Bob II

I thought yesterday's post (Oh, Bob, get off the road) was going to be controversial but even die-hard Dylan fans e-mailed to say they agreed.

Especially upset is the family of Ai WaiWai. The Austrailan reports:

Dylan, who rose to fame during America's civil rights era with his protest songs, is performing only state-approved numbers in China, as Mr Ai's family struggles to find out where the artist is detained.

Human rights activists described Dylan's failure to show even token support as "shocking".

In an interview with The Times, Mr Ai's mother accused the Chinese authorities of concocting a case against her son and being determined to "eradicate" him.

That's the regime Bob Dylan took his marching orders from when he went up on stage. It was a very sad day for democracy and for music.

But especially for those who believed in legends. A lot of e-mails spoke about never having been as disappointed with Bob before that stunt.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, April 7, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, at least 5 US soldiers have died this month while serving in Iraq, the House Armed Services Committee wants to stop repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the US wants Iraq to provide an extension of the SOFA allowing US soldiers to stay on Iraqi soil past the end of the year, and more. Sunday the US military announced 2 service members in Iraq had died and Monday they announced a third had died. The Defense Department identified two of the three on Tuesday. "Sgt. Jorge A. Scatliffe, 32, of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, died April 3 in a non-combat related incident at Mosul, Iraq. He was assigned to the 27th Brigade Support Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas." "Capt. Wesley J. Hinkley, 36, of Carlisle, Pa., died April 4 in Baghdad, Iraq, as a result of a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 3rd Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Sustainment Brigade, Fort Stewart, Ga." Yesterday they identifed the third fallen: "Spc. Gary L. Nelson III, 20, of Woodstock, Ga., died April 5 in Mosul, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 6th Squadron, 8th Cavalry, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Third Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga." Three deaths got attention. But there were actually at least 5 deaths this month according to DoD. Yesterday, they issued the following: The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of two soldiers who were supporting Operation New Dawn. They died April 2 of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their position with indirect fire in Babil, Iraq. Killed were: Staff Sgt. Quadi S. Hudgins, 26, of New Orleans, La. Sgt. Christian A. S. Garcia, 30, of Goodyear, Ariz. They were assigned to the Maintenance Troop, Regimental Support Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas. For more information media should contact the III Corps public affairs office, Fort Hood, Texas, at 254-287-0106 or 254-287-9993. At least five US soldiers have died in Iraq since the start of the month. Staying with violence, Reuters notes a Basra bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier (eight more injured) and, yesterday, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded a police driver. It's 2011. And the puppet government in Baghdad still can't get its act together. Earlier this week, United Nations General-Secretary Ban Ki-moon delivered his latest report on Iraq. He explained the political scene as follows: The new Government was formed on the basis of a power-sharing agreement, reached on 11 November 2010, between the main political blocs. Following the agreement, the Council of Representatives lifted de-Baathifciation charges against three key Iraqiya bloc leaders. One of the leaders, Saleh al-Mutlaq, was appointed as one of the three Deputy Prime Ministers. The other two Deputy Prime Ministers, Hussein Shahristani and Rowsch Shaways, were appointed from the National Alliance and the Kurdistan Alliance, respectively. Most ministerial posts were divided on the basis of the power-sharing agreement. [. . .] The formation of the proposed National Council for Strategic Policies, also agreed upon in the power-sharing agreement, has not taken place. Although a draft law for its establishment was presented in the Council of Representatives in late over its proposed competencies, composition and the mechanism for the election of its head. The leader of the Iraqiya bloc, Ayad Allawi, who was initially expected to assume a leadership role in the Council, stated in March 2011 that he would no longer seek a position on it. If the link gives you trouble, click here -- UN Security Council, Secretary-General's remarks -- and grab S/2011/213 from the list. Let's talk legal. If the Constitution had been followed -- as it should have been, Nouri wouldn't be prime minister currently. Setting aside the way he abused the office in 2010 during the long drawn out process in 2010, let's just note when he 'officially' became prime minister-designate November 25th. Ban Ki-Moon uses November 11th, we use November 10th. Whatever day you use, from the stalemate 'ending' to Nouri being named prime minister-designate is well over twelve days. Was that really the case? No. Nouri was named as prime minister that day. But Jalal Talabani felt his wants were more important than the Constitution, the supreme law in Iraq. Jalal felt that he could disgrace the Constitution as well as the office of Iraqi President and wait all those days to 'officially' name Nouri. Why? To give Nouri more time. Per the Constitution, a prime minister-designate is named. The minute he or she is named, the clock starts ticking and the designate has to form a Cabinet and get it approved by the Parliament (each Cabinet minister has to be voted on by Parliament) within 30 days. If you cannot do it within 30 days, you are no longer prime minister designate and, per the Constitution, a new prime minister-designate is to be named. December 21st, rules were tossed aside as many agreed to pretend Nouri had a full Cabinet. Out of his own self-interest, there was US President Barack gushing "a significant moment in Iraq's history and a major step forward in advancing national unity." The gushing echoed an earlier pose by Barack. In August of last year, the Guardian's editorial board noted of the March 7, 2010 elections, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." Ban Ki-moon's office issued a statement which opened with, "The Secretary-General welcomes today's announcement of a new government in Baghdad, which has been approved by Iraq's Council of Representatives, and congratulates Mr. Nuri al-Maliki on his confirmation as Prime Minister." But not everyone was pretending Nouri had assembled a full Cabinet.. Shashank Bengali and Mohammed al-Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) pointed out the Cabinet is missing "the key ministries responsible for security and military affairs for now, because lawmakers haven't agreed on who should fill them. There's still no deal, either, on creating a yet-to-be named strategic council -- a U.S.-backed initiative aimed at curbing al-Maliki's powers -- which lawmarkers said could be weeks away." Liz Sly and Aaron Davis (Washington Post) explained, "Maliki appointed himself acting minister of interior, defense and national security and said the three powerful positions would be filled with permanent appointees once suitable candidates have been agreed on." Michael Jansen (Irish Times) noted, "Maliki's cabinet has 42 ministries but he could make firm appointments to only 29 posts because of factional bickering. Ten portifolios are temporary while Maliki retains the sensitive ministries of defence, interior and national security until agreement can be made on permanent candidates for these ministries. This means the jockeying for position and power continues while Iraqis suffer from insecurity, unemployment, lack of electricity, and inadequate services." Pretending he had a full Cabinet allowed Nouri to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister. That was December. This is April. Nouri still doesn't have a full Cabinet, the security positions remain vacant. In his report, Ban Ki-moon noted, "The security situation in Iraq continues to affect the civilian population, who face ongoing acts of violence perpetrated by armed opposition groups and criminal gangs. In particular, armed groups