Israel took out a Syrian position in September, claiming nuclear capacity — the facts are wobbly and the North Koreans are implicated, all of this causing Uncle Dick to salivate like a pound puppy at the dinner bell. The Syrians and Koreans are ‘evil’ of course, so we’re good on that; nobody gets to have nukes but us.
A ship contracted by the DoD fired warning shots on Iranian boats, causing oil prices to rise yet again; will our society, suburbanized and isolated from their workplace, be able to afford the commute if this keeps up? But we’re good on that – keep those petrodollars flowing, Amurika.
The Dub gave St. David the Petraeus a promotion, swapping him into the chair that Fallon previously occupied on Centcom — and Dubby’s good on that; like salting his Supreme’s, now his flawed military policies can outlive him [and that Dave is a Dubby-charmer.]
The topic of torture keeps bubbling up, with new information coming out of the Congressional investigation; the FBI warned against it — Helen Thomas screamed about it in an 11 minute White House press conference, abruptly cut short — John Ashcroft had a tizzy over it [very entertaining, by the way ... you'll find all that below.] The administration’s good on that – water boarding isn’t torture, doncha know [ummmm -- don't mention this to the Japanese.]
As weekend reads, I’ve included a honkin’ big collection on our warriors: over 300,000 of them mentally compromised, physically wounded — and some of the articles will choke you up, for sure. It’s taking this generation to [yet again] pound the mythical “romance of war” concept into the mud and prove it the Hell it is; Dubby, ever the romantic, wishes he could be out there in his ten-gallon, spurs jinglin’ and shootin’ irons drawn, but the American public met this delusional gaffe with disgust. Over 63% of us are NOT good on that, giving Himself the highest disapproval rate of any American war — Vietnam only hit 61%
The first bits, from Froomkin, Hullabaloo and Kos give us the conversations about Dave, Helen and Big John “When the Eagle Flies” Ashcroft [and explains the "pour" reference] — after that, bonus reads.
And here’s your Moment Of Hope for the day — Chinese envoys will meet with an aide to the Dalai Lama, easing up on their defiance of international public opinion over Tibet. Doesn’t sound like much in American terms, but it represents a Teutonic Shift in China’s attitude.
Have a good weekend.
Jude
Petraeus Watch
Snipped from Froomkin, WaPo
4/23/08
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates today announced that Gen. David Petraeus, who rose to prominence as the top commander in Iraq during the past year, is his choice to become the next commander of U.S. Central Command.
A team of Washington Post reporters telegraphed this back in September, reporting:
“For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.
“The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.
“One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus’s team, which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men.
“‘Bad relations?’ said a senior civilian official with a laugh. ‘That’s the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that’s one way of looking at it.’”
And it’s been clear for some time now whose side Bush was taking.
As Michael Abramowitz wrote in The Washington Post in April:
“In the waning months of his administration, Bush has hitched his fortunes to those of his bookish four-star general, bypassing several levels of the military chain of command to give Petraeus a privileged voice in White House deliberations over Iraq, according to current and former administration officials and retired officers. In so doing, Bush’s working relationship with his field commander has taken on an intensity that is rare in the history of the nation’s wartime presidents.”
Fallon was forced out in March. And now Petraeus gets his job… ++
The FBI’s Concerns
Snipped from Froomkin, WaPo
4/24/08
Lara Jakes Jordan writes for the Associated Press:
“FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday recalled warning the Justice Department and the Pentagon that some U.S. interrogation methods used against terrorists might be inappropriate, if not illegal.
“Mueller’s comments came under pointed questioning by House Democrats demanding to know if the FBI tried to stop interrogations in 2002 that critics define as torture.
“Mueller said the FBI does not use coercive techniques when questioning suspects or witnesses, and he reportedly pulled his agents out of CIA or military interrogations several years ago to protect them from legal consequences.
“FBI protocol ‘wouldn’t engage in torture,’ said Rep. Stephen Cohen, D-Tenn. ‘But if you find out that other agencies may engage in torture, that you believe is illegal — does your protocol include informing those agencies that you believe their actions are illegal?’
“‘Yes,’ Mueller answered.
“‘Who did you inform?’ Cohen asked.
“‘At points in time, we have reached out to DoD, DoJ, in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate, let me put it that way,’ Mueller said. DoD refers to the Department of Defense and DoJ to the Department of Justice.
“Mueller said some of the FBI’s concerns dated back to 2002, when top al-Qaida detainees were waterboarded by CIA interrogators. Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. Critics call it a form of torture.
“Asked how the Justice Department and Pentagon responded to the FBI’s advice, Mueller declined to discuss it publicly, citing concerns about releasing classified information.”
‘Where is everybody? For God’s sakes.’
The White House press corps had been remarkably quiet about the new disclosures of White House involvement in the nitty-gritty of interrogation policy. Until the redoubtable Hearst columnist Helen Thomas let loose at yesterday’s press briefing.
Thomas: “The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap?”
Of course, the White House doesn’t use the word torture to define what Bush approved. So spokeswoman Dana Perino replied:
“Helen, you’re taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror.”
They went back and forth for a while:
Thomas: “Are you saying that we did not [torture]?”
Perino: “I am saying we did not, yes.”
Thomas: “How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it?”
Perino: “Helen, I think that you’re — again, I think you’re conflating some issues and you’re misconstruing what the President said.”
Thomas: “I’m asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration.”
Perino: “And what I’m telling you is we have — torture has not occurred.”
When Perino then moved on — calling on a reporter who raised a different issue entirely — Thomas responded with an audible expression of disgust at her fellow journalists:
“Where is everybody?” she said. “For God’s sakes.” ++
The First Salvo In The Next Nuremberg
dday, Hullabaloo
A Daily Kos diarist and several other citizens were able to question John Ashcroft last night on the subject of torture. His denials were outright revealing and show the nervousness these people feel.
