The gimmie gal

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE MICHELLE OBAMA WANTS A WATER DOG. BARACK'S NOT SURE. AMERICA'S LEFT TO WONDER WHO WILL PAY FOR THE DOG? WILL THE DOG BE LIKE 'FASHION PLATE' MICHELLE OBAMA'S WARDROBE? BRIBES OFFERED TO BY VARIOUS UNKNOWN GROUPS SINCE MICHELLE 'FORGETS' TO DECLARE HER WARDROBE AS GIFTS AND/OR BRIBES. REACHED FOR COMMENT, MICHELLE DECLARED, "MINE! ALL MINE! DON'T LOOK A CLOTHESHORSE IN THE MOUTH!" INFORMED IT WAS "A GIFTHORSE," MICHELLE ASKED, "HAVE YOU REALLY LOOKED AT MY TEETH? I BELIEVE IT'S A CLOTHESHORSE." FROM THE TCI WIRE: The UK Secretary of Defence is in the news today due to revelations he disclosed to the House of Commons today. Sec of Defense John Hutton: During the final stages of the review of records of detentions, we found information about one case relating to a security operation that was conducted in February 2004, a period which honorable members I'm sure will recall saw an increased level of insurgent activity as the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty drew closer. During this operation, two individuals were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad. They were transferred to US detention in accordance with normal practice and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan. This information was brought to my attention on the first of December, 2008. And I instructed officials to investigate this case thoroughly and quickly so I could bring a full account to Parliament. Following consultations with US authorities we confirmed that they transferred these two individuals from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2004 and they remain in custody there today. I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department. I want to stress however that this was based upon the information available to ministers and those who were briefing them at the time. My predecessors as secretaries of state for defense have confirmed to me that they had no knowledge of these events. I have written to the honorable members concerned, correcting the record, and am placing a copy of these letters also in the library of the house. And again, Madame Deputy Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for these errors. The individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Laskar-e-Taiba, a proscribed organization with links to al Qaeda. The US government has explained to us that they were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists necessary to interrogate them effectively in Iraq. The US has categorized them as unlawful enemy combatants and continues to review their status on a regular basis. We have been assured that the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment meeting international standards which are consistent with cultural and religious norms and the International Committee of the Red Cross has had regular access to the detainees. A due diligence search by the US officials of the list of all those individuals captured by UK forces and transferred to US detention facilities in Iraq has confirmed that this was the only case in which individuals were subsequently transferred outside of Iraq. This review has established that officials were aware of this transfer in early 2004. It has also shown that brief references to this case were included in lengthy papers that went to then-Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary in April 2006. It is clear that the context provided did not highlight the significance at that point to my right honorable friends. In retrospect, it is clear to me that the transfer to Afghanistan of these two individuals should have been questioned at the time. We have discussed the issues surrounding this case with the US government and they have reassured us about their treatment but confirmed that, as they continue to represent significant security concerns, it is neither possible or desirable to transfer them to either their country of detention or their country of origin. [. . .] In rumor news, UPI reports that one time CIA asset Iyad Allawi, now head of the Iraqi National List, denies a conspiracy to oust Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister (a post Allawi once held) and notes that any no-confidence vote Parliament might take is not a conpiracy but "a democratic practice that is approved by the constitution." Turning to the US and those 'leaders' of the peace movement -- those self-appointed 'leaders.' Insert the line Judith Beasley (Lily Tomlin) offers in The Incredible Shrinking Woman (written by Jane Wagner who has a birthday today) about seeing "a grown woman cheapen herself by lying to her neighbors." Why? Because Laura Bonham's done just that. Bonahm, the communications coordinator of 'Progressive' Democrats for America takes to the comments of John Walsh's Dissident Voice article to lie and lie again. She's either lying or brain dead. We'll just focus on one: "PDA did not endorse Obama; he did not meet the criteria." Presumably, Laura can remember Steve Cobble, who co-founded PDA and who wrote "Barack the Vote In the Remaining States" which PDA published March 24, 2008. "To me," Steve wrote, "that says it's time to help Senator Obama win the nomination. It's time for those of us who support Obama in PDA to help 'Barack the Vote' in the remaining handful of states." (Typical of Steve -- and of Pathetic Democrats of America -- only in pushing a man could they "make history during this incredible race.") On the same day, the only pro-Hillary article by PDA was published (US House Rep Jim McGovern's column). They didn't endorse, mind you, they just spat on Hillary every day by republishing the idiotic ravings of John Nichols -- ravings we may revisit at Third on Sunday because they do not and did not pass a basic fact check. Norman Solomon -- Pathetic Democrats of America member and Barack delegate -- and many others were able to serve up crap over and over but there was no endorsement? Or are we pretending Tom Hayden's disgusting endorsement doesn't count? Pathetic Democrats of America endorsed Barack Obama and they did so in word and in action -- they did so by reposting "Clinton's Cringe-Worthy Moment" and all the other garbage they hurled at her. Laura, you're a liar. That's the one thing a 'communications coordinator' cannot be known as. Instead of showing up to whine "Don't blame us for the War Hawk Barack," you should have taken some damn accountability. Your pathetic organization should have taken accountability for its non-stop LYING. That includes reposting John Nichols bad garbage that is riddled with errors. It includes posting Dave Lindorff's lie October 16th where he claims he was going to vote for Ralph Nader but had just decided to vote for Barack ("Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama on November 4"). Dave