What is sexual assault?

What is sexual assault?

I'm not debating that it exists.

I'm saying we all know what it is.

But the VA, in Monday's House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee hearing, insisted that they can't rush into things and they're going to need to spend weeks and weeks and weeks coming up with a definition for sexual assault.

This is just another attempt by the VA to ignore the issue -- and, most importantly, their own failure and record of failure on this issue.

C.I.'s covering the hearing in the snapshot (at the end of my post) and I thought I'd just add to that how reluctant (I'm being very kind) the VA witnesses were to answer the Congress' questions.

It was embarrassing. The GAO issued a report awhile back (I think last week) that found an alarming trend: veterans and VA employees were being sexually assaulted at the VA.

Now the VA should have come forward with that and with the serious issue that sexual assaults are not, as they're supposed to, being reported to the VA's Inspector General.

But they appear to have thought no one would find out and that they could stonewall if it did come out. It's come out and all they're doing is stonewalling.

Defining sexual assault? At most, that's a one hour meeting.


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

Tuesday, June 14, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, 2 US soldiers are announced dead, a hostage situation takes place in Diyala Province, torture and War Crimes may get investigated in the US, torture and War Crimes may be buried in a British inquiry, the VA stalls, evades and stonewalls a House Subcommitteee, are active duty soldiers be giving the time needed to heal, and more. CNN and AP both report that the US military has announced 2 US soldiers were killed yesterday. Other than stating the deaths took place in southern Iraq, the military had nothing else to say. Were there any wounded? As we noted yesterday they appear to be under orders to no longer note when soldiers are injured. The 2 deaths announced this morning follow last week's 6 deaths. 5 on Monday,: Spc Emilio J. Campo Jr., Spc Michael B. Cook Jr., Spc. Christopher B. Fishbeck, Spc Robert P. Hartwick and Pfc Michael C. Olivieri. Wounded? The military's refused to say but reports vary from five to fifteen. The sixth death was last Pfc Michael J. England on Wednesday. And though the military never bothered to inform the citizens of any wounded, thanks to Ryan E. Little (The Ledger) we know that Spc Charles Lemon was injured in the same Najaf bombing and "lost both legs and suffered other injuries including burns to his body." Last week, on Monday, ABC's World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer didn't have time to note 5 US soldiers died. It'll be interesting to see if the program makes time to note the 2 deaths. The Pentagon counts [PDF format warning] 4464 US military deaths from the Iraq War -- that count does not include today's two deaths. After DoD identifies the fallen by name in a news release, the deaths will be added to the count. In other violence, Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reports, "Car bomb and gunfire attacks were reported at government compound in Baquba City, the capital of Iraq's eastern province of Diyala on Tuesday, local police told Xinhua." Ali al-Tuwaijri (AFP) adds that the invasion of the government offices "mirrored a similar March raid claimed by Al-Qaeda" and that "dozens of gunmen involved in the attack [today] in Diyala's provincial capital of Baquba exchanged gunfire with Iraqi security forces, holding them at bay." AP reports that there are possibly as many as 10 assailants in the government compound holding hostages and quotes Nasreen Bajhat stating, "I am trying to call my colleagues and employees in the building but all their mobiles are switched off. The situation now is tense." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports that when security arrived, assailants took cover in the government building and that there are thought to be at least twenty-five people injured. Tim Craig and Asaad Majeed (Washington Post) explain that after the car bomb, "More than 20 insurgents armed with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenads then attacked from both inside and outside the building, according to security officials. After four guards were killed at a back gate, the insurgents raided the building and took a group of civilian employees hostage, the security officials said." Aswat al-Iraq reports, " A joint Iraqi-U.S. force have implemented the operation of cornering the attackers against Diala Council's building and liberating the persons, taken hostage by the attackers, who were disguised as uniformed policemen, a Diala police source said on Tuesday." Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) adds that "five suicide bombers attacked the compound of the provincial council [. . .] killing three policemen and four suicide bombers, along with wounding 28 people. Fifteen security members were among the 28 wounded and the rest were eight of the council employees and five civilians, according to a source from Diyala's provincial council comound". Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The Iraqi Ministery of Interior accused al-Qaeda organization of the attack against Diala's Provincial Council building today." In other news, Dar Addustour reports that a man in Mosul yesterday attempted to set himself on fire before the Nineveh Provincial government offices but police stopped him -- the man is a security guard, he used kerosene in his attempt and he stated he attempted to set himself on fire because he works for the government but someone else got selected ahead of him to become a permanent staff member. Dar Addustour also notes that Parliament is meeting today and among the items on the agenda are the second reading of an anti-smoking bill. Really? The country has no Minister of the Interior, no Minister of Defense and no Minister of National Security. When Nouri was named prime minister-designate in November, per the Constitution, he had 30 days to fill his Cabinet or lose the post of prime minister-designate. Instead of following the Constitution, the Parliament moved Nouri on over to prime minister. All this time later, Nouri's still not filled those three Cabinet positions. And, you may have noticed, violence just keeps increasing in Iraq. Not the best time for all three of your security ministries to remain without a leader. In other reported violence today, Reuters notes 1 army lieutenant-general was shot dead in Baghdad, 2 Iraqi soliders were shot dead in Baghdad, "the manager of the legal department of Baghdad provincial council" was shot dead in Baghdad, 1 police officer was shot dead in Mosul and, dropping back to yesterday, 1 military officer was shot dead in Kirkuk. Yesterday Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) reported that "U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion in cash" and that "federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error." New Sabah notes that Iraq holds the US government responsible for the theft "under the 2004 legal agreement" while the US is insisting Iraqi officials must have stolen it. Justin Fishel (Fox News) reported this afternoon that "Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen said he never said that $6.6 billion in missing money was swiped." Bowen is quoted stating, "What we concluded in our previous audits is that it's been virtually impossible to account for what happened to that money." Charles S. Clark (GovExec) quotes Bowen stating the audit is "ongoing" and "no one has said the money was stolen." Bowen appeared this afternoon on Patt Morrison (Patt Morrison's self titled program on KUOR -- link has text and audio) and wanted to stress first that the money wasn't tax payer money, it was the oil-for-food money. He was very clear on that and I thought that was very clear yesterday but since he did have to clarify that there may be confusion on the issue. It is oil-for-food money which is why, in yesterday's snapshot, we dropped back to February 9, 2005 for this floor statement from US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: "While Congress busies itself about how $2 billion was illegally diverted to Saddam from the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food Program, it would also be instructive to find out why it was apparently administration policy to let Saddam Hussein earn four times that amount through illegal oil shipments. "Before Congress gives another $80 billion for the war in Iraq, the American people would find it instructive for Congress to ask what happened with the unaccounted-for $9 billion which also came from Iraq oil proceeds. "Madam Speaker, before the war, Iraq was about oil. As the war continues, it is about billions in unaccounted-for oil revenues which the U.S. had custody of, responsibility for; and now nobody knows nothing." Patt Morrison noted that all of this money being shipped over and transferred and passed around in physical cash seemed strange since, as she pointed out, you can transfer money to an account with a cell phone. Bowen stated that this was a disturbing feature and one he tried to address from the start because it was so hard to track. (The late US House Rep Ike Skelton made a point of holding hearings to highlight the problems with doing this all in cash and how there was no accounting system that could track it.) Patt Morrison noted that "we don't know" in answer to where the money went could not be comforting to the Iraqi people and Bowen agreed but wanted to make another point. US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen: And this is not a new finding, let me underscore that, Patt. As I said, our first audit in 2005 concluded that, a follow up audit of another nine billion last summer reached similar conclusions and we're now conducting a third audit following up on the issues raised by our recommendations -- that is the need to track what we've now identified -- about 6.6 billion. The Pentagon says it can track about 2.8 billion of that and to see what happened to the other 3.8. Still on the topic of money, Al Rafidayn reports that yesterday the Integrity Commission announced that their work had resulted in 479 convictions (out of 627 cases brought) between January of this year to May ( a 217% increase from the total number last year) and that they had seized $49 million. Moving over to the US, Adam Zagorin (Time magazine) reports, "It has been nearly a decade since Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner known as 'the Iceman' -- for the bungled attempt to cool his body and make him look less dead -- perished in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib. But now there are rumbles in Washington that the notorious case, as well as other alleged CIA abuses, could be returning to haunt the agency. TIME has learned that a prosecutor tasked with probing the CIA -- John Durham, a respected, Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney from Connecticut -- has begun calling witnesses before a secret federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., looking into, among other things, the lurid Nov. 4, 2003, homicide, which was documented by TIME in 2005." Mark Memmott (NPR's The Two-Way) cites NPR's Carrie Johnson to note that "war crimes and torture charges" are being discussed. The Daily Mail adds, "Much of the attention surrounding al-Jamadi's death has focused on the actions of interrogator Mark Swanner, who questioned al-Jamadi in a prison shower room before he died. Al-Jamadi's head was covered by a hood. His arms were shackled behind his back and bound to a barred window. That way, he could stand without pain but if he tried to lower himself, his arms would be painfully stretched above and behind him. A military autopsy declared al-Jamadi's death a homicide but an internal CIA investigation found that Swanner never abused al-Jamadi, according to a former senior intelligence official familiar with the findings." AFP contacted the prosecutor's office and his spokesperson Tom Carson stated, "This is an ongoing investigation." And therefore, they can't comment. In England, an ongoing investigation into abuse of Iraqi detainees has been taking place. Murray Wardrop (Telegraph of London) explains, "The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) was established last year to take statements from around 140 Iraqi civilians who claim they were abused by British service personnel between 2003 and 2009." Wardrop notes that attorney Phil Shriner with Public Interest Lawyers states that, in all that time, only one of his many Iraqi clients has been interviewed. Angus Crawford (BBC) quotes Phil Shriner stating, "It's been a complete and utter shambles, it must have cost the taxpayer millions." In related news, Melina Milazzao (Human Rights First) shines a light on the biggest obstruction to helping the victims of torture: Once again, the Obama administration shirked its legal and moral responsibility to ensure torture victims are provided an enforceable remedy when it advised the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear a case brought by Iraqi detainees tortured by private military contractors at Abu Ghraib. The case, Saleh, et al. v. Titan Corporation, et al., is a civil suit brought by 250 Iraqi detainees for torture by U.S. private contractors CACI and Titan (now L-3 Services). The two companies were retained to provide interrogation and interpretation services at Abu Ghraib, the infamous Iraqi prison that the Department of Defense (DoD) reported was the site of "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of Iraqi prisoners committed by Americans under the authority of Americans. Army investigations implicated private contractors in the torture and abuse of detainees held there. While 11 soldiers were convicted on detainee abuse charges, no contractor was ever criminally charged. In September 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the civil case on the ground that contractors involved in combat activities on a battlefield should be protected from lawsuits. The victims appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Human Rights First submitted an amicus brief arguing that the decision by the D.C. Circuit to immunize the criminal conduct of private military contractors is incompatible with the United States' international legal obligations, including its obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) to provide "enforceable" or "effective" remedies to victims for acts of torture and serious abuse. Before deciding whether or not to hear the case, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. government, which is not a party to the suit, its opinion or interest. Human Rights First sent a letter to the Acting Solicitor General urging the government to advise the Court to hear the case and reverse the decision that denies victims a remedy. The