continue to employ tactics that deliberately target crowded public areas and kill and maim civilians indiscriminately. While some attacks appear to be sectarian in nature, frequently targeting religious gatherings or residential areas, others seem random, aimed at creating fear and terror in the population at large and casting doubt over the ability of the Government and Iraqi security forces to stem the violence. Assassinations also persist across the country, targeting, inter alia, Government employees, tribal and community leaders, members of the judiciary and associated persons." With violence on the rise, it's amazing Nouri's felt no pressure to fill his Cabinet. Aswat al-Iraq reports that National Alliance MP Khalid al-Assady is stating, "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is urged to cut down the current number in his cabinet, after a 100-day period he had defined to review their achieverments." al-Assady considers the Cabinet to be too large. The Cabinet is much larger than the one Nouri came up with in 2006. That's due to the fact that Nouri made a number of promises following the March 7, 2010 elections, in order to build support (his political slate came in second to Iraqiya), Nouri promised everyone everything. To keep even a portion of those promises, he had to create new jobs he could appoint people to. Aswat al-Iraqi notes Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq's Ammar al-Hakim is stating the security cabinet posts need to be filled, "The political situation in Iraq is still suffering from slow developments and despite fact that over one year had passed on the parliamentary elections, the cabinet had not been completed especially the security ministers posts. [. . .] The candidates for the security cabinet posts must be selected from independent and efficient personalities, that don't have any links with any political party, thing that would facilitate the election of efficient technocrats, able to carry out that sensitive and serious mission." Nouri's inability to fill a Cabinet should have prevented him from becoming prime minister for a second term; his continued inability should alarm. But Nouri promised that US forces could stay past 2011. As James Cogan (WSWS) observed last year of the White House, "The key objective of the Obama administration has been to ensure that the next Iraqi government will 'request' a long-term military parternship with the US when the current Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) expires at the end of 2011." The SOFA was passed by the Iraqi Parliament Thanksgiving Day, November 27, 2008. From that day's snapshot: ---------------------- [start of excerpt] Yeah, it's a one-year agreement. Only 2009 cannot be changed or cancelled. Everything else that the White House says is set-in-stone is actually a conditional option that can be wiped away by either side. Today the White House finally released the agreement in English. We'll jump in at Article 30 The Period for which the Agreement is Effective: 1) This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. Get it? Paragraph three: "This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect." Meaning only 2009 is set in stone. It is too late for either party (US or Iraq) to give one year's notice and cancel it in 2009. They can give notice to cancel in 2010 or 2011. The second clause is also worth noting because it weakens the strength of any agreement as well: "This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agrement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional proceudures in effect in both countries." That's the aspect that allows for a change and all the 'flowery' respect for Constitutional procedures is hog wash. The Iraqi Parliament needed to have two-thirds of all members (not just members present) to pass the treaty today. They did not have that. According to their Constitution and their laws, that's what was needed. In the US, Congressional approval is needed over all treaties and we know that has not take place. We further know that Barack Obama -- alleged Constitutional scholar -- doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. He show boated and did his little pretty words number while campaigning but despite all his insisting that the treaty would have to come before the Congress -- including becoming one of thirteen co-sponsors on Hillary Clinton's Senate bill insisting upon that -- he shut his corporate mouth and put his tiny tail between his legs to slink off like the disgusting, cowering trash he is. He's not going to stand up for the Constitution 'later.' He couldn't stand up for it right now. -------- [end of excerpt] Prior to the three-year SOFA, the US military presence on the ground in Iraq (post-invasion) was covered by a yearly UN mandate. Each year, Iraq would ask for a one-year extension. Each time the prime minister did, the mandate was extended. When Nouri became prime minister (spring 2006), he had to ask for an extension and did. The Parliament was outraged because they had not been consulted. Nouri promised he would never do that again -- leave them out of the procees -- but as 2007 was winding down, he did it again. Having twice asked for extensions, Nouri was facing considerable ire. The White House (Bush White House) agreement factored that in. Instead of a yearly request, it would last for three years. Otherwise, it was the UN mandate for all intents and purposes. So many people wrongly stated the SOFA meant the end of the war. Many of those people were 'antiwar activists' who disappeared the second calling out the continued Iraq War meant calling out American's new president Barack Obama. Some were journalists. And the most annoying thing about the journalists is that reporting is very basic. "April 21st, I will have Chinese for lunch." That's not reporting. Especially not on April 7th. "April 21st, C.I. plans to have Chinese for lunch" is reporting. It was never -- not in 2008, not in 2009, not in 2010 . . . -- reporting to state, "US forces will all leave Iraq at the end of 2011." That's not reporting. That's predicting. You can say the SOFA calls for it, but you cannot say "It will happen." Predictions are not reporting. Reading US newspapers over the last years has left the impression that editors don't give a damn about their jobs or the reporting anymore -- the few left -- and they are just praying to hit retirement before they're laid off. How else do you explain all the outlets that presented predictions as fact? (There are other explanations -- including far less charitable ones where certain journalism outlets actively participated with the administration to tamp down on outrage over the Iraq War.) When 'antiwar' 'leaders' tell the peace movement to 'go home' -- as Leslie Cagan infamously did in that awful Novembe 2008, right after the election, message posted on United for Peace and Justice's website, when the press tells you that all US troops leave Iraq at the end of 2011, you begin to focus on other things. That's really too bad because were Bush in office right now, you can be damn sure that the peace movement would be complaining that the Iraq War had passed the 8 year mark. A 2009 announcement by Bush that the war would end in 2011 would have been met with "OUT OF IRAQ NOW!" and much worse. Electronic media passing "predictions" off as "reporting" were able to justify their own rush from Iraq (to Afghanistan because, as many outlets insisted, that's where Barack's focus is) at the end of 2008 and start of 2009. Have we ever before, in the TV age, had a network (ABC) announce (with pride -- believe it or not) that they'd carry BBC reports from Iraq to justify the fact that they were out even though over 100,000 US service members (at that point) were still in Iraq? No, that has never been seen before. Thanksgiving night, 2008, I wrote the following regarding this site continuing: What I would really like -- if I didn't have to write the entries between now and then -- would be to here December 31, 2011 so we could review every LIAR in the press who has made a point to schill for the administration. It would be wonderful to be here then and to say, "Are troops out? B-b-b-but, the press said . . ." With that background out of the way, Jennifer Epstein (POLITICO) reports today, "Some U.S. troops may stay in Iraq past their planned pullout at the end of the year if the Iraqi government wants them, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday in Baghdad, as he also detailed what a government shutdown might mean for members of the armed forces." Robert Burns (AP) quotes Gates stating, "So if folks here are going to want us to have a presence, we're going to need to get on with it pretty quickly in terms of our planning. I think there is interest in having a continuing presence. The politics are such that we'll just have to wait and see because the initiative ultimately has to come from the Iraqis." Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) observes, "Mr. Gates and the American military commanders have made no secret of their view that some of the 47,000 American troops in Iraq should remain after 2011 as a stability force, particularly as tensions have flared between Arabs and Kurds in the north. But Mr. Gates said that the Iraqi government must first request that the American troops stay. That has not happened yet, much to the growing impatience of American commanders who say they need to know now in order to plan into 2012." Kevin Baron (Stars and Stripes) notes that "military commanders" and "officials" are making their voice clear to Gates that they believe the US military should continue in Iraq past 2011: "Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Forces-Iraq, said Iraq cannot defend its skies and will lose radar and intelligence capabilities when Americans leave. And the Iraqi's continue to purchase tanks, howitzers and other equipment that they'll have to learn to use without U.S. assistance. In an earlier meeting with Gates and Austin, U.S. Ambassador Jim Jeffrey said the U.S. military is the glue holding Iraq together through a rocky period." For audio, click here to hear Rachel Martin's All Things Considered (NPR) report and Missy Ryan has a strong text report for Reuters. From day one, we covered what the SOFA said and what it didn't say. A few reporters at US outlets did that as well. And one of them, a friend, couldn't stand the hatred that was hurled for telling the truth (hurled in e-mails and nasty phone messages). Most who told the truth at the start walked away. I understand that and, having experienced hatred in e-mails and in public speaking for tellilng the truth about the SOFA, I don't blame them. But we never lied here and we never whored over it. It was hilarious to watch people with no legal background at all insist on what the SOFA meant (or to watch a foreign born, recent citizen, insist it would be good for Congress to drop their objections and embrace it -- Congress should have opposed it because it is a treaty and it was made in violation of the US Constitution). The SOFA covered three years. That's all it did. After the three years, it could be the end of it. Could be. "Could be" got presented as "fact" and the SOFA suddenly became a treaty to end the war -- which is different in terms of writing and different in terms of the law. It could be extended (a point none of our peace 'leaders' wanted to admit). Or it could be replaced with something new. Those remain the options. What's going to happen? I have no idea. I can't predict the future. But the US is pushing for an extension. And if my analysis of the SOFA were wrong, they wouldn't be able to do that, now would they? (Barack also has the backup plan of keeping 20,000 or so US soldiers in Iraq but switching them from DoD to the State Dept.) Now would be a good time for those who care about Iraq to reflect on who lied to them about the SOFA and to start demanding accountability. It's a long, long list. And as noted before, should the US miltiary remain on the ground in Iraq after December 31, 2011 and if The Common Ills is still around, we'll probably list a large number of those people who need to take accountability. We'll have to help them with that since they have refused to step forward and take accountability on their own. The US House Armed Services' Committee met today on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the only word for it was "spectacle." Network television may have abandoned the mini-series, but not Congress. And this latest installment stretched across more hours than The Winds of War, starting at 10:30 this morning and still going strong at 3:00 this afternoon. It was not, however, a continuous hearing. It was stops and starts to allow Committee members to repeatedly rush to the floor to vote. Committee Chair Buck McKeon declared in his opening remarks, "Today the Committee will receive a status report on the process for repealing the law and changing the policies governing the service of openly gay and lesbian service members. This past fall, I was troubled by the process employed to set the stage for repeal of the law known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And the Republicans on the Committee (McKeon is one, Republicans control the majority of seats in the House of Representatives) staked out a position that can be boiled down as: The repeal is wrong, the repeal is risky and the way it made it through the Congress wasn't the correct way. Were the statements opposing the repeal made just to please certain voting groups? Possibly. This is, after all, Congress. But even if that is the case, Democrats -- if they support repeal -- need to be prepared because there is a portion of the society that disapproves and Republicans -- whether they mean it or not, whether they intend to follow through with actions or not -- are making statements that are much stronger than what you heard in 2010. Republicans weren't silent in their objections then. Senator John McCain was downright offensive in his remarks opposing the repeal and he got very nasty, in a public session, with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. But this is a more outraged (while at the same time, more polished) objection being raised. Can they stop the repeal? Until something's repealed, it can always be stopped. Today's hearing was a continuation of a hearing held by a House Armed Services Subcommittee held last Friday (and covered in Tuesday's snapshot). Gen George Casey was not present but the Chair cited him repeatedly and he was upheld as someone who agreed with Republicans. (This, PDF format warning, written response to their questions does not show the side-by-side agreement that was claimed in the hearing.) Appearing before the committee were the Vice Chief of Staff for the US Army, Gen Peter Chiarelli, the Navy's Chief of Naval Operations, Adm Gary Roughead, the Marine Corps Commandant, Gen James Amos, and the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen Norton Schwartz. Ranking Member Adam Smith opening statement included this, "Driving able-bodied people out of the military who are serving and serving us well at a time when we are at war does not make us safer and does not give us a better military." That's a point Democrats will need to make (among many) -- scratch that, need to make now. They don't need to allow the Republicans to gain support -- even minor support -- for stopping repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Other Democrats made strong statements as well. If we had more space, we would be noting Chellie Pingree of Maine, for example. Loretta Sanchez made strong statements of support but we'll instead emphasize her line of questioning. US House Rep Loretta Sanchez: My question today, gentlemen, is about those gay and lesbian members, service members, who were discharged because they were gay under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- during the time of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now it's my understanding that those service members, if they didn't have anything else on their record, if there was no other problem or judicial issue or anything that they would be discharged with a honorable discharge. Is that correct? [Nodding from the panel.] Okay. And in the normal -- that now the policy will be that in the normal process that those who were discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell can come back and ask to be put back into military service. Is that correct? Gen Norton Schwartz: Ma'am, the -- Those members, those former membes can apply to re-enlist and will be considered for re-enlistment based on the needs of the services and our normal entry processes. US House Rep Loretta Sanchez: Okay. Will they have to start all over or will they get to re-enter with -- given credit for the service that they have held if the only reason that they were put out was because it was known that they were being gay? Gen Norton Schwartz: There's -- It is an individual case consideration but there is no