Lindorff decided by at least February 2008 to vote for Barack. David is "The Sad Rot of the Left" for those idiots who haven't caught on yet. That's his e-mail bragging about Barack as "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs". That's Dave's garbage and PDA and Dave can lie all they damn well want but I've read Dave's entire e-mail and not just the section Third chose to publish. Dave LIED October 16th and PDA let him LIE. Progressive Democrats of America is nothing but liars and until they get accountable, nothing's going to change. I was being kind -- mainly because I like Norman -- and ignoring his column at CounterPunch yesterday but, Laura, when you LIE, it has consequences. So let's go to Norman Solomon's column where he writes: I don't often make predictions, but I'm confident about this one: Within a few years, some members of Congress, and leaders of some progressive groups with huge email lists, will look back with regret as they recall their failure to clearly and openly oppose the pivotal escalation of the Afghan war. Norman might have helped the country had he not made 'predictions' about Barack throughout the primaries including before he saw fit to inform his readers he was already a delegate for Barack. While I agree to a large degree with what Norman says in the paragraph above the thing is, I said that. I said it throughout 2007 and 2008. Norman didn't say a damn word. He was far from alone. Barack's desire to 'surge' in Afghanistan is not something that just emerged in 2009 or immediately after the election. Barack was always upfront about it and the left ignored it. Phyllis Bennis (whom I like) looked like a real fool frequently in 2008 giving lukewarm support to Barack when she should have been calling him out instead of pretending she was Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice choosing which of her children would live: Iraq or Afghanistan? Laura's a fraud and fake. John Walsh has written about Barack's craven and gutless positions on Iraq and Afghanistan and documented the sell-outs who allow the positions to go unchallenged -- which includes PDA -- and Laura's off yammering about Israel. Yammering about every damn thing under the sun except, you guessed it, the IRAQ WAR. Laura wants people to visit PDA's home page. I'm counting 21 articles on the home page and not one about Iraq. Pakistan? You got it. Iraq? No. You can find the closet case whose gay ass needs to be outed dithering in his usual manner, for example, but you can't find Iraq. And, point of fact, when a man's over sixty-years-old and identifies as a 'progressive,' he needs to take his ass out of the closet and if the words "I am gay" are too much for him to manage, maybe he needs to be outed? (The man is not named in this entry. His visits to gay bookstores across the country are legendary because the only thing his hands don't touch are the books -- unless he's autographing one.) But that's typical of PDA, where every gathering turns into a truth game. What PDA can't do, the grown ups can. March 21st an action takes place and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org. RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "MP on the run" "The non-withdrawal 'withdrawal'" "Bully Is . . . turning your back on the world" "Folk rock" "The Doors" "aretha franklin" "Jefferson Airplane" "Carly Simon" "Laura Nyro" "Janis Joplin" "Dennis Loo II" "Sly & the Family Stone" "Paps of Peace" "THIS JUST IN! THE PRINCE OF PAP!"

Paps of Peace

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   THE PRINCE OF PAP'S C.I.A. APPOINTMENT CLARIFIED TODAY THAT DRONE ATTACKS WILL CONTINUE IN PAKISTAN.     NO ONE MADE A PEEP.  NOT BILL MAHER WITH ONE OF HIS JOKES ABOUT BRAVERY THAT SO ENRAGED A NATION WHEN ANOTHER PERSON OCCUPIED THE WHITE HOUSE.   NO ONE.   HE'S RIGHT, HAWK, MILITANT, HE IS THE PRINCE OF PAP, BARACK OBAMA.  AND HE'S GOT A BODY BAG WITH YOUR NAME ON IT!    FROM THE TCI WIRE:     Appearing on NBC's Today Show this morning, US Vice President Joe Biden spoke with Matt Lauer and the issue of Iraq was raised at the end of the exchange when Lauer brought up the reports that US President Barack Obama would be announcing a draw down plan for some troops which would be done over a nineteen-month period:   Matt Lauer: Now you guys ran on a pledge to withdraw all US combat troops within 16 months. I'm not going to split hairs on the three months, I don't think anybody will, but I want to get these troop numbers down.  That would not be a withdrawal of all combat troops, would it?   Joe Biden: Look, the president's going to make an announcement on Friday -- I believe it's Friday -- or very soon on this very point, Matt.  And I'd rather have him speak to that and he'll speak to it in detail.  I think the American public will be -- understand exactly what we're doing and they will be pleased.   Matt Lauer: But are we going -- are you keeping a campaign promise or breaking a campaign promise?   Joe Biden: We're keeping a campaign committment.   The question was necessary because, as Ross Colvin (Reuters) notes, "When former President George W. Bush addressed the U.S. Congress in January 2008 he gave three pages of his speech to the Iraq war.  On Tuesday night his successor Barack Obama spoke a single sentence."  That was Barack's 52-minute speech last night, where he yet again made clear that the Iraq War isn't a topic he wants to be pinned down on despite the White House running to reporters all yesterday insisting Iraq would be part of the speech.  And his inattention to the topic is being registering.  Gordon Lubold and Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) report, "One Iraqi official says the US and Iraq have not yet begun negotiations on the size of the residual force, adding that the Obama administration, currently focused on the American economy and ramping up operations in Afghanistan, was far less engaged with Iraq policy than the previous administration." Yesterday on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, David Martin reported on the expected announcements regarding the draw down in Iraq, noting the speculation of insiders that Barack has elected to go with a 19-month timeline to withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq. David Martin: But there would still be tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, perhaps as many as 50,000. They would be formed into so-called 'training and assistance' brigades to support the Iraqi army and police but they would still be capable of conducting combat operations and would be able to call in strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft.   And, yes, there would be. ABC News' Martha Raddatz was raising that issue back in January on PBS' Washington Week --  Ava and I noted it here: Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws -- Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq. Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely. This morning, Elisabeth Bumiller and Peter Baker (New York Times) reported that "defense officials said they did not know how many combat troops would stay behind in new missions as trainers, advisers or counterterrorism forces, at least some of whom would still be effectively in combat roles.  Military planners have said that in order to meet withdrawal deadlines, they would reassign some combat troops to training and support of the Iraqis, even though the troops would still be armed and go on combat patrols with their Iraqi counterparts."  Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut (Washington Post) note that the possible Friday announcement could take place in North Carolina (Barack will be visiting bases) and that the 19-months being tossed around is "three months later than promised during his campaign".  Depending on the news outlet, the estimates for the number of US troops currently on the ground in Iraq goes from approximately 142,000 (Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut as well as David Martin go with that figure) to 147,000 (especially popular with AFP and Scottish outlets).  (Yes, the Pentagon should have a running count to clear the issue up.)  Matt Lauer can decide he's not going to make an issue out of it -- as he demonstrated -- but he's a morning talk show host.  He's not been elected by anyone to speak on behalf of Americans.  He may be fine and dandy with three extra months (that will not even lead to a withdrawal) but let's be clear that three months could mean 44 dead Americans.  That is the number of US service members who have died in Iraq in the last three months (February isn't done yet so the number could rise).  Matt's fond of taking Jack along on interviews with Barack.  If Jack Lauer were over in Iraq, possibly the thought of 44 more deaths might be of interest to Matt.  You don't play the lotto with human lives.  So, yes, three months do matter.    Military Families Speak Out's Elaine Brower (writing at World Can't Wait) has a son who is on his third tour of Iraq.  It matters.    This is wrong.  The occupation is wrong, and those of us in the anti-war movement have been screaming this at the top of our lungs for the last 6 years, even before the first boots were on the ground in Iraq.  Even before the campaign of "shock and awe" even lit up the skies above innocent people.  What the hell are we thinking?             Because it isn't Bush and Cheney, those loathsome characters we so love to hate that isn't doing this, it's OK?  That because it isn't Don Rumsfeld, that warmongering war criminal of a pig, it's OK?  Because the face of the occupation is now Barack Obama it's OK?    Well I have a newsflash, it's NOT OK! We have in our infinite wisdom killed over 1 million Iraqis, displaced 2 million, destroyed hospitals, mosques, historical sites, homes, agricultural, stolen natural resources, orphaned children, made widows, killed entire families, sent over 4,200 soldiers to their deaths, severly wounded another 50,000, not including those who have PTSD and are committing suicide in record-breaking amounts, and we think we shouldn't be out in the streets demanding an end to this now?  Why is that?     It also matter that Barack left an impression with the American people as to his 'plan' -- left that impression throughout his primary and general campaigns (which is what Matt was trying to get to on Today this morning).  Thomas E. Ricks (author of The Gamble) appeared on CBS' Washington Unplugged (click here for just the Ricks' segment) two Fridays ago and explained how Barack's 'promise' came across to Americans: Thomas E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what they heard was 'I will have no American troops dying in 16 months.' But it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015. Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong time to take troops out."   Barack deliberately misled the American people -- a large faction was willing to be misled and wanted to be.  Equally true is that, when pressed (he was rarely pressed), he would admit that he would not just stop withdrawing troops but reverse the direction (send more troops back in) depending upon 'the situation on the ground.'  That was his policy -- outlined best to the New York Times -- in the transcript of the interview, not the bad write up and it was covered at length in the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- and it can be boiled down as: "My concerns is if you draw down in response too rapidly, draw down in response to American political pressure, instead of as the Iraqis take over area, then there are other ares of Iraq that don't have a government presence that desperately need one, and rather than bring our forces home we should be moving into those areas.  When we have all of Iraq with a security presence, that is significant enough to make a difference, then we can start drawing down .  . . "  And that quote?  It's actually from Col Thomas Hammes (retired) and he explained the 'plan' on The NewsHour (PBS -- link has video and text) back in December 23, 2005.  No, there's not a bit of difference between Barack and Bush.      And that was noticeable in November 2007.  Tom Hayden showed up making like Helen Morgan and singing "The Man I Love" over the write-up Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did.  Then, when the transcript was pointed out to him, he was a bit more somber and had one of those You-listen-to-me-Barack moments.  (They fade quickly. And Billie Holiday also recorded a strong version of "The Man I Love," I just find it more apt to compare Tom-Tom to Helen Morgan.)  It was always there: The bases around -- but not in -- Iraq, the need for a 'residual presence' even after 'withdrawal,' admitting he'd send US troops back into Iraq in the midst of 'withdrawal' dickering over terms to maintain 'combat troops' had been removed -- in fact, let's provide an example of that:   Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions.   NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces?   Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that.  NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?     Again, it was known.  From that day's snapshot:   Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over."   So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train (the police0 and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.     If any of the above surprises you, you can scream at the media (and should) but it's also time for you to take a little accountability for your own willful ignorance.  