Acting Solicitor General, however, did the exact opposite. In the US, jury selection began in Houston yesterday in the case Jamie Leigh Jones has brought against Halliburton. Today, attorneys presented opening arguments. Jones was working as a KBR contractor in Iraq when she was gang-raped. When she attempted to address the crime, KBR responded by imprisoning her and it took a member of the US Congress (Rep Ted Poe) sounding alarms to force KRB to release her. After Jamie Leigh Jones came forward, other women began coming forward noting they had been raped, sexually harassed or sexually assaulted while working for KBR - Halliburton. Nathan Koppel (Wall St. Journal's Law Blog) explains, "Jones was a clerical worker for KBR at a Halliburton office in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone and claims she was drugged and raped by several co-workers in her company barracks bedroom. She also alleges she was placed under armed guard and held in a 'prison-like container' for hours after reporting the alleged attack." Joe Consumer (The Pop Tort) notes some of the achivements Jones can already take pride in, "But Jamie has achieved even more. "Due in part to Jones' case, federal lawmakers in 2009 approved a measure prohibiting contractors and subcontractors that receive $1 million in funds from the Department of Defense from requiring employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration." " Despite these activies and more activies, the US government continues to give KBR contracts -- cost-plus contracts despite KBR's accounting 'problems.' Last week, the Commission on Wartime Contracting held a hearing Commission Co-Chair Michael Thibault noted that KBR is still not up to date on their billing paperwork and, as a result, there's been no audit since 2003. The US government has paid KBR - Haliburton millions and millions over the last 8 years and there's no accountability and there's no check on the funds. KBR gets to do whatever it wants, whether it's attempt to cover up rapes or attempts to overcharge the US tax payer. KBR's infamous burn pits have sickened and killed US troops and US contractors -- and contaminated Iraq and harmed who knows how many Iraqis -- but the White House is still signing new contracts with KBR. Of course, if Iraq had a functioning government with a real prime minister, they could ban KBR immediately. They could make it a condition that KBR clean up every burn pit they'd made in the country and pay for the health care and treatment of the Iraqi population effected by the burn pits. If KBR refused, Iraq could forbid the company from operating on its soil. Turning to the US Congress. We have to hearings but we'll probably only have room for one today. So let's drop back to yesterday. Monday afternoon, the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health held a hearing. On what? Last week, Ava reported on some very disturbing developments discussed in a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing "Sexual assaults at the VA (Ava)." As Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Patty Murray noted, the Government Accountability Office had just released "very disturbing information about sexual assaults among veterans in in-patient mental health and other programs." The veterans she referred to were assaulted within the VA, while attempting to obtain care and treatment, they were sexually assaulted. The House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health is Chaired by Ann Marie Buerkle. We'll note this from her opening statement at yesterday's hearing. Subcommittee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: As a registered nurse and domsetic violence counselor, I have seen firsthand the pervasive and damaging effects sexual assault can have on the lives of those who experience it. Last week, the Government Acountability Office released a deeply troubling report entitled "VA Health Care: Actions Needed to Prevent Sexual Assaults and Other Safety Incidents." GAO found that between January 2007 and July 2010, nearly 00 sexual assault incidents including 67 alleged rapes were reported to VA police. Many of these alleged crimes were not reported to VA leadership officials or the VA Office of the Inspector General in direct violation of VA policy and federal regulations. The findings of the GAO are disturbing for many reason. Foremost, they represent a betrayal of trust by a system that was designed to treat our veterans at their most vulnerable time. The gross failure of VA leadership to protect the safety and security of our veterans and VA staff and systematically report and respond to sexual assault and safety incidents is a contempt of justice. It also requires immediate action. This is not the way to run a health care system and it is certainly no way to treat the men and women who sacrificed so much on our nation's behalf. To telegraph how serious the House VA Committee -- not just the Subcommittee -- was taking this issue, not only did Subcommittee Chair Buerkle and House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller introduce HR 2074, Miller also attended the hearing (he does not sit on the Subcommittee). HR 2074 is the Veterans Sexual Assault Prevention Act. It was introduced by Buerkle on June 1st and reads: "To amend title 8, United States Code, to require a comprehensive policy on reporting and tracking sexual assault incidents and other safety incidents that occur at medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs." Click here to read the bill in full. Miller noted, "In the past week, some have dismissed these allegations, comparing the size of the VA system and the number of allegations to the private sector. Let me be very clear on this point: There is no comparison. Just one assault of this nature, one sexual predator or one veteran's rights being violated within the VA is one too many and is absolutely unacceptable. If we need to do more to protect our veterans and VA employees, we will." Ranking Member VA is doing a very poor job in many areas. Most of all it is doing a very poor job when it comes to reporting to Congress, when it comes to appearing before them. This really started to become noticeable last year and has only gotten worse this year. On the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, this unacceptable behavior is most often called out by Senator Richard Burr. For his admonishing the VA last week, see Kat's "Senator Burr" and you can also search her site for additional reports on Burr (Kat usually emphasizes him when she reports on the Senate VA Committee) and you'll see this is not a one hearing problem. This is a pattern and it's really unacceptable. Ranking Member Burr and Committee Chair Murray have attempted to communicate that to the witnesses before them (and Ranking Member Burr and former Chair Daniel Akaka attempted to last year as well). If the message is getting through to the witnesses, they're not carrying it back to VA. That was evident in yesterday's hearing with the first panel. The panel was composed of GAO's Randall Williamson, VA's Joseph Sullivan and VA's William Schoenhard. We're noting an exchange. I'm referring to Jeff Miller as "US House Rep" so that there's no confusion as to who was chairing the Subcommittee hearing but, as already noted, he is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. US House Rep Jeff Miller: The [GAO] report covers '07 to July of 2010. Can you tell me what the statistics are from July of 2010 to today of sexual assaults that have been reported within the system? William Schoenhard: Uh, sir, we do not have that information available here today but we will provide that to you. US House Rep Jeff Miller: Would it have been a reasonable expectation that somebody might be asking that question? William Schoenhard: Uh. We. Uh. Had not anticipated that question but we do have the information. We can provide that to you in short order, sir. US House Rep Jeff Miller: If you would, for the record, so that we can make sure that all members have the answer to that question. When can we expect it? William Schoenhard: Uh. We would provide that, sir, within three weeks. US House Rep Jeff Miller: Three weeks? William Schoenhard: Yes, sir. I want to make sure that we have all the information together in a complete way. We will try to provide it sooner. US House Rep Jeff Miller: I hope that you have all the information together and that it won't take you three weeks. This hearing was specifically called by Subcommittee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle in response to the GAO report. The witnesses knew that. Why in the world would a question about sexual assaults after the period covered in the GAO's report throw the VA? They were not prepared for the hearing unless their point was to stall. This is unacceptable. They do this over and over. The VA avoids providing any hard data in these hearings over and over. Why? Because the reporters are present. If they can provide the figures after the hearing, the reporters have packed up and moved on. Which means, if they don't have to answer it in the hearing, there's a good chance it won't be reported. If this is an accident, it is a freakish one since a pattern has clearly emerged. Miller was clearly surprised to be told that the VA witnesses had arrived for the hearing without that information. He was also surprised when he was told that they had the information, but it would take three weeks to get it to Congress. Why? If they've got the information, it should be delivered to the Subcomittee within 24 hours. It's a spreadsheet, you input the numbers. No one's asking them to devise a new system of measurement or invent a new graph. They just have to plug in the numbers. If you're not getting how much stalling and evasion is taking place, please note that it was pointed out that money allocated for securing VA properties was being spent elsewhere. It was noted by members of the committee. US House Rep John Runyan: Mr. Schoenhard, the GAO found a number of facilities that were understaffed. Specifically there was one that, by criteria, there was supposed to be 19 and there was only 9 on hand. Why have you not been able to staff these facilities fully? William Schoenhard: Uh, Congressman, that's a very important question because we need to be fully staffed with police coverage and that is part of what I am seeking to understand in, uh, our current survey of our field. Uh, I want to understand better what the retention and the recruitment difficulties are with that and see what steps need to be taken to address those. US House Rep Jon Runyan: Do you -- that was going to be my next question. Do you have an idea of retention problem? Is there a major turnover within the system? William Schoenhard: There is turnover which varies, sir, by facility and uhm that too is what I want to get a better sense of. [. . .] He wants to get a better sense of it? The Deputy Under Secretary for Health Operations and Management for the VA should have already had a sense of it before he showed for the hearing. In addition, the economy's in the tank. How do you have problems hiring people? Equally true, from 2008 through 2010, the House Committee repeatedly asked all VA witnesses if they needed anything, additional resources, anything. They were repeatedly told that nothing was needed. If a VA is understaffed, the VA, high up in the VA, should be aware of that and should be addressing it. If a sexual assault is reported at that VA and it is under staffed, the VA should have had their own emergency meetings to address that and should have arrived in Congress with answers. They didn't provide answers. They begged off repeatedly. Last night Cedric's "Barry's got plenty of ideas -- always bad ones" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! ROUGH WATERS!" went up. That was their joint-humor post. The non-humor posts last night revolved around a theme: write a book you have and that you've selected at random: Mike's "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" (Pauline Kael's movie critiques), Trina's "Collected Stories" (Tennessee Williams' Collected Stories), Rebecca's "pigs at the trough" (Arianna Huffington book), Kat's "Rock Encyclopedia" (the classic text), Ann's "4 men, 1 woman" (Gore Vidal's Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace), Marcia's "Embassytown" (China Mieville's new novel), Elaine's "Left Bank and Other Stories" (short stories by Jean Rhys), Ruth's "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" (novelizations of Disney films in an attempt to increase reading among children -- this is a novelization of a Disney film starring Kurt Russell), Betty's "Lorraine Hansberry: The Collected Plays" (the title says it all but for any who might not place the name immediately, she is the playwright who wrote A Raisin in the Sun) and Stan's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (Greg Palast's classic book). We're closing with this important news from Scott Kimball (Iraq Veterans Against the War): If you were to take a trip down Ft. Hood street in Killeen, you would encounter the same sites of any military town. You would see pawn shops and title loan businesses. You would come across shady car dealerships and rent-to-own stores. All of these estabishments are in the business of exploiting service members. However, the most exploitative establishment in Killeen is not a for-profit entity. It is the Fort Hood command. Operation Recovery organizers have been talking to Ft. Hood soldiers and collecting their testimony. One common thread is clear: the Ft. Hood command has been negligent in upholding soldiers' right to heal. So far we have collected hundreds of pledges from service members and their families. We have listened to their stories of their experience with trauma and the lack of response or concern from the military. Perhaps most concerning is the fact that soldiers have been briefed not to talk to us. It seems that General Campbell has chosen to ignore our concerns rather than deal with them. Since he has chosen to not be a partner with us in correcting these wrongdoings, we must do it ourselves. That is why we are down here. We will only be able to uphold soldiers' right to heal when we stand up for ourselves. Each day we become larger and more organized. We are learning from our mistakes and making small victories. Even if it seems so very far into the future, our day will soon come. Join us in our fight for the rights of service members and veterans. When divided, we have no power; when together, we are unstoppable. It has only been a couple of weeks into our deployment and we are already a force to be reckoned with. Join the growing GI rights movement! Stand with us and fight for change! Join the campaign on Facebook Get the facts here Read more about the teams attempt to meet with Gen. Campbell here. iraq the associated press cnn xinhua xiong tong afp ali al-tuwaijri mohammed tawfeeq dar addustour aswat al-iraq the washington post tim craig

