Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Roberta Flack, Janis Ian

And even though the moment lasts about 10 seconds, it’s effortlessly staggering.

“Love is a rush, a wild wind, the scent of a summer rose/A whistle blowing on a distant track, and when it goes, it goes,” she sings, in that familiar soft, strong voice which has channeled the earth-shattering thunder of first attraction (the Grammy-winning First Time Ever I Saw Your Face) and the equally humbling strike of the end of it (Where Is The Love with Donny Hathaway).

That voice can be sensuous (Tonight, I Celebrate My Love with Peabo Bryson, The Closer I Get To You with Hathaway) or unbearably sad (Killing Me Softly With His Song). And all the voices of that rare instrument will be on display when Flack appears Wednesday at the Kravis Center.

Nearly 60 years after entering Howard University at the age of 15 to study piano — one of the youngest students ever at that prestigious Washington, D.C., institution — Flack says she still enjoys performing, because “it’s what I do, what I am all about, the opportunity to put all that together into one moment, in one hour, and serve it up to fans and people who love music in general.”

That's from Leslie Gray Streeter's "Stronger or softly, Roberta Flack still kills" (Palm Beach Post). If I were to name my top 10 female artists -- or top 10 solo artists -- Roberta Flack would be on that list. It is so very rare that I am able to highlight any news on her though. She does her charity work with kids and music and gives the occassional concert (and is working on a new album) but that's really it. She's more than earned that and could honestly sit in an easy chair all day eating Little Debbies and saying that she's done enough work for one lifetime and who could argue with her?


I mean, forget "Killing Me Softly," this is the artist who did "Feel Like Making Love," "The First Time Ever I saw Your Face" and "Oasis" among many, many more. "And so it goes." I love that song but Roberta's so good that you can miss these songs. From that one, "Oasis" and "Uh-uh Oh-oh, Look Out Here It Comes" stood out the most to me. And then C.I. was talking about "And So It Goes" one day and was shocked I didn't know it. She grabbed Wally's guitar and played it for me. I immediately downloaded the track (I didn't have the album on the road) online and couldn't stop listening to it. That's the thing with Roberta, she's got a ton of hits that we all know and love and that doesn't even get to half her catalogue. She's an amazing talent.

And if you want to see her? The Miami Herald notes this concert:

Singer Roberta Flack performs her jazz and R&B hits like "Killing Me Softly with His Song'' and "Where Is the Love.'' Tickets $32-$123.75. Kravis Center for the Performing Arts, 701 Okeechobee Blvd., West Palm Beach; 800-572-8471.

In other concert news, Janis Ian has joined the Clearwater Festival's set (concert this June, this is a yearly festival). Janis is, of course, another of my all time faves. And along with Janis, the festival will feature, among others, Jorma Kaukonen (of Jefferson Airplane), John Sebastian and Pete Seeger.

Today we were visiting someone at the Pentagon (friend of C.I.'s) and ended up catching the press conference. That was my first Pentagon press conference. It is not as lively as the State Dept press conferences. If I was asked to pick out some video, I'd go with footage of Charlie Brown in the classroom with his teacher doing the wah-wahs.

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

Wednesday, January 19, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, another suicide bombing leads to mass casualties, though Tony Blair's people insist they weren't on a path to war documents released from 2000 and 2001 tend to indicate otherwise, the US Army brass talks suicides, and more.
This morning at the Pentagon, Gen Peter Chiarelli, Maj Gen Ramond Carpenter and Lt Gen Jack Stultz held a press conference on suicides in the Army. Chiarelli noted at the top that the statistics being used "includes soldiers from the Guard and Reserve [. . .] So when I say 'active component,' I also include members of the Army Reserves and the Army National Guard who are mobilized during that year." The take away the military wanted to emphasize was a small dip (Chiarelli called it a "modest decrease") in the number of suicides last year from the last five and not the news that the Guard and Reserve saw a doubling in the number of suicides for non-active duty members in 2010 (from 82 suicided to 122 in 2010). If you don't divide the numbers -- sequester? -- as the military wants you to do, you notice that theme is the number of suicides increased in 2010. That is the bottom line and one that escaped Chiarelli even when he claimed to be providing context, "And I just, you know, to try to put this in context, we're talking about 343 suicides here. But some of the numbers that I've seen in the country last year, the numbers could be as high as 35,000. So we're talking less than 1% of that total number. And it will be interesting when the CDC catches up -- if they ever do catch up -- to then go back and --"
Stop. Chiarelli is counting on people just nodding along. I don't know why he does this sort of thing. He knows he's full of it everytime he does. He is saying that 343 isn't that high because he's heard there might have been as many as 35,000 suicides in the general population in the US. Do the math. He claims 1.1 million is the Army population and, out of that 1.1 million (we're using his figures), 343 committed suicide in 2010. (Not attempted, these people took their own lives.) And he wants you to believe that, golly, gee, that's not such a big number because, in the total population for the US, (his number) it's 35,000 for 2010. Now we have to provide a non-Chiarelli number. The 2010 census found that the US population was 311,919,805. Do you see the problem? Yes, 35,000 is a larger number than 343. It's approximately 10 times greater, in fact. But 311,919,805 is approximately 300 times greater than 1.1 million. His little number exercise did not prove what he thought it did.
Chiarelli stressed a number of factors he credited for the decrease in suicides among active duty soldiers including marriage and family life counselors and he noted the need for substance abuse counselors which he insisted the military had the money for but they were short on them to demands of the market ("It's not a money issue. It's a supply issue.") He said, "It seems like everytime I hire ten, I lose ten and it's not because" they get hired somewhere else as substance abuse counselors it's because they become behavioral life counselors. That is because of the licensing requirements for counselors. A substance abuse counselor -- in most states -- is lower ranked (therefore requiring less hours of education and training) and most of them (for their own education, fulfilment and for money desires) get additional training and education which allows them to move up to higher license or certificate. Some are ideally suited for substance abuse and perfectly content in that field but it's not at all surprising that some people would choose to move up the accreditation ladder.
Noting the number of hours any soldier will be spending with their families, Lt Gen Jack Stultz insisted that "We've got to make the suicide prevention plan a family plan." They would the ones, he pointed out, that would first see "the signs, the high-risk behavior."
Gen Peter Chiarelli: The bottom line is that this is a significant issue and clearly there is much to be done. But I am confident many of our nation's very best and brightest men and women from academia, industry, the medical community, DoD and government as a whole are working tirelessly in this seminal area. I assure you, we remain committed to finding further ways to promote resiliancy, reduce the incidents of high risk behavior, improve the quality of family and soldier support programs and eliminate the stigma associated with seeking and receiving help across our force of 1.1 million and beyond to include our department of the Army's civilian and family members.
If anyone's wondering Carpenter spoke about "high risk" behavior like motorcycle riding. He had an analogy he kept circling but never parked the car by.
Charley Keyes: I was wondering if you can share your own personal reaction and level of frustration as the suicide numbers became clear over the course of the year and also identify any particular installation -- maybe Fort Hood, for instance -- has taken particular steps to combat the suicides.
Gen Peter Chiarelli: What you learn when you do this over time -- it's been two years now -- is that every year there's going to be one post that has more than any other post, that's just the nature of the business and that's how we keep track. And Fort Hood was our highest post this year. And do you immediately go back and say, "Well wait a second now, we had the events of November 5, 2009 is there any link to that and what occurred?" And I can tell you of the 21 suicides we had at Fort Hood last year, we only know of one individual who was remotely uhm associated with that horrific event and that was an individual that was being seen in the emergency room for something totally different at the time that people were being brought into the emergency room. So we were watching Fort Hood very, very carefully and as the numbers started to go up at Fort Hood we were, in every single case, trying to see if there was any connection between those two events and -- or the event of the individual suicide and what happened November 2009. And there clearly wasn't.
November 2009? What's he talking about? The Fort Hood shooting. Charley Keyes brought up Fort Hood because it's had the highest number of suicides in 2010. He didn't bring up the 2009 shooting. Chiarelli did and somebody needs to tell him: Name and claim.
If you're going to talk about therapy and tools and blah, blah, blah, you damn well better be able to name and claim because while talking about the need to be upfront and address anguish and a crisis, if you yourself can't even say "the Fort Hood shooting," you've got problems and you're conveying problems to others. Charley Keyes has a write up at CNN here. He does not note the question he asked or Chiarelli's curious response.
Yesterday a suicide bombing in Tikrit resulted in at least 60 deaths with over one hundred-and-fifty more left injured. AP reports today that the death toll has risen to 65. Since The NewsHour (PBS) couldn't get the death toll accurate yesterday, possibly they will tonight? Today's big bombing in the Iraq War is in Baquba. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a suicide bombing involving a vehicle attack on Baquba's Force Protection Services resulted in at least 13 deaths with seventy people left injured while, "south of Baquba," a suicide bomber possibly targeting Sadiq al-Husseini ("deputy head of Diyala's provincial council") injured al-Husseini and fourteen other people and claimed the lives of 2 people (in addition to the life of the suicide bomber). Independent Television News notes, "An Iraqi police training centre has been attacked by a suicide bomber driving an ambulance killing 12 people and wounding more than 50." Aseel Kami, Ahmed Rasheed, Suadad al-Salhy and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) quoted an unidentified police officer stating, "I can see hands and legs of dead policemen sticking out from under the rubble." Ali al-Tuwaijiri (AFP) reports that the hospital notes 14 deaths and 120 injured and quotes Sumaya Sabr, "I was on my way to the market close to the building when I saw the ambulance arrive at the entrance. The guards tried to speak to the driver, and when they got close to the ambulance, it blew up. I can't remember anything else -- I woke up in the hospital." BBC News reports, "Two attackers were thought to have been involved. One stepped out of the ambulance and opened fire on guards at the entrance of the city's special security police centre before the vehicle was driven into the compound and detonated, reports said." Ned Parker and Salar Jaffe (Los Angeles Times) add that "the bomber had sped his car inside the headquarters compound of the Facilities Protection Service, a special force responsible for guarding public buildings and smaller state offices. The blast flattened the building in Baqubah, Diyala's capital."
John Leland (New York Times) notes, "The three-month gap since the last major attack, a siege on a Baghdad church that left nearly 60 people dead, demonstrates the progress made by Iraq security forces as American troops prepare to withdraw at the end of this year, said Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, deputy commanding general for operations of American forces in Iraq." No, it doesn't. And it's really sad if that's the best thinking the US military can offer.
First, it's not a three month gap -- don't they teach the brass how to count -- and second it's completely predicatable and you only have to look 2009's major attacks to see that pattern. How stupid is the brass or are they just lying for public consumption? And if they still can't figure it out, they can start by examining the pattern of the late summer through fall 2009 attacks. If you don't remember -- and apparently the US military doesn't . . .
You had the "Bloody Wednesday" -- Baghdad bombings (two) August 19, 2009 that claimed at least 100 lives (over 600 people wounded -- Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) sums up, "At the site of the deadliest Baghdad bombing in 18 months, Iraqi faith that their security forces could protect them lay shattered in the wreckage."). This was followed (next massive bombing) by "Bloody Sunday" -- the two Baghdad suicide bombings of October 25, 2009 which claimed at least 155 lives (over 700 injured -- Eleanor Hall (Australia's ABC's The World Today -- link has text and audio) explained, "Twin suicide bombers targeted the Iraqi Ministry of Justice all but destroying the government department's headquarters, which are just outside the high-security 'green zone' in the centre of Baghdad."). That was followed by "Bloody Tuesday" -- the December 8, 2009 multiple bombings in Baghdad which claimed at least 120 lives (over 400 injured -- Natalia Antelava (BBC News -- link has text and video) emphasizes, "All five explosions targeted symbols of this state. Not only ministries but also a university and Baghdad's Institute of Fine Arts."). Three months apart, insists Lt Gen Robert W. Cone today, "demonstrates the progess made"? No, demonstrates 2011 is not all that different from 2010. There is no progress and I'm so sorry, Lt Gen Robert W. Cone, my home edition of Let's All Play Stupid* didn't arrive in the mail yet so you'll have to play that board game all by yourself. [*Trademark and patent pending.] Or, as Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) puts it, "But what is clear is that despire official claims of major progress, the insurgnecy remains able to launch major attacks against security forces."
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) also reports, "south of Baquba," a suicide bomber possibly targeting Sadiq al-Husseini ("deputy head of Diyala's provincial council") injured al-Husseini and fourteen other people and claimed the lives of 3 people (in addition to the life of the suicide bomber -- and the three were Shi'ite pilgrims). Ali al-Tuwaijri (AFP) notes this attack took place in Ghalbiyah and "Mr al Husseini was visiting with worshippers as they gathered ahead of commemorations for Arbaeen, which marks 40 days since the anniversary of the death of the revered seventh century Shiite Imam Hussein." Liz Sly (Washington Post) explains, "It was not immediately clear whether the bomber was targeting the official or the pilgrims, who are frequently attacked by Sunni extremists. Attacks on pilgrims are expected to escalate in the coming days as people set out to participate in commemorations for the Shiite religious holiday of Arbaeen next week."
In other violence . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing injured two civilians. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes a Taji bombing wounded five Sh'ite pilgrims.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 person was shot dead outside his Mosul home, police shot dead 2 Mosul bombing suspects.
Coming to Iraq? WRAL reports that an estimated 750 Fort Bragg soldiers are headed to Iraq for "a yearlong deployment." Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick is quoted stating, "The Iraqis will be the ones to determine whether we vacate or not. It's not going to be us." In addition, WMAZ reports that the Macon-based 352nd Combat Sustainment Support Battalion is sending 120 reserve members to Iraq.