Moving to some calling out the nonsense today and starting with Chris Floyd (via CounterPunch) who was one of the few calling it out when it mattered:   It would be surperflous in us to point out that a plan to "end" a war which includes the continued garrisoning of up to 50,000 troops in a hostile land is, in reality, a continuation of that war, not its cessation.  To produce such a plan and claim that it "ends" a war is the precise equivalent of, say, relieving one's bladder on the back of one's neighbor and telling him that the liquid is actually life-giving rain.   But this is exactly what we are going to get from the Obama Administration in Iraq.  Word has now come from on high -- that is, from "senior administration officials" using "respectable newspapers" as a wholly uncritical conduit for government spin -- that President Obama has reached a grand compromise with his generals (or rather, the generals and Pentagon poobahs he has inherited -- and eagerly retained -- from George W. Bush) on a plan to withdraw some American troops from the country that the United States destroyed in an unprovoked war of aggression.      Meanwhile John Walsh (Dissident Voice) notes how cozy and familiar with the right-wing Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher of The Nation magazine) and Leslie Cagan (pension drawer in retirement pretending to lead an 'anti-war' movement):   Vanden Heuvel's most recent piece in The Nation runs under a title in the form of a query, "Obama's War?" Whose war does she think it is anyway? Even the mainstream media calls it Obama's war -- sans question mark. Her piece ran shortly after Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and almost a month after both Afghan and Pakistani civilians were first bombed at Obama's orders. She concludes her piece, after citing the deployment of additional troops, "Up to this point the Afghan war belonged to George W. Bush, but Obama's escalation threatens to make it his own. There's still time to change direction. President Obama don't make this your war"! (Emphasis mine. If escalation of the AfPak war (the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan) only "threatens" to make the war Obama's, what will it take to give him ownership?) Having supported Obama during the election when he was very clear about his coming Crusade in Afghanistan and having made no demands in exchange for their support, the liberals are now reduced, their leverage gone, to begging for a change in course. Pity, pathos, disgust or a sense of betrayal -- it is hard to know what to feel when one encounters this stuff.   Similarly Cagan's United for Peace and Justice, dominated by the "Progressive" Democrats of America ("P"DA) and the "Communist" Party of the U.S.A ("C"PUSA) -- more or less the same thing, not because "P"DA is radical but because the "C"PUSA is not -- has been all too silent on Obama's AfPak War. As a result there have been discordant rumblings among the rank and file about UFPJ's failure to call a national demonstration against the wars flaring from Iraq to Pakistan and refusal to join the only one called, that by ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) for March 21.     The March 21st action around the corner and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:    IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)                                 To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.   Meanwhile Michael Collins (Dissident Voice) asks why aren't the Iraqi people consulted on this issue: "Who asked the Iraqi people about the withdrawal schedule?  As the self-proclaimed proponents for democracy and human rights, shouldn't the United States inquire as to the will of the people before initiating any policy changes? . . . Relying on the ever-shifting positions of a very unpopular Iraqi government is useless in assessing the will of the Iraqi people.  The only way to determine their will is through a national election."     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Marc Santora (NYT) reports on yesterday's attack" "The draw down speculation" "andy worthington on realities of guantanamo" "Iraq, music, travel" "On the road, newspapers" "The attacks on Roland Burris never end" "Read Inside the Ropes" "Dennis Loo" "Fouty and Jimenez families; bitter Ted" "Barack gets graded" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S SCORE CARD!"

Barack gets graded

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE DESPITE SWEARING THAT HE WOULD WITHDRAW 'COMBAT' TROOPS IN 16-MONTHS AND START THAT UPON BEING SWORN IN, BARACK STILL HAS NO PLAN FOR IRAQ AND HAS STILL NOT DONE A DAMN THING TO BRING ANY TROOPS HOME.   BUT BARACK DID MANAGE TO DOUBLE HIS DISAPPROVAL RATING.   MEANWHILE GEORGE CLOONEY INSISTS THAT IF BARACK IS THIS DECADE'S J.FK., HE (CLOONEY) IS THIS DECADE'S MARILYN MONROE, "AND I'VE GOT THE LIP TECHNIQUE TO PROVE IT!" WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT THE WHITE HOUSE?     FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Hamid Ahmed (AP) reported this morning, "Two policemen opened fire on U.S. troops visiting an Iraqi police station in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, killing a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter and wounding three other Americans, officials said." Missy Ryan and Kevin Liffey (Reuters) add, "Lieutenant Colonel David Doherty, a U.S. military spokesman, said four U.S. soldiers and one interpreter were injured, and another interpreter was killed." (A US military statement can be found here on the death of the interpreter.) This brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4251.  Today's death follows yesterday's announcement of three deaths.  "Three US soldiers and their interpreter were killed in Iraq. The US military reported they died in combat in Diyala Province, north of Baghdad. For the month of February, 13 Americans have died in Iraq," Gwen Ifill informed viewers last night on The NewsHour.  In informing her viewers of that news, Gwen became the only US evening anchor on broadcast TV to bother doing so (though they all had time to bore their audiences with Slumlord Milionaire).  AP's Kim Gamel covered the news for papers because no newspaper with their own Iraq division or US staff could be bothered writing about yesterday's deaths apparently.  There are now 14 US military deaths in Iraq announced for the month thus far -- 6 of those have been announced since Saturday.  Six US military deaths in Iraq announced in four days.    And where's the coverage?  CBS and the New York Times are hyping a poll of the great uninformed American electorate who can sob "It's not our fault!" but that excuse got old long ago.  You get the democracy you deserve and Americans chose what passes for democracy currently.  Look around, all the things so offensive under the Bully Boy are suddenly manna squeezed out of Barack's ass.  