Rock Encyclopedia

That's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Campaign Begins In Earnest" from last night and I love it.

Okay, right at the top, I'm cheating.

There.

Tonight we're doing a theme post. I was all for it but I have a problem. I'm not at home. Others are. Why is that a problem?

We're supposed to pull a book off our shelves without looking and then, whatever it is, write something about it. "Even if it's a trashy book!" And I could easily do that at home. But I'm not at home. I'm lucky though because we are attending hearings tomorrow and did today. So I'm at C.I.'s second home. (She has more than two but I have been to her place in Hawaii or elsewhere. It's been Bay Area back home and the DC area here.) Now I have my own room here and C.I. has furnished it with many wonderful things including books. But I'm usually dead tired and I have only read two of the books in here.

So I said I'd do the theme post but that I knew what book I wanted to cover.

The book I always read when I'm here is one of my favorites. C.I. has repeatedly stated that they're my books and to take them with me if I want. But I wouldn't do that with this book because every time we're in DC overnight, I pull it off the bookshelf and flip through it.

The book is Lillian Roxon's Rock Encyclopedia from 1969. I love this book. I have loved it since it came out.

Lillian was a rock writer. One of the really important ones but she and so many other women get forgotten. Lillian's newspaper work (on rock) was largely Random Notes type stuff. She had a newspaper column and covered the happenings -- back when "happenings" really had meaning. And she was as important as Lester Bangs in getting a band attention. She had a real sense of discovery in her writing.

For her life's work, the thing she will always be remembered for, the work that is thought to have destroyed her health and led to her early death in 1973, is Rock Encyclopedia. For this she had to pool from all her strengths to write these entries.

There really was no book like this for rock music before Lillian did it. Many have copied since, few have managed to provide the level of style or the freshness of writing.

When the book came out it meant so much to. But it really meant the most to me after a series of bad break ups. In fact, let me offer you some advice.

If you're my reader, whether your male or female, pay attention: Do not move in with your lover. Make him or her move in with you. My first three serious affairs all resulted in me out on the street because I was the idiot who moved in. Don't put yourself in that position. Either keep your own place (even if you're not staying there) or make your lover move in with you.

In one case, I was dumped. In the other, I dumped him. In the third, I caught him cheating and chose to leave. (And don't regret it.) And I didn't want to go home to my folks. They're great. But if I had pulled in with all my clothes in the car, they would have known I'd broken up and I just wasn't in the mood. So I'd try to find a friend who could let me crash while I looked for my own place.

And part of the turmoil and part of the tears was not having a place.

My fourth serious affair ended when I had my own place. And I was sad and I sparked a few and lived on guacamole, chips, tequila and beer for probably a week. But I wasn't in despair the way I was the three previous times. Because I had my own place.

