Cedric's Big Mix: 2011-01-09

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Beauty is as beauty does

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS PREPPING FOR HIS UPCOMING STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH. THAT MAINLY MEANS HE GETS A RINSE AND CUT TO MAKE THAT AWFUL HAIR LOOK BETTER.

EXPLAINS WHITE HOUSE LITTLE PERSON VALERIE JARRETT, "WE DRESSED DOWN FOR ARIZONA. WE HAD TO FOR THOSE PEOPLE. DID YOU SEE THE K-MART ENSEMBLE MICHELLE WORE?"

BUT BARRY O IS BEING FITTED FOR A NEW SUIT AND PLANS TO LOOK "DANDY" ACCORDING TO JARRETT WHEN HE FACES THE COUNTRY ON JANUARY 25TH.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This week US Vice President Joe Biden visited several countries including Afghanistan and Iraq. On the second hour of today's The Diane Rehm Show, the visit was discussed and we're emphasing the Iraq section but picking up at the end of the Afghanistan discussion. Diane's guests were NPR's Tom Gjelten, NBC News' Courtney Kube and UPI's Martin Walker. Excerpt:

Diane Rehm: Courtney?

Courtney Kube: Yeah, on Vice President Biden's remarks in Afghanistan, I-I had to laugh when I read that the other day because he's made so many comments about the withdrawal -- the deadline in Afghanistan -- in the past few months. Just three weeks ago, he told Meet The Press -- NBC's Meet The Press -- that-that the US was going to be out of Afghanistan in 2014 come hell or high water. So three weeks later he's standing with President Karzai and says they're going to stay there. Now if you read through his remarks, it's plausible that he was specifically referring to supporting an Afghanistan nation-building plan and that-that it's possible he was talking more about the US would be there in a support role for nation-building -- that's sort of how his aides were spinning it afterwards. Whether that's what he meant or not, you got to ask Vice President Biden, though.

Tom Gjelten: You have to wonder, Diane, whether President [Barack] Obama sent Vice President Biden on this trip to Afghanistan precisely to force him into that situation to clarify his remarks. I think it was -- You know, we were -- everyone was -- looking for the magic words from him about the withdrawal and he did say to them -- he said that the withdrawal of US forces would be "conditions based" and that is not his position before. Clearly, he had gotten the message from President Obama that he needed to get on the same page as the rest of the administration in supporting the policy. That's one point. The second point is, as Martin eluded to, no one could better project the-the credibility of this message than the very figure of the administration who had been most skeptical of it. So, if you have Vice President Biden saying the United States is ready to stay after 2014, you can assume there are no more dissenting voices that are going to detract from that message.

Diane Rehm: But what about what the American people have been told? Namely that we are gonna get out [of Afghanistan] in 2014? Does that matter at all?

Martin Walker: It depends what you mean by "out." And I think this is Courtney's point, but -- as we're seeing in Iraq -- it's one thing to withdraw combat troops.

Diane Rehm: Sounds like the definition of the word "if."

Martin Walker: Exactly. That's the echo I was seeking. But there is a difference between having combat troops engaged in combat aggressive operations and having a number of support troops [who are] training troops and so on. And I think we're going to see that distinction blurred as creatively as possible by the administration over the next couple of years.

Tom Gjelten: You know, Diane, I'll go out on a limb here, I think what really concerns American people more than anything else is casualties and if you can --

Diane Rehm: Exactly.

Tom Gjelten (Con't): -- come up with a presence that does not produce a lot of casualties, there's gonna be a lot more tolerance for it. The United States still has a lot of combat troops in Iraq and will continue to have for a long time. But casualties there have gone way, way down. And I think that probably means the United States would be inclined to accept it -- the people of the United States would be inclined to accept it.

Diane Rehm: But what about Moqtada al-Sadr and his comments that he wants the US out of Iraq right now?

Martin Walker: Well he's back and he seems almost as feisty as [in] the past. What he was not saying was that he would perhaps lead any kind of military action to drive the Americans out. What is really striking is that his joining the government means that the deal that was reached with [Ayad] Allawi to bring the Sunnis on board by making him [Allawi] chairman of this new national strategy council -- that deal now looks hollow. In other words, the stability of Iraq in the future -- which will depend upon Sunni support -- now looks a great deal less certain than it was looking just two weeks ago.

Since Diane raised the issue of Moqtada al-Sadr, we'll move first to him and his supporters. Khaled Farhan, Khalid al-Ansary, Michael Christie and Tim Pearce (Reuters) report that approximately 2,000 followers of Moqtada al-Sadr marched through Kufa protesting that Joe Biden had visited and, P.S., they don't want him coming back. Of course the protest might not be so damn laughable if they'd managed to stage it while Joe Biden was actually in Iraq. In what should be a show of strength or at least moderate influence, the Sadr movement looks incredibly sad as their protest takes place after Biden leaves. So much for the talk of 'powerful' Moqtada and his 'powerful' movement. Azzaman reports that the followers "chanted anti-Ameircan slogans" and quoted follower Mohammed Abbas ("day-laborer") stating, "We demand no repeat visits to Iraq by Biden and we demand the departure of the occupier."

