Unemployment stands at 11%

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS LONG BEEN ABLE TO BAT HIS EYE LASHES AND CHARM MOST OF THE PRESS WHO FALL FOR HIS DAMSEL IN DISTRESS ROUTINE AND RUSH TO PROTECT HIM FROM REALITY.

BUT FORBES JUST SERVED UP SOME REALITY BARRY O WAS PROBABLY HOPING NO ONE WOULD NOTICE: UNEMPLOYMENT IS ACTUALLY 11%.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O STOMPED HIS FEET AND CRIED, "DARN IT! DARN IT! THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! I KNOW! I'LL TAKE OFF MY SHIRT AGAIN! THAT WILL CHANGE THE STORY!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on the VA's fiduciary system. There are veterans who are unable to overseeing or manage their benefits solely by themselves so they might ask that someone be a fiduciary -- thereby putting someone in charge of overseeing the benefits. The veteran might pick someone they know or they might ask the VA to select someone. There are problems with the system currently. The Subcommittee attempted to determine why that was.

The hearing had two panels (and many breaks due to votes on the House floor). The first panel was the VA's Dave McLenachen (with the VA's Diana Rubin), the second panel was composed of Katrina Eagle with the Veterans Law Office of Michael Wildhaber, Veteran Fiduciary Pam Estes, attorney Doug Rosinski with the Law Office of Douglas J. Rosinski, and Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick Weidman. US House Rep Bill Johnson is the Chair of the Subcommittee. And we'll note this exchange.

Chair Bill Johnson: What are the criteria for choosing a fiduciary:

Dave McLenachen: Mr. Chairman, the criteria for choosing a fiduciary is-is controlled by law. Congress required us when looking to see who should be a fiduciary to check a number of things: criminal history, credit and general willingness to act as a fidcuairy for a beneficiary. VA's policy, Mr. Chairman, is to always try to select the least restrictive and most effective payment for a beneficiary. To do that, the first thing that we do is look at who does the beneficiary want us to appoint? That's our first step. If we can qualify that person we will -- we will appoint that person. If that person cannot be qualified, we'll look to the person who has the care and custody of the beneficiary. That may be a family member that lives with the beneficiary and provides care or maybe a guardian? That's who we look to next. The next step is any other family member of person interested in performing these functions for a beneficiary. Only as a last resort, Mr. Chairman, will we look to a paid fiduciary or a court-appointed fiduciary. That is because we're looking for the least restrictive method. And I -- And I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that that is our policy and that Just so there's no misunderstanding, currently only about 8% of the roughtly 120,000 beneficiaries pay a commission for fiduciary services.

Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, the CFR states that a commission is only given to a beneficiary when it is necessary to obtain his or her services. Further it states that commissions should only be used if the veterans best interests would be served by the appointment of a qualified professional or a qualified person. What does qualified mean to the VA?

Dave McLenachen: To us, Mr. Chairman, qualified -- as I've described -- means that it's a person that has the interest of the beneficiary in mind, is willing to perform the service and meets the qualifications that have been prescribed by Congress for us to implement. That is what the regulations are referring to. So if it's an individual who has a criminal history or that has bad credit history or for some other reason cannot be bonded, that individual will not be appointed as a fiduciary --

Chair Bill Johnson: Are there -- are there any educational or other qualifications required to be classified as a qualified person?

Dave McLenachen: Not at this time, sir. However, one of the first things that I did when I took this job approximately five months ago was to initiate a complete review of our current regulations which Congressman [Jon] Runyan mentioned during his statement. I think there's a real need to update those regulations. We've reviewed all of those regulations and are currently revising them now. That is one issue that I would like to address in our regulations is whether there should be such requirements for fiduciaries?

Chair Bill Johnson: Would it -- would it surprise you to know that we have sworn testimony that a VA fiduciary stated that she had approximately one semester of community college education while she is the appointed fiduciary for 43 veterans, as a single mother working full time. Is that -- Would that be the VA's acceptable criteria for a qualified person?

Dave McLenachen: Sir, I can tell you that with our current regulations, there is nothing to prohibit that fiduciary from serving in that role.

Chair Bill Johnson: In your opinion, would that be a qualified fiduciary? If you're a veteran would you want -- is that who you would want to put in charge of your daily care?

Dave McLenachen: It may be, sir. If that's the wishes of the veteran to have that particular --

Chair Bill Johnson: No, not this wasn't the wishes of the veteran. I'm talking about the VA appointing someone who is a qualified person. The veteran has gone to the VA saying I need a fiduciary and you request a fiduciary. Would that be your idea of a qualified person?

Dave McLenachen: Sir, I would like to strengthen the requirements to be a fudiciary. So in that instance, I think that there should be some more stringent requirements.

Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. How many fiduciaries have the background checks or certifications waived?

Dave McLenachen: Sir, we just recently issued new guidance that affirms our responsibility to check the background --

Chair Bill Johnson: Does the VA waive fiduciary background checks and certifications?

Dave McLenachen: It's not my knowledge that we do. Uh, the guidance out there now is to check background in every fiduciary --

Chair Bill Johnson: I hope you're going to stay around for all of the testimony today then.

As Johnson noted in the hearing, ten veterans saw their fiduciary walk away with $900,000 of their money. 4% is supposed to be the largest amount the fiduciary can take of the veterans annual benefits. However, the Subcommittee was already aware of fiduciaries taking more than 4%. As the exchange above made clear, there appears to be a lack of serious oversight. The House Veterans Disability Subcommittee has also been examining this issue and a number of them sat in on the hearing. The Ranking Member on that Subcommittee is Jerry Mcnerny and he noted the lack of "oversight and accountability." He noted a 2010 field hearing where family members serving as fiduciaries were actually experiencing more government oversight than were strangers the VA picked to serve as fiduciaries. (One of the most public cases in the news during the current wars was of a family -- parents -- who used their disabled war veteran son's VA benefit checks to buy themselves a new truck, to go gambling and much more. I'm not implying that family members don't need oversight nor was Mcnerny implying that. He was noting that hand picked choices by the veterans, people who had the veterans trust, were getting more oversight than these people who are professional fiduciaries -- meaning they are primarly being fiduciaries for strangers due to the pay.) Mcnerny noted that most fiduciaries are doing an outstanding job. Rubens agreed noting that 90% of the fiduciaries are taking care of only one veteran.

Still on veterans issues, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Commitee and her office notes the following:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

Contact: Murray Press Office

(202) 224-2834

VETERANS: Senator Murray Participates in Virtual Town Hall Meeting hosted by Disabled American Veterans

Murray fielded questions, concerns, and suggestions from veterans, members of the military, and their family members across the country.

View full transcript of the Disabled American Veterans' Virtual Town Hall HERE.

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, had the opportunity to chat one-on-one with veterans across the country in a Virtual Town Hall Meeting, organized by Disabled American Veterans, a non-profit charity dedicated to building better lives for America's disabled veterans and their families. In the hour-long chat, Senator Murray discussed a wide range of issues including mental health care, VA claims wait times, women veterans, and veteran jobs. Over 3,000 veterans, members of the military and family members participated in the chat. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she heard today to continue to fight for veterans in Washington, D.C.

###

On this week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey, (airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network), featured an interview with journalist Ralph Poynter, husband of the people's attorney, political prisoner Lynne Stewart. Excerpt.

Glen Ford: On the last day of Feburary, a court will hear the appeal of movement lawyer Lynne Stewart imprisoned for 10 years on charges of supporting terrorism. Stewart was the attorney for Omar Abdul Rahman the so-called "blind Sheikh" charged with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Attorney Stewart is in federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas. She was first sentenced to only two-and-a-half years but then the courts decided to pile on some more years. Her husband and co-activist Ralph Poynter explains.

Ralph Poynter: This is an appeal of the re-sentencing Lynne received. She received a sentence of two-and-a-half years. 28 to 30 months. Then, when she was appealing, when she was free on her appeal, they called her back for a re-sentencing because a government appeal to the 2nd Circuit of a sentence 'too light' was taken up and two of the three judges agreed that the sentence was 'too light.' And besides Lynne Stewart continued "traveling around the country at the law schools and universities corrupting our youth." These are the words of the judges of the 2nd Circuit.