CBS breathlessly gushes, "Americans are more optimistic about the situation in Iraq than they have been since 2003 [!] . . . with 63 percent saying that things are going well for the United States in the country."  Don't wake them from their slumber, it might require helping them wipe away their drool or, worse, changing their 'nighttime sticky' sheets.  The foolish think "it is important that troops leave the country within President Obama's timeline of 16 months".  What timeline?  The one he was supposed to have begun upon being sworn in?  That was the promise.  February will be over shortly.  Still no announcement on what he 'intends' to do.  A working media would damn well be demanding answers on that issue.  But you don't get a working news media with a compliant, overstuffed, lazy ass public drugged out on (and hooked on) hopium.  It's February, he was sworn in back in January -- he might be able to make it to November without ever addressing that campaign promise that was supposed to start on day one. That would certainly allow more Americans to make fools of themselves by refusing to grasp (at this point, it's refusing, even for the uneducated) that "combat" troops does not mean all troops. Cristin Flanagan (Bloomberg News) reports on rumors that tonight, while speaking to the nation (most PBS stations will not only carry it live but also offer analysis afterwards), he will announce his 'withdrawal' plan is beginning . . . 19-months for the withdrawal of some -- not all -- troops.  Meanwhile Steven Lee Myers (New York Times' Baghdad Bureau Blog) reports that Iraqis have more questions about Barack Obama than might be known (or might be reported?): "Sheik Moyad Fadhel Hussein al-Ameri, one of three brothers who were the hosts, said he was worried.  A former mayor of Mahmudiya, he has a politician's acuity.  And with it, he has closely tracked President Barack Obama's early statements on Iraq.  'President Obama is always talking about change,' he said, dressed in traditional robes and headdress and seated in one of the plush arm chairs that ringed the long greeting hall. 'We would like to know what change'."   Those who would like to the live in the reality-based world should know that next month, many people will be standing against the war and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:    IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)                                 To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.   As Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) observed this weekend:   As Barack Obama's troop escalation begins in Afghanistan and talking heads debate how many more troops the US should send, the leadership of what was once the largest antiwar organization (UFPJ) in the United States rejected a call for a unified antiwar protest on March 21st, 2009. Instead, they issued a call to go to Wall Street on April 4th, 2009 and encourage the war profiteers to move "beyond a war economy," while toning down the demand to end the wars and occupations now to a demand to merely end them. Like antiwar organizer Ashley Smith told me in an email: "(That is) something Dick Cheney could support." The implication of this call by UFPJ is that now that Barack Obama and the Democrats are in power, there is no longer any need to protest against war. Not only is this incredibly naive, it is downright dangerous for the future of the world.         As anybody who has paid the least bit of attention to the nature of the US economy over the past century, its very foundations rest on the production of war and materials for war. Also apparent to those of us who have been paying attention is that the Democrats are just as responsible for this reality as the Republicans are. Just because George Bush and his administration were personally reprehensible and their arrogance and disregard for principles most Americans hold dear was as obvious as the nose on Pinocchio's wooden face doesn't mean that the policies of the Democrats are substantially different. Consequently, the antiwar movement would be foolish to think they have a government of allies in Washington, DC now. There may be a more personable bunch of folks ruling the country now, but the odds of those folks pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq now instead of later without a major push from the American people insisting that they do so are about as poor as they were under the Bush administration. The time for the antiwar movement to demand that the Obama administration end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is now, before its political ego becomes entangled in a military exercise that is ill-advised, poorly done, and just plain wrong.               Ashley Smith, mentioned above, has covered the 'peace' movement for sometime.  Smith and Eric Ruder wrote about United for Pathetic and Juvenile decision to be inactive for the next four years in the Socialist Worker back in December.     Yesterday's snapshot noted IVAW member Suzanne Swift and there should have been a link to her website.  There wasn't, my apologies.    28-year-old Iraq War veteran Kristoffer Walker was noted in yesterday's snapshot as well.  He is the Army Reservist who is in the news for refusing to return to Iraq.  WISC reports, "Walker said Monday night his beliefs haven't changed but he's considering all his options."  The Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board doesn't want Walker to consider his options, they just want him to go back to Iraq.  They want that so badly, that they fail at their job.  An editorial has 'weight' because it is informed.  When you don't know the basics, no one mistakes you for informed.  The editorial board hides behind the words of the publicity hack (what a proud moment, "Mom, Dad, I'm in the army!  What's that?  I fight the word war!") Nathan Banks who insists that you get 30 days and after 30 days you will be charged with desertion.  Lie, lie, lie.  Hacks are worse than recruiters.   Agustin Aguayo turned himself in after being gone less than 30 days. Agustin was still court-martialed for desertion. By contrast, many who have been court-martialed for going AWOL?  Gone over 30 days.  It is a 'rule of thumb,' it is not an actual rule.  Walker could turn himself in tomorrow and face a court-martial.  Something allegedly educated and informed people who sit on an editorial board damn well should have known before they wasted everyone's time in order to flaunt their ignorance.   RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "And they want to whine about declines in circulation?" "The for-show, one-day opening" "Jefferson Airplane" "Stevie Nicks" "folk rock" "Laura Nyro" "Sly and the Family Stone" "Aretha Franklin" "Carly Simon" "Janis Joplin" "The Doors" "Barack says tomorrow will come" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK GETS BLOCKED!"