In the midst of a series of high profile meetings with Nouri al-Maliki, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali al-Sistani and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Moqtada al-Sadr presumably wanted to "stay on message." The protest knocked him off that and, in fact, got far more attention than did any of his photo-ops. It's doubtful al-Sadr's sanctined, let alone called for, the demonstration which only further indicates the problems he will be experiencing in the coming months as he tries to strike the pose of leader of a civil and engaged political body. His years and years in exile has allowed his 'movement' to engage in a variety of activities and, as Kufa's protest demonstrates, they still think that is appropriate -- even when it knocks al-Sadr off message and, in fact, upstages him and forces him to spend Saturday addressing the topic of the protest. So much for 'fearless' or 'fearful' leader Moqtada al-Sadr. Whether these are merely initial growing pains as the 'movement' and the man re-embrace or if they are signs of a natural split emerging will be determined in the coming months.

Moqtada al-Sadr wasn't the only one visiting al-Sistaning, also visiting him was Iraq's President Jalal Talabani. Al Mada reports that al-Sistani stressed that Iraq was a place for all Iraqis regardless of "religion, doctrine or nationalism, they are all brothers and we stand as one" and that Talabani told reporters after the meeting that he discussed with al-Sistani the suffering of Iraqi Christians and that al-Sistani repudiates the attacks and calls them crimes that do an injustice to all of Iraq. However, approximatley at the time Talabani was speaking to reporters, the Christian Association of Ashurbanipal in Baghdad was under attack and their property was damanged by unknown assailants and by, according to eye witness, Baghdad police officers. Abdul-Karim, speaking for the police, denied that they were connected to the attack. One eye witness reports that the Baghdad police could be seen with the assailants and exclaiming, "We are an Islamic state!" and "No place for Christians and Yazidis in Baghdad!" Iraqi Christians have long been targeted throughout the Iraq War and the latest wave of attacks started October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad leading to the deaths of approximately 70 people with approximately 70 others left injured.

In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the highest ranking US official to speak out on the ongoing attacks. Joe Biden quickly followed. Today President Barack Obama issued the following proclamation:

Our Nation was founded on a shared commitment to the values of justice, freedom, and equality. On Religious Freedom Day, we commemorate Virginia's 1786 Statute for Religious Freedom, in which Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion." The fundamental principle of religious freedom -- guarded by our Founders and enshrined in our Constitution's First Amendment -- continues to protect rich faiths flourishing within our borders.

The writ of the Founding Fathers has upheld the ability of Americans to worship and practice religion as they choose, including the right to believe in no religion at all. However, these liberties are not self-sustaining, and require a stalwart commitment by each generation to preserve and apply them. Throughout our Nation's history, our founding ideal of religious freedom has served as an example to the world. Though our Nation has sometimes fallen short of the weighty task of ensuring freedom of religious expression and practice, we have remained a Nation in which people of different faiths coexist with mutual respect and equality under the law. America's unshakeable commitment to religious freedom binds us together as a people, and the strength of our values underpins a country that is tolerant, just, and strong.

My Administration continues to defend the cause of religious freedom in the United States and around the world. At home, we vigorously protect the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs. Across the globe, we also seek to uphold this human right and to foster tolerance and peace with those whose beliefs differ from our own. We bear witness to those who are persecuted or attacked because of their faith. We condemn the attacks made in recent months against Christians in Iraq and Egypt, along with attacks against people of all backgrounds and beliefs. The United States stands with those who advocate for free religious expression and works to protect the rights of all people to follow their conscience, free from persecution and discrimination.
On Religious Freedom Day, let us reflect on the principle of religious freedom that has guided our Nation forward, and recommit to upholding this universal human right both at home and around the world.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2011, as Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to commemorate this day with events and activities that teach us about this critical foundation of our Nation's liberty, and to show us how we can protect it for future generations here and around the world.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Scraggles

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

IT WAS LIKE CATCHING JOEY HEATHERON IN PUBLIC WITHOUT HER GIRDLE OR MARV ALBERT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT HIS BAD TOUPE. THERE WAS CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IN PUBLIC WITHOUT HIS RINSE AND WITH SCRAGGLY HAIR.

SOME PRETENDED HE HAD SOMETHING TO SAY BUT THOSE WHO COULDN'T NOTE HOW HAGGARD HE LOOKED REALLY CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO TELL THE TRUTH TO BEGIN WITH.

MEANWHILE TWO OF THE BIGGEST LIARS IN THE CREATION OF BARRY O -- AP AND SHEPARD THE LIAR FAIREY AGREED THEY COULD STILL SQUEEZE SOME GREEN OUT OF THE FAILED AND FADED IMAGE OF BARRY O AND AGREED TO STOP SUING EACH OTHER AND HOP INTO BED ALREADY.

"IT'S ABOUT TIME," SAID MANY OBSERVERS NOTING THE RUMORS THAT SHEP WAS PREGNANT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting in the US where the Justice Dept is targeting activists. Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Heidi and Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner covered the topic on WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio including during a conversation with Margaret Ratner-Kunstler which you can hear at the program's site by going into the archives and the program has also transcribed their discussion with Margaret and you can read it here. The Lawyer's Guild is an hourly show hosted by Jim Lafferty each Thursday night from 7:00 to 8:00 pm PST on Los Angeles' KPFK. Among his guests last week was Bruce Nestor. Excerpt:

Jim Lafferty: Bruce Nestor is one of the lead attorneys for political activists around the country who've had their homes raided by the FBI recently and, as I said at the top of the show, subpoened to testify before grand juries under some rather suspicious and ominous circumstances. I should mention that Mr. Nestor is a former national president of the National Lawyers Guild and he joins us by phone from Minneapolis, MN of St. Paul, which is it?

Bruce Nestor: Minneapolis.

