouri al-Maliki -- without US Congressional consent (a violation of the US Constitution) or the Iraqi Parliament's consent (ditto). As noted in Wednesday's snapshot, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Stafff Michael G. Mullen went before the US Senate's Armed Service Committee on Wednesday to beg for even more money and claimed that there was no interest in the permanent bases being established in Iraq or that the treaty (neither used that term) didn't call for them. Yesterday, Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) covered the Wednesday hearing as well as the Wednesday House Armed Service Committee hearing, noting that "Gates denied Wednesday that the Bush administration was seeking a treaty with Iraq that would require long-term secuirty commitments forcing future U.S. presidents to continue sending troops. Instead, Gates told lawmakers, a new agreement with Baghdad would give the U.S. military continuing legal authority to operate in Iraq, much like the current United Nations resolutions, which expire at the end of the year." Why not simply renew the resolution isn't dealt with. At the end of 2006, al-Maliki by-passed the Parliament and the Iraqi Constitution by renewing it all on his own. Though the Constitution makes clear he does not have the power to do that, the Parliament passed legislation which they hoped would prevent that from taking place agian. Instead, al-Maliki went around them again. It needs to be noted that the United Nations was aware of that and should have rejected the renewal (which would legally mean US forces could not be in Iraq) . Because Parliament is even angrier at al-Maliki this time and because Bully Boy's reign at the White House will come to a close next January, the two are cooking up a scheme that by-passes the United Nations, both countries' Constitutions and both countries' legislative bodies. As Spiegel notes, "Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has made the proposed agreement an issue in her presidential campaign, accusing the administration of seeking to tie the hands of the next president by committing to Iraq's protection with U.S. forces" and that to Gates denial that this is a "treaty," "Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, has countered that the Iraqi foreign minister has termed the agreement a treaty and that, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is required to ratify any treaty that provides such security guarantees." Charlie Savage (Boston Globe) interpreted the Senate Committee hearing to mean that the White House "is backing off its unprecedented plans to commit the US military to defending Iraq's security for years to come without submitting the agreement to a vote in Congress" citing Gates' testimony after Gates first attempted to debate what qualified for a treaty.
Staying with the US, Andy Sullivan (Reuters) reports that US Senator John McCain ("his victory as Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency virtually assured"????) has "turned his sights on his Democratic challengers" today claiming that "they were weak on national security and their Iraq stance would hand al Qaeda a victory." Senator Insane is a little slow on the draw -- possibly due to age? -- and Sullivan misses a lot himself. Sullivan goes on to quote a statement by US Senator Barack Obama (singing the same song he always sings and has it gotten old: "On the most important foreign policy decision in perhaps a generation, I strongly believe John McCain got it wrong") but seems to miss Hillary Clinton.
Sullivan forgets in his ENTIRE article is a sitting US senator and not just "former first lady" and a presidential contender. It's cute the way he also refuses to quote Clinton's statements. But Sullivan IS WRONG. Bambi may or may not have 'fired back' today. Hillary Clinton raised the issue yesterday.
Get it straight, McCain didn't lay down a 'marker' -- a mythical narrative to paint him as a 'leader.' Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post), Julie Bosman (New York Times) and, most important to this community, our own Kat noted that Hillary laid down the marker yesterday declaring, "I have the greatest respect for my friend and my colleague Senator McCain. But I believe that he offers more of the same, more of the same economic policies, more of the same military policies in Iraq." Reuters needs to figure out (A) how Sullivan is so grossly uninformed that he's not aware of that and today paints Hillary as responding to McCain's 'leadership' and how Sullivan manages to credit Barack Obama as a US Senator when he's only been that since Jan. 2005 but Hillary Clinton, a US Senator since Jan. 2001, is just "former first lady." Reuters really needs to figure that out -- especially since the press has a long history of bending over backwards in favor of Senator Crazy, the Showboat Express. Kat's finishing her explanation tonight (on the "She's boxed someone in" via the statemtns) tonight, just FYI. We (Kat, Ava and myself) heard that (Hillary's statement) on NPR yesterday evening but I'm not seeing any article of it online (and it may have been local news and not the national news feed). Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) takes a look at McCain's public statements and winds down noting, "Now he espouses the belief that the U.S. can stabilize regions -- with enough troops. The lesson of Vietnam and Iraq, he said in a May 2007 speech, is that 'we must never again launch a military operation with too few troops to complete the mission and build a secure, stable and democratic peace. When we fight a war, we must fight to win'." That is a revisionary take on Vietnam. And it's one that avoids issues such as legalities and treaties. Senator Crazy, despite Andy Sullivan's mad crush from him, is not yet the GOP presidential candidate and may not yet become it. Again, Reuters needs to take a serious look at how that nonsense ran to begin with.
Tonight on Bill Moyers Journal, the program looks at viewers recommendations for what book the next president of the United States should take to the White House. Among the books noted thus far by viewers at the show's blog are Anthony Arnove's IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal and Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism.
Winding down, Angelina Jolie's visit to Iraq. Noted in yesterday's snapshot and we were supposed to continue it today. No time. Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) shares what she thinks of the visit. This was addressed earlier today -- from that entry, among the coverage the Iraqi refugee crisis received as a result of Jolie's visit: Here's a gossip column in the Miami Herald that mentions Jolie's visit. Here it is in India's The Economic Times. Here's AP at MSNBC. Here's the British tabloid Hello! Here's a Seattle Post-Intelligencer gossip column. Here's Australia's Herald Sun. Here's AP in the Toronoto Star. Here's E! (gossip channel). Here's Reuters. And, of course, Fadel's write up.
Lastly. In DC today, at the US State Dept, this question was asked, "I wondered if you wanted to comment on a memo that was sent by a former contractor at the U.S. Embassy, Manuel Miranda, to Ambassador Crocker at the U.S. -- a former contractor at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. And he, in this memo, complains that the Foreign Service is not competent to do the job that they have undertaken in Iraq. He talks a lot about how Foreign Service officers do not have enough management experience so that they're not equipped to management programs, hundreds of millions of funds and the capital assets needed to help the Government of Iraq to stand up. So do you have any comment on that?"
The State Dept's deputy spokesperson Tom Casey responded by first attempting to make a joke of it ("Yeah, I guess he needs to tell us how he really feels") and then declaring, "Look, Mr. Miranda, was, as you note, a 3161 -- that's a contracting employee -- in Iraq, I guess, for about -- I guess for about a year. Obviously, he's expressing his own views and he's entitled to his opinions. What I can tell you is that you've heard from the President, Secretary Rice and many others about the job that Ryan Crocker is doing as the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad. We think he and his team are doing a tremendous job" blah, blah, blah.
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
leila fadel
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspaperstina susmanthe los angeles times
alissa j. rubin the new york times
charlie savage
the los angeles times
the washington postamit r. paley
sudarsan raghavan
danny schechter
bill moyers journal
anthony arnove
naomi klein
kats korner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)