Glen Ford: In other words, her sentence was increased -- five times -- to ten years based upon her speech?

Ralph Poynter: Based upon her speech and they said it: "traveling around the country at law schools and universities corrupting our youth." Now Lynne Stewart said that the treatment of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman was racist and government funded and that there was no terror plot, that the government had done it. And it was all done by an Egyptian double agent, Emad Salem, who was hired by the Egyptian government and the American FBI --or CIA -- and so she had him on the witness stand and she caught him lying 32 times. And it got to the point where he just said, "Well I guess, Miss Stewart, I mis-stated, I lied," and put his head down. The jury heard that and yet they convicted Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman.

Glen Ford: So when Lynne went to these universities and law schools, she was not just exercising her own freedom of speech to say whatever she said, but also she was speaking on behalf of her client as a lawyer?

Ralph Poynter: Yes, the blind Sheikh, on his appeals, and his right for the First Amendment. And she answered all questions and she gave these law students a history lesson on racism in America. And she would use her own experiences -- experiences the people of the sixties, the activists, because remember Lynne Stewart was a teacher and an activist, she was a Christian Dutch Reform and honor student. And when she came to New York City as a 23-year-old who was born not five miles from Harlem, she didn't know it existed. So she said, "This is American miseducation. Not only do they not treat the Black children to read, write and count, they don't teach White children what America is and I'm the example." And you could imagine what effect that had on the students. So no wonder we are where we are: Islamophobia. And then she went into law, what law is about, understanding the Bill of Rights and what a lawyer's job is and how it came to this formulation. And one of the things that Lynne and I have an argument about, she says that with all of the warts and flaws in the new US justice system, she thinks it's the best model. But it will only be that if the lawyers play their proper role of being the person between the government and the accused and explaining that that is what protects all of us -- a vigorous defense by attorneys -- and if one person doesn't have that defense, none of us do.

Glen Ford: So when Lynne is talking to university students and law students about her principles and explaining her actions and what she thinks it means to be a citizen and a lawyer she is then faced with this massive retribution -- an increase of five times her sentence -- and in her appeal she's calling that substantial unreasonableness in terms of legalese.

Ralph Poynter: And this is what the appeal is. Now, before you can appeal your basic sentence, you know, her basic guilt -- she was found guilty in the federal court of terrorism, supporting terrorism, she has to go through the Second Circuit so this is a double. She's opposing the unreasonableness and the unfairness and the illegal upping of her sentence before she can before the Supreme Court on her original trial, the trial of being found guilty of supporting terrorism. Now the question is: How are they going to defend this? My answer to that is: If there were law in the first place, Lynne would never be in jail. And one of the first speeches that she made, they were holding a conference in California on the coming of the police state and Lynne was the speaker and she said, "The coming of the police state? The police state has always been here for certain members of our nation and now it's coming to White people and I'm the evidence." And it was standing ovation. The police state has always been here, the people didn't recognize it because it was against us [persons of color -- Ralph Poynter is African-American].

Glen Ford: And that statement was one of those -- and reports on that statement in the press was one of those factors in the judge multiplying her sentence by five?

Ralph Poynter: You got that 100% right.

Glen Ford: And thus verifying that the police state had arrived.

Ralph Poynter: And as I said to Lynne, you have to understand, we just got out of COINTELPRO, they listened to everything. She felt that one of the most embarrassing things of the left was allowing our defenders of the community to lay in jail all of these years.

Lynne's appeal takes place at the end of this month. She notes:

The same group of 3 Judges that heard and decided the original appeal will also hear the arguments on the 29th. The government is not asking for more time; they are satisfied with their pound of flesh but it is not likely that this Court will take any action that will help me. The times are askew for prisoners and their lawsuits.

The lawyers that argued in July of 2010 will be on board with the addition of Herald Price Fahringer, an eminent attorney in the First Amendment field (the win in the Larry Flynt Hustler case in the US Supreme Court was his. He was also in the line of fire (no injuries) when the shooting took place.) He will enthusiastically present our case. I will not be present -- not unusual once imprisoned. But my spirit will be there to inspire !!!

Of course, my case has always been government firing warning shots to Lawyers, that a vigorous defense, of certain clients, if not conforming to government specifications, will be punished severely . This chill effect in these days that we are confronted with Grand Jury investigations and dismantling of Occupations is not something we should contemplate with anything less than alarm. I have just finished David Gilbert's book (Love Struggle) and the intercession of lawyers when there are arrests of designated enemies of the "state" are the only meaningful protection available.

A Large Outpouring of Support in Foley Square and Tom Paine Park and in the Courtroom will signal to these arbiters of "Justice" that attention must be paid, the 99% are watching them with suspicion and tallying up the roads not taken.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq claims two military officers are spying for t..."
"Secret prisons, executions"
"Very disappointing"
"Jane Addams"
"3 men, 2 women"
"dolphins"
"When I became uncool"
"Sexist Ann Powers won't review Roberta Flack"
"CNN tiptoes up to the plate"
"Safe House"

"Drones"
"Fringe"
"THIS JUST IN! FINGER POINTING JOE!"
"Joe's the last one to talk"

Joe's the last one to talk

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

U.S. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN WENT TO TALLAHASSEE ON MONDAY AND OBVIOUSLY STOPPED BY STUPID SHACK.

SPEAKING AT A FUND RAISER -- IF YOU HAVE DOLLARS, THEY WILL COME -- JOE FELT THE NEED TO ACCUSE OTHERS, "THESE ARE THE SAME GUYS CALLING THE PRESIDENT A, YOU KNOW, A FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT -- A THINLY VEILED -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT IT'S INAPPROPRIATE. IT'S INAPPROPRIATE."

INTERESTING. IT WAS JANUARY 2007, REMEMBER, WHEN JOE BIDEN WAS APOLOGIZING FOR REMARKS -- ONE'S BARRY O CALLED "HISTORICALLY INACCURATE."

YOU GO SON OF FLUBBER.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

After "ALL" US forces left Iraq, a number of Marines remain to guard the diplomatic missions (Embassy and consulates), a number of US service members remain to provide training (Nouri al-Maliki publicly stated that number was 700), Special Ops remain, the FBI remained and the CIA remain. Today Greg Miller (Washington Post) reports which explains:


The CIA is expected to maintain a large clandestine presence in Iraq and Afghanistan long after the departure of conventional U.S. troops as part of a plan by the Obama administration to rely on a combination of spies and Special Operations forces to protect U.S. interests in the two longtime war zones, U.S. officials said.
U.S. officials said that the CIA's stations in Kabul and Baghdad will probably remain the agency's largest overseas outposts for years, even if they shrink from record staffing levels set at the height of American efforts in those nations to fend off insurgencies and install capable governments.

Although "agencies" have picked up the story and Russia' Interfax and Iran's Press TV as well, US outlets have studiously avoided the report. Instead they focus on Tim Arango's New York Times report on the US State Dept's Iraq mission. Yesterday on NBC Nightly News, Richard Engel (link is is text and video) attempted to push the notion that this was a cost-saving measure for the good of the American people, quoting US State Dept spokesperson Victoria Nuland insisting, "We're trying to do our best to save the American taxpayer money in the way we support our diplomatic personnel."

Aswat al-Iraq reported what US outlets wouldn't last month: "Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr clled his 'resistance' followers to be prepared to face the US Embassy in Baghdad, if they did not stop their breaches. In response to a question made to his followers, received by Aswat al-Iraq, he expressed rejection that US officials walk in Baghdad streets with their weapons."


Now since then, a US helicopter emergency landed in Baghdad (with another transporting the Americans away), reports of F-16 jets flying overhead are coming from the Iraqi Parliament and there is the drone issue which enraged Iraqis last week. Tuesday morning,Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reported that the US is stating that they are only flying planes and drones and helicopters in Iraq airspace to provide protection for the US Embassy in Baghdad (and its various consulates throughout the country). Parliaments Security and Defense wants answers as to exactly what the US is doing in Iraq's skies.