Jim Lafferty: Minneapolis! Alright, Bruce Nestor, welcome to The Lawyers Guild Show. Bruce, first off, who are your clients? And when I say that, I don't mean by name. But who are they in terms of what their political work was and what is happened to them so far as a result of actions by the FBI, the US Justice Dept? Walk us through where all this began, these raids on home, these subpoenas and so forth.

Bruce Nestor: These events started -- that we were publicly aware of -- although clearly an investigation was going on long before it with home raids on September 24th of last year when political activists in Minneapolis and Chicago had their homes raided, subpoeanas were served and across the country other activists, including in California, were contacted and the FBI was trying to interview them. That group of people has now grown to at least 23 individuals who have either been served with subpoenas or told that they will be served with subpoenas to appear in front of a grand jury being run by Assistant -- by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago -- the US Attorney who prosecuted Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff. And so no one yet has appeared in front of the grand jury, everyone has asserted their right to remain silent and their political right not to testify against their friends and colleagues about their political beliefs and activities. But the range of people ranges from people who have been active in the anti-war movement, the labor movement -- many of the activists here in Minneapolis in particular are very -- are members of their labor unions and active in the labor movement, to young people who've just recently traveled to Palestine and the occupied territories as part of Solidarity trips or as part of fact-finding delegations to investigate US policy and how the Palestinian people are resisting occupation. So it - it's really frightening. The stated purpose of the investigation is to investigate material support for terrorism -- a claim that public statements of support for groups abroad as well as humanitarian fund raising in limited amounts constitutes material support for terrorism. And that's being used as a pretext to really go after entire political organizations and large numbers of people.

Jim Lafferty: Yeah. Well we'll get back into that again in a minute but these things, as you've just pointed out, started with-with raids. And I assume they had search warrants. If so, what were they looking for in these raids and what kind of things did they take away?

Bruce Nestor: They took everything. They took baby pictures, they took boxes of documents, computers, cell phones. The range of what they said they were looking for was anything related to contacts with a foreign organization -- some in Columbia, some in Palestine, informations related to people's travels abroad but including information about groups that are active locally. Like, in Minnesota, for instance, they wanted to know how people recruit, how they fundraise, what their membership lists are. And, you know, some of it, they talk about indoctrination and recruitment -- as if this were secret. I mean, some of the money that was being raised here for humanitarian aid was raised by kids at lemon aid stands -- literally selling lemon aid at fifty cents a cup to try to raise money for day care and baby formula in the occupied territories.

Jim Lafferty: (Laughing) That certainly sounds dangerous to me. Listen, I laugh to keep from crying. Maybe I should jump ahead? Well, let me first ask this question. Have any of your clients yet or have any of these 23 people actually testified or agreed to testify before the grand jury?

Bruce Nestor: Nobody has testified before the grand jury. It doesn't appear that people in good conscience are going to be able to do that or will agree to do that. That's, of course, a decision that each individual needs to make. And nobody's been indicted yet. Nobody's been charged. We're now going on three months and people -- A few people got their cell phones back but people don't have their computers back, the antiwar committee doesn't have their computer back with their membership lists and other information on it. It's a very serious investigation.

If you missed that broadcast, you can visit the KPFK archives in the next 54 days to hear it, after that it's gone from the archives. This week on Law and Disorder Radio (aired yesterday on WBAI and is broadcasting throughout the country throughout the week -- and which archives at its own website -- all five years of the program and congratulations on five solid years of broadcasting) hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael Ratner and Michael S. Smith address the issue. Yesterday's snapshot noted their interview with activist and journalist Maureen Murphy who is among those subpoenaed and who states she will not provide testimony. (Murphy is with The Electronic Intifada and I say that only to give them a link -- she does not believe her work with TEI had anything to do with her being subpoenaed.) On this topic, this week they also speak with attorney Michael Deutsch of the People's Law Office in Chicago who is also representing some of the people subpoenaed. Excerpt:

Heidi Boghosian: This past December, we had what seems to be a second wave of subpoeanas following the rash that occurred in September Can you give us a brief summary of what happened?

Michael Deutsch: Towards the end of the summer, the FBI went out with a stack of subpoenas and wound subpoeaning nine additional people in the Chicago area which then makes 23 --14 had been subpoenaed prior -- right at the end of September. And these people who are subpoenaed are all people who are active in Palestinian support work. You know, they're invovled with a group called the Arab American Action Network -- AAAN, or they're part of a group called the Palestinian Support Group, some of them have made trips to the Middle East, others have just been active in the Chicago area and educating people about the situation in Israel and Palestine.

Heidi Boghosian: And are the subpoenas asking for specific documents or, do you think, sort of a general fishing expedition?

Michael Deutsch: Well unlike the first series of subpoeneas which did ask for documents to be produced, these subpoenas only talk about coming to testify. And it seems to me what's going on now, the first group it seemed were people who were directly related to the searches and related in some way to this Freedom Road Socialist Organization. This next wave of subpoenas are people who are not necessarily related to that organization but are people who they are trying to gathering information from. So it's particularly a fishing expedition in terms of gathering information about people's political work and associations.

Michael Ratner: Michael, I don't understand. You mean to say someone gets a subpoena that doesn't even mention a criminal law they're investigating? That they don't --

Michael Deutsch: No. Uh-uh.

Michael Ratner: They just say, like "Michael Deutsch, report to the grand jury to testify"? And doesn't say what about?

Michael Deutsch: It does not say what it's about. It just says: "You're subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury January 25th." It doesn't even say the statute which they're investigating.

Michael Ratner: Have you had any experience in your life with a subpoena like that?