While the US continues sending troops to Iraq, Sweden continues forcibly deporting Iraqis. DPA reports, "Swedish police Wednesday briefly detained 25 activists who attempted to block the entrance to an asylum centre to prevent a pending repatriation of some 20 Iraqi refugees. About 50 activists took part in the protest, police said. The Iraqi asylum seekers were taken to Stockholm's Arlanda Airport." Iraq is not safe and the United Nations has repeatedly called out forced deportations. Yesterday in Geneva, UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming stated:



UNHCR is very concerned by reports that Sweden plans to send around 25 Iraqis back to Baghdad tomorrow, Wednesday 19th January. We understand that a number of those scheduled for return belong to religious and ethnic groups targeted by violence in Iraq. They, and others slated for return, appear to have profiles that would warrant protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention or the European Union's Qualification Directive.
We are troubled that our advice, including on the situation of minorities in Iraq, is not sufficiently taken into account by Sweden when reviewing negative decisions that were made in 2008 and 2009. We believe that the recent deterioration in the situation of minorities in Iraq has not been adequately taken into account.
UNHCR has frequently appealed to states to ensure that asylum applicants originating from Iraq's central governorates of Baghdad, Diyala, Ninewa and Salah-al-Din, as well as from Kirkuk province, benefit from international protection in the form of refugee status under the 1951 Convention or another form of protection depending on the circumstances of the case. We understand that many of those being returned on Wednesday come from these areas.
Our position reflects the volatile security situation and the still high level of prevailing violence, security incidents, and human rights violations taking place in these parts of Iraq. UNHCR considers that serious – including indiscriminate – threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from violence or events seriously disturbing public order are valid reasons for international protection.
UNHCR offices in Syria, Jordan and Turkey have recently registered a number of Iraqi refugees who left Iraq after they have been forcibly returned by European countries. One Christian man fled again after he narrowly escaped an attack on a church in Baghdad in October 2010, shortly after being sent back by Sweden. We are pleased that Sweden has now agreed to re-admit him.
In England on Friday, former prime minister, forever poodle and eternal War Hawk Tony Blair is set to reappear before the Iraq Inquiry to offer additional testimony after his testimony last year just didn't appear to add up. Stop the War UK is organizing protests against War Criminal Tony Blair.

Reasons to protest when Tony Blair is recalled to give evidence to the Iraq Inquiry on 21 January:

JOIN THE PROTEST 21 JANUARY
QEII Conference Centre 8am-2pm
London SW1P 3EE

(Tube Westminster or St James's
Please publicise as widely as you can
Today the Iraq Inquiry heard from Tom McKane (held the post of Deputy Head of Defense & Overseas Secretariat from 1999 to 2002) and Stephen Wall (Prime Minister's Adviser on European Issues and Head of the Cabinet Office's European Secretariat, 2000 - 2004). Before we get to an exchange from McKane's testimony, we need to note a few documents the Inquiry published today. All are PDF format. First, a letter from Alan Goulty (Director Middle East and North African Department) dated October 20, 2000 to McKane. Most important part is: "Containment, but a looser version, remains the best option for achieving our policy objectives towards Iraq. International support is vital if this is to be sustained. SCR 1284 delivered the balanced package envisaged in the May 1999 DOP paper. Need for some tactical adjustments to make policy sustainable in the medium term."
SCR 1284 is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284. Of the five permanent Security Council members, only the US and England voted for it. (France, Russia and China chose not to vote. Had any one of them voted against it, it would not have passed.) This turns weapons monitoring duties over to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. Previously, United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had done the monitoring. (In March of 1999, Barton Gellman reported for the Washington Post that "United States intelligence services infiltrated agents and espionage equipment" in UNSCOM.) The October 20, 2000 letter from Alan Goulty notes that international support for SCR 1284 is weakening but calls it "the best means of pursuing our policy objectives" and insists "It would get us off the hook of responsibility for the humanitarian situation. It provides Iraq -- and us -- with an exit route out of sanctions. But its shelf life is limited. If there is no progress by next summer, SCR 1284 is likely to lose credibility, lending to growing pressure for a change of approach." The British government -- as evidenced by the letter -- assumed that whomever emerged as the Oval Office occupant in 2001 (Al Gore or George W. Bush), it wouldn't make a difference and the US would maintain a hard position against Iraq:
Most commentators (inside and outside the Administration) point out that either a Gore or a Bush Administration could be expected to be 'tougher' on Iraq. Bush's team includes noted hawks, and Gore (with [Leon] Fureth, his National Security Adviser) has consistently been at the harder end of the spectrum within the Clinton Administration. But neither has come up with specific policy directions. Bush attacks Clinton/Gore for failing to get rid of Saddam for eight years, but under the rhetoric, he goes no further than Clinton's stated red lines for military action, and he has avoided endorsing the "rollback" (regime change) philosophy of some of his advisers. Gore has made a big show of backing the Iraqi Opposition, but has also stressed continued containment, along the lines pursued by the current Administration.
Regardless of who wins, the letter cautions, "We cannot wait until the new Administration beds down to tackle them on Iraq policy. We need to get in early, before they make too many public policy statements from which it would be difficult to draw back, and be prepared to press them hard." Why? International support is waning, "sanction busting" is increasing.
February 15, 2001, McKane wrote John Sawers and noted, among other things, that sanctions were in danger of losing support because "there is an increasing sense that economic sanctions are unfair to the Iraqi people, ineffective as a means of pressuring the regime, and indeed counter-productive because Saddam and his cronies benefit disproportionately from the smuggling which undermines the sanctions." Now from today's hearing.
Committee Member Martin Gilbert: In February 2001 on the eve of the first meeting between the Prime Minister and the newly elected President Bush you were asked to produce a note by officials to highlight the key issues.
Tom McKane: Yes.
Committee Member Martin Gilbert: That were going to be settled in the course of the review of Iraq policy in order to basically inform the Prime Minister for the meeting. That note has been published today. Can you tell us who contributed to.
Tom McKane: It was the same group of people who had been engaged in the discussions on the Foreign Office's draft paper the previous autumn. So it would have been pulled together and coordinated in the Secretariat, but it would have included contributions from the Foreign Office and from the Ministry of Defence principally, but others would have seen the draft, other departments around Whitehall.
Committee Member Martin Gilbert: Were suggestions being put forward by Number 10?
Tom McKane: there was a sense in Number 10 I think that the official machine was running too much along well-worn tracks and that it needed a bit of a jolt, that, you know, there was -- that the way the options had been reviewed in the first draft of the paper looked too much like a regurgitation of what we'd been doing up until then. So the paper was sharpened up at the request of Number 10, although my memory is that they were not the only people who thought the first draft was deficient, and it was quite frequent in that job to find quite a lot of comopetitive drafting going on, departments offering their version of the paper that you were trying to produce. That was a perfectly normal part of the way we did our business, but the end result, which I suppose is then encapsulated in the 7th March note, still is focusing on a policy of containment, not a policy of regime change.
And he keeps insisting that throughout his testimony. However, they knew sanctions were "increasingly" unpopular as was the UN Security Council resolution and they knew the No-Fly Zones patrols were also unpopular (one plan was to suggest to the US that British military fly them only) so for all of his talk about regime change not being a policy, you see that they are walling themselves off -- intentionally or not -- from maintaining what they had and, as for what replaces, it, they really only see war. That's most obvious in the sections of the February 20, 2010 letter which are edited out but indicate that, for example, to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait would require war and, specifically, the military of a neighbouring country (the country is whited out).
New developments also emerged (in the press, not from the Inquiry) on the private correspondence of Bush and Blair. From yesterday's snapshot:
Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports, "Britain's top civil servant, Sir Gus O'Donnell, is preventing the official inquiry into the Iraq invasion from publishing notes sent by Tony Blair to George W Bush -- evidence described by the inquiry as of 'central importance' in establishing the circumstances that led to war. O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, consulted Blair before suppressing the documents, it emerged tonight." John Chilcot is the Chair of the Iraq Inquiry and, in his opening statement at today's session, he commented on the efforts to keep things from the public: [. . .]
Rosa Prince (Telegraph of London) notes today that the letters are quoted in recent books by Alastair Campbell (his published diary) and Jonathan Powell and she notes: "Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, criticised the ban. He said: 'It is a bit thick that Mr Blair and Mr Bush have been able to draw on these documents for their own memoirs and to be entirely selective in the use to which they have put them'." Rosa Prince goes on to demonstrate just how much Bush and Blair have quoted from the (private) letters in their books.
Moving to the US, on Antiwar Radio, Scott Horton spoke with John V. Walsh and we'll note this section (we're editing Horton's use of term because we don't allow any deity's name to be used in vain):
Scott Horton: And it really is just amazing how you can have Barack Obama who we all know for a fact with no exceptions -- every single one of us knows -- that this guy kills people every day. And then he can go and give this speech and cry all of these crocidile tears about "Oh my G**! An employee of the State was on the receiving end of some violence one day." And according to all the polls and TV and the newspapers and whatever this has really done good for him and given him a bump in the polls and he needs to exploit this tragedy the way Bill Clinton did the Oklahoma City bombing, a Democratic strategist told the Politico. And apparently it's working. In fact -- I'll say one more thing before I turn it back over to you, John -- I only heard a small bit of Obama's speech in Arizona. And the small bit I heard, all I heard from him was blah, blah, blah, whatever. But what was interesting to me was the audience. They were whooping and cheering and whistling and celebrating and clapping and acting like it was a campaign appearance. "Oh my G**! There he is in real life!" Like he's a TV star or whatever. And here he is trying to eulogize the dead and exploit this tragedy and they're sitting there like literally whistling and yelling "WOO!" and things at him.
John V. Walsh: Well actually, I would also say that in the antiwar sentiment that we see on the left and the right, I have been impressed that there is much -- if I read the Antiwar.com or the Future Freedom Foundation or Lew Rockwell, there's much more concern about the loss of human life in war than I see very often on the left, I'm sad to say. Because very often the left is talking about the cost of the war and how we could have more if only we weren't killing people over there. But that's true. We're a pretty wealthy country to begin with, that's true. But it certainly is not as important -- important though it may be -- as the loss of innocent life, the loss of life in general. Probably a million in Iraq alone. Certainly hundreds of thousands, there's no question about it. And people displaced by the millions -- four million in Iraq. Who knows what is going on? So there has to be some morality and concern for life attached to this. And it's kind of outside the discourse of the mainstream media. And it really almost has to be if we're going to continuing waging war because too much attention on that is going to distrub the average person. And so it's almost that we've fallen into a culture of -of irreverance for human life. It almost follows from having an empire. And that's very sad, it's of our own doing. Actually, in the Boston area, there's a syndicated NPR program called On Point and it's a talk show and you know, they have been, the host Tom Ashbrook, has been over -- all over this [Tuscon] story and the concern about guns and the Congresswoman's life. Yes, all of that is terrible. But it took him, I think, until something like 2006 before he ever had on his program anybody who was against the war.
Scott Horton: Huh.
John V. Walsh: He had experts that were for it in various ways. But not until well after there was a majority against the war did you ever one voice. And you rarelyl hear it anymore.
[Break]
Scott Horton: Welcome back to the show. This is Antiwar Radio. We're talking with John V. Walsh of CounterPunch and Antiwar.com about the permanent crisis and, I guess, the partisanship that is at the root of why we can't seem to get anything about it done. I mean, you think back, John, to the antiwar, anti-Bush rhetoric of the last decade and it wasn't just, "Well geez, we don't like this guy because he pretends to be a hick even though he's from Connecticut and we want power, not him." The criticism was that he's tapping our phones, he's murdering people, he tells lies all day, he's spending way too much money and breaking the dollar and real criticism. Yet when Barack Obama does all of these exact same things -- including killing kids like, I don't know, right this minute -- "Oh, no, we still love him. We woop and cheer and whistle." Just like the idiots who loved George Bush.
John V. Walsh: Yes. Well, you know, actually that brings me to another thing I wanted to mention while I was here. And that is one of the guarantees to make sure that this does not become a partisan issue -- that backing Obama or backing Bush or whatever -- doesn't take precedence over opposing war is to have -- as Antiwar.com has been pushing for for a long time -- is to have a right-left coalition against war. And I just wanted to mention, I don't know if you've had this on yet or not, but you know that a year ago there was the conference in Washington, DC. There were about 40 of us, people who write and talk and do some organizing with respect to war -- to oppose war. And we came from left and right and there is now a book out called Come Home America and it's a book of essays from the people who participated from the left and from the right. I have a piece in there. Justin Raimondo has a piece in there. Ralph Nader has a piece in there. The editor of The Nation who was not as enthusiastic as the people on the right about this project but nevertheless she came. And the editor of the
American Conservative and so on and so on.
Scott Horton: Is David Beito's piece in there?
John V. Walsh: I'm not, I don't recall. [C.I. note, Beito's piece is on the American Anti-Imperalist League and it is in the book.]
John V. Walsh: I need to get a copy of that book soon.
John V. Walsh: It is available. And if people want to get it you can find it -- well, you can find it on Amazon. But I would recommend you buy it from another source.