And I'd be sad and sipping my last beer for the night and I'd grab the Roxon book and just flip through and read at random and it would just really help soothe me and I wouldn't be afraid about going to bed (or, rather, of waking up alone in bed) and I wouldn't care so much that it was over. This book was just this major equalizer for me that provided entertainment and information and got me through so many rough nights.

If you love music, this is a read for you.

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

Monday, June 13, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, rumors of a US Congressional delegation being kicked out of Iraq are unfounded, the delegation is denied access to Camp Ashraf, a man who stepped down as a vice president in Iraq may be angling for prime minister, the military has stopped noting the wounded, and much more. Friday, a US Congressional delegation was in Iraq. A number of claims were reported in the media. The easiest explanation for the conflict between what the Congress members maintain and what was reported is that the spokesperson of the prime minister (Nouri al-Maliki is prime minister) was attempting to whip up public sentiment in Iraq at a time when Nouri's popularity was, at best challenged. On Sunday, noting the delegation, I summarized a report by stting it was "on the expulsion from Iraq of the US Congressional delegation led by US House Rep Dan Rohrabacher". I was wrong, it was my error. The delegation maintains they were not expelled from Iraq. My apologies for my error. The three strongest reports from the weekend are worth highlighting. First to file with facts was Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) whose report still stands: After a "very frank" exchange with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a prominent House Republican announced Friday his subcommittee is investigating whether forces under al-Maliki's command had committed a "crime against humanity" when they killed 35 Iranian dissidents at a camp north of Baghdad on April 8. Responding to the assertions by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., al-Maliki asked the U.S. Embassy to remove the U.S. delegation from Iraq immediately, government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said on Alhurra television. Note that Ali Dabbagh is Nouri's official spokesperson and one of four people Nouri has designated to officially speak for the government. That's not a joke. We'll drop back to the April 8th snapshot because Arabic media covered it but the US media wasn't interested: Nouri's attempt at seizing control of the government never ends. Al Rafidayn reported this week that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh informed the press that from now on all official remarks will come from either a spokesperson for the Ministry of Government, a spokesperson for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nouri or Nouri's spokesperson. Statements by any other government official or spokesperson, al-Dabbagh insisted, had "no value" from Wednesday forward. Also this weekend, Tim Craig (Washington Post) reported that the delegation was refused the right to visit Camp Ashraf: Rohrabacher, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he will now press for a "criminal" probe of whether Iraq has mistreated the dissidents. "We are investigating to see if criminal behavior caused the death of these noncombatants," Rohrabacher said. "The killing of unarmed people . . . a mass killing . . . is a criminal act and a crime against humanity." The third strong report was from Chelsea J. Carter and Mohammed Lazim (CNN) who noted they were unable to speak with the delegation for their report: Embassy spokesman David Ranz issued a statement Saturday saying "congressional visitors do not necessarily express the views of the U.S. administration or even a majority of Congress. The visitors this weekend made that clear in their remarks." In widely reported statements after a meeting Friday with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the California Republican said he informed the Iraqi leader that his House committee is investigating the killing of Iranian exiles by Iraqi forces. Here is the statement US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher's office issued (we were sent it this morning): Istanbul, Turkey, Jun 11 - Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) issued the following statement on his recent meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki while in Baghdad as part of an official Congressional delegation: "We had a frank and spirited discussion about the Camp Ashraf massacre by Iraqi troops," said Rohrabacher. "There was never any indication the Prime Minister was angered by having this discussion or the during the portion of the conversation about the current economic situation in the U.S., which lead to the suggestion of repayment by the Iraqis. The meeting was originally scheduled for an hour but continued for an extra 40 minutes. "No apologies are necessary for suggesting the massacre of unarmed civilians by Iraqi troops is something that needs to be investigated and I plan to do so as Chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee," said Rohrabacher. "Furthermore, I will not apologize for suggesting once Iraq becomes prosperous, it should consider repaying the United States for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to liberate them from a tyrannical dictator and helping to establish a democratic government," Rohrabacher continued. "There's nothing wrong with suggesting that the people who have benefited from our benevolence should consider repaying us for what we have given them." In response to media reports the delegation had been expelled from Iraq, Mr. Rohrabacher said, "There was no change in our scheduling while we were in Iraq. Our itinerary remained exactly the same and we departed as scheduled. "We were not officially told to leave the country before we left and were never told or warned not to come back." On May 26th, Rep. Rohrabacher announced his intention of conducting a hearing into the April 8th massacre at Camp Ashraf in eastern Iraq where 35 unarmed civilians were killed and scores more injured during an attack by Iraqi soldiers. Mr. Rohrabacher's request for delegation access to the site was denied by the U.S. State Department and the Iraqi government. They were in Turkey following their pre-planned agenda. They were not kicked out. Rohrabacher's statements note that he did raise the issue of repayment with Nouri and that he did raise the issue of Camp Ashraf (a far more serious issue and not a hypothetical one -- though Think Progress flat-out LIED this weekend and has filed another LIE today, some people are shameless and disgrace the Democratic Party with their inability to be truthful). Key point of the press release? The delegation announced their intention to visit Camp Ashraf publicly in a House hearing. The planned visit was known long before Friday (we noted the plan visit here). But they were denied that visit and not just by Nouri but also "denied by the U.S. State Department." It's also interesting just how many outlets are still reporting that they were kicked out. All the usual losers, yes -- Fox News, Think Progress, etc. -- but some you'd expect more from. Friday, US House Rep Ted Poe had issued a statement: "I am deeply disappointed that Members of Congress were denied access to Camp Ashraf by the Iraqi government. Earlier in the day, we had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Al-Maliki for nearly two hours and heard his candid position on this complex issue. These discussions were important and productive. However, it was also important to be able to hear the position of the residents of Camp Ashraf in order to get a fair assessment from both sides of what really occurred that day. We were not allowed to hear their side of the story. It is unacceptable for the Government of Iraq to continue to silence the Iranian freedom fighters at Camp Ashraf." Rohrabacher, Poe, Jeff Duncan and Louie Gohmert were the Republican Congress members on the trip, Jim Costa and Russ Carnahan were the Democrats in the delegation. Let's go back to Think Progress. Does no one there monitor Ben Armbruster? He was wrong this weekend, he's wrong now and it's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue -- though this is the only way Think Progress can ever present anything, granted. John Kerry isn't only a Democrat in the US Senate -- in 2004, he was Democratic Party presidential nominee. April 14th, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued the following: Washington, DC – Last Friday, Iraqi Security Forces forcefully entered Camp Ashraf in Eastern Iraq. Members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK are housed at the camp. Earlier today, United Nations officials confirmed that the incursion by Iraqi Security Forces had resulted in scores of dead and injured MEK members. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) issued the following statement: "United Nations confirmation of the scope of last week's tragedy at Camp Ashraf is deeply disturbing and the Iraqi military action is simply unacceptable. Corrective action is imperative. First, the Iraqis must stop the bleeding and refrain from any further military action against Camp Ashraf. Second, the Iraqi government has announced a full investigation into the massacre and it must be thorough and serious. The investigation must hold accountable the responsible parties and ensure that there will be no sequel to these horrific events. Third, the current situation at the camp is untenable. The United States must redouble efforts with all the relevant parties – including the Iraqi government, the United Nations, the European Union, and the Mujahedin-e Khalq itself – to seek a peaceful and durable solution, and to find permanent homes for the residents of Camp Ashraf." It is a massacre. Ben Amrbruster couldn't mention Camp Ashraf Saturday and he again refuses to today. I have no use for this garbage and the world shouldn't. This idea that "Democratic Party interests will be advanced each day and we'll be like Sherman on his March to the Sea and we'll win! We'll win!" They're absurd. They're nothing but a pimp-whore factory, grinding out talking points and I ignore them and their kindred until they're distracting from life and death situations. Camp Ashraf is a serious issue, what's been promised to the residents (by the US who disarmed them) is serious and the failure to keep that promise is serious. The US government is accused of violating the Geneva Conventions (I believe they've been violated) by many British MPs -- of both Labour and the Conservative Party. The same