Michael Deutsch: No. I haven't had experience with that and, of course, I've never, in all my experience, seen so many people subpoenaed to a grand jury -- I mean in a political situation. So it really looks to me like they're just relying on any type of relationship to the Palestinian Solidarity Movement to subpoena people to a grand jury. People who went on trips, people who went to demonstrations, people who are active in community work. So it's a very strange development but ominous nonetheless.

Heidi Boghosian: Michael, I'm curious about the midwest region. Now is -- do you think we're seeing so many subpoenas in this area because of the presence of joint-terrorism task forces there? Do you have any explanation?

Michael Deutsch: I don't think it's related to the fact that there's a joint-terrorist task force because there's one in New York and probably one in other places. I think it's because a lot of the Palestine support work has gone on in Chicago and based in Chicago and I would say that the FBI has been around somewhat in New York and in the Bay Area trying to talk to people as well. So the subpoenas may extend to other areas but because one of the main targets of their investigation is the executive director of the AAAN -- the Arab American Action Network -- Hatem Abudayyeh -- they're focusing on him and people who work with him or are part of organizations that he's been part of. And that's who this last wave of subpoenas has really focused on.

The grand jury appearance is coming up. It's Tuesday, January 25th and this is from Stop FBI Repression about the January 25th actions:

In December 2010, under the direction of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the FBI delivered nine new subpoenas in Chicago to anti-war and Palestine solidarity activists. Patrick Fitzgerald's office is ordering the nine to appear at a Grand Jury in Chicago on January 25.

In response we are calling for protests on Jan. 25 across the country and around the world to show our solidarity. Hundreds of organizations and thousands of people will be protesting at Federal Buildings, FBI offices, and other appropriate places, showing solidarity with the nine newly subpoenaed activists, and with all the activists whose homes were raided by the FBI.

Fitzgerald's expanding web of repression already includes the fourteen subpoenaed when the FBI stormed into homes on September 24th, carting away phones, computers, notebooks, diaries, and children's artwork. In October, all fourteen activists from Chicago, Minneapolis, and Michigan each decided to not participate in the secret proceedings of Fitzgerald's Grand Jury. Each signed a letter invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. However, three women from Minneapolis -- Tracy Molm, Anh Pham, and Sarah Martin -- are facing re-activated subpoenas. They are standing strong and we are asking you to stand with them --and with the newly subpoenaed nine activists -- by protesting Patrick Fitzgerald and his use of the Grand Jury and FBI to repress anti-war and international solidarity activists.

Defend free speech! Defend the right to organize! Opposing war and occupation is not a crime!

Tell Patrick Fitzgerald to call off the Grand Jury!
Stop FBI raids and repression!

Take Action!

Please organize a local protest or picket in your city or on your campus on Tuesday Jan. 25 and e-mail us at stopfbi@gmail.com to let us know what you have planned.

The Committee to Stop FBI Repression www.StopFBI.net

Please e-mail stopfbi@gmail.com or call 612-379-3585

Here is a flyer you can use for your local protest (pdf). Just fill in the time and location of your local protest, and local contact information if you want.

We have noted this repeatedly and will continue to try to do so. This is an assault on political freedom. When our response is to stay silent, we lose political freedom. (Just as when we participate in a frenzy to demonize political speech, we damage political speech and a lot of people need to be thinking about that right about now.) Marueen Murphy and Nora Barrows-Friedman have a piece at Electronic Infitada about the targeting. Is it the new McCarthyism? Could be. Some would argue we're already there as evidenced by attorney Lynne Stewart being a political prisoner of the United States for the 'crime' of breaking a guideline. Once was a time you went to prison for breaking law, now it just requires breaking a guideline. We'll note Lynne and some other actions at the end of the snapshot. There is a great deal coming up in the next two months.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The queens have spoken

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O JUST PREFERS A FRENCH KISS AND FOR THAT REASON PREFERS HOLDING HANDS WITH NICHOLAS SARKOZY AND FRANCE WHILE DECLARING THAT HE'S CLOSER TO NO ONE ELSE.

ACROSS THE POND THE REACTION FROM ENGLAND WAS FURIOUS; HOWEVER, REACHED FOR COMMENT, BUCKINGHAM PALACE SAID, "HER ROYAL HIGHNESS WAS NEITHER AMUSED NOR SURPRISED AND HAS LONG KNOWN THAT PERSON LIVING IN GOVERNMENT HOUSING ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE COULD NOT DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT HER ROYAL HIGHNESS WAS THE ACTUAL QUEEN AND HE WAS A MERE PRETENDER."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

US Senator Mark Warner is a Democrat. We're noting that party identitifcation for a reason that should become obvious after we deal with what Warner's done this week. Monday, he held a press conference to discuss a new report on female veterans' health. WTVR reports that the study found female veterans "more likely to suffer from mental health conditions than their male counterparts" and quotes Warner stating, "It became evident to me that this challenge was growing exponentially -- in this conflict, perhaps higher than any other in the past -- and that there was a particular concern in the changing nature in the conflict particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of our women veterans." Corinne Reilly (Virginian-Pilot) quotes Warner stating, "Even if we continue to say that women don't serve in combat, the truth is they do. The claims rules need to reflect that."