In this climate, a decision may (or may not have) been made. Equally true, we were informed last week that the US and Iraq were back in negotiations regarding the US military presence. If a pull out of diplomatic 'forces' is going to happen, at present, the American people have no idea whether this is happening on its own or as part of the negotiation process for US troops in Iraq.

But Victoria Nuland wants to assert that it's a cost-cutting measure?

Strange that the billions didn't bother anyone in the administration until after Congress allocated them. BBC News notes that the US Embassy in Baghdad alone cost $750 million and that the "huge diplomatic operations [. . .] reportedly costs $6bn a year" -- that doesn't count the embassy cost, construction was completed on that back when Ryan Crocker was the US Ambassador to Iraq. Reportedly? The current US Ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, told a media roundtable in November of last year, "We are standing up an embassy to carry out a $6.5 billion program, when you throw in the refugee program as well as the actual State Department budget for 2012, of assistance in support for Iraq on a very broad variety of security and non-security issues. The direct budget, operating and assistance (to Iraq), was $6.2 billion [and] a little less than $300 million [of] that goes to refugee and displace person programs." Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) observes of the State Dept mission in Iraq, "It has a $6 billion budget, its on airline and three hospitals, and imports virtually all of its food. Its central fortress, otherwise known as the Baghdad embassy compound, is nearly as Vatican City." She quotes US Senator Patrick Leahy calling the embassy "a relic before the paint was dry" and insisting that Congress may have to make cuts in the costs if the White House is unwilling to. Writing it up for NPR, Eyder Peralta declared, "The Times story [Tim Arango] today as well as the Al Jazeera story from December mention a program run by the embassy, which trains Iraqi police officers. The program cost $1 billion last year and will cost about $500 million this year. Al Jazeera noted that an audit found there's no way to know whether the program is working." Al Jazeera noted that? No, they didn't. The error is Peralta's. An audit can only "find" what is there. It's not an abstract, an audit is basic inventory, addition and subtraction. No audit "found" what Peralta insists it did. The Al Jazeera piece was published December 16th. We're falling back to December 7th and the report we did in that day's snapshot on the House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee hearing -- US House Rep Jason Chaffetz is the Chair of the Subcommittee.

Appearing before the Subcommittee that day were the Defense Dept's Inspector General Gordon S. Heddell, the State Dept's Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel, the acting inspector general of US AID Michael Carroll, the acting inspector general for the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Steven J. Trent and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen.

US House Rep Raul Labrador: Mr. Bowen, right now the police development program is the administration's largest foreign aid project for Iraq going forward. And there's some evidence that the Iraqis don't even want this program. So have you or your staff asked the Iraqi police forces if they need the $500 million a year program that the Obama administration is planning to spend on the police development program?

SIGIR Stuart Bowen: Yes, Mr. Labrador, we have and we reported on that in our last quarterly report noting that the senior official at the Ministry of the Interior, Senior Deputy Minister al-Assadi said "he didn't see any real benefit from the police development program." I addressed that with him when I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago and I asked him, "Did you mean what you said?" And his response was, "Well we welcome any support that the American government will provide us; however, my statements as quoted in your recent quarterly are still posted on my website."

US House Rep Raul Labrador: So why is the administration still spending $500 million a year to provide this program?

SIGIR Stuart Bowen: There's a beliff that security continues to be a challenge in Iraq, a well founded belief, I might add, given the events of this week. Killings of pilgrims again, on the way to Najaf, on the eve of Ashura. The focus though on trying to address those problems has been a widely scattered, high level training program involving about 150 police trainers who, as we've seen again this week, are going to have a very difficult time moving about the country.

US House Rep Raul Labrador: So what other problems have you found with the police development program, if any?

SIGIR Stuart Bowen: Several. Well, Mr. Labrador, we pointed out in our audit that, one Iraqi buy-in, something that the Congress requires from Iraq, by law, that is a contribution of 50% to such programs,has not been secured -- in writing, in fact, or by any other means. That's of great concern. Especially for a Ministry that has a budget of over $6 billion, a government that just approved, notionally, a hundred billion dollar budget for next year. It's not Afghanistan. This is a country that has signficant wealth, should be able to contribute but has not been forced to do so, in a program as crucial as this.

We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.

Brooke Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?

After 8 years of spending US tax payer dollars on this program and on the verge of spending $500 million, why is the US not talking to the person in charge ofthe Interior Ministry?

Because Nouri never named a nominee to head it so Parliament had no one to vote on. Nouri refused to name someone to head the US ministry but the administration thinks it's okay to use $500 million of US tax payer dollars to train people with a ministry that has no head?

None of that raised a concern on the part of the US State Dept about spending but we're supposed to believe some magical change of the 'mission' now is the result of concern about spending?

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"CIA will remain in Iraq"
"If it was your son, your brother, your husband, yo..."
"The economy and Janis Ian"
"This and That"
"5 men, 1 woman"
"see 'ew noodles"
"Superbowl"
"Roberta"
"CNN plays dumb"
"Terry Gross The War Hawk"
"Roberta Flack"
"Unbelievable"
"More donor issues"
"THIS JUST IN! THEY LEARN NOTHING!"

More donor issues

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IN 2008, THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN REFUSED TO DO THE VERIFICATION REQUIRED ON DONORS INCLUDING MAKING SURE THAT DONORS DID NOT EXCEED THE LEGAL LIMIT FOR DONATIONS. FOUR YEARS LATER, THE GANG THAT COULDN'T PISS STRAIGHT IS BACK AND WITH MORE DONOR PROBLEMS.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, DAVID AXELROD SAID OF CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, "OUR FOCUS IS NOT ON THE MONEY STUFFED INTO HIS G-STRING. OUR FOCUS IS ON THE LAP DANCE."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

We're now going to turn to veterans issues. And there are real veterans issues. There's health care, there's recovering the fallen and so much more. But there's veterans issues and then there's an attitude of entitlement. Grasp real damn quick that the public only cares for so long. About the time they're bored with the politicians using veterans to wrap themselves in the flag, they're bored with the whole damn issue. When that happens significant ground is lost.

And that's not key to this war, it's true of all wars. And politicians know that, especially White House occupants, which is why veterans of every US war or combat deployment have complained and/or protested their treatment by the government. (Click here for the example of President Herbert Hoover's relationship with veterans.) So how about this group of veterans be a smart group of veterans?

The best way to do that is to grasp that your moment in the spotlight is limited and brief outside the Fourth of July and Veterans Day and to realize that's the way it has always been and always will be. That predates the creation of the United States and goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. It is not a plot against you. It's the simple reality that you've bought into the empty praise politicians have given you. You are not gods because you served, you're not even heroes because you served. You may have done something heroic while you served and been decorated as a result (or not) but service alone doesn't make you a hero and that reality was grasped by past veterans. What you are is a veteran. As such, you are owed certain things that were promised to you. You're not going to get them all because, pay attention, no group of veterans in this country ever has. Which is why this group needs to be smart.

Paul Reickhoff can't shut up about a parade. Apparently having grown up singing along with every sixties musical Barbra Streisand ever made, Paul loves a parade. And he ridiculously showed up last week in a variety of outlets (here for Huffington Post) with a bad column whining that, after the Superbowl, the Giants or the Patriots would get a parade.

Let me take a moment here to cloud up and rain on Paul's parade: a sports competition produces a winner and a loser. The winners often get parades.

I'm sorry that Paul can't grasp the obvious, there was nothing won in Iraq. Thank goodness so many Americans made it out alive. But there was nothing won in that illegal war. If a parade were to have taken place, the best time would have been after the fall of Baghdad. Had Bush pulled all the troops out of Iraq then and returned them to the US, the spring of 2003 could have seen a parade.

But there's no win in Iraq. And you have to incredibly uninformed as to the rising violence and the political crisis and so much more to not grasp that Iraq can't be seen as a "win." There's no end zone dance for you to do, Paul Reickhoff. (68NamVet has the best reply to Paul.)