group of MPs have linked the two most prominent attacks and visits by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and speculated that Gates gave the okay for each assault. These are serious charges. Serious issues surround Camp Ashraf and Think Progress should be ashamed of themselves that they still can't mention. But, damn, they wouldn't even be talking about Iraq -- check their archives -- if didn't think they could use it to blungeon Republicans with. These are life and death matters, it's not a game. We would say more on this but Ben Armbruster's written his last post sneering at a Republcian over this issue. (Or if he's sane he has. Hold on, we'll get there.) For those late to the party -- we're not rewarding that crap with links -- Ben has been all over Rohrabacher's suggestion that Iraq should pay money to the US. Should they? The government is not the Iraqi people. The government is a bunch of exiles who fled the country and then repeatedly lobbied -- for over a decade -- the US and England to invade Iraq. When the US took Baghdad, suddenly the exiles rushed to return. Yeah, the exiles should be paying. American, British and Australian forces were used as mercenaries, as cleaners, to take out a standing government for the benefit of a bunch of cowardly exiles who had the 'guts' to flee but not the guts to 'fight.' They got what they wanted, they took over the country -- because the US installed them. Nouri has siphoned off millions and millions of dollars from the Iraqi people. If this is the end-game in Iraq, if this is what the product of the war is, damn right Nouri and the other cowardly exiles should pay. That's not Rohrabacher's argument. Rohrabacher is arguing that Iraq has money and should be able to use those billions to pay. This is the position that the Bush administration put forward when arguing for the illegal war. 'Iraq's oil will pay for the war!' is the promise Paul Wolfowitz and others made. It played very well in 2002 and 2003 among voters, it played very well when Donald Trump used it as he explored whether or not to seek the GOP nomination for president. Eli Yokley (Politc MO) quotes the Congress member on repayment: "Back in our revolution, our democratic movement was financed by France. . . . Congress at least partially paid them back. There is certainly precedent for that sort of thing happening. [. . .] I was disappointed because on the front end of the build up to the war in Iraq, there were some pretty [large] assurances that as the oil industry was rebuilt, there were going to be billions paid back to the US for what we are doing to rebuild that country, but of course those fell flat. [. . .] It is my hope there will be an opportunity for the Iraqi government to repay or continue to do business with the United States in ways to help us out economically." So I guess we'll have day three of Ben Armbruster proving just how worthless a grown man can be. Oh, wait! He won't. He'll never mention that because Dana Rohrabacher didn't make those statements; Democrat Russ Carnahan did. Jason Rosenbaum (Oakville Patch) quotes Carnahan stating of the trip, "We got some very candid assessments of the ongoing problems with goernance in Iraq. While they have made some progress, they still have some major things to work out like the hydrocarbonlaw in terms of sharing revenues." No offense, but that observation's been made for over six years now by US officials visiting Iraq." As we noted on this topic when Trump was raising it, I don't support making the Iraqi people pay. That's my opinion and I'm fully aware it may be not be the majority opinion. Let's stay with money. Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) reports that "U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion in cash" and that "federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error." "Prior to invading Iraq, looking for weapons of mass destruction, this administration looked the other way at illegal shipments of Iraqi oil to Jordan, Syria and Turkey, which earned at least $8.5 billion for Saddam Hussein's regime. Now the administration cannot account for an additional $9 billion from Iraqi oil proceeds which was supposed to go to help the Iraqi people. This is not the biggest theft in the last ten years. Let's drop back to February 9, 2005 for this floor statement from US House Rep Dennis Kucinich: "While Congress busies itself about how $2 billion was illegally diverted to Saddam from the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food Program, it would also be instructive to find out why it was apparently administration policy to let Saddam Hussein earn four times that amount through illegal oil shipments. "Before Congress gives another $80 billion for the war in Iraq, the American people would find it instructive for Congress to ask what happened with the unaccounted-for $9 billion which also came from Iraq oil proceeds. "Madam Speaker, before the war, Iraq was about oil. As the war continues, it is about billions in unaccounted-for oil revenues which the U.S. had custody of, responsibility for; and now nobody knows nothing." Warnings were ignored throughout the still continuing Iraq War. Still continuing Iraq War? Sheldon Richman (CounterPunch) notes: Last year President Obama triumphantly announced to the American people that the war there was over as he withdrew all but about 47,000 troops. (As though that is an insignificant force.) MSNBC's Obama cheerleading section was on the scene to record the historic event. Wikipedia gives opening and closing dates for the war: March 20, 2003 – August 31, 2010. So it must be over, right? Tell it to the families of the five soldiers. They were killed in a rocket attack from Shiite-controlled east Baghdad. That sounds like combat. That sounds like war. The American people are not being leveled with. Under the Status of Forces Agreement between the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the U.S. military is to leave Iraq by the end of the year. Iraq's Iran-backed government and the most powerful figure outside the government, Muqtada al Sadr, have said they want U.S. forces out. But despite President Obama's reassurances, American military leaders aren't so certain it's time to leave. As the Christian Science Monitor reported, "[T]he attack [. . .] Blah, blah, blah. I'm reminded of a scene in Goldie Hawn's Private Benjamin (written by Nancy Meyers and Harvey Miller), when they're marching around in circles and Judy's going on about what she wants to do when Mary Kay Place's character interrupts to say, "Would you please just shut up, Benjamin. God! Never in in all my born days have I met such a whiny candy ass as you!" And how does this apply to the above? First, the number is six, not five. Six soldiers died last week. We'll be coming back to that issue in a moment. Now for the efforts to extend the US military presence. Does Sheldon think it's happening -- and being reported -- without Barack's knowledge? Now this is what Samantha Power wanted and she is Barack's brain. But even if you're not aware of that, you should be aware -- because it took place in public -- that Joe Biden has spoken about the need to extend the SOFA, that last week at the White House Jay Carney was talking about it in a press briefing, that Leon Panetta said not only is he open to it but he think Iraq will ask for it to be extended -- said that as his confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense. If that was in opposition to what Barack wanted, he would have pulled the nomination. The State Dept has spoken publicly about this. But let's pin on the military brass and pretend like little girl Barack's being forced against her will? Portraying him that weak and pathetic is the way to give him a break? Hmm. Interesting. It's Barack's policy. It's always been his policy. You need to wake up to reality, stop trying to rescue him and allow him the agency of his own actions. Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker are on much stronger ground at The Progressive: Don't count on the United States to withdraw its 47,000 troops from Iraq by the end of this year, as President Obama has promised. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, along with other Obama administration officials, has exerted tremendous pressure on the Iraqi government to "ask" the United States to keep troops in Iraq. Neither Iraqis nor Americans signed up for this kind of a deal: the permanent occupation of Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is trying to satisfy this American goal of remaining in Iraq while simultaneously attempting to placate his domestic allies who want our forces to leave entirely. They are mistaken about the number of Sadr protesters (I didn't quote that) but we'll ignore that becuase they got so much more right and hope this is a sign that The Progressive plans to return to its anti-war roots. 6 US soldiers died in Iraq last week. Five on Monday. Of those 5 deaths, Chelsea J. Carter (CNN) notes that the Shi'ite militia group Promise Day Brigade appears to have claimed credit for the attack although "CNN cannot independently verify the legitimacy of the claim." One on Wednesday. We need to drop back several months to establish a point. Bear with me. January 15th, USF issued the following statement: BAGHDAD - Two U.S. service members were killed and one service member was wounded Saturday while conducting operations in northern Iraq. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The name and condition of the wounded service member is not releasable. The names of deceased service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is currently under investigation. That's not any different from the many USF and MNF press releases we've noted here in the last 7 years. Now let's go to Wednesday's death and that announcement: BAGHDAD - A U.S. service member was killed Wednesday while conducting operations in southern Iraq. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of deceased service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are published on the website no earlier than 24 hours following notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is currently under investigation. That's Matthew J. England's death noted above. Now did you notice the difference between the two statements? The second one made no mention of one thing, implying that there were none. What is that? Wounded. Injured. Go to that January statement and you see X killed X wounded. That is how the announcments have always read. Unless no one was wounded. Was no wounded? The press that noted the death on Wednesday or Thursday last week didn't report any wounded. Now when the five died last Monday, there were reports of wounded.in regional and international press. The number wounded, in the Arabic press, was said to be 5 or 6; however, a soldier with that brigade posted to Facebook that actually 15 US soldiers were wounded in Monday's attack. USF's announcement last Monday made no mention of anyone being wounded. So clearly no one's wounded and I've just wasted all of our time on hypotheticals -- Uh, except for one thing. Ryan E. Little (The Ledger) reported Saturday on Spc Charles Lemon. Who? An Iraq War veteran who was arriving back in the US early after surviving a bombing ("improvised explosive device in An Najaf") last Wednesday. Lemon has "lost both legs and suffered other injuries including burns to his body" according to his sister Kimberly Lemon. The article notes: "[Charles' cousin Brianna] Towns is holding an event called 'Clicks for Charlie,' in which she is offering 45-minute photography sessions for $30 in downtown Winter Haven on June 18." It's amazing that a war the press fought so hard for is now swept under the rug, it's appalling that they refuse to do their jobs, they refuse to ask the tough questions. Why isn't the US military being honest about what's going on? Charles Lemon was wounded in the same Najaf explosion that took Matthew England's life. It would appear the administration has given orders for the military to keep a lid on as much as possible. So if you have to report deaths for example, report them but don't let on that there was anyone injured. This is transparency? This is Change You Can Believe In? This is shameful and disgusting. The US government has a long history of lying about the number killed and wounded -- but in the past, those lies have been about the 'other side'. Now the US government is sweeping the injured -- the seriously injured -- two legs lost -- under the rug. Hiding it. The same way Bush tried to hide the coffins. Go through any press release from USF or MNF (USF replaced MNF) and you'll see, the practice every year of the Iraq War has been for a statement to be issued noting deaths and any wounded in the same incident. Barack Obama is more secretive than George W. Bush. Secret or not, deaths continue in Iraq. Al Jazeera reports a Basra suicide bombing today where the driver was apparently attempting to get closer to a police compound but he detonated the bomb when guards stopped him. Mohammed Tawfeeq and Muhaiman Najm (CNN) add, "The bomber detonated a car loaded with explosives at an emergency police station in the al-Ashar neighborhood in central Basra, said Police Chief Faisal Al-Abadi." Nabil al-Jurani (AP) notes, "The attack occurred during the morning rush hour. Basra is 340 miles (550 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad." Aswat al-Iraq counts 5 dead and twenty-nine wounded. Reuters adds that a Baghdad bombing left two people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing left one person injured, 2 beheaded corpses were discovered in Baaj, 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Mosul, a Balad home invasion targeted an Imam who was left injured, a Mussayab sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer, a Baquba attack left two police officers dead (they were shot dead) and, dropping back to Sunday, a Baghdad sticky bombing injured "a Baghdad senior municipal official". Dar Addustour reports the Sadrists are stating if the SOFA is extended (allowing US soldiers to remain on Iraqi soil beyond 2012 -- and under DoD, not State Dept), the Sadrists leave the National Alliance. Does the National Alliance's other blocs walk as well? If not, this isn't very different from the Sadrist walking out in Nouri al-Maliki's first term as prime minister. The most important bloc in the National Alliance? The Supreme Islamic Council. Ayas Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that Sadrists are prepared to team with Surpeme Islamic Council to back Adel Abdul Mahdi as the head of government. Hmmm? I wish someone had noticed this possibility happening awhile back . . . Say when he resigned as vice president and the press ran with all that fluff, if only someone could have noted . . . Oh wait . . . From May 30th: The big news out of Iraq today is the resignation of Adel Abdul Mehdi as one of Iraq's three vice presidents. Ned Parker and Salar Jaff (Los Angeles Times via Sacramento Bee) report: [he's resiging, the paper says, because he wants to see government "slim down"] Adel Abdul Mehdi was the Shi'ite vice president in Nouri's first term as prime minister. Though his term had expired, President Jalal Talabani asked him to hang on until after new vice presidents could be voted in. He said he would and told the press that, after that, he was done, he did not want a second term. Despite that assertion, he took a second term. Not only that but, earlier this month, Aswat al-Iraq reported, "The President of the Republic, Jalal Talabani, has issued a Presidential Decree, naming Adel Abdul-Mahdi, as 1st Vice-President." That declaration took some by surprise and they saw it as an effort to give Abdul-Mehdi more power. He certainly didn't object to it publicly. Nor did he object to the size of the Cabinet. Nouri inflated the size in an attempt to create positions for all the people he'd promised posts if they'd support him in his bid to continue as prime minister. Granted, Nouri still hasn't named a Minister of Defense, a Minister of National Security or a Minister of the Interior; however, the increase in the size of his Cabinet (deputy ministers and all) was well known before January. If indeed that's Adel Abdul-Mahdi's objection, it's a new objection or one he's not given much weight to until now. Alsumaria TV paints a different picture of Abdul-Mahdi's displeasure which includes, "The source stated that one of the major reasons for Abdul Mehdi's resignation is the fact that Vice Presidents' issue was included in the present political crisis and due to people's denunciation and religious authority's dissatisfaction over Parliament's vote on three Vice Presidents." Aswat al-Iraq offers Supreme Islamic Council's Jumaa al-Atwany offering the following: [. . .] Wildest rumor out of Iraq on this topic right now? Abdul-Mahdi, anticipating a vote of no-confidence for Nouri in the next weeks (over the corruption and services issues), is positioning himself to vie for the post of prime minister. Though it's unlikely, it is true that Abdul-Mahdi hoped to be prime minister in 2006 and again in 2010. (And he has many supporters.) The story did not make sense. Now Abdul-Mahdi may not be seeking the role of prime minister. But that is what I was told over the phone May 30th and that is what is now being reported in the Arabic press. Abdul-Mahdi's resignation never made sense for the stated reasons. He was well aware that there would likely be three vice presidents -- that was known going back to at least November (when Jalal Talabani was publicy advocating for a female Turkman as the third vice president). Al Rafidayn notes that the disputes between Nouri al-Maliki and Ayad Allawi are spreading throughout the Parliament. Al Sabaah notes that there are efforts to "contain" the differences between State of Law and Iraqiya. Dar Addustour notes that the differences between the two political slates are increasing but feels that it's not "the end of the day" if differences continue. The paper maintains that all members of State of Law do not vote with Nouri and all members of Iraqiya do not vote with Allawi. There has been so much Iraq War related news in the last seven days that a lot of things were put on hold and some forgotten completely. I promised myself we would include an excerpt of Elaine Brower's "Change You CAN Believe In!" (World Can't Wait) and hoped that would take place Friday. There wasn't time or space so we're doing it today. I hope you'll use the link and read it in full (and then pass her column around to friends). She's sharing about what she and her son -- an Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran -- went through and it may resonate with other veterans families: Last year, after his return home, he lost his job, and had severe blackouts and nightmares, he began on his road to the awakening and recovery. I witnessed it myself on a daily basis. The ups and downs, the rage, fear, helplessness, and anger that what he had dreamed of, being part of the U.S. Marines, was what destroyed him, physically and emotionally. He ranted at the government for lying to him. He became cloistered, depressed and at 28 could not maintain a relationship. All those problems most people only read about, or don't even understand, were staring me in the face. I traveled to VA visits with him; called him several times a day; and, begged him to go get help before he ended his life. I'm not sure how I was able to survive through years of this type of torment, but I kept telling myself that other mothers had lost their children, so I was one of the lucky ones. So James and I traveled down this road together, mostly at odds, but locking arms against the darkness. Until several weeks ago. There was this change that came over him, and from what I could see it started when he read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States." He started to read Wikileaks, and books written by veterans that had similar experiences as he had. Every day he would learn something new about how his government betrayed him, and his fellow marines, and all the troops serving in the military. He would call me and like a child who discovered ice cream for the first time, explain this newly uncovered secret as it were, and acted amazed all over again. I kept telling myself that I was dreaming, or, he would re-up or give up. I couldn't bring myself to actually be overjoyed that my son had joined me in my fight against the wars. Until he stood up in front of a group of high school students in New York City where we live and declared "Don't join the military. For me, it was a mistake. I'm 30 years old, go to physical therapy twice a week, can't get out of bed in the morning without pain, and am unemployed. I wouldn't wish that on anyone." James decided to join the "We Are Not Your Soldiers" tour, a project of World Can't Wait, bringing Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans into High Schools around the Country. We were at a hearing in DC today that I'll try to grab in tomorrow's snapshot (and we may also cover a hearing from tomorrow in tomorrow's snapshot). There's not enough room to include the hearing today. iraq cnn chelsea j. carter mohammed lazim mcclatchy newspapers roy gutman the washington post tim craig the los angeles times paul richter al jazeera cnn mohammed tawfeeq muhaiman najm the associated press nabil al-jurani aswat al-iraq al mada ayas hossam acommok al rafidayn dar addustour al sabaah