guarantee for returning at the same grade necessarily. Again, it depends on the needs of the service. US House Rep Loretta Sanchez: But if that position were open, is there a process or are you working on the process in which a person says, "I've been out for two years, but I'm still fit. I want to go back. I had a career. I'd like to go back to where I was and I see that there are openings there"? Gen Norton Schwartz: Once again, if that scenario unfolded it would probably be accommodated. US House Rep Loretta Sanchez: What are the guidelines if someone feels that if they've gone back to the recruiter or they've gone back to try and re-enlist and they have push-back? What is the -- What are the policies in place or what are you working through to ensure that they get a fair shake to try to get back their old career, if you will? Gen Norton Schwartz: There are opportunites for appeal -- both to the Inspector General of the recruiting service, in our case, as well as the Air Force Board of Corrections for Military Records. And in those two mechanisms former members can appeal the designation that they have received. US House Rep Loretta Sanchez: Okay. And, uhm, lastly what are the reporting -- If you get harassed by someone of the same sex who happens to be gay, is it the same process as you would in any normal -- I know I heard it from the other side, but I just -- and what happens if the perpetrator is in the chain of command? Is the supervisor? Is it the same rules as what we see, for example, under sexual assault or sexual harassment in the normal context that we've been working with. Gen Norton Schwartz: Zero tolerance. US House Rep: Loretta Sanchez: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, those were my questions. Thank you, gentlemen. Along with Susan Davis, Loretta Sanchez probably had the strongest line of questioning. The Republicans objecting had questions as well. And how to interpret their fearful, fretful questions? Let's be flippant. Let's note that maybe the reason teenage pregnancies are allegedly higher in teens from conservative families is because Republicans never learned how to say "no" to unwanted sex. The men and women on the Republican side of the Committee were so afraid and so fearful that sex was going to happen that you had to wonder if they were never instructed on how to say "no" or that they had a right to say "no"? But as they worried about what might happen in the showers and sleeping arrangements and all the rest, you were left with the impression that they are an easy score and it doesn't even take a drink to get with those sure things. That's men and women on the Republican side of the Committee and we now provide one of the biggest worriers on the Republican side. US House Rep Vicky Hartzler: First, I would just like to ask, I'm very concerned with what I'm hearing today. We're going to expose our troops to moderate risks. And, uh, General Casey said it's another level of stress. It's more complicated. I just want to know, I guess, from each of you, when have you suggested a change in policy before that would put our men and women at moderate risk? So. Start with you. Gen Peter Chiarelli: Well I belive General Casey indicated that he felt that the report characterized it at less risk than he felt given the fact that we are an army that's been fighting for ten years in both Iraq and Afghanistan and he rated it as moderate risk. However, we have not completed enough of our training for him at this time to say it's not still moderate risk but at the same time we put together a very, very good, good training package that emphasizes our role as professional soldiers that we believe is going to mitigate that risk and drive it down. US House Rep Vicky Hartzler: Have you been involved in recommending a policy where there was a moderate risk before? That was the question. Have you done that yet? In some time in your career? You have? General, go ahead. Gen Norton Schwartz: Ma'am, I would say yes and I would say it's going to war that places the force at at least moderate risk. US House Rep Vicky Hartzler: General Amos? Gen James Amos: Yes, ma'am. When you put someone's life at risk in an operation, it's often times heavy risk. High risk. US House Rep Vicky Hartzler: Sure. Sure. Adm Gary Roughead: And ma'am, what we do is inherently dangerous. Whether it's flying from the deck of an air craft carrier, running a nuclear submarine at 800 feet under the sea, it's inherently dangerous. And we know how to manage the risk. That said, for the process we're going through, I'm very comfortable with where we are. US House Rep Vicky Hartzler: Okay. Well I-I think there's a difference though. I mean war is risk. Obviously. But this is a change in policy that's going to add a moderate risk onto the already inherent risk of war. We're at war at two levels -- and maybe three if you call Libya -- We have men and women in harm's way. We're at war as a country and yet we are talking about one of the most monumental changes of policy that this country has ever faced in its military forces. And I just want to speak from my heart to each one of you. I have the utmost respect for you. And I appreciate what you are doing to lead our forces and to keep our country safe. And there's no higher respect that I have for you. But I want to challenge you that you are the last force to be able to stop this onerous policy. And I have to believe, from my heart, in your gut, you know this is not the right thing. I appreciate that you follow command, you follow the Constitution and you are fulfilling what you are charged to do but there's an opportunity to not certify this. And it's fallen upon you at this time in history to be able to give the final say to the -- to the Secretary of Defense and to Adm [Mike] Mullen whether you, in your right mind and your heart of hearts and your professional career, you believe this is going to help improve our forces from this time on out and help us win wars. And I would ask you to consider this and to stand strong like you have stand strong against other forces outside -- foreign and domestic -- that have come upon our country and that you would not certify this. And with that, I'm going to get into some specific questions. But that's an appeal. I hope you will think about in the privacy of your own home, your own heart, before you do this. Yeah, the Republicans on the Committee are serious about stopping the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Those who support it better start making their arguments now to derail the efforts to torpedo the repeal. Reminder: If you served in the US military and you were stop-lossed, you are owed additional money. That money needs to be claimed. DoD announces the date to file for that additional payment has been extended: The deadline for eligible service members, veterans and their beneficiaries to apply for Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay (RSLSP) has been extended to April 8, 2011, allowing personnel more time to apply for the benefits they've earned under the program guidelines. The deadline extension is included in the continuing resolution signed by President Obama Friday, providing funding for federal government operations through April 8, 2011. Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay was established to compensate for the hardships military members encountered when their service was involuntarily extended under Stop Loss Authority between Sept. 11, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2009. Eligible members or their beneficiaries may submit a claim to their respective military service in order to receive the benefit of $500 for each full or partial month served in a Stop Loss status. When RSLSP began on Oct. 21, 2009, the services estimated 145,000 service members, veterans and beneficiaries were eligible for this benefit. Because the majority of those eligible had separated from the military, the services have engaged in extensive and persistent outreach efforts to reach them and remind them to apply. Outreach efforts including direct mail, engaging military and veteran service organizations, social networks and media outlets, will continue through April 8, 2011. To apply for more information, or to gather more information on RSLSP, including submission requirements and service-specific links, go to http://www.defense.gov/stoploss. iraq the irish times michael jansen the washington post aaron c. davis liz sly mcclatchy newspapers shashank bengali mohammed al dulaimy wsws james cogan