Barack says tomorrow will come

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE WHILE AL SHARPTON AND OTHER CRAZIES WERE ATTACKING A CARTOON, BARACK WAS WORKING ON DISMANTLING SOCIAL SECURITY.   FORTUNATELY SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI ELECTED NOT TO PLAY PUSHOVER AND LET BARACK KNOW "IT AINT' HAPPENING" THEREBY FORCING HIM TO ABANDON HIS PLANNED ANNOUNCEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.   THESE REPORTERS SPOKE WITH BARACK WHILE HE STROKED AN EVIL LOOKING CAT AND TWIRLED A HANDLE BAR MUSTACHE (JOHN BOLTON WAS STANDING NEXT TO HIM -- IT WAS BOLTON'S MUSTACHE).  BARACK DECLARED, "I WILL PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY.  I WILL.  NO ONE CAN STOP ME.  AND NANCY PELOSI'S ABOUT TO FIND OUT WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO GET THE FULL-ON HILLARY.  MY GOONS WHO ATTACKED HILLARY THROUGHOUT THE PRIMARIES ARE NOW GOING TO GO GUNNING FOR NANCY.  IF YOU'LL EXCUSE ME, I AGREED TO POSE NUDE FOR MS. MAGAZINE'S NEXT CENTERFOLD."   FROM THE TCI WIRE:     Starting with 28-year-old Kristoffer Walker who is saying no to returning to Iraq.  Sarah Rasmussen (WEAU13 -- link has text and video) reports:   Sarah Rasmussen: Good evening, I'm Sarah Rasmussen and after serving after part of a duty in Iraq, the soldier in Wisconsin has decided not to rejoin his unit and faces possible arrest for that decision. We first told you about Specialist Kristoffer Walker [last] night on WEAU13 News at Six. He's serving with the 353rd transportation company that was supposed to ship out yesterday morning to return to Iraq after a two week leave; however, after his request for a transfer went unanswered by his superiors Walker opted not to return to Iraq for moral reasons Walker, who enlisted in the Army Reserve shortly after September 11, says after six years the US is still fighting a war they should have never been involved with. Kristoffer Walker: Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is -- it's an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed. Sarah Rasmussen: According to the United States Military, Specialist Walker has 30 days to report. After that he'll be considered a deserter and the military will issue a warrant for his arrest.   Kristoffer explained to Lou Hillman (Fox 11), "My beliefs haven't changed and nothing has changed between Friday and now in Iraq.  I am not a pacifist.  There is an absolute need for our armed forces" but Kristoffer believes the Iraq War is wrong.  As for his opposition and how he should oppose, Kristoffer told Tony Walter (Appleton Post Crescent), "The Army's definition is a little different than mine.  The Army's definition is that you have to be opposed to war and all its forms.  That's not me.  I absolutely support using military force to respond or retaliate to attack.  By their standards, you're not allowed to object to one conflict over another." Adam Aaro (WBAY -- link has text video, quote is from video and is correct, text quote is inaccurate) visited with Kristoffer and Sierra Walker and Kristoffer told him, "And I figured if I were to go back to Iraq and do something again that's contrary to my belief structure, I wouldn't be able to really live with myself. . . . Obviously there's a little bit of nervousness there because it's a very real possibility, but what are the other consequences on the flip side if I decide to go back to Iraq and do something that's immoral?"  Laura Smith (Fox 11) explains, "Walker says he is receiving suppot from friends and family -- that includes soldiers he served with in Iraq.  US Army officials have said Walker still has time to change his mind but would likely face some internal consequences for not reporting."  James A. Carlson (AP) reports Kristoffer sees the Iraq War as "an illegitimate, unnecessary campaign."   He told WEAU13 that, "Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed."   Kristoffer is standing up right now.  He knows the Iraq War didn't end.  He's not fooling himself into believing it ends tomorrow -- Oh, Blessed Day. Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes, "Meanwhile, there has been no action on Obama's election-year promises to pull out US combat troops from Iraq.  Within weeks of the November 4 vote, Obama signaled his intention to maintain the US occupation by retaining Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the architect of the Bush administration's 'surge' policy in Iraq.  No US troops have been withdrawn, and US military officers, including the overall commander in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno have dismissed as unviable Obama's pledge to withdraw all combat troops in 16 months."  Those in the reality-based world who would like to stand up should know that next month, many people will be standing against the war and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)                       To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.   The illegal war is not ending on its own -- no matter how much time you waste "Wishin' & Hopin'".  News of US soldiers dying in Iraq continues -- because the illegal war continues and pretending it ended with an election (in the US or Iraq) is something only a Crazy Ass Cockburn would do.  Saturday the US miltary announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Division--Baghdad Soldier died Feb. 21 while conducting a combat patrol near Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is currently under investigation." Making that announcement was so tiring for M-NF that they allowed the Dept of Defense to make the other one yesterday, "The Department of Defense announced the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. PFC Cwislyn K. Walter, 19, of Honolulu died Feb. 19 in Kuwait City, Kuwait, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. She was assigned to the 29th Special Troops Battalion, 29th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Hawaii National Guard. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation." Today the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- Three U.S. Coalition Soldiers and an interpreter died as a result of combat operations in Diyala Province, Iraq, Feb. 23." The announcements bring the number of deaths of US service members in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4250.   While 4250 US service members and approximately 1.6 million Iraqis have died, many more people have been injured.  Some wounds are physical, some are mental wounds -- all are serious.  One woman who fought back against command rape recently discussed that ordeal and the effects she carries with her today.  Back in January, we noted IVAW's Suzanne Swift had finally been discharged.  Courage to Resist interviewed her (link is audio only) earlier this month about her experiences and this is an excerpt:   Courage to Resist: Suzanne Swift joined the US Army in 2003 having been assured by her recruiter that she would not be deployed to Iraq.  But almost immediately after her military police training, Swift's unit was ordered to deploy.  Soon after she arrived in the Middle East, Suzanne began having to deal with the sexual advances of superiors.  One of those superiors coerced her into a sexual relationship.  After she returned to the states, Swift was due to deploy again but she chose to go AWOL instead. Eventually she was arrested and court-martialed and in early 2009, she was discharged from the military.  She is talking with us today on the phone from her home in Oregon.  