Time off?

So the end of the week. I'm just really tired and worn out these days.

I mention that because I'm thinking about taking some weeks off. If I do, there will still be posts here. It'll be like when I was in Ireland for those six weeks and had a variety of people filling in here.

I'm just really tired. Maybe I'll awake tomorrow morning all rested and happy but all week long, pretty much, I've felt like I was dragging. And really just wanting to go back to bed, to just hug the mattress all day long.

If I do take a break, I don't think I'll go on a trip. I think I'll just lie around home watching TV. Of course, that won't be as much fun as it used to be.

Back in the old days, you could watch a soap for about four hours, you clip from one network to the next and actually absorb 12 soaps if you didn't watch commercials. All the soaps are getting the axe to the point that I think CBS has 2, NBC has one and ABC will only have one when 2012 rolls around.

Do you remember Hazel?

The maid? Had the half-hour comedy show?

Supposed comedy show.

I hated that show.

But when I was sick, I would watch it. Mainly sleep through it but it's so stupid and moronic when you're well whereas when you're sick and can barely handle anything Hazel is at just the right level.

I'm sure it's not on either. I'm sure everything's reality TV these days. Yet another reason not to take a break.

If I do, I will give a heads up. And I'm giving you a heads up tonight just to let you know I'm thinking about it.