Oh, Bob, get off the road

This is one of those heresy posts for a lot of men so you know it falls to a woman to write it. Bob Dylan is a reactionary with each passing year. It's why you can take all of his work post 1985 and toss it, if you ask me. He's a scared little right-winger citing the Old Testament over and over in song after song. (It happens before 1985 as well but that's the last time he took chances with sound -- since then it's been all polished, generic Grammy sound.)

I ignore him for the most part. Tired and ugly took it to China.

Why?

Because he's greedy. And there are very few markets he hasn't already oversaturated.

The death scare that carried him through the late nineties and early '00s is long passed.

So like a good monkey, he dances for the money.

Not only that. China was worried that freedoms might leak out from the stage.

So what did Bob do?

He let them pick his set list?

Can you imagine the outcry if people were honest?

Bob Dylan, if he'd done that in the sixties -- hell, if he'd let Ed Sullivan dictate his set list, he would have been judged a fraud.

He's just a tired and greedy old man. Have a little self-respect or stay home, Bob.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, April 6, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Ban Ki-moon addresses some serious issues related to Iraq, Tom Brokaw covers Iraq for NBC, Robert Gates visits Iraq, there is no progress to be found there, the VA stalls a Congressional committee, and more. Dar Addustour reports that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted yesterday that the last two months have seen Iraqis killed as they protested for basic services, unemployment and against corruption. He stated 116 people have been injured in Baghdad, Erbil and Basra and that security forces had prevented Iraqis in Baghdad from access to the protests. Joe Sterling (CNN) quotes Ban Ki-moon stating, "Unless there is quick and concerted action by the Government of Iraq to address these concerns, the political and security gains that Iraq has made in recent years could be undermined." Alsumaria TV adds, "Presenting a report at the U.N. Security Council Ban Ki-moon said that his organization is concerned about the situation in Kirkuk and the deployment of five thousand Peshmargas in the past two months." From the [PDF format warning] UN report: A number of demonstrations have taken place throughout the country during the reporting period, most notably in Basra, Kut, Baghdad, Mosul, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Anbar and Sulaymaniyah. While many protests have been peaceful there have been instances of violence in which some protesters or security forces have allegedly been killed. At least 20 people were reportedly killed since the beginning of the protests and 116 injured in shootings. UNAMI has received reports of arrests, unlawful detention and torture of demonstrators. Several journalists and media workers who were covering the protests were arrested, threatened and ill-treated by the police. [. . .] While mindful of the need to maintain security and order, and prevent forces opposed to Iraq's democratic transition from exploiting the situation, I am concerned at the use of force by Iraq's security forces in handling some of these protests and the consequent loss of life. Of grave concern also are reports of arbitrary arrests, detention and torture, and the ill-treatment of journalists and media personnel covering these events. I call on the Government of Iraq to conduct an independent investigation into these alleged violations and to ensure a measured approach in dealing with future protests by exercising maximum restraint and avoiding violence. The UN Secretary-General has a report which includes the protests, the way protesters have been targeted and the way media has been targeted but the same topics have gotten little to no attention from the US media. The editorial board of the New York Times did offer "Mr. Maliki's Power Grab" followed the Washington Post's "The Arab uprising spreads to Iraq." The Post editorial would note, "Some worry that is where Mr. Maliki is headed. As The Post's Stephanie McCrummen reported , some of the repression has been carried out by black-suited special forces under his command. Thanks to a favorable court decision, the prime minister has been moving to take control of electoral authorities and other previously independent bodies. Mr. Allawi announced that he was withdrawing from a national policy council because Mr. Maliki had not followed through on promises to give it real authority." And Stephanie McCrummen was the one of the few print reporters for a US outlet covering the protests (Jane Arraf covered the issues for the Christian Science Monitor and AP had several reporters covering it). Even now, all this time later, most Americans have never heard from their news outlet of choice (exception being NBC, we'll get to it) about the events Ban Ki-moon is describing. It's real to Iraqis. They face tremendous odds to protest. The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "2 demonstrators were kidnapped by security forces in Tahrir Square last Friday. They are Sallah Muhsin and Haidar Shehab Ahmed." They also note: No silence after today THE IRAQI REVOLUTION OF RAGE 4/9 is the day of every honorable Iraqi . . . It is the day for everyone who lost a brother or a friend or a dear one . . . It is a day for every mother who has lost a son, her very being . . . It is the day of The Great Victory, Inshallah. In London there will be solidarity demonstrations. April 8th, from one in the afternoon until 5:00 pm outside "The Embassy of Occupied Iraq" on 3 Elvaston Place. April 9th, from noon until three p.m. at the US Embassy, 24 Grosvenor Square. April 9th, there will be a protest in Washington state at Bellevue Square "the fountain area outside Macy's along Bellevue Way, NE" starting at 1:30 p.m. A solidarity demonstration will take place in Italy on the 9th as well. Aswat al-Iraq notes that 71 detainees were released from jails in Sulaimaniya following last Friday's protests in which security forces turned on protesters resulting in 35 people being injured. Aswat al-Iraq also reports a demonstration today in Tikrit in which protesters demanded that Ammar Yousif Ali, the Province Council Chair, resign as a result of last week's attack. As many as 65 people were killed in Tikrit in an assault on the provincial government headquarters. Tim Arango (New York Times) notes the still reeling community: "We were expecting something to happen, but not this big," said Noor al-Samari, a member of Parliament from Salahuddin Province, which includes Tikrit. "The security forces are very weak." An interview with Mr. Samari on Sunday was cut short after he received a call summoning him and local security officials to Baghdad to appear before a parliamentary committee investigating the attack. Echoing several local leaders, he was highly critical of American forces for not being directly involved in the fight. "They were close by but didn't do anything," he said. US coverage of Iraq, yesterday on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams (click here for video), Tom Brokaw reported from Baghdad having spent the day prior in Jordan examing the protests taking place there and King Abdullah II's response. Brian Williams: Meanwhile Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on his way to the Middle East for a tour of US military operations there. Tom Brokaw is in the region tonight, doing some reporting for a prime time special to air at a later date. Tonight Tom's in Baghdad where the US has expended so much blood and treasure and where there's been a real spike in violence in recent weeks. And, Tom, it's true, it has fallen from the news because of everything else going on elsewhere in the region. Tom Brokaw: Brian, it has been a violent week here in Iraq. In Baghdad alone on Monday, there were three IED explosions north of Baghdad, gunmen stormed a home and killed 6 people, a police officer was shot at a security checkpoint, and, over the weekend, two more American soldiers were killed presumably by enemy fire. American forces are scheduled to leave this country by the end of the year but this week the American Ambassador [James Jeffrey] said that the Embassy staff will more than double from about 8,000 personnel to about 20,000. So Iraq is a reminder of just how difficult it is to establish a democracy in this part of the world. After all, we've been at war here for eight years now. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and thousands and thousands of lives have been lost on both sides. So Secretary [Robert] Gates will face some tough questions in this region about the American intentions going on now with all this new turmoil -- especially in an area where the United States has such big stakes politically and economically. And a lot of those questions, presumably, will come from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I was told on the way in here that the Saudis are so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President [Hosni] Mubarak of Egypt that it sent high level emissaries to China and Russia to tell those two countries that Saudi Arabia now is prepared to do more business with them. Back here in Iraq, the political and the economic situation remains fragile, so fragile that the UN Secretary-General [Ban Ki-moon] is worried that this country could now see massive protests in the streets once again. One side of good news, however, Brian, on the way in from the airport today, we went through several checkpoints, they were all manned entirely by Iraqis, no Americans in sight. Brian? Brian Williams: That is a big change. Tom Brokaw, back in a familiar spot for a lot of us tonight in Baghdad, Iraq. Tom, thanks. As Williams and Brokaw noted, Gates is in Iraq. Kevin Baron (Stars and Stripes) reports, "With Iraq's security and the legacy of an eight-year war that has claimed more than 4,400 American lives hanging in the balance, Gates already has told Congress that the U.S. would consider Iraqi requests to extend the U.S. troop presence. But first, the Iraqis have to ask. In Baghdad, however, Iraqi leadership remains disjointed following last year's protracted post-election negotiations to form a government." From the Feb. 16th snapshot. exchange which took place during the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Defense Dept.'s budget: US House Rep Dunan Hunter: Let's talk about Iraq for a minute. If the Status Of Forces Agreement is not changed or the Iraqis do not ask for our help and ask us to stay, what is our plan for 2012? At the end of this year, what's going to happen? Secretary Robert Gates: We will have all of our forces out of Iraq. We will have an Office of Security Cooperation for Iraq that will have probably on the order of 150 to 160 Dept of Defense employees and several hundred contractors who are working FMS cases. US House Rep Duncan Hunter: Do you think that represents the correct approach for this country after the blood and treasure that we spent in Iraq? My own personal time of two tours in Iraq. There's going to be fewer people there -- and that 150 -- than there are in Egypt right now. Somewhere around 600, 700 of those types of folks in Egypt. How can we maintain all of these gains that we've maintained through so much effort if we only have 150 people there and we don't have any military there whatsoever. We have more military in western European countries than we'd have in Iraq -- one of the most centralized states, as everybody knows, in the Middle East. Secretary Robert Gates: Well I think that there is -- there is certainly on our part an interest in having an additional presence and the truth of the matter is the Iraqis are going to have some problems that they're going to have to deal with if we are not there in some numbers. They will not be able to do the kind of job and intelligence fusion. They won't be able to protect their own air space. They will not -- They will have problems with logistics and maintenance. But it's their country, it's a sovereign country. This is the agreement that was signed by President Bush and the Iraqi government and we will abide by the agreement unless the Iraqis ask us to have additional people there. Missy Ryan, Caroline Drees and Sophie Hares (Reuters) quote an unnamed Dept of Defense official stating, "If they [Iraq] are going to ask for modifciation or anything else [regarding US troops remaining in Iraq past 2011], it would probably be in their interest to ask for it sooner rather than later because we're starting to run out of months. . . . The ball is in their court." CNN quotes "a senior defense official" (unnamed) stating "it is important for them [Iraq] to complete the government formation-process, particularly to get the security ministries dealt with." Dar Addustour explains that there are now four candidates for Minister of the Defense. That would be good news if this were April 2010 and not April 2011. But a year after the elections, this is yet another sign of how indecisive and ineffective Nouri al-Maliki truly is. Nouri had nominated Kahlid al-Obedi for the post of Minister of Defense; however, he could not muster the required votes in Parliament. Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) observes, "After arriving in Iraq on Wednesday, Mr. Gates took off his tie and sat outside on the lakeside terrace of one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces, now used by the American military, and talked to his aides in the relatively cool Baghdad air." And there is no 'progress.' Al Rafidayn notes the municipal government of Baghdad is trumpeting the re-opening of 121 streets in the city. That may pass for 'progress' to some. But Grant Smith (Bloomberg News) reports that Adnan al-Janabi, Chair of the country's Oil andd Energy Parliamentary Committee announced yesterday that Iraq will not be able to pass the oil law "by this summer." For those paying attention, this has been an issue for some time. The White House put it in their benchmarks for success back at the start of 2007 -- and both the US Congress and Nouri al-Maliki signed off on the benchmarks. If the benchmarks were not achieved, the US funds were supposed to be cut off. And the assumption was that, by 2008, the benchmarks would be accomplished. Instead, four years later and nothing on the benchmarks including the theft of Iraqi oil. Some observers believe the US military will not leave Iraq until the theft of Iraqi oil legsilation is passed. In other Uh-oh-look-out-here-it-comes developments, Alsumaria TV reports that Mahmoud Othman, Kurdish MP, is stating he expects Nouri al-Maliki's (incomplete) Cabinet will "collapse." Remember those benchmarks? One of them was reconciliation. Meaning to take Paul Bremer's de-Ba'athification program - outlawing Ba'athists from participation in the new government -- and making it a de-de-Ba'athification process. As part of that effort, a 2008 law was passed. However, as many noted in real time (including US House Rep Lloyd Doggett), it was not implemented and just sat there. Haider Ibrahim (AKnews) reports that Nouri's State of Law slate is now objecting to the law and, despite Parliament stating it needs to be enacted, Nouri's slate is saying it must not be. Meanwhile Ayad Allawi continues discussing the deal. Allawi was the first one to explain in any substantive detail US Vice President Joe Biden's behind-the-scenes role in securing the prime minister post for Nouri. He has since declared a "coup" has taken place noting that the deal hammered out by various parties -- including Biden -- is not being followed. Al Mada reports that today he declared the deal had the written consent of Nouri al-Maliki's representative Hassan Sinead and, even with that, it is not being followed. For background, we'll drop back to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's report: The new Government was formed on the basis of a power-sharing agreement, reached on 11 November 2010, between the main political blocs. Following the agreement, the Council of Representatives lifted de-Baathifciation charges against three key Iraqiya bloc leaders. One of the leaders, Saleh al-Mutlaq, was appointed as one of the three Deputy Prime Ministers. The other two Deputy Prime Ministers, Hussein Shahristani and Rowsch Shaways, were appointed from the National Alliance and the Kurdistan Alliance, respectively. Most ministerial posts were divided on the basis of the power-sharing agreement. [. . .] The formation of the proposed National Council for Strategic Policies, also agreed upon in the power-sharing agreement, has not taken place. Although a draft law for its establishment was presented in the Council of Representatives in late over its proposed competencies, composition