Suzanne, thanks so much for speaking with Courage to Resist today.  [. . .]  Listen, let's go back to 2003, when you decided to join up.  Tell me why you enlisted in the first place?   Suzanne Swift: I . . . I don't know.  Honestly, it just had a really good recruiting pitch and I didn't have anything else to do and they'd give me a job where they said I wouldn't have to deploy to Iraq which I thought was a really good thing.   Courage to Resist: And the job was in the military police, right?   Suzanne Swift: Right.  Military police, one of the most deployed MOSs [Military Occupation Specialties] in the US Army.   Courage to Resist: So would you say they misled you?   Suzanne Swift: Yeah, definitely.   Courage to Resist:  So you went to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri for basic training and for MP training, is that right?   Suzanne Swift: Right. Courage to Resist: And where was your duty station after that?   Suzanne Swift: I was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington.   Courage to Resist: How long were you there before you went to Iraq?   Suzanne Swift: I would say about three, maybe four weeks.    Courage to Resist: Oh my goodness, that was fast.    Suzanne Swift: Yeah, it sure was.  Kind of a whirlwind.   Courage to Resist: Did you have any troubles during basic or MP training or at Fort Lewis with other soldiers?   Suzanne Swift: No, not really.  I had, at Fort Lewis, one squad leader who -- whose intentions were not -- I don't even know how to say that.    Courage to Resist: He - he- he didn't have honorable intentions?   Suzanne Swift: Yeah, exactly  -- but that we find out later.  Not at Fort Lewis, at Fort Leonard Wood.   Courage to Resist: Oh, that was at Fort Leonard Wood?  But he never actually physically assaulted you or anything?   Suzanne Swift: No, not until we got to Iraq.    Courage to Resist: So -- so then you got to Iraq.  Now tell me, when did the difficulties start?    Suzanne Swift: Almost immediately.  We weren't even too Iraq yet.  We were still staging in Kuwait and I had a platoon sergeant proposition me basically for sex and I was just completely in shock because, you know, these people are supposed to be like your parents -- especially when you're brand new, or like a brand new, young soldier.  It's really appalling that someone would do that.   Courage to Resist: And how did you respond?   Suzanne Swift: Oh I told him no and then I told a couple of other people what had happened and kind of just like put it out there to see if he'd get any advice back.  And I ended up talking to the Equal Opportunity Representative about it and he said that he would -- he would talk to the commander and that he would figure out what to do about it and then nothing ever came of that.  Ever.   Courage to Resist: Nothing ever came of it? And did the propositions continue?   Suzanne Swift: Not from that particular person but from another person -- yeah, it sure did.    Courage to Resist: So you went from Kuwait to Iraq and where were you stationed in Iraq?    Suzanne Swift: Karbala, Iraq.   Courage to Resist: And that's where your more serious troubles began, is that right?   Suzanne Swift: Yeah.   Courage to Resist: Do you want to talk about some of that?   Suzanne Swift: Um.  I -- it's kind of hard to talk about.  I guess I've done it before though.  I was basically coerced into a -- into a sexual relationship with -- with my superior.  And when I tried to end it -- it went on for a few months -- when I tried to end it, he used every -- every resource he had available to make my life miserable -- to punish me for it.   Courage to Resist: And tell me the ways that he punished you.   Suzanne Swift: He would just -- he would tell me the wrong times to be at somewhere and then punish me for being late or not being at the right place and just do little things that would make me look bad.  And he'd like spread rumors about -- about me and then like, I don't know.  He just made me look bad in every possible way.  And then would punish me for making me look bad.   Courage to Resist: Now what was his position in your unit?   Suzanne Swift: Uh, he was a squad leader.  He was in a staff sergeant position but he was as a sergeant as an E-5.   Courage to Resist: So he was your squad leader and as your superior he did everything he could to make your life miserable when you refused to continue the relationship he had coerced you into?   Suzanne Swift: Right.   Courage to Resist: And what did you do about that?   Suzanne Swift: Nothing, honestly, you know, I just kept my head down and tried to stay out of trouble.   Courage to Resist: Did he continue his sexual pursuit of you?    Suzanne Swift: Not once the punishment started, no.   Courage to Resist: Did you ever try to report this?   Suzanne Swift: I told a bunch of people.  Look, everybody knew what was going on.  Just nobody wanted to fix it and plus what was the point?  That was my frame of mind then.  And he had -- he had also made it like -- with the way he was treating me -- he made it look like I was just a bad soldier.  So even if I had reported it, he could have just told them like, "Oh, she's just not -- because I punish her, she's making it all up."    Courage to Resist: So he really had you in a bind.   Suzanne Swift: Yeah.  I mean, I could have reported it but it probably wouldn't have come of anything even if it did, I also would have got in trouble, so what was the point?   Courage to Resist: And this continued all the time you were there?    Suzanne Swift: Mmm-hmm.  It stopped right before we were heading back to the States and then he just pretended I wasn't there.   Courage to Resist: Were there any other incidents with your other superiors or was that it? Suzanne Swift: Yeah, once we got back to the States I moved to a new unit that was standing up and I had a squad leader who -- he didn't proposition me for sex, he would just say little nasty things to me   Courage to Resist: Did you have the sense that he knew about the other situation?   Suzanne Swift: No, I never really thought about it.   Courage to Resist: And the things he said to you, were they sexual innuendos?   Suzanne Swift: Right, he would -- yeah.  He was my team leader and he would -- he would just say, he'd call me at night and be like, "What are you wearing?" And like he'd call me for work-related stuff and be like, "Oh, what color of panties do you have on?" Like, "What are you doing right now?  Oh, you just got out of the shower?  So you're naked right now?"   Courage to Resist: Oh my goodness.   Suzanne Swift: Yeah, he was just a pervy, little guy.   Courage to Resist: Did you report this guy?   Suzanne Swift: I absolutely did.  I was in the States and I had been -- I had just been through enough that I was like, "You know what? This guy is not getting away with it."   Courage to Resist: And who'd you report him to?   Suzanne Swift: I reported it to the Equal Opportunity Representative and he did his job for once and took it up higher to the commander.   Courage to Resist: What did the commander do?   Suzanne Swift: They did an investigation during which they accused me of sleeping with him and gave me a class from my commander on how to prevent sexual harassment from happening to me.   Courage to Resist: And they did nothing to the guy that was harassing you? Suzanne Swift: He got -- he got a very harshly worded letter of reprimand.  But that was it.   Courage to Resist: That was it and you were seen as colluding in his sexual aggression.  You were treated the way many women are when the victim of sexual aggression is blamed.   