The report is entitled [PDF format warning] "Review of Combat Stress in Women Veterans Receiving VA Health Care and Disability Benefits" and is from the VA's Inspector General's office and utilized "almost 500,000 male and female veterans who separated from the military from July 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006 for their experience transitioning to VA and using VA healthcare and compensation benefits through March 31, 2010." Among the findings were that women were more likely to be recognized as suffering from PTSD by the VA if they had filed paperwork for Military Sexual Trauma and they found that "VBA denied female veterans' disability claims for PTSD more often and denied male veterans' disability claims for other mental health conditions (excluding PTSD) more often." And:

Although female veterans generally were more likely to be diagnosed with mental health conditions after separation from active military duty, they generally were less likely than their male counterparts to be diagnosed with the specific mental condition of PTSD. The proportion of female OEF/OIF veterans who were diagnosed with PTSD (by VA or DoD) was 12 percent for active component and 16 percent for reserve unit, while the proportion for their male counterparts was about 17 percent for both active and reserve unit.

A problem that repeatedly pops up in the study is that women are not aware of the services available. Solutions in the report include postings at the VA listing available services and increasing the online listings of the services. In addition, Women Veterans Coordinators state that they need more training in MST -- the report notes that MST claims processing training currently is under the umbrella of PTSD claims processing, with no individual instruction for MST itself. The training the Womens Veterans Coordinators are asking for includes sensitivity training and that training specifically for claims processors. From the report:

At one regional office, the Women Veterans Coordinator is participating in a state-provided training program for victim advocates because VBA has not provided her with any training. This Women Veterans Coordinator told us that she has experienced difficulty in effectively managing conversations with veterans who were very distressed by their MST experience.

And we'll note this press release from American Women Veterans:

American Women Veterans Founding Member and Advisor, Kristen Rouse and Veterans' Advocate, Victoria Stattel, both very recent veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, are meeting with Senator Mark Warner this afternoon in Hampton and Richmond, Virginia to discuss the findings of the latest internal study on women veterans requested by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. The findings show that women veterans were more often diagnosed with depression rather than evaluated for Post Traumatic Stress/Combat Stress, most likely due to the combat exclusion policy and the lack of understanding of servicewomen's increased role in combat.

In a meeting last year, Senator Warner met with women veterans representatives throughout Virginia and with their guidance, it was concluded that an internal review by the Veterans' Administration was the next best course of action. Due to the Senator's diligence, the VA conducted the review. These new findings have highlighted some of the misunderstandings about the nature of servicewomen's involvement early on in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the past, in order to be considered for diagnosis under Post Traumatic Stress, a servicemember had to have received a combat badge or Purple Heart. Many in the military understand that despite having served in direct combat, the combat badges/ribbons are not always awarded. Since the change in this policy, many more veterans are receiving the proper diagnosis and treatment however, those that were previously misdiagnosed have not. In an AWV supported letter from Senator Warner to Secretary Shinsecki, the Senator asked on behalf of all women veterans, that the VA reach out to those men and women and ensure that they know they can be re-evaluated.

AWV Founder, Genevieve Chase said, "It's important to have the appropriate diagnosis not only for disability rating purposes but also because combat veterans must receive relevant and timely treatment. The treatment for depression is not the same as treatment for Post Traumatic Stress and the latter, if addressed and treated quickly, will ensure that our veterans are better able to acclimate back into civilian society more quickly. The goal here is to prevent our combat veterans from spiraling downward to more serious issues like substance abuse, homelessness and even suicide."

As noted, Mark Warner is a Democrat. As noted many times before, I'm a Democrat. We avoided spending September and October demagoguing for partisan purposes and, in fact, called out the nonsense aimed at some Republicans -- including John McCain -- that really didn't have anything to do with anything except, "Let's get some blood and score one for the Dems!" The elections are over. In the House, the power switched to the Republicans who, by their own words, were going to be ready to govern from day one. When this month does day one begin?

There is no scheduled hearing for this month for the House Veterans Affairs Committee. This would not have happened -- and did not -- when Democrat Bob Filner was Chair. Republican Jeff Miller is the new Chair. In fairness to him, rarely does someone with his standing become Chair. He was the fifth ranked Republican on the Committee prior to the mid-terms. What happened? Steve Buyer (who was Ranking Member) stepped down and did not seek re-election. Next in line was Cliff Stearns who out ranked him and was re-elected but Miller ended up Chair. Jerry Moran is now US Senator Jerry Moran and Henry Brown did not seek re-election. All were ahead of Jeff Miller.

But the GOP claimed they were ready to lead. So where's the leadership? Forget holding a hearing, they haven't even scheduled any. If you're supposed to be demonstrating to the country how you hit the ground running, you're failing and the House Veterans Affairs Committee is one of the most followed Committees. Ways & Means? The Beltway cares about that and little else. Veterans Affairs is followed around the country by veterans, veterans families, veterans advocates. The only thing the GOP can currently point to with regards to this Committee is that they finally found a woman they could appoint to the Committee. In the 111th Congress, they had eleven Committee members and not one was a woman. In the 112th, they've found US House Rep Ann Marie Buerkle and that is something. The largest growing population in the veterans community is what? As the report we referenced earlier notes, it's the female veterans.

Last January alone, under Bob Filner's leadership, there were four hearings. Currently there are none scheduled for the month. Not one hearing scheduled in a month when the VA Inspector General's office issues a report. Not only is the House Veterans Affairs Committee one of the most followed Committees in the House, the US continues to fight two wars, producing new veterans every day. At a time of war, it really does not look good for the new leadership to be unable to even schedule a hearing. (As disclosed many times before, I know Bob Filner. I think the world of him. That's not what this is about. This is about the GOP making promises in the campaign and yet already veterans get tossed to the curb. Don't like the criticism, get off your butts and schedule a hearing.)