TOM: This story was made public by ABC a few weeks ago. It claims that you, Rice, Tenet and others met in the White House to discuss different methods of “enhanced interrogation,” is that correct?
ASHCROFT: (angrily) Correct? Is what correct? Is it correct that this story ran on ABC? I don’t know that. I don’t know anything about it! Is it a real story? When was this story, huh? Huh?
TOM: Um, early April, April 9th, I think…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) You think? You think? You don’t even know! Next question!
TOM: The article says that you discussed “whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning”…
ASHCROFT: I said, next question!
So when confronted with the fact, Ashcroft deliberately misinterprets the question, asks an irrelevant technicality, (which the kid answered correctly, it was April 9), and uses the technicality to wiggle out of the question. Here the lack of follow-up on the ABC story is crucial, as Ashcroft is able to sow confusion about the story itself because it just hasn’t been widely reported.
Next:
Another student asked if Ashcroft’s position on torture violated the Geneva Conventions or other international laws:
ASHCROFT: No. No it doesn’t violate the Geneva Conventions. As for other laws, well, the U.S. is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture. And that convention, well, when we join a treaty like that we send it to the Senate to be ratified, and when the Senate ratifies they often add qualifiers, reservations, to the treaty which affect what exactly we follow. Now, I don’t have a copy of the convention in front of me…
ME: (holding up my copy) I do! (boisterous applause and whistling from the audience) Would you like to borrow it?
ASHCROFT: (after a pause) Uh, you keep a hold of it. Now, as I was saying, I don’t have it with me but I’m pretty sure it defines torture as something that leaves lasting scars or physical damage…
A STUDENT FROM THE AUDIENCE: Liar! You liar! (the student is shushed by the audience)
ASHCROFT: So no, waterboarding does not violate international law.
Well, that’s just not true. The UN human rights chief has said waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture. The definition of the UN Convention Against Torture is right here.
“severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession….”
And members of the UN Committee Against Torture have agreed that waterboarding falls under it.
Now, watch the sleight-of-hand here, remembering that Ashcroft brought up the UN Convention Against Torture in the first place.
ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I’d like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. It was uncalled for–we can disagree civilly, we don’t need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents. One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about “lasting physical damage”…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it?
ME: No, I don’t. Do you happen to know what they are?
ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don’t have them memorized, no. I don’t have time to go around memorizing random legal facts. I just don’t want these people in the audience to go away saying, “He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!” Because that’s not true. It’s a lie. If you don’t have the reservations, you don’t have anything. Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but…
Well, actually, he WAS wrong, because he tried to claim that the UN Convention was strictly defined as physical harm. That being wrong, he retreated to the idea of reservations and qualifiers. I have those reservations right here (scroll down for “United States”), and here’s the key line:
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
Waterboarding simulates drowning (actually, to be more precise, per the comments, it’s CONTROLLED drowning). That would fall under the intentional inflicting of suffering and the threat of imminent death.
So, you know, Ashcroft was wrong again.
Now watch Ashcroft try to muddy a clear precedent.
ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal. After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan. Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. And among the tortures listed was the “water treatment,” which we nowadays call waterboarding…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question. I don’t mind, but it’s not a question.
ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment. The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, “the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.” One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information. Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country–exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do–do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of “Good question!”)
ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here. You’re comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don’t do anything like what you described.
ME: I’m sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water down their throat…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said? “Putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water on them.” That’s not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!
ME: Sir, other reports of the time say…
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of “Answer her fucking question!” from the audience) Read it!
ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!
ME: “The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.”
ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that? You hear it? “Forced!” If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…does this college have an anatomy class? If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…
ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano’s sentence was unjust? Answer the question. (pause)
ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It’s not a fair question; there’s no comparison. Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)
Well, if Ashcroft thinks he can bully an international criminal court the way he tried to bully a few college students last night, he’s going to come off looking just as foolish. Because Ashcroft had the foresight to say “History will not judge us kindly” during the Principals meetings on torture, some have made the effort to rehabilitate him to a degree. I think we can end that now. He’s guilty and he knows it, that’s why his arguments were so very shallow. A court of law would convict in a matter of minutes. ++
John Ashcroft Yelled at Me Tonight. No Joke.
(K.O.’S “WORSE PERSON IN THE WORLD”!)
Elsinora, Daily Kos
Tue Apr 22, 2008
[open link for article and photos]
UPDATE: Wow, guys, you really got the story out–it’s all over the web! And special thanks to Keith Olbermann for citing this story on “Worst Person in the World” tonight. I think we can all agree that Ashcroft’s “Honor” was well deserved. You can see the “Worst Person in the World” segment here… ++
Mental health injuries scar 300,000 U.S. troops
Only half of vets have sought help for depression, post-traumatic stress
Thurs., April. 17, 2008
WASHINGTON - Some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries, a new study estimates.
Only about half have sought treatment, said the study released Thursday by the RAND Corporation.
“There is a major health crisis facing those men and women who have served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Terri Tanielian, the project’s co-leader and a researcher at the nonprofit RAND.
“Unless they receive appropriate and effective care for these mental health conditions, there will be long-term consequences for them and for the nation,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press.
The 500-page study is the first large-scale, private assessment of its kind — including a survey of 1,965 service members across the country, from all branches of the armed forces and including those still in the military as well veterans who have left the services.
Its results appear consistent with a number of mental health reports from within the government, though the Defense Department has not released the number of people it has diagnosed or who are being treated for mental problems. The Department of Veterans Affairs said this month that its records show about 120,000 who served in the two wars and are no longer in the military have been diagnosed with mental health problems. Of the 120,000, approximately 60,000 are suffering from PTSD, the VA said.