Scott Horton: Right. Agreed.
John V. Walsh: But if you write the -- it's a little tricky to get the title. It's Come Home America all one word or if you write it in three words it's Come Home America.US. And there are the rationales and the ideas of people who want to do this and I think it's right-on. There are people who blame Bush -- and I would say that's -- antiwar people who blame Bush and cannot bring themselves to utter a word against Obama. Or if they do, it is so gentle and so muted and so in the vein of "Well he really means well, he just can't do anything about it." Which is baloney. He has the power to stop the conflict at once. Just like Dwight Eisenhower had the power to stop the Korean War and was elected to do that and did it.
Scott Horton: Right.
John V. Walsh: So you can't say -- which, by the way, was the first undeclared [by Congress] war -- you can't say it is impossible. It is quite possible and, as a matter of fact, that was the reason that a lot of people -- not myself because I never believed it -- went out and worked for Obama because they thought they would get peace.
ComeHomeAmerica features many essays including one by Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan. It came out at the end of 2010, don't accidentally confuse it with Will Grider's 2009 book Come Home, America. For more from John V. Walsh on the topic you can refer to his "Sarah Palin's Cross Hairs -- and Obama's."
MFSO has partnered with Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and other ally organizations for a weekend of actions, training, and lobbying in Washington DC to mark the 8th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Join us and make your voice heard!
A brief overview of the schedule....
  • Saturday, March 19th - actions to mark the anniversary of the Iraq War, TBD
  • Sunday, March 20th - MFSO meet-up and issue-area trainings
  • Monday, March 21st - lobbying, media, and organizing trainings
  • Tuesday, March 22nd - opportunity for lobby visits, and we will be delivering 20,000 postcards to members of Congress with the message "Bring our troops & tax dollars home!"
Some logistical info (more details coming soon)...
  • Housing - we are working to find homestays and affordable housing for as many Military Families and Gold Star Families as possible. Please indicate below if you need housing, can offer housing in DC, or already have a place to stay.
  • Travel - Please indicate below if you need financial assistance to get to DC. We will have limited scholarships available for Military Families and Gold Star Families.
  • Trainings - the trainings are being organized by FCNL for a small fee of $20 (this price includes lunch and refreshments on Sunday and Monday)
Using the link will allow you to find more information and also to sign up if you'd like to.
Posted by at

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Regis and franchises

Regis Philbin plans to leave Live with Regis & Kelly. I was surprised by how much that effected me. I didn't cry but I was more disturbed than I would have guessed. I wouldn't have expected to be disturbed at all to be honest.

But I was. And in part that's due to Larry King's retirement.

How so?

We're on the road speaking out against the wars almost every week. We go to this town and that campus and there's just something comforting about seeing a Subway, a Pizza Hut (or Inn), a Burger King, whatever. And, by the same token, there's something comfortable about going around the TV dial and seeing familiar faces.

Regis is like a franchise. And now he's going out of business.


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


Tuesday, January 18, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Tikrit rocked by bombings, over the holiday weekend the US military announces multiple deaths, some Iraqi leaders speak out against the violence aimed at Iraq's Christians, the time is running for US servicemembers to receive their stop-loss back pay, and more.
Today Tikrit was slammed with a bombing in the latest news from the ongoing Iraq War. AFP calls it the worst bombing in Iraq since October 31st while Liz Sly (Washington Post) terms it "the bloodiest incident since Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced the formation of a new government in December". Xiong Tong (Xinhau) reports police recruits were queued up when a suicide bomber in their midst detonated. Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) quote police spokesperson Hatem Akram stating, "We have a lot of unemployment. All those people are poor people trying to find a job." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes, "Local television reports have urged people to donate blood for victims." Tang Danlu (Xinhua) reported this morning that the death toll had climbed to 60 with at least one hundred and fifty injured and reports:

A doctor named Mustafa in Tikrit hospital told Xinhua that dozens of patients were taken to the hospital and there were very dangerous situations.
"We tried best to save lives of those wounded people," he said.
Charles Stratford (Al Jazeera -- video and text) explains, "Tikrit's hospital couldn't cope with the number of casualties An Interior Ministry official says some were being rushed to hospitals in Baghdad and other cities." BBC News has video of the blood stained ground as well as some of the wounded at the hospital. Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) quotes Abu Muhammad outside the Tikrit hospital stating, "My brother was there between the recruiters. I don't know if he is still alive or dead." Ned Parker and Salar Jaff (Los Angeles Times) provide this context, "Militants from Iraq's onetime Sunni elite have long opposed efforts to recruit members of their sect to position in the new security forces, and have used intimidation and violence to keep them away." Charles McDermid and Nizar Latif (Time magazine) points out, "The latest is almost certainly going to increase pressure on al-Maliki, who rode to re-election on a strongman persona and promises to restore stability. But the Prime Minister has not yet appointed anyone to the nation's top security posts; he is running the departments himself in the interim." Ned Parker and Hameed Rasheed (Los Angeles Times) report these numbers: 60 dead and 160 wounded. They also quote Mohammed Ahmed Jaboori (possibly speaking for many Iraqis) stating, "This explosion shows the big security infiltration and violation. They cannot control all of these poples. They don't have any observation or inspections."
In other reported violence today, Reuters notes 1 police offficer was injured in a Baghdad shooting, 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 bystander were injured in a Baghdad shooting and 3 Baghdad roadside bombings left eleven people injured.
The Economist wonders about the violence and feels, for Iraqis, Moqtada al-Sadr's call for them not to attack one another might prevent another sectarian war, "Instead, says Al-Sadr, they should resist 'the occupation through armed, cultural and all kinds of resistance'. That implies a worrying year ahead for the 50,000 or so American troops who have remained in Iraq after the official departure last summer of America's combat troops."
Saturday three US soldiers were killed, a fourth died on Monday. DoD issued the following yesterday: "The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of two soldiers who were supporting Operation New Dawn. They died Jan. 15 in Mosul, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an Iraqi soldier from the unit with which they were training shot them with small arms fire. They were assigned to the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. Killed were: Sgt. Michael P. Bartley, 23, of Barnhill, Ill. [and] Spc. Martin J. Lamar, 43, of Sacramento, Calif. For more information on this release, media may contact the Fort Hood public affairs office at 254-287-9993." And they issued this yesterday as well: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn. Spc. Jose A. Torre, Jr., 21, of Garden Grove, Calif., died Jan.15 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with a rocket-propelled grenade. He was assigned to the Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Advise and Assist Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. For more information related to this release, the media may contact the Ft. Riley Public Affairs office at 785-239-2022." When DoD updates the count -- today around ten a.m. EST -- the number will rise from at 4435 to 4438. They haven't yet announced Monday's death so they won't include it in their count (unless they make an announcement before they issue the count).
While The Economist sees a civil war as unlikely, libertarian Ivan Eland (Antiwar.com) has another view:
The lull in Iraqi mayhem was mainly achieved by the U.S. bribery of Iraqi Sunni tribes (the "Awakening") to fight against their foreign-led Sunni brethren from al-Qaeda. The bribery worked because even Sunnis were shocked at the over-the-top brutality of al-Qaeda against civilians, including Sunnis; these ruthless foreigners were eventually perceived as being worse than even an American occupation. A similar outcome occurred in Malaya from 1948 to 1960, as majority Malayans hated the minority Chinese (perceived foreigners) more than the British occupation. It enabled Britain to tactically defeat the largely Chinese insurgency and adroitly exit Malaya.
Despite the likely ephemeral nature of the respite in Iraq, the United States should similarly withdraw its remaining 50,000 troops from Iraq and not be suckered by any Iraqi government requests to stay longer. The longer U.S. forces stay, the more likely they are to be engulfed in any renewal of ethno-sectarian violence.
Neighboring Iran wielded its now significant influence in Iraq to end the nine-month post-election stalemate, allowing the return of the fiercely anti-American critic Muqtada al-Sadr. The United States, even with its remaining troop presence, was eclipsed by Iran in ending the political gridlock. Al-Sadr's triumphant return as a key pillar in support of Nouri al-Maliki's Shi'ite-led government means the pressure for a full U.S. withdrawal will increase. Thus, a seemingly hidden goal of the George W. Bush administration for invading Iraq in the first place -- gaining access to Iraqi military bases to safeguard Persian Gulf oil, replacing those in Saudi Arabia that were lost -- would need to be abandoned. With al-Sadr back in the country and acting as a power broker in al-Maliki's governing coalition, an Iraqi request for U.S. forces to stay past their end-of-2011 withdrawal date is less likely.