Now you can continue to insist upon a national parade and maybe even get one. (NPR's Talk of the Nation offers a bad program on the topic today -- not every veteran is calling for a parade and some are stating that it is not needed.) But don't think you're going to be applauded around the country for that. The country's in a huge recession and while Barack Obama may try to spend 8.3% official unemployment rate as 'good news,' it's anything but. And the American people are suffering and have been suffering and are about to suffer even more because basic groceries are going up which kicks the price of everything up (that's how the cycle of inflation works). And with people barely holding on the idea that the country needs to spend millions for a parade is not going to go over universally well.

It will go a long, long way towards putting most Americans in the attitude of, "What do they want now?" Even more so than in past wars because there wasn't a draft. As those of us who spoke up for war resisters repeatedly know, the attitude is out there: 'There was no draft, you signed up and you were paid for it.' (In fact, I believe that's what Paul Rieckhoff dismissively said about Lt Ehren Watada.) And now veterans are coming back and a small number are making public fools of themselves. There's Paul prepping for the tugboat scene in Funny Girl as he demands his parade. There's also Darcy Kempa who demonstrates that Richard Daley didn't teach style or substance to his underlings. Kempa writes at PolicyMic that Veterans are having a difficult time getting jobs today because of the "ignorance and arrogance among many Americans."

Notice how I used "some" to describe a tiny number of cry babies who've fallen to the floor and are now throwing tantrums whereas Darcy Kempa believes you describe most Americans as 'ignorant and arrogant' and that's the way to get what you want from them. No, you idiot, that's how you piss the general population. If that's how stupid you are, you have nothing to share in public. Every word out of your mouth hurts veterans because no one ever taught you how to speak persuasively and you think you can snarl and hiss like Richard Daley but seem unaware that nepotism explains Richard's rise, not his personality.

Having called "many" Americans ignorant and arrogant, Darcy Kempa (a man, by the way, maybe having a Jane Austen character's first name has left Darcy feeling he has to be overbearing to prove something), wants to further insult the American people: "There is also the arrogance, or overbearing self-importance, that some civilians hold against veterans."

Wow.

Don't look for Darcy to start a charm school anytime soon and only an idiot at this point would want to take part in any action with Darcy because he is off-putting, he insults the American people and doesn't even have the good form to say it's just "some" or "a small number," he says "many."

When then-Senator Evan Bayh proposed a burn pit registry, we supported it -- check the archives. I still support. But what we noted about when Bayh was championing it was how long it took to get that for victims of Agent Orange. And we pointed out that right now is the best chance for a burn pit registry. That once the wars wind down, the limited attention they and those who served in them receive, dwindles. And it's a lot harder to fight for a registry afterwards. We noted then that health issues need to be covered -- beyond burn pit issues -- and that this needs to be addressed now.

There is no time to waste -- in the limited amount of time that veterans will receive from the public -- to be embracing a bunch of nonsense. Veterans groups need to be talking to their members and figuring out what the most important things are to membership and pressing for those now. Two years from now, people aren't going to care. They will have moved on with their lives and the attitude will be (as it with each group of veterans), "Are they ever going to stop begging?" Politicans count on that attitude. A number are relieved when that attitude sets in among the public. Because then they don't have to do a damn thing.

Paul Reikoff doesn't know a thing. The VFW actually has members who can talk about this at length (and some of them would favor a parade -- if they felt veterans needs and a parade could both take place, that would be their vote, I'm sure). But in three years, Paul's lonely little column's going to run in less outlets. And, at the rate we're going, we may have a new group of veterans in a new group of wars. And especially when that comes, forget about getting your needs met. Senator Richard Burr fights a lonely battle trying repeatedly every year to bring attention to long standing issues and the media really doesn't care. He continues to fight and good for him. But even when Republicans controlled the Senate (Burr is a Republican) his own colleagues couldn't get it together to support him. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has done heroic and amazing things during the last nine years. That's chiefly due to members like Burr and leadership at the start of that time from Senator Daniel Akaka and now Senator Patty Murray. But look at the Hire Heroes Act that Murray and the entire Veterans Affairs Committee championed and still it needed a push and a push there to get it through the Senate. And that's while the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War were semi on the public's mind.

This is your fifteen minutes of fame to put it most crudely. You need to be prepared to make the demands you want right now. So if that's academic pursuit, better benefits in terms of retirement (medical or otherwise), medical treatment, etc., this is the time to make them. If a national parade is the most important thing to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, then that's what they should be going for. But before they make that decision, someone needs to explain very clearly that Christmas won't come every year. The nation will be Santa Claus once and only once and then they'll move onto something else. And that's not out of "arrogance" or "hatred" or anything else. That is the human condition and it has been the human condition.

And once the public moves on to other issues, you'll quickly realize how rare a Patty Murray or Richard Burr in the Senate actually is. When there's no more strong applause for politicians using today's veterans to campaign off of, watch how quickly they instead rush to another topic that's currently getting media attention. (And, no, the answer isn't "Elect veterans!" Senator Jim Webb is the reason there is no burn pit registry. He felt it would cost the government to much money to assume responsibility for the illnesses. Just as he publicly attacked VA Secretary Eric Shinseki for expanding the number of people recognized as suffering from Agent Orange.)

Across the country, teachers are suffering, schools are being closed down. If you really think this is the climate to insist on a national parade, go for it. But make sure you realize that the next request veterans attempt to make as a unified group may be the one that Americans respond to with a sigh and, "Didn't we just give them a parade? What more do they want?"

and i know what this means
me and jesus a few years back
used to hang
and he said "it's your choice babe
just remember
i don't think you'll be back
in 3 days time so you choose well"
-- "Me and a Gun," written by Tori Amos, first appears on her Little Earthquakes

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Kat's Korner: The Sensual Roberta Flack"
"Iraqi women, Iraqi skies, Iraqi political crisis"
"The fallen and burn pits"
"Newt's an idiot"
"The economy"
"2 men, 2 women"
"jfk's trashy affair (another 1)"
"Pelosi?"
"Roberta Flack's new album for $3.99 at Amazon"
"Can Roland Martin's ass"
"POLITICO plays the race card again"
"Isaiah, Smash"
"American Dad"
"Choose your moments, Joe"
"THIS JUST IN! FOR JUST A MOMENT!"

Choose your moments, Joe

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

GAFFE PRONE JOE BIDEN APPEARED TO HAVE SCORED A WIN MONDAY NIGHT WHEN HE DECLARED, "OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD AND GENERAL MOTORS IS ALIVE."

HOWEVER, HE QUICKLY ADDED, "MY BRAIN IS DEAD AND I'M ALIVE."

PAUSING, HE THEN CONTINUED, "YOU REALLY DON'T NEED A BRAIN TO LIVE. OR A POT TO PEE IN. THE HOMELESS SHOULD REMEMBER THAT."

"SO EVERYBODY ENJOY BRUNCH AND LET'S GET STARTED ON OUR MORNING RUN RIGHT NOW."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In the US, an album was released today as a download. That's news for many reasons including that albums are released on Tuesday in the US. So what album's so special that it alters the street date? Let It Be Roberta: Roberta Flack Sings The Beatles. Amazon currently is preselling the new collection on sale for $9.99 on disc but you can download it right now from Amazon, all 14 tracks (one is a live track from 1972, all the others are studio tracks recorded for this album), and if you do it right now, you're getting an amazing bargain because it's only $3.99. Roberta Flack's not just someone I've called a friend for years, she's also a living legend, one of the all time music greats, a four-time Grammy winner known for such classics as "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face," "Killing Me Softly With His Song," "Oasis," "Set The Night To Music" (with Maxi Priest), "Where Is The Love?" (with the late Donny Hathaway, we'll link to his daughter Lalah Hathaway), "The Closer I Get To You" (with Donny)," "Feel Like Making Love," "Tonight, I Celebrate My Love" (with Peabo Bryson), the Ashford & Simpson classic "Uh-Uh-Ooh-Ooh Look Out (Here It Comes)," "Making Love" and Janis Ian's"Jesse." Kat will have a review up here tomorrow of the album. The songs she covers are "In My Life," "Hey Jude," "We Can Work It Out" (the first single for the album), "Let It Be," "Oh Darling," "I Should Have Known Better," "The Long & Winding Road," "Come Together," "Isn't It A Pity," "If I Fell," "And I Love Him," "Here, There And Everywhere" (this is the live track, from her 1972 Carnegie Hall concert), "I'm Looking Through You" and "Yesterday." John Lennon collectors take note, the album booklet includes a little seen photo of Yoko Ono, John and Roberta. It's a great album, it's been almost 9 years since Roberta put out her last album and, again, right now, it's $3.99 to download the entire album, all 14 tracks, at Amazon. That's a sale price, not a regular price. The sale won't last forever.