and the mechanism for the election of its head. The leader of the Iraqiya bloc, Ayad Allawi, who was initially expected to assume a leadership role in the Council, stated in March 2011 that he would no longer seek a position on it. In his observations, he declares, "I commend Iraq's political leaders for their commitment to dialogue and consensus building, which made the formation of a national partnership Government on 21 December 2010 possible. That transition from one elected Government to another was an historic accomplishment and brought an end to months of political uncertainty. However, further steps need to be taken to complete the Government formation process as soon as possible, including appointments to key security posts. In the interest of national reconciliation, I also call upon Iraqi political leaders to establish the National Council for Strategic Policies, which was agreed as part of the power-sharing agreement reached between the political parties." Today UPI counts 9 dead and fourteen injured noting a Baaj suicide bombing which claimed the lives of 3 people (plus the bomber) and left seven injured, a police officer was shot dead in Mosul, a goldsmith was shot dead in Mosul, two Baghdad roadside bombings claimed 2 lives and left six people injured, 1 government worker was shot dead in Baghdad and 2 Babel bombings left 1 Sahwa dead and another injured. In addition, Aswat al-Iraq reports a brick plant collapsed in Missan Province leaving eight people dead. Adel Fakher is an Iraqi journalist. He is now an award-winning journalist having won for Best Journalistic Material on Landmines in Iraq. Aswat al-Iraq, the news outlet he works for, reports that he was presented with his award Monday: "The reporter won the award for an interview he made last year with former environment minister Nermin Othman on statistics of minefields in Iraq and the ministry's efforts to remove and clear these mines in cooperation with the United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)." Monday we noted the attacks and assaults Iraqi journalists repeatedly face while attempting to do their jobs. That day the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory explained the latest journalist to be targeted is Morteza Aahtor who was arrested in Nasiriya by a "special security force sent from Baghdad" for articles he'd written. Attorney Ghassan Saleh states that Morteza was arrested not on a court order but on a government order. The Journalistic Freedoms Observatory is calling for the immediate release of Morteza. Though we noted several journalist organizations, I missed one. The Committee to Protect Journalists notes Monday: In Iraq today, security forces arrested Murtadha al-Shahtour, media director of Al-Nasiriyya's police department and a regular contributor to the independent daily Azzaman and other news websites. On January 2, al-Shahtour published an article on the website Kitabat in which he criticized government policies related to security issues. Kitabat said that al-Shatour's detention stems from the January 2 article; the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO), a local press freedom group, concurred. Security forces arrested Raya Hamma Karim, a correspondent for the independent weekly Hawlati and Niyaz Abdullah, a journalist and a board member of JFO, in Iraqi Kurdistan today, news reports said. Both were covering student protests at a university in Arbil. Now we're going back to Ban Ki-moon's report one more time to note a topic that often gets very little attention: Water remains a critical issue in Iraq. Drought in the northern areas, including Kirkuk, is a key concern despite recent rains, and transboundary water resource management is a priority. The Government of Iraq requested UNDP assistance to develop an integrated water resources management programme and a negotiation strategy for Euphrates-Tigris riparian rights with its neighbours. The International Organization for Migration (IOM), UNOPS and UNDP provided consultants and resources to support disaster risk reduction in vulnerable areas of Iraq, including support to the newly created Committee of Disaster Management in Council of Ministers. UNDP, UNICEF, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) and WHO also supported water quality monitoring and access to safe water and sanitation, as well as the revision of policy and legislation for the decentralization of master planning of water and sanitation management. In addition, UNICEF supported the development of the water and sanitation policy for KRG, which is pending endorsement. Turning to the US, Spc Morganne McBeth died while serving in Iraq. How? That's required a great deal of work to determine. Last January, John Ramsey (Fayettevile Observer) reported, "Spc. Morganne McBeth, 19, of Fredericksburg, Va., died July 2 a few hours after being stabbed in the heart while in a tent with two friends at Al Asad Air Base. By the time investigators arrived at the hospital, her condition was too severe for them to speak to her." However, she'd already stated, in her phone call requesting help, that "she was stabbed during a scuffle." Rusty Dennen (Free Lance-Star Publishing) explained an Article 32 hearing took place in January for Spc Nicholas Bailey who, along with Spc Tyler Cain, is accused in Morganne McBeth's death. Matthew Burns (WRAL) reports Cain has been "found guilty of conspiring to obstruct justice and two counts of giving false statements." Drew Brooks (Fayetteville Observer) explains that the jury returned their verdict after two hours of deliberation and he has been demoted to private and will spend 25 days. Rusty Dennen (Free Lance-Star) reports, "McBeth's parents, Leonard and Sylvia, who live in Stafford County and attended the proceeding, said afterward they were happy, for the most part, about the vedict." The father points out, "But it won't bring our daughter back." While Sylvia McBeth notes that Cain's family was allowed to speak during the punishment phase of the trial, "But we didn't. I think they should give us the opportunity. Yes, he joined [the Army] to be all he can be. But Morganne joined so she could serve our country. He came back home to meet his family; she came home in a wooden box." May 31st is when Nicholas Bailey's court martial starts -- he is the one who stabbed (accidentally or on purpose) Morganne McBeth according to testimony. Boxer Oscar De La Hoya is an Olympic Gold Medal winner and a ten time World Champion. He retired from professional boxing in 2009. Right now, he's just returned from Iraq. He discusses what he saw with CNN (link has text and video): Near the end of my USO tour, I was embedded with troops from the 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment. Before my departure, the unit's commanding officer pulled me aside. He had a favor to ask. Just months before, one of the soldiers in the unit had been killed by a homemade bomb while on patrol. The soldier was a native of California, where I was born, raised and live. He told me the soldier's grieving family had been forced to move on with their lives, and asked if I would consider contacting them directly to let them know I had been with their son's unit and had seen where he lived during his tour of duty. I was honored. I'm working with USO and Army officials to arrange an introduction. When we hear about soldiers killed abroad, it does not hit home. We don't think about their families. It is important we take a moment to reflect each day about those serving our country. Moving over to the US Congress, yesterday the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing to explore the VA's plans for new construction and the cost. Jeff Miller is the Chair of the Committee, Bob Filner is the Ranking Member. The chief witness for panel one was the VA's Scott Gould. In his opening remarks, Filner expressed surprise because the VA was calling this their ten-year plan. But that plan was predicted to cost somewhere around $53 to $65 billion while VA was asking for half that amount. Ranking Member Bob Filner: I guess, Mr. Gould, I want to figure out what is the clever bureaucratic thinking behind putting forward a 10-year plan and then asking for a budget appropriation that will take 20 years to meet the 10 year plan? So. There must be something really clever there that I'm missing. So. It looks like you're putting together a 20-year plan. I don't understand