Iraq's Christians have been targeted throughout the Iraq War. The latest wave of targeting began October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. Al Mada reports today that Jalal Talabani, Iraqi President, met with EU ambassadors whose countries are accredited to Iraq and stated that at the forefront of the challenges facing Iraq are terrorism and the targeting of Christians. He noted that he met with Muslim and Christian religious officials about the targeting on Friday and Talabani spoke of a "new Iraq" where Iraqis live with one another "in harmony and peace" and live with their neighboring countries and the world "in harmony and peace." KRG President Massoud Barzani also met with religious leaders. Al Mada reports he met with offiicals from the Chaldean Culture Society, National Council, the Assyrian Democratic Movement, the Chaldean Democratic Forum, the Federation House of Mesopotamia and others to discuss the targeting of Iraqi Christians. Barzani told the "delegation that he will always ben an advocate and strong supporter for the Christian brotherhood."
Friday's snapshot included the following:
However, approximately at the time Talabani was speaking to reporters, the Christian Association of Ashurbanipal in Baghdad was under attack and their property was damanged by unknown assailants and by, according to eye witness, Baghdad police officers. Abdul-Karim, speaking for the police, denied that they were connected to the attack. One eye witness reports that the Baghdad police could be seen with the assailants and exclaiming, "We are an Islamic state!" and "No place for Christians and Yazidis in Baghdad!" Iraqi Christians have long been targeted throughout the Iraq War and the latest wave of attacks started October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad leading to the deaths of approximately 70 people with approximately 70 others left injured.
Saturday John Leland (New York Times) reported on the raid (but states it took place Thursday night) and quotes Christian Association of Ashurbanipal in Baghdad board member Sharif Aso stating, "They came in and said, 'You are criminals. This is not your country. Leave immediately." From Leland's article:
The intruders wore civilian clothes, said Mr. Aso and others at the organization, but their arrival was preceded by three police vehicles that blocked off the street. He said the men stole his ring and bashed him ont he leg with a pistol.

Tunring to news of basic services, Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Yahya Barzanji (AP) report on Abdul-Rahman Mustafa, Governor of Tamim Province, and his decision to stop supplying Baghdad with electricity while his capital (Kirkuk) makes do with less than four hours of electricity each day. Marwan Ibrahim (AFP) adds, "Rizgar Ali, chairman of Kirkuk's provincial council, said the procedure of separating from the national grid was completed on Tuesday evening." An unnamed US embassy official expresses concern and remind, "We saw riots last summer . . . that's a concern." Al Rafidayn terms it a "secession" and notes local demonstrators ("dozens") protested between Kirkuk and Erbil over the fact that they have daily power outages in excess of twenty hours. Al Sabaah reports that Monday saw over 1,000 people demonstrate in Diyala Province's Khan Bani Saad over the poor services and the deterioration of edcation offered -- on the latter, specific complaints include that the sole school was so small and "built with mud" and has over 1300 students enrolled in it.
In England, they're gearing up for War Hawk Tony Blair's testimony this Friday before the Iraq Inquiry and Mark Townsend (Guardian) has reported that "Tony Blair is set for fresh embarrassment over the Iraq War this week when he is cross-exmined about contradictions relation to the manipulation of intelligence before the invasion." Brian Brady (Independent of London) adds, "Members of the five-strong Chilcot inquiry have grave doubts over the truthfulness of statements the former prime minister made to them last January and in his memoirs, published last autumn. The Independent on Sunday understands that the inquiry is concerned over Mr Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. He also faces claims that he misrepresented the findings of a report from international inspectors sent into Iraq following the invasion to look for evidence that Saddam Hussein had been building an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." If you're late to the Iraq Inquiry, the Guardian has a tongue-in-cheek overview here. The Daily Telegraph reports:

In written evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry into the war, Lord Goldsmith said statements made by the ex-prime minister in the months before the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein were incompatible with the guidance he had given.
On January 14 2003 the Attorney General advised Mr Blair that UN Security Council resolution 1441 was not enough on its own to justify the use of force against Iraq.

The Inquiry has published Goldsmith's written statements questioning Tony Blair's testimony of events. The Iraq Inquiry might be taken more seriously were it not for the WikiLeaks revelation that the British government told the White House that they'd ensure the US wasn't embarrassed by the revelations. Add in that Tony Blair played the committee for fools last January and what needs to be proven on Friday is that the Inquiry is truly independent. That's even more difficult when they've just lost a power struggle. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports, "Britain's top civil servant, Sir Gus O'Donnell, is preventing the official inquiry into the Iraq invasion from publishing notes sent by Tony Blair to George W Bush -- evidence described by the inquiry as of 'central importance' in establishing the circumstances that led to war. O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, consulted Blair before suppressing the documents, it emerged tonight." John Chilcot is the Chair of the Iraq Inquiry and, in his opening statement at today's session, he commented on the efforts to keep things from the public:
The Inquiry will always seek to take evidence in public unless there are specific grounds under our protocols why it cannot do so. The Inquiry is determined to be as transparent as possible in its work. I thought that was important when I took on the role of Chairman and our commitment to make public as much as possible continues. Yesterday we published the transcripts of five of our private evidence sessions on the Inquiry website. In places, extracts have been redacted in accordance with the protocol with the government. We are pleased that we have been able to make so much public. We will continue to publish further transcripts and declassified documents in the coming weeks to assist the public understanding of our work.
There is one area where, I am sorry to say, it has not been possible to reach agreement with the government.
The papers we hold include the notes which Prime Minister Blair sent to President Bush and the records of their discussions. The Inquiry recognises the privileged nature of those exchanges but, exceptionally, we sought disclosure of key extracts which illuminate Prime Minister Blair's positions at critical points. The Cabinet Office did not agree this disclosure. On 10 December last year, in accordance with the Protocol, I asked the Cabinet Secretary to review that decision. I also made it clear that, if we could not reach agreement, I would publish the correspondence between us. I am doing so today.
The Inquiry is disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary was not willing to accede to its request. This means that in a narrow but important area the Inquiry may not always be able to publish as fully as it would wish the evidential basis for some of its comments and conclusions.
The Inquiry is free to say what it thinks. We shall complete our task and make our own independent judgements about the UK's involvement in Iraq.
Rosa Prince (Telegraph of London) emphasizes, "He made clear that it would be more difficult to question the former prime minister when he gives evidence for a second time on Frdiay without reference to the letters and notes." Gonzalo Vina (Bloomberg News) notes Steve Field, spokesperson for UK Prime Minister David Cameron, stating today that the decision to censor did not come from his boss, "It's very much the Cabinet secretary's decision." [Labour Party Tony Blair was replaced as Prime Minister by Gordon Brown who was replaced last year by Conservative Party David Cameron.] Tony Blair's questioning is already thought to be difficult since so much of what he testified to has been contradicted by other witnesses. AP notes that Peter Goldsmith, Blair's then Attorney General, rejects the claims Blair made to the Inquiry about his legal advice. Blair groupie Glen Oglaza (Sky News) words it this way: "Lord Goldsmith, former Attorney General, has made an astonishing claim in written evidence to the Inquiry: That on January 14th 2003, he advised the Prime Minister that invading Iraq would be illegal without a second UN resolution, but the very next day, January 15th, Mr. Blair stood up in the House of Commons and told MPs that such an invasion would be LEGAL under the existing UN Resolution 1441. Asked if that was compatible with his advice, Lord Goldsmith wrote: 'No', and went on to say he felt 'uncomfortable' watching the Prime Minister's performance." Stop the War UK is organizing protests against War Criminal Tony Blair.