Veterans Affairs is responsible for care of service members after they have left the service, while the Defense Department covers active-duty and reservist needs. The lack of information from the Pentagon was one motivation for the RAND study, Tanielian said.
Problems affect more than 18 percent of troops
The most prominent and detailed military study on mental health that is released is the Army’s survey of soldiers at the warfront. Officials said last month that its most recent one, done last fall, found 18.2 percent of soldiers suffered a mental health problem such as depression, anxiety or acute stress in 2007 compared with 20.5 percent the previous year.
The Rand study, completed in January, put the percentage of PTSD and depression at 18.5 percent, calculating that approximately 300,000 current and former service members were suffering from those problems at the time of its survey, which was completed in January.
The figure is based on Pentagon data showing over 1.6 million military personnel have deployed to the conflicts since the war in Afghanistan began in late 2001.
RAND researchers also found:
About 19 percent — or some 320,000 services members — reported that they experienced a possible traumatic brain injury while deployed. In wars where blasts from roadside bombs are prevalent, the injuries can range from mild concussions to severe head wounds.
About 7 percent reported both a probable brain injury and current PTSD or major depression.
Only 43 percent reported ever being evaluated by a physician for their head injuries.
Only 53 percent of service members with PTSD or depression sought help over the past year.
They gave various reasons for not getting help, including that they worried about the side effects of medication; believe family and friends could help them with the problem; or that they feared seeking care might damage their careers.
Rates of PTSD and major depression were highest among women and reservists.
The report is titled “Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery.” It was sponsored by a grant from the California Community Foundation and done by 25 researchers from RAND Health and the RAND National Security Research Division, which does work under contracts with the Pentagon and other defense agencies as well as allied foreign governments and foundations.
Soldiers’ symptoms
Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a condition that some people have after experiencing a disturbing event, can include:
— Reliving the event over and over. Flashbacks can be triggered by loud noises, seeing a traffic accident, even watching a news report.
— Avoiding situations that remind you of the event.
— Feeling numb and loss of interest in relationships and activities.
— Feeling on edge, getting angry easily, having a hard time sleeping and overreacting when startled.
Traumatic brain injury can cause problems long after a blow or shock to the head actually happens. Symptoms can include:
— Constant headaches
— Confusion
— Light headedness or dizziness
— Changes in mood or behavior
— Trouble remembering or concentrating
— Repeated nausea or vomiting
— Problems with seeing or hearing.
Source: RAND ++
VA Confirms 18 Vets Commit Suicide Everyday
Jason Leopold, OpEdNews
April 21, 2008
In a stunning admission, top officials at the Veterans Health Administration confirmed that the agency’s own statistics show that an average of 126 veterans per week —6,552 veterans per year—commit suicide, according to an internal email distributed to several VA officials.
Brig. Gen. Michael J. Kussman, the undersecretary for health at the VA, sent the email, dated Dec. 15, 2007. Kussman had inquired about the accuracy of a news report published that month claiming the suicide rate among veterans was 18 per day.
“McClatchy [Newspapers] alleges that 18 veterans kill themselves everyday and this is confirmed by the VA’s own statistics,” Kussman wrote. “Is that true? Sounds awful but if one is considering 24 million veterans.”
In an email response to Kussman, Ira Katz, the head of mental health at the VA, confirmed the statistics and added “VA’s own data demonstrate 4-5 suicides per day among those who receive care from us.”
This week, in a federal courthouse in San Francisco, that email will be cited as evidence that the VA has failed to properly treat veterans who suffer from PTSD and veterans who are suicidal. Those allegations were made in a class-action lawsuit filed against the VA by two veterans advocacy groups, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth, alleging a systematic breakdown at the VA has led to an epidemic of suicides.
The organizations claim the VA, which has a backlog of 600,000 benefits claims to sort through, is unprepared to deal with cases of posttraumatic stress disorder among veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has turned away veterans who have sought help for depression at VA hospitals. Some of those veterans later committed suicide, according to the lawsuit.
The groups want a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction to force the VA to immediately treat veterans who show signs of PTSD and are at risk of suicide.
PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that can develop in a person who witnesses, or is confronted with, a traumatic event. PTSD is said to be the most prevalent mental disorder arising from combat.
According to a copy of the lawsuit filed in July 2007, “more than any previous war, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to produce a high percentage of troops suffering from PTSD,” due to the widespread use of improvised explosive devises, multiple rotations, the ambiguity of fighting combatants dressed as civilians, and the use of National Guard members and Reservists.
Those claims are now supported by a comprehensive study released by the RAND Corporation last week stating that about 300,000 U.S. troops sent to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from major depression or PTSD, and 320,000 received traumatic brain injuries.
Early Warnings Ignored
Prior to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the VA issued a report to Pentagon and White House officials saying that it expected that the number of U.S. troops who would suffer from PTSD would reach a maximum of about 8,000.
But Paul Sullivan, the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, told lawmakers those estimates were extremely low. He continued to sound early warning alarms about the extent of PTSD cases and the likelihood of veteran suicides during numerous appearances before Congress over the years.
“The scope of PTSD in the long term is enormous and must be taken seriously. When all of our 1.6 million service members eventually return home from Iraq and Afghanistan, based on the current rate of 20 percent, VA may face up 320,000 total new veterans diagnosed with PTSD,” Sullivan told a Congressional committee in July 2007. If America fails to act now and overhaul the broken DoD and VA disability systems, there may a social catastrophe among many of our returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. That is why VCS reluctantly filed suit against VA in Federal Court…Time is running out.”
Sullivan has urged Congress to enact legislation to overhaul the VA.
“Congress should legislate a presumption of service connection for veterans diagnosed [with] PTSD who deployed to a war zone after 9/11,” Sullivan told lawmakers last year. “A presumption makes it easier for dedicated and hard-working VA employees to process veterans’ claims. This results in faster medical treatment and benefits for our veterans.”