Moving over to Iraq, Aswat al-Iraq quotes Iraq's Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi stating today, "The Constitution must be adjusted in such a way that it shares in transforming Iraq into a State of Modern Civilian Institutions, enablingthe citizen to enjoy his national fortunes, and to activiate a balance between the Constitution and the nation to evaluate civilian institutions rather than looking for loopholes that marginalize partners." The news outlet reports he was responding to "certain paties that he did not name [who were] . . . exerting pressure on the Iraqi Judiciary." Al Rafidayn reports that the Supreme Judicial Council has notified the Parliament that they want the immunity (that all members of Parliament are granted) lifted from MP Haidar al-Mullah because he noted that the judiciary was politicized. One of the judges over Iraq's 160 courts is stating that this statement was a personal "assault" and is demanding that the immunity be lifted. (If this lifting of immunity took place, not noted in the story, it would the first time such a thing happened. It would set a very dangerous precedent.) al-Mullah, no surprise, is a member of Iraqiya. Nouri's targeting them and now the court he controls is as well. al-Mullah states the judge in question is Judge Sayad al-Lami. The article notes other members of Iraqiya may be targeted -- two who share stories of requests from months ago that were apparently not followed up on. Barbara Surk (AP) notes that Haidar al-Mullah is a Shi'ite member of Iraqiya and that he told the AP, "We will not be silenced. I have the right to express my opinion and criticize inappropriate acts."

Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections. That should have been the end of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister (his State of Law came in second). But the White House wouldn't hear of it. With their backing, he began an eight-month long stalemate where nothing could move forward. And like the spoiled child he is, he got humored. In November 2010, various parties met in Erbil and signed off on the US brokered Erbil Agreement which would allow Nouri to remain prime minister in exchange for other agreements -- such as Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) leading an independent national security counsel and the referendum on Kirkuk finally taking place (the Constitution required that it take place at the end of 2007, Nouri refused to obey the Constitution in his first term). Nouri got the post he wanted and then trashed the Erbil Agreement. Since this summer, the Kurds have been calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya joined them in that call. In October, Nouri insisted a "coup" had been discovered -- by Libya, no less -- and ordered the arrests of over 800 Sunnis -- including elderly college professors -- and this was the beginning of his targeting of Sunnis and Iraqiya (a mixed coaltion which recognizes Sunni, Shi'ites, Turkmen, et al -- all Iraqis). In December, after several photo ops with US President Barack Obama -- who couldn't stop slobbering over Nouri and the 'democracy' he was leading in Iraq -- Nouri returned to Iraq and immediately had tanks surround various Iraqiya officials homes in Baghdad. He declared that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq should be stripped of his post (and immunity) for remarks al-Multaq made comparing Nouri to Saddam Hussein and began insisting that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi was a terrorist. After making this assertion for several days (Saturday and Sunday) and having al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq (and their bodyguards) pulled off a flight to the KRG (they were then allowed to fly out there for their meetings), Monday (December 19th) arrived and Nouri issued an arrest warrant for Tareq al-Hashemi.

Al Mada notes al-Hashemi has filed another request for his case to be transferred to Kirkuk. Rudaw interviews al-Hashemi. Excerpt:

Rudaw: Are you sure you can prove your innocence in a court of law?

Tariq al-Hashimi: I can defend myself and my bodyguards. According to what I have heard, one of my bodyguards, Major Ahmed Shawqi, had bought a car and sold it later. The car was later used in a suicide car bomb in Madayin area. I didn't know about it at that time but knew that he was a car dealer before he started working with me. That's all I have heard and frankly I wouldn't expect him to be involved in any illegal acts. Regarding myself, I can defend myself anytime in a fair trial. I hope my guards are also provided that opportunity, and justice according to the law. I am optimistic that whenever there is proper justice, then I will go before a court and defend myself. Because there is a lawsuit, I am not evading responsibility. All I have asked for is a fair trial. That kind of trial cannot be provided under the current circumstances in Baghdad. Therefore, I have asked the trial to be transferred to another place, based on Article 55 of Iraq's Penal Code. This is a normal procedure and has to do with protecting my life and will also provide the chance for the facts to be discovered. I have been deprived of this legal right and they won't allow for the trial to be transferred to Kirkuk.

Rudaw: Do you feel that your presence in the Kurdistan Region has put the Kurdish authorities in a tough position?

Tariq al-Hashimi: I am now a guest of the leadership and all citizens of this (Kurdistan) Region. If they feel Tariq al-Hashimi's presence has embarrassed them, then God's land is immense and I have not really forced them (to have me here). I came here based on a demand from President Jalal Talabani. I am still holding the vice-president's post and have not resigned. I have not been also removed from my position by Parliament. So, I am still a government employee. The president has asked me to stay in Kurdistan and Mr. Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Region, has said 'Tariq al-Hashimi is our guest.' I have been staying in Kurdistan based on this. Whenever the people of this region no longer want to host me, then God's land is vast. I really do not want my presence here to cause the smallest embarrassment to the leadership and people of Kurdistan.

Abdul Aziz al-Talabani is a member of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's clan or tribe. Al Rafidayn reports that he states the clan met in Sulaymaniyah Friday to discuss Tareq al-Hashemi and they are demanding that the KRG turn al-Hashemi over to Baghdad.

From al-Hashemi to al-Mutlaq, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Deputy Premier Saleh al-Mutlaq discussed with a delegation from Ahrar Bloc the recent political situation in Iraq and the importance of unifying ranks to contain the present crisis, according to a statement issued by his office. The statement, as was received by Aswat al-Iraq, said that Mutlaq valued the initiatives made by Ahrar Bloc and the Sadrist Trend to minimize the gaps among political blocs in order to achieve political stability." Al Rafidayn notes the rumors that al-Mutlaq is expected to put a formal apology to Nouri in writing and that Sadrist MP Odai Awad explains that they've been working on this for some time but only now have they had significant results.

RECOMMENDED:

• Iraq snapshot
• Judge tries to strip Iraqiya MP of immunity
• Camp Ashraf residents at new camp still in trouble...
• Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Softball &...
• And the war drags on . . .

• Talabani hails the success of the national confere...
• Bradley Manning

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Ignoring what was actually paid for
• TV: Smash and Smush
• Roundtable
• Best TV funny from a monologue of last week
• Foul but not funny
• Idiot of the week
• Rave 2 The Joy Fantastic
• Jill Stein calls out climate disaster co-dependent...
• Burn Pit Symposium February 13th
• Targeting anti-war activists (Workers World)
• Highlights
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! CBS CRIME DRAMA!

  1 hour ago
• Cedric's Big Mix

  Sneak Peak at Fall Line Up

  1 hour ago
• 

Sneak Peak at Fall Line Up

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AS MORE BEGIN MAKING THE CASE AGAINST CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, AND AS IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT HE REALLY HASN'T DELIVERED A NEW GENERATION TO THE PARTY, CBS ANNOUNCES A NEW FALL DRAMA.


CSI HISTORIANS: DENVER 96 HOURS. STARS CHRISTIAN KEYES, IVAN SERGEI AND BRENDA SONG ARE SENT BACK FROM 200 YEARS IN THE FUTURE BY CSI HISTORIANS SUPERVISOR DYAN CANNON WITH THE MISSION OF PREVENTING THE GREATEST THEFT OF THE 21ST CENTURY, THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION.