Reasons to protest when Tony Blair is recalled to give evidence to the Iraq Inquiry on 21 January:

JOIN THE PROTEST 21 JANUARY
QEII Conference Centre 8am-2pm
London SW1P 3EE

(Tube Westminster or St James's
Please publicise as widely as you can
In the US, Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports that approximatley 35,000 US Army soldiers are entitled to stop-loss pay but have not applied for it. To be clear, claiming the pay does not mean you are going to be stop-lossed. This is pay for people who were stop-lossed. Stop-loss is popularly known as the back door draft. It's where you have enlisted, you serve your agreed upon time, you prepare to leave the military and the government informs you that you're not leaving, that they've extended your contract. Those who experienced this are entitled to additional pay and that's what 35,000 soldiers have yet to claim. The deadline to apply has been extended to March 4th. You can visit this DoD page for more information including:

Apply Now for Retroactive
Stop Loss Special Pay

The following service-specific sites provide more information and allow you to begin the RSLSP claim process.


Army


Navy


Marine Corps


Air Force


Turning to the topic of Iraq War veteran Bradley Manning. Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning is now at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key and still not allowed to speak to the press. Paul Courson (CNN) notes Bradley is a suspect and, "He has not admitted guilt in either incident, his supporters say."

The Law Office of David E. Coombs (Bradley's attorney) offers:

The defense has raised its objection to the documented confinement conditions of PFC Bradley Manning on multiple occasions with the Quantico confinement facility and the Staff Judge Advocate's (SJA) Office. On 5 January 2011, the defense filed a formal complaint with the commander of the Quantico Brig. On the same day, PFC Manning also filed a formal complaint through the confinement grievance process. Both complaints requested that the confinement facility remove PFC Manning from Prevention of Injury (POI) watch and that his classification level be reduced from "Maximum" to "Medium Detention In." The confinement facility did not respond to either complaint.
Due to the lack of response from the confinement facility, the defense, pursuant to the provisions of Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 305(g), filed a request earlier today with the Garrison Commander to direct the release of PFC Bradley Manning from pretrial confinement. This request is based upon the fact that the confinement conditions currently being endured by PFC Manning are more rigorous than necessary to guarantee his presence at trial, and that the concerns raised by the government at the time of pretrial confinement are no longer applicable. Further steps to address PFC Manning's confinement conditions will be taken, if necessary.

Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR), a non-profit organization of psychologists committed to social change and social justice, has written a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, protesting "the needless brutality of the conditions to which 23-year-old PFC Bradley Manning is being subjected" at the Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Virginia. He has been accused of unauthorized access to classified material, some of which he allegedly downloaded to his computer, as well as other computer and security-related charges.

It is widely speculated that these charges relate to materials turned over to the Wikileaks website, including a video of an Apache helicopter attack civilians in Baghdad, the Iraq War logs, and thousands of State Department diplomatic cables. The military charge sheet accuses Manning of "wrongfully introducing more than 50 classified United States Department of State cables onto his personal computer, a non-secure information system." It also alleges he downloaded a Powerpoint presentation, and "a classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007."

Manning was held for approximately three weeks at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait before being transferred to Quantico, where he has remained in solitary confinement since late last July. In an article last month, I reported on PFC Manning's current psychological state, as best as I could determine from speaking to David House, who had just visited him, and on the deleterious effects of solitary confinement in general. PsySR's letter speaks at length also about the harsh conditions of solitary, and notes "no such putative risk can justify keeping someone not convicted of a crime in conditions likely to cause serious harm to his mental health."



Posted by at

Friday, January 14, 2011

Stevie Nicks

Third Age reports that the Delta Sigma Theta sorority is celebrating its 98th year and that one of my favorites, Roberta Flack, is among the alumni. Meanwhile Ben Wener (OC Register) reports that Stevie Nicks will be touring with Rod Stewart which kicks off March 20th. Meanwhile Stevie's latest album In Your Dreams is released May 3rd. And her website notes, "2011 Tour Tour dates for the Stevie Nicks and Rod Stewart Heart & Soul 2011 US Tour are available. See the Tour Dates Page."

This will be Stevie's first studio album since Trouble in Shangra-la.

I'm excited about it. I doubt I'm the only one. On the tour? My question is will Rod be singing favorites or his torch songs? I'll go either way for Stevie but if Rod's doing "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered," I'll be less enchanted than if he's doing "Every Picture Tells A Story."

But Stevie is always great in concert. True even on the Rock A Little tour which some have rewritten as a waste (I guess due to drug use). That's just not true. "Has Anyone Ever Written Anything For You?" -- for example -- really came alive on that tour and I've always wished Stevie would re-record it.