Yet despite Sullivan’s dire predictions and calls for legislative action the issue has not been given priority treatment by lawmakers. Instead, Congress continued to fund the war in Iraq to the tune of about $200 billion and will likely pour another $108 billion into Iraq later next month. Meanwhile, a backlog of veterans’ benefits claims continue to pile up at the VA.
The VA said it has hired more than 3,000 mental healthcare professionals over the past two years to deal with the increasing number of PTSD cases, but the problems persist.
VA Says Vets Not ‘Entitled’ to Healthcare
The lawsuit alleges that numerous VA practices stemming from a 1998 law violate the constitutional and statutory rights of veterans suffering from PTSD by denying veterans mandated medical care.
“Seeking help from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs… involves a two-track system,” says a copy of the plaintiff’s trial brief filed in federal court last week.
“A veteran will go to the Veterans’ Health Administration for diagnosis and medical care; and a veteran goes to the Veterans’ Benefits Administration to apply for service-connection and disability compensation..
“VA is failing these veterans as they move along both of these parallel tracks. They are not receiving the healthcare to which they are entitled (and where they do receive it, it is unreasonably delayed) and they are not able to get timely compensation for their disabilities, which means that they have no safety net. These two problems combine to create a perfect storm for PTSD veterans: they receive no treatment, so their symptoms get worse; and they receive no compensation, so they cannot go elsewhere for treatment. The failings of these two separate but interrelated systems are what this action seeks to address.”
Justice Department attorneys had argued in court papers filed last month that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were not “entitled” to the five-years of free healthcare upon their return from combat as mandated by Congress in the “Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act.” Rather, the VA argued, medical treatment for the war veterans was discretionary based on the level of funding available in the VA’s budget.
But during a court hearing hearing last month before U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti, Dr. Gerald Cross, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health, Veterans Health Administration, said that veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan were not only entitled to free healthcare, but he said “there is no co-pay.”
Additionally, Cross testified that of the 300,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars treated at VA hospitals, more than half were diagnosed with a serious mental condition, 68,000 of which were cases of PTSD.
His testimony marked the first time a Bush administration official has provided detailed information about the psychological impact of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on combat veterans. Cross testified that five years after the invasion of Iraq, the VA has still not completed a study on the link between suicides and PTSD among combat veterans. However, he said such a study is currently in the works and may be published soon.
Gordon Erspamer, an attorney representing the veterans groups, said in an interview that the VA has said publicly it is doing everything it can for veterans, but the Bush administration’s true position is “veterans are not entitled to healthcare if that is what we decide.”
“The agency is very hostile to most of these guys on mental health issues,” Erspamer said. “A lot of them who work at the VA are veterans themselves and it’s the suck it up mentality. It’s a total failure of leadership and management. They were totally unprepared for this many casualties and totally unprepared for PTSD.”
Soldier’s Suicide Warnings Ignored
Chris Scheuerman, a retired Special Forces masters sergeant, testified before a Congressional committee last month that there is an urgent need for mental health reform in the military.
Scheuerman said his son, Pfc. Jason Scheuerman, went to see an Army psychologist because he had been suicidal.
The Army psychologist wrote up a report saying Jason Scheuerman “was capable of (faking) mental illness in order to manipulate his command,” according to documents the soldiers father turned over to Congress.
“Jason desperately needed a second opinion after his encounter with the Army psychologist,” Chris Scheuerman testified in mid-March before the Armed Services Committee’s Military Personnel Subcommittee.
“The Army did offer him that option, but at his own expense. How is a PFC (private first class) in the middle of Iraq supposed to get to a civilian mental health care provider at his own expense?” he said. “I believe a soldier should be afforded the opportunity to a second opinion via teleconference with a civilian mental health care provider of their own choice.”
Jason Scheuerman shot himself with a rifle on July 30, 2005. The 20-year-old’s suicide note was nailed to the close in his barracks. It said, “Maybe now I can get some peace.”
Dr. Arthur Blank, a renowned expert on PTSD who has worked closely with the VA, testified during the federal court hearing in San Francisco last month that multiple deployments are largely responsible for an increase in veterans suicides.
“I think it’s because of multiple deployments, which means one is exposed to trauma over and over again,” Blank testified. ++
The Things That Carried Him
Four thousand American soldiers have died in Iraq. This is the true story of how one of them came home.
Chris Jones, Esquire
Thursday 17 April 2008
Soldiers of the ‘War on Terror’ Speak Out
If all of America were to hear these voices, the occupation of Iraq would already be over.
Cynthia Orange and Michael Orange, AlterNet
April 18, 2008
Sending a Son off to War: a Mother’s Anguish
“How will I survive the wait and the not-knowing, and will I survive at all if my worst fears are realized?”
Penny Coleman, AlterNet
April 21, 2008
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
April 25th, 2008
Well, Pennsylvania’s behind us and here’s where we are now [sigh]:
Hil needs a spa day — she needs someone speaking to her soothingly, and gently pushing the bangs off her brow. She needs to be reminded she’s a daughter, a wife and a mother as well as just one of the [Kevlar] guys; that she doesn’t need to spit nails, pretend she has gonads and lie her ass off in pursuit of every vote she can garner.
Lie? Yeah, well — lie. Wednesday night she said she was going to continue to fight hard for us poor counted-out [nay, bitter] disenfranchised types [implying she herself is being victimized by insensitive Lefty's and vicious pundits who don't believe she can canoodle her way past the, largely unchanged, numbers.] Do YOU believe that’s why she’s fighting?