it. If you're going to come out with a 10-year plan and you say you need X-amount of dollars and then you ask for half of that, I'm not sure why we're . . . What the point is? Why have a plan if you're not even going to ask for it to be implemented. Gould didn't have a direct answer. Perhaps he wasn't 'authorized' by the VA to answer the questions fully and honestly? In these cases, what's often going on (may or may not be true here) is that a department knows they can't get the budget needed so they ask for a lower sum and the department assumes that once the construction starts, it will be very difficult for Congress to say no to cost overruns because who wants the eye sore of stopped government construction all over town? The closest Gould came to some sort of a response was this to Miller, "At the same time, every member here would frankly admit that we are in a tough situation in terms of the budget, our resources are constrained. We need to make sure that every dollar we have counts. And it was with those two needs in balance -- both the large ten-year demand and the near term constraint on our budget that we arrived at a total figure of $2.8 billion [. . .]" Miller wanted to know why activation costs and operating expenses weren't being factored in? Gould's reply was one for the record books, "It's very important and you'll note in the budget request we clearly identify that it is not included." It's very important, but we didn't include it, but we did note prominently that we weren't including it. But it's important, in fact, very important. But we didn't include it. Gould then made remarks to Miller that spun the morning into a new direction. He believes the Congress and the White House can avoid a shut down this Friday at midnight if a fiscal budget plan for this fiscal year (which started October 1st) isn't approved. Ranking Member Bob Filner: I know that was not the subject of the hearing, Mr. Secretary, but I'm very disappointed in the answer. That is, we've got to know more. Some of us are going to argue it's necessary to avoid a shut down, some of us are going to argue no, it's doesn't matter. Every agency should tell us what the consequences are. I mean, again, is somebody's disability check going to be cut [if the government shuts down]? Is somebody's claim going to be adjudicated or not. Is -- Are contracts going to be let -- I mean, these are rather obvious questions and surely you've considered them. So, I mean you've got to answer some of them. Do we have to go down everything? The Chairman asked you about burials. So I'll ask you about Disability claims, or disability checks. Are they going to be paid or not going to be paid. Or the GI Bill. Are they going to get their checks on time? I mean, we can go on and on. But you've got to give us some specifics here. VA Deputy Secretary Scott Gould: Well perhaps I can be helfpul on the disability claims, looking back to the '95 - '96 experience where government went through this very wrenching process in conjunction with the counsel and after reviewing the appropriations uh-uh language and impact those checks did flow during that time. So I just would ask the Committee to recognize that, with respect to our veterans, their health care will be continued by virtue of the fact that we have an advance appropriation about 86% of our budget is covered over that two year period. So, as you return to your constituents with obvious concern and care, if they are working in VHA -- the Health Administration, then clearly they fit into a sitution where funding has already been provided to them so -- Ranking Member Bob Filner: What percent of remaining employees will be considered essential or non-essential? Roughly? VA Deputy Secretary Scott Gould: Uh, we don't know what that final number is. And I think Filner's more than underscored his concerns. US House Rep Corrine Brown noted that "it is ill advised to be closing facilites or trying to balance the budget on the backs of those who've given so much to protect the freedom we hold so dearly. I have a couple of questions and I don't know if you have the answers right now." No, he didn't have the answers. But he did have a way to waste time. Repeatedly thanking the Committee for . . .? Whatever he had been asked, just taking the Congress members words and hurling them back at them and adding a "we thank Congress for" at the start of his statements and at the end. He was very good at running out the time clock. He wasted over an hour and a half of everyone's time. The second panel was the GAO's Lorelei St. James and Raymond Kelly of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. There was very little time left for the two. St. James noted in her opening remarks and in reply to Chair Miller's questions that the GAO recommended VA provide full results on projected costs. Miller noted, "But they did not add activation and operation costs so how serious a problem [. . . ] is it?" It would be better to have those costs, she stated. As to when the VA would follow this recommendation (which the GAO has made for several years now), St. James replied, "I don't know." Meanwhile Phillip Faruggio suggests it's "Time for Move On.org to Move On" (Dissident Voice) explaining: For six plus years now, this writer has stood on the street corners of my town, with but a handful of fellow progressives, to oppose the invasions and occupations of Iraq & Afghanistan. We hold signs advocating cuts in the bloated military budget and closing the nearly 800 bases we have offshore (in over 100 countries) and using the savings to save our economy. When Bush and his crew were in power, we attracted a larger number of demonstrators. However, as soon as Barack Obama was a candidate for President, the numbers dwindled to what they are now. Move on.org and Progress Florida chose to ignore our protests, and the countless others throughout America. Why? Well, look at what the Democratic leadership and most of its members in Congress (and now the White House) support and vote for. Yes, they support the continuance of our occupations and bases in those countries. Yes, they vote to increase, not to cut, the military spending… They refuse to hold hearings on the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, or on the illegal and immoral policy of torturing suspects. Reminder: If you served in the US military and you were stop-lossed, you are owed additional money. That money needs to be claimed. DoD announces the date to file for that additional payment has been extended: The deadline for eligible service members, veterans and their beneficiaries to apply for Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay (RSLSP) has been extended to April 8, 2011, allowing personnel more time to apply for the benefits they've earned under the program guidelines. The deadline extension is included in the continuing resolution signed by President Obama Friday, providing funding for federal government operations through April 8, 2011. Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay was established to compensate for the hardships military members encountered when their service was involuntarily extended under Stop Loss Authority between Sept. 11, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2009. Eligible members or their beneficiaries may submit a claim to their respective military service in order to receive the benefit of $500 for each full or partial month served in a Stop Loss status. When RSLSP began on Oct. 21, 2009, the services estimated 145,000 service members, veterans and beneficiaries were eligible for this benefit. Because the majority of those eligible had separated from the military, the services have engaged in extensive and persistent outreach efforts to reach them and remind them to apply. Outreach efforts including direct mail, engaging military and veteran service organizations, social networks and media outlets, will continue through April 8, 2011. To apply for more information, or to gather more information on RSLSP, including submission requirements and service-specific links, go to http://www.defense.gov/stoploss. iraq nbc nightly news with brian williams brian williams dar addustour al rafidayn bloomberg news grant smith alsumaria tv stars and stripes kevin baron aknews haider ibrahim cnn joe sterling the new york times tim arango the washington post stephanie mccrummen the committee to protect journalists elisabeth bumiller