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


Friday, January 14, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, a group of Iraqis demonstrate against continued war and occupation, Diane Rehm wonders "But what about what the American people have been told?," Christians in Baghdad are attacked and eye witnesses state the police were among the attackers, Barack Obama finally has a statement about the attacks on Iraqi Christians, and more.
This week US Vice President Joe Biden visited several countries including Afghanistan and Iraq. On the second hour of today's The Diane Rehm Show, the visit was discussed and we're emphasing the Iraq section but picking up at the end of the Afghanistan discussion. Diane's guests were NPR's Tom Gjelten, NBC News' Courtney Kube and UPI's Martin Walker. Excerpt:
Diane Rehm: Courtney?
Courtney Kube: Yeah, on Vice President Biden's remarks in Afghanistan, I-I had to laugh when I read that the other day because he's made so many comments about the withdrawal -- the deadline in Afghanistan -- in the past few months. Just three weeks ago, he told Meet The Press -- NBC's Meet The Press -- that-that the US was going to be out of Afghanistan in 2014 come hell or high water. So three weeks later he's standing with President Karzai and says they're going to stay there. Now if you read through his remarks, it's plausible that he was specifically referring to supporting an Afghanistan nation-building plan and that-that it's possible he was talking more about the US would be there in a support role for nation-building -- that's sort of how his aides were spinning it afterwards. Whether that's what he meant or not, you got to ask Vice President Biden, though.
Tom Gjelten: You have to wonder, Diane, whether President [Barack] Obama sent Vice President Biden on this trip to Afghanistan precisely to force him into that situation to clarify his remarks. I think it was -- You know, we were -- everyone was -- looking for the magic words from him about the withdrawal and he did say to them -- he said that the withdrawal of US forces would be "conditions based" and that is not his position before. Clearly, he had gotten the message from President Obama that he needed to get on the same page as the rest of the administration in supporting the policy. That's one point. The second point is, as Martin eluded to, no one could better project the-the credibility of this message than the very figure of the administration who had been most skeptical of it. So, if you have Vice President Biden saying the United States is ready to stay after 2014, you can assume there are no more dissenting voices that are going to detract from that message.
Diane Rehm: But what about what the American people have been told? Namely that we are gonna get out [of Afghanistan] in 2014? Does that matter at all?
Martin Walker: It depends what you mean by "out." And I think this is Courtney's point, but -- as we're seeing in Iraq -- it's one thing to withdraw combat troops.
Diane Rehm: Sounds like the definition of the word "if."
Martin Walker: Exactly. That's the echo I was seeking. But there is a difference between having combat troops engaged in combat aggressive operations and having a number of support troops [who are] training troops and so on. And I think we're going to see that distinction blurred as creatively as possible by the administration over the next couple of years.
Tom Gjelten: You know, Diane, I'll go out on a limb here, I think what really concerns American people more than anything else is casualties and if you can --
Diane Rehm: Exactly.
Tom Gjelten (Con't): -- come up with a presence that does not produce a lot of casualties, there's gonna be a lot more tolerance for it. The United States still has a lot of combat troops in Iraq and will continue to have for a long time. But casualties there have gone way, way down. And I think that probably means the United States would be inclined to accept it -- the people of the United States would be inclined to accept it.
Diane Rehm: But what about Moqtada al-Sadr and his comments that he wants the US out of Iraq right now?
Martin Walker: Well he's back and he seems almost as feisty as [in] the past. What he was not saying was that he would perhaps lead any kind of military action to drive the Americans out. What is really striking is that his joining the government means that the deal that was reached with [Ayad] Allawi to bring the Sunnis on board by making him [Allawi] chairman of this new national strategy council -- that deal now looks hollow. In other words, the stability of Iraq in the future -- which will depend upon Sunni support -- now looks a great deal less certain than it was looking just two weeks ago.
Since Diane raised the issue of Moqtada al-Sadr, we'll move first to him and his supporters. Khaled Farhan, Khalid al-Ansary, Michael Christie and Tim Pearce (Reuters) report that approximately 2,000 followers of Moqtada al-Sadr marched through Kufa protesting that Joe Biden had visited and, P.S., they don't want him coming back. Of course the protest might not be so damn laughable if they'd managed to stage it while Joe Biden was actually in Iraq. In what should be a show of strength or at least moderate influence, the Sadr movement looks incredibly sad as their protest takes place after Biden leaves. So much for the talk of 'powerful' Moqtada and his 'powerful' movement. Azzaman reports that the followers "chanted anti-Ameircan slogans" and quoted follower Mohammed Abbas ("day-laborer") stating, "We demand no repeat visits to Iraq by Biden and we demand the departure of the occupier."
In the midst of a series of high profile meetings with Nouri al-Maliki, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali al-Sistani and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Moqtada al-Sadr presumably wanted to "stay on message." The protest knocked him off that and, in fact, got far more attention than did any of his photo-ops. It's doubtful al-Sadr's sanctined, let alone called for, the demonstration which only further indicates the problems he will be experiencing in the coming months as he tries to strike the pose of leader of a civil and engaged political body. His years and years in exile has allowed his 'movement' to engage in a variety of activities and, as Kufa's protest demonstrates, they still think that is appropriate -- even when it knocks al-Sadr off message and, in fact, upstages him and forces him to spend Saturday addressing the topic of the protest. So much for 'fearless' or 'fearful' leader Moqtada al-Sadr. Whether these are merely initial growing pains as the 'movement' and the man re-embrace or if they are signs of a natural split emerging will be determined in the coming months.
Moqtada al-Sadr wasn't the only one visiting al-Sistaning, also visiting him was Iraq's President Jalal Talabani. Al Mada reports that al-Sistani stressed that Iraq was a place for all Iraqis regardless of "religion, doctrine or nationalism, they are all brothers and we stand as one" and that Talabani told reporters after the meeting that he discussed with al-Sistani the suffering of Iraqi Christians and that al-Sistani repudiates the attacks and calls them crimes that do an injustice to all of Iraq. However, approximatley at the time Talabani was speaking to reporters, the Christian Association of Ashurbanipal in Baghdad was under attack and their property was damanged by unknown assailants and by, according to eye witness, Baghdad police officers. Abdul-Karim, speaking for the police, denied that they were connected to the attack. One eye witness reports that the Baghdad police could be seen with the assailants and exclaiming, "We are an Islamic state!" and "No place for Christians and Yazidis in Baghdad!" Iraqi Christians have long been targeted throughout the Iraq War and the latest wave of attacks started October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad leading to the deaths of approximately 70 people with approximately 70 others left injured.
In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the highest ranking US official to speak out on the ongoing attacks. Joe Biden quickly followed. Today President Barack Obama issued the following proclamation:
Our Nation was founded on a shared commitment to the values of justice, freedom, and equality. On Religious Freedom Day, we commemorate Virginia's 1786 Statute for Religious Freedom, in which Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion." The fundamental principle of religious freedom -- guarded by our Founders and enshrined in our Constitution's First Amendment -- continues to protect rich faiths flourishing within our borders.
The writ of the Founding Fathers has upheld the ability of Americans to worship and practice religion as they choose, including the right to believe in no religion at all. However, these liberties are not self-sustaining, and require a stalwart commitment by each generation to preserve and apply them. Throughout our Nation's history, our founding ideal of religious freedom has served as an example to the world. Though our Nation has sometimes fallen short of the weighty task of ensuring freedom of religious expression and practice, we have remained a Nation in which people of different faiths coexist with mutual respect and equality under the law. America's unshakeable commitment to religious freedom binds us together as a people, and the strength of our values underpins a country that is tolerant, just, and strong.
My Administration continues to defend the cause of religious freedom in the United States and around the world. At home, we vigorously protect the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs. Across the globe, we also seek to uphold this human right and to foster tolerance and peace with those whose beliefs differ from our own. We bear witness to those who are persecuted or attacked because of their faith. We condemn the attacks made in recent months against Christians in Iraq and Egypt, along with attacks against people of all backgrounds and beliefs. The United States stands with those who advocate for free religious expression and works to protect the rights of all people to follow their conscience, free from persecution and discrimination.
On Religious Freedom Day, let us reflect on the principle of religious freedom that has guided our Nation forward, and recommit to upholding this universal human right both at home and around the world.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2011, as Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to commemorate this day with events and activities that teach us about this critical foundation of our Nation's liberty, and to show us how we can protect it for future generations here and around the world.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.
Returning to the topic of Joe Biden's visit and the ongoing Iraq War, Al Mada reports that both US and Iraqi officials are "calling for" some sort of "small American force" to remain in Iraq "in order to provide air support and military assistance" and notes Labid Abawi, Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister, says the security agreement will be worked on by "a high joint committee" and numerous subcomittees and that any amendment extending it "depends upon the request of one of the parties and the approval of the second party." Jack Kenny (New American) notes Biden's "hints" at a longer US presence and offers:
Whether al-Sadr and the 40-member Shi'ite faction in the nation's parliament could block an extension of the deadline is not known. What may be of greater concern to the United States is the link to Iran al-Sadr represents after spending the past four years there, and the growing influence Tehran may exert on the politics of neighboring Iraq. Iran, along with Saddam's Iraq and North Korea, was labeled part of the "axis of evil" by President George W. Bush and hostility between Washington and Tehran has continued over Iran's alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons. While U.S. officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations have not ruled out a military strike against Iran, another war in the Middle East is something the United States can ill afford, both financially and militarily, while it is still fighting a nine-year-old war in Afghanistan and winding down its mission in Iraq. As Biden recalled in a speech to American troops in Baghdad yesterday, that mission has so far resulted in more than 4,000 American dead and some 32,000 wounded.
Whether the US is leaving or not, 12 escapees left a Basra prison today. AFP reports, "A dozen suspected members of Al-Qaeda's front group in Iraq escaped from a prison in the south of the country on Friday morning, police said." Reuters quotes Ali Ghanim al-Maliki, "head of the security committee of Basra's provincial committee," stating. "All of the men are linked to the Islamic State of Iraq, that is linked to al Qaeda. Some of them were arrested eight months ago, and three of them were arrested a month or less than a month ago. All the guards securing the compound have been detained for investigation. Of course, there was collusion from within the compound, but we do not know who is involved at this moment." Al Mada reports that photos of the escapees have been distributed to checkpoints throughout Basra.
Reuters notes today's violence includes a Tikrit sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 city worker and a Mosul sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer.
Meanwhile Fadel al-Nashmi (Niqash) examines the politics of Iraq or the way politicians posture at any rate:
Three months have passed since the publication of US secret documents by the Wikileaks site, which included 400,000 documents relating to Iraqi political affairs. So far, there has been no serious Iraqi response.
Instead, the two main political forces in the country, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law Coalition, and Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya list, initially tried using these documents to further their own interests.
The Iraqiya list demanded investigations over allegations that Maliki had commanded squads that killed and tortured his opponents.
Maliki denied these accusations, saying they were "tricks and media bubbles planned to serve certain political goals."
But since the two parties joined forces and agreed on the formation of a new government at the end of December 2010, they have both ignored the Wikileaks documents.
Yesterday, we noted that spin on Iraqi refugees that's being advanced. Strange, isn't it? At a time when the White House should be explaining the number of refugees admitted to Iraq, instead there's a 'press' 'movement' about to insist that there were never that many Iraqi refugees. We called out those lies yesterday and the chief liar. Turns out Thomas E. Ricks' online equivalent of a sex toy, Joel Wing, is advancing the lies as well. In a lengthy post that says so very little, he advances every lie in the book and then -- to back up his lies or make it appear that they have been -- he lists 12 sources. But only two of them apply to "Not so many refugees!" and they're both the bad 'reporting' of Nicholas Seeley. Seems to me if you're including Works Cited for a piece claiming that the number of Iraqi refugees was much smaller than reported, you'd need more than one source for that claim but Nicholas Seeley is Wing's only source. Joel Wing may not be lying, he may truly be that stupid. Stupid tends to attract stupid and that would explain that Wing-Ricks online loving. But if you're so damn stupid that you don't grasp that most refugees in the country are not going to register -- especially in countries where they are not legally allowed to work -- or the issues of 'visiting' which requires some Iraqi refugees to cross the border back into Iraq and then return to get their passports stamped, then maybe you should find another subject to write about?
Staying on the topic of lies, BBC News reports the Iraq Inquiry will again take testimony from War Hawk Tony Blair on January 21st. Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) notes:
This page on the Hutton Inquiry website provides a great deal of detail on the redrafting of the September 2002 Iraq dossier, including the dates and times that drafts of Tony Blair's foreword were circulated.
At 10.01 on 17 September 2002, Alastair Campbell, who wrote the foreword, circulated this first draft.
"I am in no doubt that the threat is serious, and current; that he has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped; that he does not want the UN inspectors in precisely because he has a great deal to hide."
But Saddam had already agreed to the return of UN inspectors. For example, at 02.39 that morning, the Guardian had reported that:
"Saddam Hussein last night caved in and agreed to the unconditional return of weapons inspectors to Iraq."