Suzanne Swift: Yeah.  'Okay, let me figure out really quick how to prevent sexual harassment -- cause it's my fault when it happens, right?'   The way the military treated Suzanne Swift is appalling and inexcusable; however, it needs to be noted that this is typical and for those who doubt it, zoom in on a class to 'teach' women how not to be sexually harassed which goes to the problems with the military.  The person who needs instruction is not the victim.  By pushing the burden off on the victim, the military is stating that harassment has two willing parties -- the harasser and the harasseree.  As long as they're allowed to push that lie, don't ever expect the culture to improve.  And there's no improvement for women in Iraq.  Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports 23-year-old Nachman Jaleel Kadhim is a widow who also lost her twin sisters to the illegal war, one of her own five-month twins and now barely surived in a trailer park with "her remaining daughter." Williams notes she's "one of the lucky ones" underscoring how horrible things are for Iraqi widows.  Williams tells you the Iraqi economy is hurting but leaves out the puppet government's big-money purchases.  Multi-National Forces noted Valentine's Day (their idea of candy and flowers?), "To this end, the Government of Iraq has spent more than $5 billion to buy military equipment, supplies and training from the U.S. through the Foreign Military Sales program." And they're putting in a new pier for the Iraqi navy (yes, that is laughable -- Iraqi navy) which will cost $53 million. Equally hilarious is to hear the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs managing director (not minister) Leila Kadhim insist that it's impossible to help everyone. Wait, al-Maliki's puppet government cut the meager budget for the Interior of Women's Affairs from $7,500 a month to $1,000 and another ministry wants to whine? That's hilarious. Williams informs you that Iraqi women (ages fifteen to eighty) are widows in a 1 to 11 ratio. It's a growth industry for Iraqi women. Williams notes some widows end up "coerced" into marriage -- but forgets to note that one of al-Maliki's puppets -- a woman at that, Phyllis Schlafly's spiritual sister? -- has proposed governmental programs to force widows into marriages. This one especially should provide laughter, "The Iraqi military estimates that the number of widows who have become suicide bombers may be in the dozens." Which is it? The female suicide bombers -- less than 40 last year -- are young virgins who were raped or they're widows? Pick a narrative, New York Times, because you've insisted both this month.  Amazing and typical, Williams report starts talking about raising the profile of women in Iraq and includes the widows mark during the one-two shoe toss and songs sang during the provincial elections but forgets Nawal al Samurrai who resigned (but is reconsidering) this month as the Minister of Women's Affairs when the meager budget for her ministry was cut from $7,500 a month to 1,500 a month.  Tina Susman and Caser Ahmed (Los Angeles Times), Corey Flintoff (NPR), To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe at US News & World Reports, Feminist Wire Daily, wowOwow and Kim Gamel (AP) have covered Nawal. It's only the New York Times -- with all their reporters in Iraq -- who've never managed to file a story on her. wowOwow zooms in on the nonsense Mazin al-Shihan (Baghdad Displacement Committee) gives Timothy Williams (for paying men to marry widows, "If we give the money to the widows, they will spend it unwisely because they are uneducated and they don't know about budgeting. But if we find her a husband, there will be a person in charge of her and her chilrden for the rest of their lives."  wowOwow observes, "No wonder the state's not doing enough for women."   No wonder.  But a power struggle that took up a great deal of time for the puppet government has been resolved.  Wednesday's snapshot noted:  "Monday, Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) covered the power struggle between the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities and the Culture Ministry as to whether or not the museum will open next Monday. The Culture Ministry's Jabir al-Jabiri is stating that the museum is not opening and his ministry is over the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquties while MfTaA's Baha al-Mayahi states yes, they are opening next Monday. Aseel Kami (Reuters) explains today that nothing's changed.  MfTaA's maintains that the museum will open Monday and Jaber al-Jaberi continues to insist that it won't and that 'is the official and final position.'  Kami observes, 'The feud illustrates some of the challenges facing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government as it seeks to capitalise on a drop in violence and unify a country shattered by war'." Today Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports, "Iraq's restored National Museum was formally dedicated on Monday, nearly six years after looters carried away priceless antiquities and treasures in the chaos following the U.S.-led invasion."  CNN notes that post-war looting resulted in "15,000 irreplaceable artifacts" being lost with "only about 6,000 . . . recovered."  Nouri al-Maliki attended the grand opening -- wearing yet another of those tired blue ties he so favors.  BBC offers a photo essay on the reopening of the museum. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) offers this description, " The museum includes halls displaying items delivered or returned by Iraqi citizens or regained from other nations. There is also an Assyrian room, a hall of Manuscripts showing ancient books of the Quran and an Islamic Hall. Magnificent wall-size stone carvings and statues, ancient coins and glazed pottery were among the antiquities on display.  However, a room that had displayed ancient gold jewelry only showed pictures of the treasures. The jewelry had been on display during the early part of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003. But the museum feared that the gold jewelry may tempt thieves so the pieces are now kept in a vault."  Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explains how the power struggle was resolved, ". . . a compromise: The museum will reopen Monday for the first time in six years.  But only eight of the museum's 26 galleries will be accessible, and for only a few hours".  The Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond blog informs, "As for when the rest of Iraq will be able to see the museum, that's unclear. Iraqi guards Monday afternoon told journalists it would be a couple of months."     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Domestic Arts Czar" "NYT looks at Iraqi widows" "Kristoffer Walker says no" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Al Distraction" "And the war drags on . . ." "Kat's Korner: The art of india.arie" "2 more US soldiers announced dead" "Getting away with fragging" "The prison-industrial-complex in Iraq" Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II A note to our readers Editorial: It's the people's movement TV: Dollhouse is baroque, somebody better fix it Giggles at the smack-down hide the real issue The sexism at Harper's I'm ready for my mani-pedi, Mr. DeMille Animation roundtable The continued witch hunt of Senator Roland Burris Small change turns to no change Our celebrity hero FTA Tuesday Highlights "Forty belly aches from the fool" "THIS JUST IN! SPIKE'S PRIORITIES!"