Yesterday Iraq and Kuwait were once again at odds. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports that the incidnet involved an Iraqi fishing boat and Kuwait's Coast Guard, that the two exchanged fire and 1 Kuwaiti Coast Guard was killed. BBC News notes that Iraq's government maintains that 3 of their fisherman were injured and four are missing. The Kuwait Times includes that "HH the Amir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah sent a cable of condolences to the family of [Lance Corporal Abdelrahman] Al-Wadi. The Amir lauded the virtues of the martyr and the great sacrifice he made in defending his country. He also expressed his deepest sympathies to the family of the martyr and prayed to Allah Almighty to bliss the deceased with mercy. HH the Crown Prince Sheikh Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah and HH the Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser Al-Mohammad Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah sent similar cables." John Leland and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) observe, "The Iraqi and Kuwaiti authorities offered different accounts of the clash." Arab Times offers this account: "The boat refused to stop when ordered by the guards, leaving no option but the use of force and the Iraqi sailors returned fire. Sources disclosed that after the Iraqis were chased down, a senior officer ordered the martyred officer unto the Iraqi boat to conduct a search of the Iraqis as a precautionary measure. He said the Iraqis who were eight in number got hold of the officer, beat him and injured his head, forcing the senior officer to call for reinforcements from the air and navel forces. The boat was sunk after heavy shooting that ensued." AFP quotes Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh stating the two countries need to work together to provide security and that Iraq is investigating the incident.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The crazy never dies

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

YESTERDAY CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O OFFERED A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR THE VICTIMS OF TUSCON'S TRAGEDY . . . WHAT YOU EXPECTED HIM TO OFFER A MOMENT OF PRAYER?

AS BARRY O GOES STRANGELY SILENT AND AS HIS FAN CLUBS LAUNCH ATTACKS ON RIGHT WINGERS, SOME RIGHT WINGERS ARE NOTING THE VIOLENT RHETORIC BARRY O HAS PUT FORWARD (HERE AND HERE).

WORST OF ALL IS HEARING FOR NATIONAL ODDITY AND SEXIST JAMES CLYBURN WHO NEVER MET A FACT OR RULE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HE COULDN'T MANGLE. REMEMBER IF HE BRINGS HIS MOUTH TO A FIGHT, YOU BRING A DRY ERASE BOARD -- TO DIAGRAM SENTENCES AND TO TEACH HIM THE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS HE THROWS AROUND.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today Marina Ottaway (Carnegie Endowmen for International Peace) becomes the latest taken in by Sam Dagher's selective editing of quotes but we'll note her on another topic:

The United States is trying to promote closer ties between Iraq and the Arab states as an antidote to Iranian influence and has even put strong pressure on many Arab regimes to improve their relations with Iraq. Washington's campaign has met with limited success because Arab regimes, mostly Sunni-dominated, are suspicious of Maliki and the Iranian influence in Iraq.

Relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which are key to an Iraqi rapprochement with the rest of its Sunni neighbors, have been particularly cold -- the Saudis did not even congratulate Maliki on the formation of the new government. Iraq is responding in kind, with representatives of Maliki's own State of Law coalition and of the broader Shia Iraqi National Alliance unleashing a barrage of anti-Saudi statements. The current focus in tensions is on a rumor that Saudi Arabia executed, without a real trial, 40 Iraqis guilty of simply trespassing on Saudi soil.

Whatever the merit of the accusation, the venom in relations between Saudi Arabia and Iraq is undeniable. Nor is it recent: a document posted by WikiLeaks shows that in 2007 the government of Iraq, including President Jalal Talabani, who is personally named, considered Saudi Arabia a greater danger to its interests than Iran.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is attempting to persuade countries to strengthen ties with Iraq currently. En route to Abu Dhabi this morning, she declared, "Well, this trip is, in many ways, an important follow-up to one directly related trip and another that is equally significant but less direct. The first, of course, was a trip to Bahrain and the speech that I gave at Manama outlining our security agenda, and the countries I am visitng are all very strong partners in our security efforts, on counterterrorism, on the ongoing chellenges posed by Iran, on dealing with the difficulties that we are working through as Iraq emerges into a sovereign, independent country, and so much else." Saturday, Jill Dougherty (CNN) quoted an unnamed State Dept official stating, "What we're really hoping to do is elicit more expressions of support for the Iraqi government. We now have a government on the ground in Iraq after a very long and somewhat tortuous process. It is important for the region to step up and provide them support. It is important for Iraq, frankly, to be reintegrated back in the region." Kareem Shaheen (The National) observes, "Her visit comes at a crucial time for Iraq, which only recently formed a government that incorporated most major religious and ethnic groups in the country." Jill Dougherty reports today, "After her stop in the United Arab Emirates, she will also visit Oman and Qatar. In each stop, she is expected to focus on social issues including child marriage and domestic violence, as well as on innovation and promoting business development."