Turning to the US, Wil Cruz (Fox News Latino) reports on the journey home of the bodies of Sgt Jose M. Cintron Rosado and Spc Jose Delgado Arroyo who became the two most recent US military deaths in Iraq January 2nd. Cruz notes, "The deaths of Cintrón Rosado and Delgado Arroyo, the third and fourth soldiers from the Puerto Rico National Guard killed since Sept. 11, are a somber reminder of the sacrifice Puerto Ricans and Latinos have made to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all, 593 Latino members of the military have been killed since Oct. 7, 2001, when U.S. soldiers and Marines first landed in Afghanistan, according to the Department of Defense. And that number doesn't include casualties who have committed suicide after returning from their tours."

Larry Copeland (USA Today) notes that it's not just people, things are also coming back from Iraq, the unmanned drones are itching to come to your neighborhood:

One of the chief obstacles to widespread use of UAVs is their inability to "see and avoid" other aircraft as required by federal regulations, a key to flight safety. Davis says he believes operators on the ground can comply with federal rules if they can see the aircraft and the surrounding environment. Wesley Randall, principal investigator on an FAA grant awarded last year to researchers at Auburn University to study the risks associated with unmanned aircraft, predicts drones will be used by police departments in five to 10 years. Randall predicts that much larger unmanned aircraft will be used to transport cargo within 15-20 years.
No local police departments have been authorized to use unmanned aircraft, although police departments in Houston and Miami have conducted field tests of such planes, Dorr says.

Also home from Iraq is of Bradley Manning. Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning is now at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key and still not allowed to speak to the press. Paul Courson (CNN) notes Bradley is a suspect and, "He has not admitted guilt in either incident, his supporters say." War Is A Crime's David Swanson passes on:

DIFFENDING DISSENT FOUNDATION
Founded in 1960 as the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee
CONTACT: Sue Udry, 301-325-1201 sue.udry@defendingdissent.org

Martin Luther King Day is Monday, January 17, 2011

Invoking the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, peace and justice activists to descend on Quantico prison to protest torture of Bradley Manning

MLK Day plans call for noon demonstration at FBI headquarters in Washington followed by caravan to Quantico Marine Base

"Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak."
- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

We'll celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day in a way that would make the great man proud. We embrace his legacy. Martin will be with us in the streets.

Noon: Protest at FBI Headquarters - 935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC, to demonstrate our outrage and indignation against police state surveillance, infiltration, and attempts to entrap peace, environmental, animal rights, civil rights, and solidarity activists.
Renowned "whistleblower" Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, who testified to the Senate Judiciary on FBI's pre 9-11 failures, will address the crowd at the FBI headquarters. Ms. Rowley describes FBI abuses, "Instead of safeguarding our freedom and security, the FBI has become a growing danger to those trying to exercise our Constitutional rights. It is alarming to see the FBI revert to the abuses of the Vietnam era."

1 pm: Convoy to Quantico - We'll take off from the center of the American police state in a caravan to Marine Corps Base Quantico where military authorities are holding our brother Bradley Manning in an inhumane condition of solitary confinement. (Quantico is 45 minutes south of DC.)

2 pm: Rally at the Iwo Jima statue, Quantico Marine Base - The statue is at the southwest corner of Rt. 1 (Jefferson Davis Hwy) and Rt. 619 (Fuller Rd.) From I-95: Take exit 150, Quantico/Triangle. Take route 619 east to the entrance of the base.

Activists will descend on Quantico to protest the isolation and torture of Bradley Manning at Marine Corps Brig Quantico. This treatment is designed to break Manning's mind and reduce his ability to defend himself. Manning has been kept in 23 out of 24 hour solitary confinement for 7 months in a 6 foot by 12 foot cell. He is not allowed any meaningful exercise, has his sleep and day-night cycles disrupted by constant light, and is harassed by what the military calls "prevention of injury" measures. These require a guard to ask him every 5 minutes "are you ok?" which requires an affirmative response.

We call on Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., Army Chief of Staff, Gen. James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Colonel Daniel J. Choike, Base Commander, Marine Corps Base Quantico, to end the inhumane, degrading conditions of pre-trial confinement and respect Bradley's human rights. Specifically, we are calling on Pentagon officials to lift the "prevention of injury" watch. This would allow Bradley meaningful physical exercise, uninterrupted sleep during the night, and a release from isolation.

See the Letter from Psychologists for Social Responsibility to Defense Secretary Gates

Dan Ellsberg captures our sentiments regarding Bradley, "I spent years [during Vietnam] keeping my mouth shut as presidents lied to us and kept these secrets. I shouldn't have done that. And that's why I admire someone like Bradley Manning, or whoever the source was, for actually risking their own personal freedom in order to tell us the truth. I think they're being better citizens and showing their patriotism in a better way than when they keep their mouths shut."

(See our letter attached hereto.)

"Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love."
- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Endorsed by: Backbone Campaign, Bill of Right Defense Committee, Bradley Manning Support Network, CodePink, Courage to Resist, DC Bill of Rights Coalition, DC National Lawyers Guild, Defending Dissent Foundation, Democrats.com, Friends of Human Rights, Jobs for Afghans, Montgomery County Civil Rights Coalition, National Accountability Action Network, National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, Peace Action, Peace of the Action, Progressive Democrats of America, United for Peace and Justice, Voters for Peace, WarIsACrime.org, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, Witness Against Torture, World Can't Wait
That's only one action this month. Another is scheduled for Tuesday, January 25th and this is from Stop FBI Repression about the January 25th actions:
In December 2010, under the direction of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the FBI delivered nine new subpoenas in Chicago to anti-war and Palestine solidarity activists. Patrick Fitzgerald's office is ordering the nine to appear at a Grand Jury in Chicago on January 25.
In response we are calling for protests on Jan. 25 across the country and around the world to show our solidarity. Hundreds of organizations and thousands of people will be protesting at Federal Buildings, FBI offices, and other appropriate places, showing solidarity with the nine newly subpoenaed activists, and with all the activists whose homes were raided by the FBI.
Fitzgerald's expanding web of repression already includes the fourteen subpoenaed when the FBI stormed into homes on September 24th, carting away phones, computers, notebooks, diaries, and children's artwork. In October, all fourteen activists from Chicago, Minneapolis, and Michigan each decided to not participate in the secret proceedings of Fitzgerald's Grand Jury. Each signed a letter invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. However, three women from Minneapolis -- Tracy Molm, Anh Pham, and Sarah Martin -- are facing re-activated subpoenas. They are standing strong and we are asking you to stand with them --and with the newly subpoenaed nine activists -- by protesting Patrick Fitzgerald and his use of the Grand Jury and FBI to repress anti-war and international solidarity activists.
Defend free speech! Defend the right to organize! Opposing war and occupation is not a crime!
  • Tell Patrick Fitzgerald to call off the Grand Jury!
  • Stop FBI raids and repression!

Take Action!

Please organize a local protest or picket in your city or on your campus on Tuesday Jan. 25 and e-mail us at stopfbi@gmail.com to let us know what you have planned.
The Committee to Stop FBI Repression www.StopFBI.net
Please e-mail stopfbi@gmail.com or call 612-379-3585
Here is a flyer you can use for your local protest (pdf). Just fill in the time and location of your local protest, and local contact information if you want.
We'll note two other actions. First, this is the upcoming Iraq Veterans Against the War event:

February 25, 2011 9:30 - 10:30 am
Busboys & Poets, Langston room
14th & V st NW Washington DC
This report back will be to answer questions from media and the peace movement about the recent trip back to Iraq by members of Iraq Veterans Against the War. The war is not over but it is not the same as it was in years past. What is the humanitarian situation in Iraq?
How can we do reparations and reconciliation work?
Speakers are all returning from this delegation and include:
Geoff Millard (IVAW) Hart Viges (IVAW) Haider Al-Saedy (Iraqi Health Now)
Richard Rowely (Big Noise Films)
The following month, A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in this action:

March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries.

The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war.

While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people.

Actions of civil resistance are spreading.

On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C.

Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine.

Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more.

Click this link to endorse the March 19, 2011, Call to Action.

Descent Into Madness
"60 Minutes" talks to Jared Loughner's friends and classmates and to ex-Secret Service, to reconstruct the pathway to mass murder he allegedly took in Tucson - a pattern this agent who once guarded the president could write a textbook about. Scott Pelley reports.
Yemen
Steve Kroft reports on the U.S.'s new partner in the war on terror, Yemen, a known al Qaeda hideout and recently the source of several explosive packages sent to America.
The Gambler
Las Vegas sports betting legend Bill Walters has never had a losing year - a winning a streak that's made odds makers call him the "most dangerous sports bettor in Nevada." Lara Logan reports. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 16, at 8 p.m. ET, 7 p.m. PT.


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)