WILL OUR HEROES BE ABLE TO STOP THE THEFT, TURN BACK TIME AND WILL BRENDA BE FINALLY ABLE TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S CHRISTIAN OR IVAN THAT SHE WANTS? ALL THESE QUESTIONS AND MORE WILL BE ALMOST ANSWERED IN THE FIRST SEASON CLIFF HANGER.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The online group/collective Anonymous is in the news cycle today as various sites -- including law enforcement -- are thought to have been hacked. Elizabeth Flock (Washington Post) reports on one non-confirmed hack: Anonymous states it has hacked the computer systems of the law firm Puckett Faraj who represented Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich in the Haditha case recently (In 2005, 24 Iraqi civilians were killed by a number of US service members. Wuterich entered a guilty plea last month.) The group claims they will be releasing confidential communications regarding the case ("a massive archive of e-mails" as well as transcripts and faxes). Elinor Mills (CNet) notes they left a message on the law firm's website which included:

As part of our ongoing efforts to expose the corruption of the court systems and the brutality of US imperialism, we want to bring attenttion to USMC S Sgt Frank Wuterich who along with his squad murdered dozens of unarmed civilians during the Iraqi Occupation. Can you believe this scumbag had his charges reduced to involuntary manslaughter and got away with only a pay cut? Meanwhile, Bradley Manning who was brave enough to risk his life and freedom to expose the truth about government corruption is threatened with imprisonment. When justice cannot be found within the confines of their crooked court systems, we must seek revenge on the streets and on the internet -- and dealing out swift retaliation is something we are particularly good at. Worry not comrades, it's time to deliver some epic ownage.

Jaikumar Vijayan (Computerworld) adds, "According to Anonymous, the emails contain 'detailed records, transcripts, testimony, trial evidence, and legal defense donation records pertaining to not only Frank Wuterich, but also many other marines they have represented'." Adam Martin (The Atlantic) offers this evaluation, "Most of the emails from the Puckett and Faraj firm have nothing to do with Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, whose conviction without prison time sparked Anonymous's interest in his lawyers. We found some messages discussing unrelated evidence, some about the planning of office presentations, and some involving a car purchase. But nothing on Wuterich so far."

The political crisis continues in Iraq. The National Newspaper observes, "The political stand-off that began in Iraq last month is likely to escalate into a sectarian conflict that threatens the future of the entire political process and could throw the country once again into the furnace of sectarian violence that has reaped tens of thousands of innocent lives on all sides so far." How bad is it getting? Bushra Juhi (AP) reports that in a Karbala sermon today, Ahmed al-Safi, believed to be speaking on behalf of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, declared, "Politicians must work fast and make concessions to solve the crisis." Ahlul Bayt News Agency notes, "Ayatollah Sistani normally exerts his considerable influence through sermons and statements made by his aides." Hayder al-Khoei (Foreign Affairs) offers his take on the crisis which includes:

As for Maliki and Allawi themselves, they have as much as to worry about within their own coalitions as they do outside them. Both their respective blocs -- the National Alliance and Iraqiya -- were formed on shaky grounds and contentious issues such as the Hashemi warrant have exposed these cracks. In this fractious game of politics, Maliki is doing extremely well: not only has he managed to chip away at Allawi's support but he is also keeping his own allies at bay. In the government formation process that took up much of last year, Maliki managed to drive a wedge between two powerful movements in southern Iraq: the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, led by Ammar al-Hakim, and its former military wing, the Badr Organization, led by Hadi al-Amiri. Both ISCI and Badr are part of the Shiite-dominated National Alliance. By enticing Amiri with a position as minister of transport last November, he frustrated Hakim and created confusion within ISCI and Badr -- a move that strengthened Maliki because he brought Badr to the table while ISCI remained reluctant in backing Maliki.

Now, Maliki is using a similar intra-sectarian ploy against another rival power base: the Sadrists. Under the pretext of national reconciliation, he is bringing the League of the Righteous (Asa'ib Ahlil Haq) into the political process. The League leader, Kais al-Khazali, was a former spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr but the two split in 2006, when Khazali decided to work independently of the Sadrists and instead coordinate directly with Iran. Perhaps one of the most well known of the Iranian-backed Special Groups, the League has reemerged in Najaf, under the auspices of Maliki, and is now engaged in war of words with the Sadrists. The two groups have skirmished in the past, and it possible that violence could break out again.

In both these cases, the factions that Maliki is bringing toward him are thought to have close ties to Iran, leading many analysts to conclude that with the United States out of Iraq, Tehran is increasing its influence over Baghdad. This may be true, but it is by design: Maliki recognizes these fissures and is playing on them as a means to survive. The Sadrists initially reacted against the arrest warrant on Hashemi, and their parliamentary bloc leader even talked about dissolving the parliament. Now, however, Maliki's moves have paid off, as the Sadrist rhetoric is more in line with the prime minister's own tone. The Sadrists now say that Hashemi should be put on trial in Baghdad and that his case should not be politicized.

Nouri al-Maliki has been on a power-grab since his first term. It continues. Over a year after he assumed his second term as prime minister, he's still refused to name heads to the security ministries (Defense, Interior and National Security). By refusing to name heads (nominate them, have Parliament vote on them), he controls the portfolios. He continues to target his political rivals (Iraqiya -- which beat him in the March 2010 elections). His political slate was State of Law. His political party is Dawa. Al Mada reports that Dawa is (loudly) insisting that they don't know why Ayad Allawi met with Iran's Ambassador to Iraq for three hours this week. Dawa's Walid al-Hilli went on TV to declare that Dawa has no idea why the meeting took place. In upcoming news, Dawa announces on TV that they have no idea whether Oswald acted alone. The Tehran Times notes, "The Iraqi news agency Al Nakheel has recently reported that Ayad Allawi, the leader of the al-Iraqiya List, will take a trip to Iran in the near future."

Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is among the Iraqiya members Nouri is targeting. Aswat al-Iraq reports that alleged legal 'expert' Hatif al-Mussawi is stating the charges of terrorism Nouri has brought against al-Hashemi cannot be transferred to an international body. That's incorrect. There is nothing barring that in the Iraqi Constitution. That's the supreme law of the land (or is supposed to be) and trumps some provincial law (if al-Mussawi even has that on his side -- like most faux 'experts,' he's unable to cite a passage that backs him up). It's becoming an international incident. They could easily transfer it to an international body. That could be the UN. Equally true, the 'expert' might want to check out the written arrangement the government of Iraq signed with NATO. (For the Nouri apologists, Tareq al-Hashemi is actually very lucky. Nouri is charging terrorism from several years back. When Iraq was legally recognized as occupied. That occupied status has bearing on who can and cannot hear charges. It's a bit more complicated than supposed 'experts' would have you believe.) You might also want to check the numerous international pacts Iraq has signed off on, look at the huge rate of people being executed by the state of Iraq and grasp that what al-Hashemi is charged with can result in the death penalty if convicted. It's not as simple as the 'expert' would like it to be. al-Hashemi told AFP this week that it was "my right to go to the international judiciary." Roshan Kasem (The Majalla) has an extensive interview with al-Hashemi. Excerpt.

Q: It is said that you are to be referred, as an absentee, to the Criminal Court, according to the amended Article 121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure law of 1971. What is the worst you expect to happen during the investigation procedures and how intense would the measures to be taken against you be?

I am optimistic and have full trust is that a fair court will vindicate me. Thus, I have appealed for the proceedings to be transferred from Baghdad to Kirkuk.

Q: Do you have any suspicions that certain trade-offs would be made in regards to your case towards achieving political interests -- given the complicity of the political situation in Iraq?

I ought to be expectant of such incidents, especially when my case is solely, and extremely, political and not criminal in nature.

Q: To what extent does the Iraqi leadership in other respective parties support your appeal for a trial subject to Arab and international supervision?

The issue concerns me personally. The fact that the Judiciary is being politicized and its independence jeopardized leads me to seek necessary Arab and international involvement. I was obliged to make this decision. If an impartial investigation and a fair trial were an option, I would have preferred to have my case contained internally.