Saturday Moqtada al-Sadr gave his big speech in Najaf. Michael Jansen (Irish Times) reports he declared, "Repeat after Me: No, no, to the occupier. Let's have all the world hear that the Iraqi people reject the occupier." Apparently the crowd had their own chant of choice because instead of repeating "No, no, to the occupier," they went with "Down, down America!" He went on to note that only his Promised Day Brigade was "permitted to conduct operations and only against US forces." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes him stating, "We are still resisting the occupation militarily, culturally and by any other means necessary." Those late to Moqtada al-Sadr can refer to this Frontline (PBS) video report (and laugh at the hair of one paper's correspondent). Roy Gutman and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) stated that "Muqtqada al Sadr called on his followers Saturday to abandon the use of violence" -- but he did no such thing. He called on Iraqis not to attack one another but to instead focus their anger and violence on Americans. In his report of the speech, Jim Muir (BBC News -- video) observed that "he said the resistance goes on by whatever means and so on." (For a text report by Muir, click here.) Here's Aaron C. Davis (Washington Post) reports, "His followers, he said, must continue to focus on fiercely resisting the United States, but perhaps also targeting their own government if it cannot restore services or security and hold to a timeline for a full U.S. military withdrawal by the end of 2011." Ned Parker, Saad Fakhrildeen and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) quote him stating, "Resistance, yes, resistance, but not everyone will carry weapons. Only those qualified will carry weapons." Anthony Shadid (New York Times) offered, "In his 28-minute address, delivered in a warren of streets near his home in this sacred city, Mr. Sadr sought to have it both ways, calling for the expulsion of American troops but allowing time for a withdrawal, and offering support for a new government but conditional on its effectiveness." Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) noted that the speech's end may not have been its intended ending, "It appears however that the crowd was a bit too much to handle for the cleric, and as the cheers and chanting grew more and more raucous, the cleric made a final call for the release of Mahdi Army detainees from Iraqi prison and abruptly left. Some reports suggest that was not designed to be the end of the speech but that the cleric decided to end early to avoid riling up the crowd even more." While AP reported the US Embassy in Baghdad stated the speech was "nothing new."

Those who feel the US Embassy down played the speech should grasp that the press hasn't done a lot of exploring. "Moqtada said . . ." and "Moqtada wore . . ." do not benefit readers. What's his strength, what's his weakness? Moqtada al-Sadr has people in his movement, in leadership, who have been leading and aren't thrilled he's now present in the flesh. His movement includes people who do not agree with renouncing violence against other Iraqis. His movement includes people who feel that their families were targeted and Moqtada al-Sadr did nothing about it. (Or did nothing about it until he was ready to return to Iraq.) There are some who have lived with the ideal of Moqtada as opposed to the reality they'll now be present with. The strongest rallying point for him in the last five years was in 2008 when he decried the assault on Basra and Sadr City. Equally true, any manager or leader used to issuing orders from afar has to readjust once he's no longer at a distance from those he or she supervises.

Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) focuses on the people and finds a number of Shi'ites aren't thrilled with al-Sadr's return. We'll note this section of the article:

For Abu Muhanned, 47, a resident of Maysan province, it was as if the clock had been set back to 2006, when Sadr's militia controlled neighborhoods and even some cities, with residents living at the mercy of pro-Sadr street commanders.
Already, Abu Muhanned, who did not give his full name out of fear of the fundamentalist religious movement, says he has seen Sadr's supporters again exert their will in Maysan's capital, Amarah. Now as part of the deal that brought Maliki, a Shiite, back for a second term, the prime minister has handed the province's governorship back to the Sadr movement.
"We feel that Maliki sold us out by appointing a governor from them," Abu Muhanned says, remembering how Maliki ordered troops to fight the group less than three years ago.

And, equally true, though the Najaf appearance Wednesday was an attempt to soothe relations, he and al-Sistani are still not close and, especially with al-Sistani's advanced age, there are a number who might feel they were next in line when al-Sistani passes and look to the non-Ayatollah al-Sadr as someone dashing back into the country to usurp what should be the natural chain of order among the religious clerics.

Jane Arraf quotes the Center for a New American Security John Nagl stating, "The conflict has moved far enough along the spectrum from fighting to politics that Sadr not only feels safe to return but recognizes that if doesn't do so soon, he'll lose control of his political wing." That could be true (and I agree with that take), it could be false. It's an opinion and it's a valid one. Saying "The sun is blue" is an opinion but it is not a valid one based on what we know and see with the sun. Joost Hiltermann argues, "He [al-Sadr] has offered his support of the government for now, guardedly, unconditionally, and I think it's in fact a very good check on Maliki." That's an opinion as well. It's not a very valid one.

Last night, we wrote: "He's reporting on al-Sadr's threats to leave Maliki's government should the US stay beyond 2011. Guess what, Chulov, al-Sadr left Maliki's government in 2007 for just that reason. It didn't topple then either. We'll address that and Rebecca Santana's conclusions for AP and Gulf News' opinions in a snapshot this week (hopefully tomorrow)." He was Martin Chulov. Moqtada al-Sadr has no power now in terms of the government, not if you judge by the past experience. He pulled out of the government in April 2007, remember?

From the April 16, 2007 snapshot:

In Iraq today the six cabinets filled by Moqtada al-Sadr's block are now vacant. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) explains: "A key Shiite Muslim bloc in Iraq's governmental pledged Sunday to quit over Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's refusal to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, a move that would further weaken the country's leadership at a time of soaring sectarian violence." Edward Wong and Graham Bowley (New York Times) listed "protest at the refusal of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to set a timetable for American troops to withdraw from Iraq." (No link. Currently the New York Times has 'withdrawn' the story. You can find it quoted here.) AFP quotes a statement issued by the puppet of the occupation: "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed the announcement of his eminence Muqtada al-Sadr." The puppet was the only putting up a brave front, the Turkish Press quotes White House flack Dana Perino who steps away from her stand up schtick on the beleaguered US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales long enough to declare, "Doalitions in those types of parliamenty demoncracies can come and go." That funny Perino! "Democracies"! She cracks herself up. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted: "The Sadr movement controls six cabinet posts and a quarter of seats in Iraq's parliament. The pullout follows one of Iraq's bloodiest weekends in months. McClatchy newspapers is reporting nearly 300 people were killed in violenace around Iraq Saturday." [CBS and AP's count on Sunday for the Karbala bombing Saturday was 47.] Jim Muir (BBC News) offers analysis, "Nobody expects Mr Sadr's move to bring the government down. Nor did observers believe that was his intention. Rather than leave the cabinet seats empty, he himself suggested that the six abandoned portfolios be given to non-partisan independents, and some of his aides urged that competent technocrats be appointed. . . . The Sadr bloc has 32 of the 275 seats in the current parliament, and intends to continue its activities there and in the Shia coalition, despite withdrawing from government. Another member of the Shia coalition, the Fadhila party, announced early last month that it was pulling out of that alliance because of the government's poor performance and sectarian quota composition. But only if other major factions such as the main Sunni bloc and Iyad Allawi's secular Iraqi List were also to walk out of the government, would it be at risk of collapse." Ross Colvin and Yara Bayoumy (Reuters) note "concerns about whether Sadr's Mehdi Army, which Washington calls the biggest threat to Iraq's security, will maintain the low profile it has so far duing a U.S.-backed security crackdown in Baghdad."

Kawther Abdul-Ameer and Mussab al-Khairall (Reuters) reported April 17, 2007 on his withdrawal of support (the ministers from his bloc left Nouri's Cabinet) and how Nouri al-Maliki told the reporters, "The withdrawal (of the Sadrist bloc) does not mean the government is witnessing weakness." Nor did it mean the government collapsed. Iraq's Constitution is not being followed by Nouri. Did no one grasp that at all during his first term?

The only power anyone had to stop Nouri was to stop him from forming a government. He's done it. He's now going to ride through the second term. If ministers walk, so what? It's not led to a vote of confidence by Parliament and it most likely won't. Nouri never had a full Cabinet. And he still doesn't, he's starting off his second term without a full Cabinet. Rebecca Santana notes that, "Many Iraqis and U.S. officials are believed to want an American presence beyond the end of 2011, as currently planned under a U.S.-Iraqi agreement, to do such things as control Iraq's airspace and monitor the borders. But al-Sadr's remarks made clear it will be difficult for al-Maliki to renegotiate that deal." Moqtada's remarks suggest no such thing. Moqtada's ministers left (in 2007) because? The continued US presence was the reason give publicly. They walked and the government continued. If that's how Nouri behaved in his first term, why would anyone expect he would accept new impositions in his second term? How do you logically infer that?

I don't see how you do. Gulf News insists, "But Al Maliki's confidence comes from a very fragile base, and the political unity achieved so painfully around the new government could easily fall apart." How? Do we mean military coup? That's a possibility.

But if we're talking about the government falling apart because X walks out -- however many units you apply to X -- that doesn't seem likely because it's not what happened before or what's already happened. During the many months without any government -- when the UN should have imposed a temporary government -- the Minister of Electricity resigned. Nouri just made the Minister of Oil also the Minister of Electricity. There is no Constitutional power that allows him to do that. There is no "circumvent Parliament one time only" card that exists. Currently, there are 13 empty spots -- 3 of which Nouri has appointed himself (temporarily, he insists). And for those saying, "Well Moqtada has a lot of seats in this Cabinet!" He has says 7 seats in this Cabinet. And before some fool cries, "Well, see, it's one more than last time!" Uh, not really. They had 6 when there were 32 Cabinet positions (plus the Prime Minister). Now they have 7 when there are 45 Cabinet positions (plus the Prime Minister). Now that's just dealing with the 2007 walk out. That was far from the only walk out of Nouri's Cabinet. There was, for example, the great Sunni walk out of 2008. It doesn't matter who walked out, it never crippled Nouri or even made him pause.

So you can have the opinion that Moqtada al-Sadr or even Ayad Allawi hold power in the executive branch of the government today but, based on pattern, that's not a sound opinion. You may say, "In spite of pattern, I think this go round if A happens then B and C band together and . . ." But the pattern's already established and until you acknowledge the pattern, if your opinion goes against it and you can't explain why that is, your opinion's not a sound one.

At any time during the walk outs of Nouri's first term, Parliament could have toppled the government with a vote of no-confidence. They didn't. That was due to the fact that Nouri was able to offer 'rewards' to those who were loyal and he didn't have to offer rewards to many because so few MPs were ever present for votes. Now you can say, "Things will be different now, Parliament will be prepared to do a no-confidence vote." And maybe they will and maybe they won't but if you're not acknowledging that Parliament refused to do so before then your opinion's not sound.

Nouri's not a new face. How he's going to govern is no great mystery. He's just started his second term. Ayad Allawi's supporters will hate this but when Allawi (or rather Iraqiya) agreed to go forward without the security council being established, that was a huge mistake. (Allawi did protest that. He himself did not go along with that.) Once Nouri got the vote and moved from prime minister-designate to Prime Minister, he didn't need them anymore. That's why he could launch an assault on al-Sadr's supporters -- jump the gun on the US an launch an assault, as Gen David Petreaus testified to Congress repeatedly in April of 2008 -- without fears of reprisal.

There will be unexpected and surprises but the pattern's established and those sure that a pear tree is going to bear apples this year can hope all they want but, based on what we know from past experience, that's just not going to happen. Equally true, human development is A to B, A to C or A to D for most people. Few of us ever experience an A to Z change. In other words, Nouri today is basically the same Nouri he was from 2006 through 2010.

"They tricked him"
"THIS JUST IN! THEY TRICKED HIM!"

Cedric's Big Mix