Do you believe she’s had a sudden populist epiphany and now regrets those years she proudly stumped for humongous profit with Wal-Mart? [An aside -- there's a food run going on at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club ... welcome to the new century.] And I’m sure, years back when she said that poor Southern white voters could just get screwed, she was only kidding. Surely her decade of whining about ‘politics of personal destruction’ foisted upon her by Republicans was MUCH worse than what she’s accomplished lately in her own bid for Big Dog [and frankly, with more cause.]
Everything Hil says these days rings just a little off and slightly hysterical — I guess that’s why polls show some 60% of Dem’s question her credibility. Yesterday she said in a stump speech that when she was in China, she’d been warned to keep her mouth shut but she’d advocated for women who were being treated poorly — I had to pause; did she? Is that true? What will the vetting bring? [... if we notice it at all, that is -- we're a little slow on the uptake; rhetoric-bloated, if you will.]
I don’t hate Hillary — I just think anyone who is sure to the point of self and national destruction that nobody deserves to be president but themselves is … ummm … ego-stunted.
Mrs. Clinton is first and foremost a politician — which means she’s an opportunist, embroidering the truth a little [a lot] to make herself look better [best.] She announced that she’d won PA by “double digits” — rounding that 9.2 win up so she could tootle her horn and make it look like a resounding Obama defeat; then her people announced that she has the “popular vote,” but only if you count Michigan and Florida, neither of which will be seated, and if you ignore the caucus’s [full of MoveOn activist types.] New math, doncha know.
She sent me an email telling me that “the Tide Is Turning.” I know, she needs the hype to get the money — she needs to convince that she’s the Comeback Kid and that the race is wide open, even though she only gained a handful of delegates and pushed forward slightly. It’s a kind of fantasy that we play out, in respect to democratic principals and name-recognition — that there can be another Clinton win. Oh, there might … long shot at best … if she whomps up enough racism to make Obama’s message of unity moot; if she brands him unelectable because he’s not white enough. [Watch the Pub NC ad here, as typical of what we're gonna see.] And she could shake up the combat considerably if Rush Limbaugh’s Chaos Theory holds — if enough Pubs go temporarily Blue for the nomination, supporting Hil as they may well have done to the tune of 160,000 in PA [no Independents were allowed to vote in that primary.]
One of my problems with Hillary is that she needs, needs, needs. She needed the Right Wingers to leave her alone, and now she needs the Left Wingers to stand down. She needs to transcend any notion of her sex hindering her as a possible president but it defines her because she keeps promoting “sexism” to her advantage. She got too much attention when she was the front-runner, now she’s getting too little due as the under-dog. She sends Big Bill to the dog house, calls him back in, sends him back out. She needs more money, she needs more Superdelegates, she needs new campaign managers every couple of weeks.
She needs, needs, needs … a day at the Spa, an umbrella drink and a good book. She is what I would consider a “high maintenance” personality. In every family, there’s probably going to be a kid that ‘acts out’ — they need the attention, they need it so badly that they stir up negatives as a sure-fire way to get the parents dealing with them — and the ‘good kids’ take their position as second banana while the family attends to the needy one. That’s how we run a nomination process in this country?
And our second banana in the Dem family is clearly an aloof, thinks-he’s-all-that guy. Obama … the black guy from the mean streets of Chicago … is an elitist, and will be until the cows come home [or knock over the lantern to burn the Windy City down again.] Did you hear that when he was offered a cuppa Joe at a greasy spoon in PA he asked for a glass of OJ instead? Did you know that he even EATS like an elitist? MoJo outed him for sure, in case we didn’t know that. Obama may not even BE a politician, he hasn’t mentioned Monica once, or pointed back to the long laundry list of reasons why the Clinton years made us sick of in-fighting, anxious about litigation and frustrated with half-truths. Yeah, that ‘good kid’ in the Dem family — he’ll just go on to success after success while we attend to the needy one.
The New York Times backs Hil but their editorial board isn’t so impressed with her tactics — Andrew Sullivan over at the Atlantic thinks she’s a closet Republican, as do I. Here’s a fun read on all the candidates with South Park graphics; and here’s one I almost posted on Tuesday about PA expectations, but didn’t [in deference to you Clinton supporters] … it holds up on Thursday.
All that I want to see in the candidate — black man, white woman, cross dresser or pig in lipstick — is the ability to rise above the mechanics of dirty politics and behave as the commander of a great nation would; give me a glimpse of what dignity and candor looks like, real leadership. Perhaps, after eight years of George Bush, we’ve forgotten what that looks like.
I despise that we are exposing the ugliest part of our psyche in this contest; and shifting our attention to the uneducated and unyielding bias of a nation that aches for change yet settles for ancient hatred and race-baiting — same-old, same-old. [Well, nobody said growing up would be easy.]
Me, I don’t think the Dem’s can lose in November, even though the ugly stuff is surfacing now and Hillary is helping that to happen. We will have to beat back the racist, elitist and “inexperienced” stuff if Barack takes it — or the baggage Billery has collected, not just in the 90’s but in the EIGHT YEARS that nobody’s been watching [and don't think there isn't plenty of "new stuff" to examine.] But I can’t imagine the nation choosing McRib, with a decades-long record of cronyism we haven’t even begun to examine, to lead us into another 4 years of Bushism; we’re dumb, but not that dumb!
And up to this point, although I’d have to grit my teeth, hold my nose and swear like a sailor, I’d have voted for Hillary as the Dem nominee without pause as the lesser of evils — a canny, connected politician, top of the 3D food chain, that would lean to the Blue but who would run the country to center, consort with the lobby’s and continue to cozy with big business; find reasons to stay in the Mideast because she’s a hawk at heart.
That was, of course, before she mentioned Iran. I had to wait a few days for the press/blogosphere to catch up with my horror at Hillary’s statement on Good Morning America, telling the world that she would be capable of “totally obliterating” Iran.
Pardon me?