Another prominent Iraqiya member being targeted is Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq whom Nouri is demanding be stripped of his post.

Dar Addustour reports that Nouri's State of Law has made a deal with some elements in the National Alliance (a Shi'ite alliance that State of Law became part of after the elections but that Nouri refused to run with ahead of and during the elections) which agrees that they will not allow Saleh al-Mutlaq to return to his post (which he retains -- Parliament has not voted to strip him of it -- unless and until they do, al-Mutlaq remains Deputy Prime Minister). Not only will they not allow him to return, the deal supposedly is that they will not replace him with anyone and that they will also not replace Tareq al-Hashemi with anyone. That would leave only one vice president -- a Shi'ite. Iraq is supposed to have two vice presidents per the Constitution. Following the end of Political Stalemate I, Iraq ended up with three vice presidents. One resigned leaving two. (Adel Abdul Mehdi and Tareq al-Hashemi were Iraq's vice president during Nouri's first term. Both were renamed to the posts in the second term -- by President Jalal Talabani. Adel Abudl Mehdi quit the government over the corruption and dysfunction. He was a political rival of Nouri's and hoped/hopes to be prime minister himself. Khudayer al-Khuzaie is the third vice president and he's from Dawa). If State of Law has its way, there will only be one vice president.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Turkey's bombing, State of Law's making secret deals, a gender tratior may have to explain herself"
"Veterans issues: Exams, PTSD, marriage, burn pits"
"I Hate The War"

"Biscuits and Soup in the Kitchen"

"It's a gift not a salary"

"A victory"

"Whitney"

"3 men, 3 women"
"2 men, 2 women"
"the sexy goodness of jamie scott"

"graffiti6"

"The Frito"
"Running?"

"Sit down, Barbra Streisand, sit down"
"What doesn't kill us is making us stronger"

"Ellen"
"Whitney"

"It's Pat"
"Netflix"
"Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels"

"Ron Paul"

"Kill Bill"
"The War Hawk"
"THIS JUST IN! GOODBYE FAUX CAMELOT!"
"Fake revealed"

Fake revealed

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS A FINANCIAL DISASTER AND IS DOING MORE DAMAGE THAN ANYONE COULD EVER HAVE GUESSED.


AND IN THE PROCESS, BARRY O HAS PROVEN HE'S NOT JFK -- JFK WOULD NEVER HAVE LOST THE CATHOLIC VOTE. (OR MARRIED A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER.)

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

You join the National Guard or Reserves. The government calls you to active duty and deploys you outside the United States. This requires you to go on leave from your job for nine months. You make it through your deployment, return home and attempt to return to your job but despite the law protecting your job your employer's rigged it so that you no longer have a job. For some members of the Guard and Reserves, this has been a too common experience. For it to happen to even one member of the Guard or Reserves is unacceptable and against the law. In DC today, the House Veterans Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held a hearing. US House Rep Marlin Stutzman is the Subcommittee Chair. US House Rep Bruce Braley is the Ranking Member.

Chair Stutzman: [. . .] [M]embers of the Guard and Reserves have born a significant share of the combat since 9-11. Clearly there are no longer weekend warriors -- if there once was. It also means that employers, especially small business owners, have seen labor challenges not seen since WWII and by and large have supported their employees. Unfortunately active duty call ups combined with a bad economy have created historically high unemployment rates among the guards and the reserves. Even more unfortunate, you will hear some employers have used what I believe are less than ethical tactics to terminate members of the Guard and Reserves. As the owner of a small business, I understand the pressures on employers that the loss of a critical employee creates. But in the end, the question I always ask is who is making the greater sacrifice? The employer or the service member who is literally going in harms way and that member's family who must cope with all the stresses of a deployment?

Wow. What a hearing that must have been, right?

Wrong.

The hearing was divided up into three panels. The first panel was the President and CEO of VetJobs Theodore Daywalt and The Manufacturing Institute's President Emily DeRocco. The second panel was composed of: MG Terry M. Haston, Adjutant General Tennessee National Guard; MG Timothy E. Orr, Adjutant General Iowa National Guard; BG Margaret Washburn, Assistant Adjutant General, Indiana National Guard; BG Marianne Watson, Director; Manpower and Personnel, National Guard Bureau; Richard Rue, State Chair, Iowa Employer Support of Guard and Reserve; Ronald Young, Family and Employer Program and Policy, Dept of Defense. The third panel was the Dept of Labor's Junior Ortiz.

You see veterans in that mix?

No, you don't. But we heard Daywalt and excuses and pleas and business needs this tax break and they need this and they need that and . . . Is VetJobs focused on employers or veterans? Yeah, if the federal government will subsidize private employer health benefits for members of the Guard and Reserves, they probably will get hired more often (and more often than civilians -- was he trying to create a two-tiered group of citizens?) but that's not addressing the issue. It's tossing money at it and if we want to do that, fine, but let's be honest about it and honest about what Daywalt's proposing will do.

It will mean that most employers would lay off not Guards and Reserves in order to save dramatically on medical expenses.

That will reduce veteran unemployment and it will aslo put a ton of people out of work.

How can you be the a subcommittee for the House Veterans Affairs and hold a hearing in which no one from the VA [Veterans Administration] and no veteran testifies?

This was a tactical error in terms of the press. There's really nothing for most people to write up or show on TV from the hearing. The stories that needed to be shared were the veterans stories and when they're not invited to the table, their stories aren't told.

This was an embarrassment. And that falls on the Subcommittee Chair Stutzman.

In addition, a witness and two members on the Subcomittee seemed unaware that it was against the law for companies to give away the jobs of the National Guard and Reserves. Since the US government allegedly isn't rolling in the dough (there's more than enough money for weapons and war), might the answer not be to prosecute existing laws instead of creating yet more write-offs for businesses?

They can start with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act which basically holds the job of the active-duty while he or she is serving. The Labour Dept is supposed to enforce this law. And Junior Ortiz could have educated them but after the snooze-fest that was the second panel, a number of Subcommittee members left (the eight members on the Subcomittee were reduced to five). But maybe he wouldn't have. In his opening statement, the only time he controls what he declares, he reduced enforcement to two passing sentences. Those sentences were: "The last piece I want to discuss is DOL's efforts to educate about and enforce the provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Vets enforcement programs investigate complaints filed by veterans and other protected individuals under USERRA, assess complaints alleging violation of status requiring veterans' preference in federal hiring, and implement and collect information regarding veterans employment by federal contractors." Though he claimed he wanted to talk about it, the fact is in writing, this appears in the opening of the final section but although four more paragraphs follow, they have nothing to do with enforcement, he provides no figures on convictions or settlements. He has no interest in the matter.

Nor did members of the Subcommittee. Ranking Member Braley made time to joke with the witness about his use of "Junior." There's a time when Congress wouldn't have found that at all funny. They would have tolerated it from a citizen, but a government employee that came in wanting to be called by a nickname? They would have cited the status of the Congressional record and called him "Ishmael" Ortiz throughout the hearing.

But Braley had time to laugh about it and how it must be because everyone trusts a guy named "Junior." Thanks for wasting our time, Braley.

For 25 minutes Ortiz appeared before the Subcomittee -- appeared as the sole witness on the third panel -- and not one of the five men who chose to stay for the third panel had a question about whether the law was being enforced, what the law said, statistics on it, etc. They never mentioned the law. It only popped up in those two sentences as Ortiz read his prepared remarks.

What does Congress do?

The legislative branch passes laws.

Why is Congress passing laws if they hold a hearing where they express alarm that Guard and Reserves are returning from active-duty to find they have lost their jobs and no one wants to discuss the law?

You pass a law, it better need to be enforced or you've wasted tax payers time and money.

Is Congress bored with their job? If so, remember that all members of the House are up for re-election this November (unless they're not seeking re-election).