By gawd, Hillary Clinton DOES have a working penis! John McCain is probably envious and the Bilderberg cronies, the Fellowship Foundation members, are likely beaming with pleasure — and frankly, with that amount of testosterone, I don’t want the phone in EITHER of their hands at 3 AM!
Obliterate? And Obama took it in the shorts because he said “bitter!”
This is what Fareed Zakaria says about Iran in this months Playboy interview:
Z: We have to come with terms with the fact that Iran is a real country and has legitimate security concerns. Look at the neighborhood: You have a nuclear India, a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear China, a nuclear Russia and a nuclear Israel. The United States has 150,000 troops on one Iranian border, and 50,000 US and NATO troops are on the other border. You have an American president who keeps saying this is an evil regime that has to be changed. Iran is not just being paranoid. If you were in that situation, you would buy some insurance, and in the world of international relations nuclear weapons are insurance.
P: But doesn’t a nuclear Iran concern you?
Z: If you want Iran to denuclearize, you must recognize that it will need some assurances relating to security. The first step would be having a dialogue. Barack Obama said he would talk to them, and he was vilified, called naive, but you want to talk to these people.
[...]
The reality is that Iran is a serious country. No matter who governs it, Iran has security concerns. The nuclear program was started by the shah of Iran, not the mullahs. Negotiating with them does not mean they won’t be very tough. Remember that the best thing for Castro, the Iranian hard-liners and so many others has been to have the United States as their enemy. We play into their hands. If we were to take a more sensible view of Iran and North Korea, to name two, we would recognize that time is on our side, not theirs. We in the modern world have the answers; they don’t. Iran has a totally dysfunctional economy. The government isn’t particularly popular. It’s no a recipe for long-term success.
Obliterate. Now there’s a concept for a tense, anxious nation to chew on. Our needy child will do anything for attention. Obama appears to be the only one willing to hold a conversation before considering mayhem — but then, he’s elitist and “hesitant” on these big questions as he [gasp!] pauses to THINK before he answers questions.
Congrats, Hil, on winning PA, a state custom made for you with its older, bitter and very-very-white constituents — but what you accomplished, in essence, was to extend the campaign into June and beyond; and since you and Barack are exhausted, physically if not mentally and financially, the whole of the national conversation just got more problematic … gaffe’s will continue and telling little pieces of true intent will leak out whether you want them to or not.
Spa day, Hil — umbrella drink. Hurry!
Jude
Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran
Robert Scheer
April 23, 2008
How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton’s eminently sensible and centrist–to a fault–opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.
On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Shouldn’t the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat?
Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.
Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran’s developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?
If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.
The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region’s key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.
To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States–which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and “usable” nuclear weapons)–as both their enemy and an example to emulate.
What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear “deterrent” than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration? ++
Channeling McCain: Hillary Clinton’s Monstrous Threat
Dave Lindorff, BuzzFlash
Wed, 04/23/2008
Tough guy Hillary Clinton, on the morning of a critical primary vote in Pennsylvania, uttered a monstrous threat, saying on ABC’s “Good Morning America program that if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel while she was president, “we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Think about that a moment! A country that we view as a theocracy, run dictatorially by a bunch of self-appointed religious fanatics, whose rule is enforced by an army of equally fanatic quasi-military thugs and enforcers, launches an attack on America’s ally Israel, and Clinton says her response would be to incinerate the people of that country — people who are as powerless to stop such an attack as would be the people of Israel or the United States.
Is this the way we want the world to work? Is this the way we want our government to act?
Granted that if Iran’s leaders were, for some crazy reason, to decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel, it would require some kind of response by the U.S. and other nations, but is the appropriate response the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent Iranian citizens?
Of course not.
The destruction of Iran’s government might be a logical response. Certainly the incineration of the Religious Council might be appropriate, or the leveling of the country’s military headquarters and its command and control system. But killing the country’s people, who are civilians and have no say over such things, is pathological.
Clinton, hoping to prove her testosterone levels are high, and to win votes and much-needed campaign swill from backers of Israel, is channeling her inner McCain.
What makes this particular threat so disgusting is that Clinton knows better. Unlike McCain, who appears to relish the thought of death and mayhem, whether in Iraq or Iran, and who presents his history of bombing dikes and hospitals in North Vietnam as heroic exploits, she opposed that war in Indochina once upon a time. I assume that among other things she opposed the Indochina War because she thought it was wrong for the U.S. to be slaughtering millions of innocent peasants.
Now she’s talking about slaughtering not millions of innocent Vietnamese, but tens of millions of innocent Iranians.
What a fine display of leadership potential we have here!
As far as I’m concerned, Clinton has just disqualified herself for the job of commander-in-chief of the world’s most awesome military power.
We’ve had our experience with a power-crazed, jingoistic leader, and we’re living with the ugly results — five years of pointless bloody war. At least so far, though, George Bush has kept his finger off the nuclear button (unless reports prove true that small nuclear bunker busters were employed secretly in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Now Clinton is saying she’s ready to push that button.
Folks, if you haven’t already got reason enough to reject this woman — her lies about her support for NAFTA, her red-baiting of Barack Obama, her lies about her visit “under fire” to Bosnia, her corrupt financial history, etc. — this latest statement about her readiness to incinerate a nation of 70 million people for the actions of their leaders ought to do the trick.
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic answer to John McCain.
They both belong where they are, in the Senate, where they can do no harm. ++
Hillary: so macho, she’s ’scary’
Judith Timson, Globe and Mail
April 24, 2008
She’s mowing down everything in her path.
There was Hillary Clinton on early morning television yesterday, fresh from her Pennsylvania primary victory the night before, in what I call full mental jacket (plus necklace), deliciously upending every gender stereotype on the block by being the most macho politician on the airwaves.