If the hearing was about Guard and Reserves losing their jobs, it failed by not providing a face to the issue (allowing those who had lost their jobs -- or had to fight to keep them -- to share those stories) and it failed by refusing to address if the laws are being enforced. And how stupid do you have to be to be on the Subcommittee. I'm being really kind and not naming names but it was more than one member who, by their own remarks during the first panel, demonstrated they were unaware that it was against the law to fire a Guard or Reserve member who was on active-duty. How do I know that for sure? Because the second time it came up, I stepped out during the first panel to call a friend at the Justice Dept and ask if the law had changed? (No, it had not.) I thought surely that members of Congress, hearing about an issue they supposedly cared about would know the basics of the law. I was very much wrong.

Remember the alarmist rate that some were applying to veterans unemployment and how, when we checked with the Labor Dept statistics, the statistics didn't back up the claims?

Ortiz testifed in his opening statements, "According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2010, recent Veterans who served during the post-9-11 era had an unemployment rate of 11.5 percent, compared to a 9.4 percent rate among civilian non-veterans. Unemployment rates were particularly high among recent Veterans who have served or continue to serve our nation in the National Guard and Reserve forces. These Veterans had an unemployment rate of 14 percent in July 2010, almost five points above the civilian unemployment rate."

That's 2.1 percent more for the overall rate for the year 2010, 2.1% greater. Now iin an ideal world, the two figures would be equal. But 2.1% more than the general population figure? That's not a crisis, that's not as alarming as it was repeatedly made to be in order to pass legislation. We heard figures as high as 16%. (Sometimes with a subgroup of post 9-11 veterans attached to it, sometimes.) Those figures came from somewhere but they didn't come from the Labor Dept. As we've repeatedly noted throughout the Great Recession, neither Congress nor the White House has pushed to do a damn thing for African-Americans. The highest unemployment rate for the Great Recession -- any year -- has been young, male African-Americans. But no one was troubled by that, no one was concerned, no one thought to address it with any programs or any monies. Among elected officials, no one cared. This summer, the unemployment rate for African-American teens (male and female) hit over 40%. And no one rushed to create a program or do a damn thing on the federal level.

In addition to calling out the claims on the actual rate, we also noted that no one wanted to give a break down on the numbers for female veterans. Ortiz didn't provide that information today. But US House Rep Linda Sanchez did raise the issue of female veterans in the hearing. It's really the only exchange worth noting from that hearing.

US House Rep Linda Sanchez: I'm going to start with Mr. Day. You offered many suggestions in your written testimony to improve the National Guard unemployment rate. And I want to sort of focus in in this large group of National Guardsmen who are a group in need of ways to help them over some hurdles to unemployment. I want to focus actually on a subset of women veterans because I think they may experience unique possibilities of overcoming additional obstacles other than the fact that they are serving in the National Guard. And I want to talk about specifically the fact that that age group tends to be a group that may be mothers of future mothers. And sometimes that, in and of itself, is a barrier to employment for women. Do you think it's reasonable that a female National Guard member may face even greater obstacles when attempting to find a job because of those two factors combined?

Theodore Daywalt: On a case by case basis, yes, They probably have more things that they have to face. [. . .] And there are job boards that are out there just for women, in the civilian sector, identifies a need pretty fast and they can move quick. And many of us identied the fact that people weren't getting the help that they need when they came out. Many have said that TAP is broken, I'll let others make that decision but that's why Vet Jobs is there. And to the women, especially if it's a single mother. Maybe it's because I"m an old fart, I cannot imagine being a single mother, being in the Guard, trying to get a job and raising a child or two or three children all at the same time. I mean, my hat goes off to them.

US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Well I have to tell you I am the mother of a 2-and-a-half-year old. And I travel bi-coastally with him to do this job which is more than, you know, 40-hour-a-week job. And I have a respect for single mothers that do that. I think that they are super women in evvery sense of the word.

Theodore Daywalt: Yes they are.

US House Rep Linda Sanchez: But what I'm trying to focus in on and this is something that kind of gets lost in the shuffle, you talk about the higher unemployment rate for National Guard members than the general unemployment rate in many of these states and I'm wondering if there's been an effort to try and extrapolate what that rate might be based on gender because I suspect -- and this is just a suspicion on my part -- that for young female National Guard member that unemloyent rate is probably even higher than it is for the general population?

Theodore Daywalt: Ma'am, two weeks ago, I remember seeing a press article and I remember that it did say -- and I'm sure they got their information from BLS -- that female veterans have a higher unemployment rate than male veterans.

US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Right. And I suspect because they face these additional obstacles. And the reason I raise that is because in my home state of California there was an Assembly bill that passed in 2004 which would essentially create a voucher system by which child care vouchers would be available to veterans seeking employment and it would be a way to try to help ease the cost of childcare and, you know, provide that. We're budget-challenged in California so that the funding hasn't necessarily been there but I'm thinking of these practical solutions and it seems to me that type of concept of helping with some of those barriers to employment which would be reliable and affordable child care might be something that we could do to reduce that.

Theodore Daywalt: When I get on the phone and counsel with a single mother, I generally try to point them to more forward-thinking companies that are labeled as a "employer of choice" something that their [. . .] group could stop. One thing that's in there and it's a fact that so many companies do offer child care on the premise in order to bring in qualified employees. And that's a smart employer that does that and we try to steer them towards the employers that do stuff like that. Trouble is, it's not always apparent who offers that and who doesn't and that's where vet jobs and some of the other military sites become the intermediary because we know these companies. Someone comes to me and says, "You know, you would reallly do well at UPS. They need secretaries or they need this or they need a manager and by the way they have child care on the premises." A lot of the health care have gone to that. It's the only way they can draw nurses and the health care people they need and they start offering child care and that's an ideal spot but they don't always know that that's out there.

US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Right.

Theodore Daywalt: So that's where we come in and try to --

US House Rep Linda Sanchez: And my suspicion would be that employers who would offer that generally are of a certain size, many small companies are excluded from that --

Theodore Daywalt: Very difficult for companies --

US House Rep Linda Sanchez: -- expensive. If the Chairman will indulge me for just one last, quick question. Ms. DeRocco, you mentioned efforts to partner with community colleges to help get the skills that veterans need in order to go into the skilled manufacturing sector. The district that I represent is very working class, urban and one of the things is that they would like to get those skills but the cost is a barrier for them so I'm intrigued when you talked about the paid internships and I'm sort of envisioning something where employers who have the need for skilled employees who have the soft skills of reliability and folks who will do what they're told. Is it crazy to think that maybe there might be some way to structure something that's almost like an apprenticeship system where employers would sort of finance an acquiring of those skills and they'd be working in the meantime while they're trying to complete those programs?

Emily DeRocco: Very insightful. A couple of points, we actually are beginning with [Oakland's] Laney College, a college in the Bay Area of Calfironia with the integration of these education pathways that are competency-based pathways to jobs in manufacturing because of the high concentration of small machine companies in that area which will offer extraordinary jobs. We spend about $18 billion a year in this country on workforce investment, workforce development, another $800 billion in public education. What we are doing is actually just directing a very small percentage of those funds to building the educational patheways in high schools and community college, the result is credentials which have value in the workplace labor market. So to date there's never been a question about money available to have the educational pathways in place. All federal aid programs cover any cost associated with the individual credentials and in every instance, employers are driving the educational reform by being full partners as facutly, curriculum development advisors, paid internships, mentors and even the equipment and requirements for the educational pathway to be successful. So, yes, we are encouraging much stronger business edcucation partnerships. Actually, it's the only we're going to change education in this country .

US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Great. Thank you and I thank the Chariman.

Daywalt worded an early statement in such a way that it might have appeared to some he was saying that "most" employers offer child care. That's not true (nor is it what he was saying). For statistics you can refer to [PDF format warning] this Sloan Work and Family Research Network list.

RECOMMENDED: "I Hate The War"

"Iraq snapshot"
"The never-ending political crisis"
"The drones"
"Name the movie"
"American Airlines goes after workers"
"5 men, 2 women"
"revenge"
"Saying no"
"DLC in the UK"
"Our poor Constitution"
"Dilemma"
"Questions"
"Libyan War, Glen Ford"
"When ugly tries to be celebrity"
"THIS JUST IN! IT'S ALL ABOUT HER!"