The senator was being challenged to explain her latest campaign ad that showed, among other threats to American security, a picture of Osama bin Laden, as if to convince voters that without her, the terrorists would surely win.
“I would consider him a person we must take out,” she replied serenely, making me wonder for a moment whether she was secretly thinking Obama and not Osama.
How macho is she? She makes George W. Bush look like a wimp, John McCain look tender-hearted and her main rival Barack Obama look like a whipped puppy.
How odd - and no doubt disappointing to his supporters - that even though he’s still ahead in the delegate count, the man viewed as the tastiest political candidate since John F. Kennedy doesn’t seem able or willing to confront the full-on tenacity of his main rival.
Lukewarmly congratulating her on her victory and then, having hightailed it to Indiana where he reverted to his impressive but now familiar rhetorical grace, Mr. Obama looked like he needed, well, a shot of testosterone to take the lady on.
In fact, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd mischievously wondered: “As the husband of Michelle, does he know better than to defy the will of a strong woman? Or is he simply scared of Hillary because she’s scary?”
Ms. Clinton is now viewed as so “scary” and even mean in her campaign tactics that The New York Times editorial board, who once (in what now seems like another century) endorsed her for the Democratic nomination, pleaded with her to “call off the dogs.”
In another interview Ms. Clinton gave recently, she said that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president, “we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Whoa. That kind of commander-in-chief cojones, combined with an almost otherworldly resilience and determination on the campaign trail - despite Hillary deathwatches and pundits and party members calling for her to quit - has evoked equal amounts of admiration, terror and, well, irritation in Clinton watchers.
We can’t get enough of this fascinating psychological case study, a middle-aged woman who positively glows from within every time she gets knocked down and bounces back up.
“The American people don’t quit and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit either,” she said triumphantly in her Pennsylvania victory speech. That speech was charming and inclusive and low-key compared with her campaign tactics.
The way she has attacked Mr. Obama - which, however assertive, is arguably well within the boundaries of cut and thrust politics - has made some high-profile Democrats squirm.
Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore recently endorsed Mr. Obama, saying the Clinton campaign had become “disgusting.”
Yet there is grudging respect for her from many sides. During CNN’s coverage of the primary results, conservative pundit Bill Bennett expressed his awe of Ms. Clinton’s stamina, calling her the “Energizer bunny” (after which he immediately wondered whether he could call a female politician a bunny).
Well, she ain’t soft and cuddly, that’s for sure. But she’s still, despite the macho behaviour, very much a woman. In fact, Ms. Clinton may be changing behavioural standards for female politicians everywhere, crashing through the ultimate psychological glass ceiling: the one that ordains that women have to be “nice” or else they will be seen as “bitches.”
Whether you consider her to be authentic or a five-star phony, Ms. Clinton is no longer trapped in the bitch ditch. With a ferocious command of facts at her fingertips - no one seems as policy-prepared as she does - and that Olympian tenacity, she seems all of a sudden to have transcended gender.
Was this what we wanted? If so, I wonder why Ms. Clinton’s toughness is making some of us uneasy in a new way. Now I’m hearing women who once were drawn to her clearing their throats.
This isn’t exactly what we meant, they say. “She’s really starting to bug me,” said one woman, worried about Ms. Clinton’s bruising effect on the Democratic chances of winning the election.
Yet all I know is that while her approach may not be “nice” or filled with hope or idealism or any of those very fine Obamaesque themes, if I had to slog through crap of any kind and end up a winner, I’d channel my inner Hillary to do so. She is one tough mother.
Whether she can also transcend character or baggage or even numbers to win the nomination is quite another matter.
But for the sheer delight - and intrigue - of watching her, she’s still the best thing that’s ever happened to women in politics. ++
Hillary’s Smackdown
GAIL COLLINS, NYT
April 24, 2008
Philadelphia - The clamor for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the presidential race has reached new levels of intensity since the Pennsylvania primary. Of all the things Hillary has done, Obama supporters find her tendency to win large elections in swing states as by far the most irritating. If she beats him in Indiana, they’ll be surrounding her house with torches.
“Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is back!” cried Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter to the cheering crowd at the victory bash on Tuesday.
While half the nation’s Democrats groaned in their living rooms, the other half happily watched as their girl refused to go down for the count. “Yes we can!” shouted the crowd.
Memo to crowd: Even though Obama has taken to promising “straight talk” lately, stealing another campaign’s slogan is still tacky.
Memo to Clinton campaign: While everybody understands that money is tight, charging supporters and faithful volunteers $5 for a plastic cup of soda at a victory party seemed like an overreaction. There must be a middle ground, perhaps involving the occasional bowl of complementary potato chips.
“This is one tough woman!” an ebullient Representative Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania told the crowd. He was so excited he referred to the primary as “the key to the beginning of the end for our next president,” which was probably not the exact message he meant to convey.
The one thing all Democrats can probably agree on is that Hillary is indeed one tough woman. When the three presidential candidates taped greetings to be played during a televised “Monday Night Raw” wrestling match, she was the one you’d least want to get into the ring with. (And by the way, was that really a good plan? I know these days a politician has to get on the air any way possible, but isn’t wrestling fixed or something?)
Finally, at the victory party, Hillary herself emerged, to the tune of Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” Let’s all try to rally around this song because the alternative is watching her go through nine more primaries to the theme from “Rocky.”
Then out came Chelsea and a pink and glistening Bill Clinton, fresh from that peculiar radio interview in which he referred to a mysterious memo that he said proved the Obama campaign played the “race card” in South Carolina. When asked about it later, he accused the reporter of not caring about the issues.
The Clintons embraced for a long time, during which Hillary patted her husband’s back. It was hard to tell if that was a gesture of affection or an attempt to quiet him down.
“The American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit either,” the once-and-future candidate told her supporters.
Ever since Barack Obama’s campaign took fire with his call for a politics that was bipartisan and sensible and uplifting, Hillary has been telling her party that this was a pipe dream, that politics was frequently mean and irrational and that it got more so the higher you went.
In Pennsylvania, this worked really well for her. When Hillary was cheesy (see: gun lessons from Dad at Lake Winola) or negative, that was just her showing what you need to do to win. But when Barack attacked her for attacking, he was reverting to old politics. And if old politics are all we’re going to get, why not hire Hillary? Forget about another Morning in America. Clinton’s on the move, and it’s a dark and stormy night.
Although Obama has seemed way off his game lately, the odds are still really, really good that he’ll get the nomination. The superdelegates are just waiting for him to win something so they can rally. And once the fighting is over, there’s no question that Hillary would rally her supporters behind him. (This is a woman who sat down for a chat with arch-conservative-right-wing-conspirator Richard Mellon Scaife just to wrest an endorsement from his little fringe newspaper in Pittsburgh.) And within a couple of weeks, Bill Clinton would be treating Barack like a surrogate son and forcing him to play golf.
And if it should go the other way, can Barack Obama do the same for her? Yes he can.
If you want to worry about something, worry about the way both of them have been pandering themselves over the edge. There was the dreaded read-my-lips, no-new-middle-class-taxes pledge during the Pennsylvania debate. Then Hillary tried to demonstrate her toughness by announcing she would “obliterate” Iran if it messed with Israel. And when it comes to political piñatas, we’ll always have Nafta. They both went into the tank on agricultural issues back in Iowa, so heaven knows what they’re saving for Indiana.
Mandatory use of corn in highway paving materials?
Please, no more issues talk until we figure out who’s going to run against John McCain. Let’s concentrate on who’s meaner and who’s more snobbish and who had a neighbor who once belonged to one of the world’s most inept terrorist groups.
It’s O.K. by me if Barack and Hillary keep running against each other. Just as long as they keep it personal. ++
My winning strategy
Forget delegates, rules, votes: I deserve it. I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message.
Rosa Brooks, LA Times
April 24, 2008
Thank you, Pennsylvania! What an incredible margin of victory you gave me! Ten percentage points over Barack Obama. Count ‘em! Ten!
All right, 9.2 points if you insist on actually counting. But they said I had to win by double digits to keep my campaign alive, and I think 9.2 points counts as double digits. And I am alive! And kicking! And punching and biting and kneeing my opponent in the groin!
Oh, we know what the pundits are saying now. They’re saying that most polls showed me ahead by 25 points in Pennsylvania a few months ago. But is it my fault if people just don’t like me as much as they used to? Thanks to me, they don’t like Obama as much as they used to either.
And you know what? I think I deserve a little bit of credit for that!
Who said elections were supposed to be popularity contests, anyway? Go ahead, like Obama better if you want to. I read the polls too. Americans think Obama is more “trustworthy” than I am, more “sincere” and “down to earth,” less “cold” and “mean.” According to the polls, a majority of Democrats actually think he ought to be the presidential nominee. Well, who needs them!
Presidents don’t need to be popular. Look at George W. Bush. He has the highest disapproval ratings in the history of public polling, but he still gets to live in the White House, and Congress still funds his wars. If he can do it, I can too!
But you know, what I really want to do here is talk about a fundamental misperception many have about this race. People seem to think my opponent has some kind of “lead” because he’s won more “delegates” and more “votes” and more “states” than I have. But are we going to decide this important race on the basis of such arbitrary metrics?
Start with the delegates. How is it fair for the Democratic nominee to be selected mostly by elected delegates?
Sure, it’s in the Democratic Party rules. But let me ask you: Is this a country of rules? Once again, take a look at our current president. Does he let rules bother him? Laws? He does not!
He believes in power, and he’s made it clear that not even Congress’ laws bind him when he’s exercising his executive prerogatives. The same principle should be applied to me when I’m exercising my prerogatives as would-be executive.
On that theme, let me remind our party’s pledged delegates of another thing: Just because you made a pledge doesn’t mean you have to keep it.
For instance, I pledged in August 2007 not to campaign or participate in states that broke Democratic Party rules by holding early primaries — as in Florida and Michigan. But you don’t see me sticking to that pledge, do you? I kept my name on the Michigan ballot when Obama honored the pledge and withdrew — which just goes to show you, he’s too naive to be president — and I swore that the Michigan vote “is not going to count for anything.” But guess what? I had my fingers crossed!
You “pledged” Obama delegates, do you catch my meaning?
Let’s turn to “votes.” My opponent seems to think it matters that he’s ahead in the popular vote. But Mr. Popularity isn’t ahead in the popular vote if you count the votes I got in those nullified Florida and Michigan primaries. And pledge or no pledge, I’m counting those votes, even if no one else is.
Of course, my opponent also claims to have won victories in more than twice as many states as I have. But what makes those states so special? I won by 42 votes in American Samoa. Also, let’s not forget, a lot of Obama’s victories came in states that held caucuses, and everyone knows that caucuses bring out Democratic Party activists, who don’t support me, so how can this be fair?
Still, the naysayers ask, do I have a strategy for winning the nomination? Yes, I do! Will I win? Yes, I will! My message boils down to this: Superdelegates, pay no attention to polls or votes or elected delegates or states. There are better and more appropriate ways for you to decide how to pick a winner.
Take anagrams: My name, rearranged, spells out “Only I can thrill.” My opponent’s full name, rearranged, forms “I am a hack, abuser, snob.” Given his history of elitism, I think this surely must be taken extremely seriously.
Superdelegates, it’s up to you now. Are you going to let arbitrary factors like elected delegates and votes influence your decisions? Or are you going to focus on the most important issue, which is that I believe I ought to be president?
Remember, no matter what, I am so going to be president of Pennsylvania. ++
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
April 24th, 2008