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

Friday, June 10, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, protesters in Baghdad are attacked, Ahmed Chalabi and Nouri al-Maliki are engaged in a curious dance, some Sunni militia groups may be brought into the government, and more. And it's Friday so protests took place in Iraq. This was Decision and Departure Friday and the first protest Friday since the end of the 100 Days -- a device Nouri al-Maliki utilized in an attempt to defuse and defocus the protest movement. 100 Days, Nouri promised, and the issues raised by the protesters (whom he also called "terrorists" repeatedly) would be addressed. The 100 Days ended Tuesday. The issues were not addressed. RTT explains that Nouri declared the 100 Days as protesters demanded better basic services with him promising to "implement improvements in public services. [. . .] Maliki pledged that his cabinet would meet the demands in 100 days. [. . .] The 100-day dealine passed on Tuesday, and Maliki asked for more patience to solve problems." Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observes, "Maliki's strategy appears to be to insist that he achieved all of his goals, and his comments including claims of massive amounts of 'progress' made in the last 100 days. The calls for renewed protests, however, show the opposition isn't buying it." AFP reports that at least 400 gathered in Tahrir Square in downtown Baghdad. AFP is derailed by another Chalabi sponsored pro-government 'rally' meant to distract from the rally demanding the government provide for the people. What is it with the press? They cover all of the official protests. This one was demanding suspects be executed (we've ignored the 'guilty' and will continue to do so). AFP also misses the biggest news about the difference between the two: Chalabi's protest was not hassled, Tahrir Square? They were harassed and pushed out. AFP does note: "Security forces were out in large numbers at the square, which was closed to vehicle traffic." And that protests also took place in Hilla and Basra (real protests). The Great Iraqi Revolution reports, "Government Security Forces assault a group of the Great Iraqi Revoution's Youth, beating them and cursing them with filthy language, as well as confiscating their stickers and posters at the Salihiya Checkpoint. Another checkpoint did the same thing at an entrance leading Tahrir, to another of our groups." Alsumaria TV reports, "Hundreds of Baghdad residents rallied in Al Tahrir Square on Friday calling for the dismissal of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki's government and urging constitutional amendments." While Chalabi's protesters weren't hasseled by security forces (naturally), they did manage to harass others (ibid). CNN reports, "Two human rights activists who were among the demonstrations told CNN that at least seven anti-government protesters were beaten with sticks by some pro-Maliki protesters." Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf adds: janearraf jane arraf Recipe for disturbing #Baghdad demo today - bring in busloads of pro-Maliki supporters, beat posters of Ayad Allawi with shoes, add fire 8 hours ago janearraf jane arraf Mob at #Iraq protest in Tahrir Square today after pro-government protestors took over the demonstration http://yfrog.com/kg1byj 9 hours ago Al Mada notes a banner carried in Tahrir Square which read, "Our hearts are stronger than your government" and note that thirty minutes into the Tahrir Square demonstration, a dozen of the pro-government thugs, carrying sticks, invaded the protest and began beating up four activists." Abbas al-Lami is quoted stating the thugs beat up women and the youth activists. Aswat al-Iraq adds, "The eye witness told Aswat al-Iraq that the sheikhs hit the demonstrators with sticks they were carrying, in addition to punching and kicking them." The Los Angeles Times' Ned Parker Tweets: nedparkerlat Ned Parker The pro-government crowd even attacked a woman activist as Baghdad's Tahrir square turned ugly. 9 hours ago Tim Craig (Washington Post) quotes women's rights activist Wafa Sheba stating of the thugs, "They dragged me from the fence and beat me. We went to the security forces and tried to complain, but security forces said they were not going to interfere." Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times via Sacramento Bee) report the thugs carried posters with Ayad Allaiw's face on them, Allawi's face covered "with a giant red X slashed across his face" and that there are rumors they were "bused in by al-Maliki's Dawa Party" (they may have been but I'll stick with the Chalabi connection based on an overseas call this morning when I was doing the morning entries -- two members of a foreign embassy in Iraq -- not the US -- was aware that violence would take place before it did and they made the Chalabi connection -- they were right about the violence, I'll stay with their Chalabi tie-in unless/until it is disproven). Parker and Salman report: The violence, which echoed street attacks in the years leading to the creation of Saddam Hussein's authoritarian state, bodes ill for Iraq's emergent democracy, which President Barack Obama recently described as a success story. Attacks on peaceful protesters also raise questions on how much freedom of expression will be tolerated by the al-Maliki government after remaining U.S. forces leave Iraq by year's end. The Post's Tim Craig quotes American journalist Daniel Smith who says, "There were lots of people with sticks. They were saying: 'We're with Maliki. You're Baathists'." AFP's Prashant Rao notes the protest across Iraq. prashantrao Prashant Rao #Iraq anti-govt demos took place in Baghdad, Basra, Hilla & Nasiriyah. Vehicle traffic banned in Tikrit and all of Diyala province. #AFP 9 hours ago On Nasiriyah, Al Mada reports that over 1,000 activists marched through the streets demanding better basic services, and end to corruption, jobs and a reformed political system. The Youth Movement's Secretary General Muhammad Abdul Ridha states, "The protest is in solidarity with the youth of Iraq and demands the government provides basic services and respects citizens' rights and freedoms." He is among those calling for early elections. Revolution of Iraq notes, "Firing live bullets to disperse demonstrations in Mosul Friday decision and leave the lens of Staff correspondent Obeidi." A photo essay of the Mosul protest can be found here. Video of Mosul's protest can be found here. Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports, "Around 500 people gathered in front of the Hilla provincial council carrying banners that read 'The government cannot keep its promises' and 'People want reform'." Aswat al-Iraq reports that Iraqi forces prevented a dmonstration from taking place in Wassit. Kitabat runs the text of a speech Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) gave today which includes statemens about attempts to smear Iraqiya with false charges and lies including the claims that Iraqiya was attempting to organize a military coup against Nouri. Allawi notes Nouri's denying Iraiqs the answers to the questions which prompted the 100 Days and that now Nouri wants another 100 Days, that Nouri's 'forgotten' he is still the Minister of the Defense, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of National Security. Allawi notes that Nouri retained the post of prime minister as a result of being backed by Iran. He states, "Dear wounded people of Iraq, on the Qur'an I promise in front of God and in front of all of you that we will not let the Youth of Iraq stand alone in oppossing attempts to creat a new dictatorship in Iraq and the Youth of Iraq will find in us and throughout Iraq freedom and liberation and our complete support as they exercise their Constitutional right to speak out and emboyd the hopes, dreams and demands of the Iraqi people. You, the young men and women of Iraq, we all share the hope of putting an end to corruption, an end to injustice and an end to tyranny while we build a prospersous future for all Iraqis." Back to Ahmed Chalabi, Al Rafidayn reports that Nouri intentionally avoided him and his followers when selecting the new head of the Justice and Accountability Commission. Ahmed's dear friend and fellow thug Ali al-Lami was assassinated last month which, in the puppet government, may be the only thing which actually counts as a resignation. Al Rafidayn states that Mohamed Shia'a has been named (the Iraqi press has been referring to him as "the Sudanese" for days now). Why? Chalabi and Ali al-Lami used the committee (which Parliament thought they had killed off) to launch witch hunts and drive opponents (Sunnis mainly but also Shi'ites) out of the 2010 election. Chalabi had hoped that someone from his party (National Congress Party) would receive the post. Raman Brosk (Zawya) reported earlier this week that Chalabi was denying he had been dismissed from commission, "According to JAC secretary Muzaffar al-Battat, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered the dismissal of Shalabi. He said Maliki appointed the Minister for Human Rights, Mohammad Shayya." Brosk goes on to detail two other battle of wills -- both of which Chalabi lost -- in the last week. Last weekend, Nouri stopped an Iraqi government boat that was enroute to Bahrain and whose voyage had been organized by Chalabi and the two men have also locked horns over the position of Director of the Commercial Bank because Chalabi wanted his nephew Hussein al-Azri to retain the position but Nouri replaced al-Azri (who immediately fled to Lebanon) with Hamdiya al-Jaff instead. If the rumors are true that Chalabi organized the pro-government response in Baghdad (the thugs attacking), he might have done so in order to embarrass Nouri. He's already sicked his supporters on Nouri, after all. Shatt al-Arab reported Wednesday that Chalabi's circle was whispering that there appeared to be an organized plot against Chalabi (and they used the term "physical liquidation") and his unnamed supporters insisting of his being pushed out of the Justice and Accountability Commission that this was part of a deliberate war against Chalabi which attempted to exclude and marginalize him. Chalabi has appeared to be tailoring statements for maximum damage to Nouri. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported this week that Chalabi had announced that the US military must leave Iraq at the end of the year. That was a huge turnaround for Chalabi who spent over a decade taking money from the US government as part of the so-called Iraqi National Congress -- a group of cowardly Iraqi exiles who fled their country instead of fighting for it and spent over a decade lobbying and lying to get other countries to go into Iraq. Only after the US military was on the ground in Iraq (and advancing towards Baghdad) did Chalabi feel it was safe to return to the country. On the issue of the US military, yesterday CIA Director Leon Panetta appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to provide testimony regarding his nomination to become Secretary of Defense. One key exchange took place near the end of the hearing. Senator Jeanne Shaheen: I know earlier you were asked about Iraq and whether we would continue to stay in Iraq if asked. And, like others, I have been concerned about increasing violence in Iraq, about the recent casualties. We just lost someone from New Hampshire in the attack over the weekend. And so I wonder if you can talk to what we need to do in order to keep our focus on the efforts in Iraq and, um, assuming that we are not asked to stay, how we will deal with drawing down the remaining troops that are there. CIA Director Leon Panetta: Well we are at the present time on track to withdrawing our forces at the end of 2011 but I think that, uh, it's clear to me that Iraq is -- is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of presence to remain there. And-and-and it really is dependent on uh the prime minister and on the government of Iraq to present to us, uh, what, uh, you know what is it that they need and over what period of time in order to make sure that the gains we've made in Iraq are sustained. I-I have every confidence that, uh, that, uh, you know, that a request like that, you know, is something that I think will be forthcoming at some point. We covered the hearing in yesterdy's snapshot and Wally offered "Claire McCaskill" (at Rebecca's site), Ava offered "Brown and Collins ask Panetta" (at Trina's site) and Kat offered "Senate Armed Service Committee Boneheads." Today Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) offers his thoughts on Panetta's hearing: When oh when are American progressives going to recover their moxie – the fighting spirit of their predecessors, like Bob La Follete – and stand up against the warmongering and the assault on civil liberties that characterizes the Obama administration? I keep asking myself that question, even as the apparent answer becomes all too clear. The evidence that the long silence of the progressives will be extended throughout the already-started presidential campaign season was on display in Washington this week, as the confirmation hearings for Leon Panetta as the new Defense Secretary commenced. [. . .] Imagine an alternate history in which the Vietnam war continued for another decade or so – and was extended throughout Southeast Asia. Imagine, too, that a Democratic president – say, oh, Hubert Humphrey, since we're in an alternative universe – not only continued LBJ's war policies, but escalated the war, and nominated war-supporter and US Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Boeing) to head up the Department of Defense. Envision Jackson stating in his confirmation hearing that he and his predecessor "pretty much walk hand in hand on these issues" – and then imagine what Senator William Fulbright would make of this pledge of continuity. Unfortunately, today, there are no Fulbrights to speak truth to power. Instead, we have fake-"progressives" like Barbara Boxer, who, instead of grilling Panetta, chirped: "'Good luck, and I hope the committee does this quickly,' Ms. Boxer said after describing Mr. Panetta as her mentor and 'very smart, but he also gets it.'" It's Boxer who doesn't "get it": she masquerades, for the benefit of her California progressive constituency, as an opponent of the Afghan war, calling for a drawdown and rapid withdrawal, and yet she gives a free pass to Panetta, who wants to "stay the course." Fulbright's ghost is railing from the netherworld – but, alas, today's progressives are deaf to his pleas. Turning to some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes the corpse of 1 cab driver was discovered in Mosul, 2 Baghdad roadside bombings claimed the lives of 4 people with twenty more left injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing left three people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left four people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing which left two people injured and, dropping back to last night, 8 rockets hit the Green Zone. Meanwhile Mu Zuequan (Xinhua) reports, "Iraq on Thursday held a national reconciliation conference with the attendance of representatives of Sunni Arab insurgent groups who are willing to lay down their arms and join the political process." The groups Hamas al-Iraq, Jaish al-Islami, Jaish al-Mujahdeen, Naqshabandiyah, Jaish al-Fateheen and Jaish al-Murabteen are listed as having particpated. If successful, it would not be the first time a Sunni group of resistance was brought into the government. The Sahwa, Awakenings, "Sons Of Iraq" were a group of Sunni militants. The US government brought them in by paying them a monthly salary. The plan was for the Sahwa to be absorded into the process with Nouri finding jobs for many as police officers or military positions. They didn't get positions, most didn't even get a regular check after the US handed that responsibilty over to Nouri. Instead, they've been hounded, arrested and targeted. Last Friday, Sahwa leader Sheik Majid Jassim al-Obeidi and his assistant Jamal Ahmed al-Zobaie were assassinated, Sunday saw 1 Sahwa shot dead just outside Baghdad and a Baghdad roadside bombing injured three of them. Monday's violence included 3 Sahwa's being killed and three more being left injured. Wednesday saw 1 Sahwa killed in a Rashad roadside bombing. On the second hour of today's The Diane Rehm Show, Iraq was addressed with panelists Courtney Kube (NBC News), Richard McGregor (Financial Times of London) and David E. Sanger (New York Times). Diane Rehm: Now, let's talk first about Iraq because it was really a deadly week for US troops there, Courtney. Courtney Kube: That's right. On Monday, the US military suffers its worst attack there in about two years. This morning [a] Shi'ite militia claimed responsibility for launching six rockets into a small US - Iraqi outposts in southern Baghdad, killed five soldiers. There was another soldier killed later this week. Six soldiers -- US soldiers -- killed in Iraq in one week is much higher than we've seen recently. Diane Rehm: And 20 Iraqis killed killed as well in a series of explosions across the country [on Monday]. David Sanger, do Monday's death raise questions about troop withdrawal plans? David E. Sanger: Well Pentagon has known, Diane, from the beginning that the withdraw is a very vulnerable period because the troops are not in the position of being out to find these kind of sites. They're relying on the Iraqis to go do that and the whole idea has been that the movement of troops back to these bases would pretty well insulate the US against most casualties and, until now, that's worked out. But as the -- As withdraw accelerates and basically all US troops are supposed to be out by the end of the year -- unless there's an agreement with the Iraqis to the contrary -- I'm afraid you could see more of this. It's also got a bigger issue that's lurking behind which is that the same questions will pervade the slow withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan where there are a lot more American troops now. And, of course, that process is supposed to begin next month -- probably very slowly. Diane Rehm: And, Richard McGregor, the incoming Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, underwent his confirmation hearings yesterday. He says that Iraq will ask the US to stay beyond the end of 2011. Richard McGregor: Well this is -- has been -- a fascinating process because the US has almost been asking Iraq to make a formal request. But it seems there's a lot of internal opposition in Iraq -- or inability of some leaders to step forward and put that request forward. I think Adm [Mike] Mullen talked about this at least six months ago. Secretary [Robert] Gates talked about it before so the withdrawal time that David was talking about, timetable, is obviously flexible from the US. But so far, I don't think they've received the formal request to stay. Diane Rehm: And do you agree with David that that could affect the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan as well? Richard McGregor: Well, I think anything when the -- anytime when the U.S. withdraws after a major conflict, the aftermath is very important. If they leave with honor, to use a phrase, with certain -- not terrific echoes, then I think that's fine. But if they leave in, which looks like a retreat and without their aims met and without a friendly Iraq behind them. After all the aim was to build a model, Middle Eastern democracy and quite apart from the hit on the U.S. bases this week, I think a week or two ago in Iraq the 17 bombs went off in a coordinated attack. So, you know, I think the withdrawal process is very important. Diane Rehm: Courtney? Courtney Kube: Yes, I traveled to Iraq with Secretary Gates on his last trip there, about two months ago and he -- I wouldn't say that there is necessarily an appetite for a continuing presence -- for the U.S. to have a continuing presence but there's an understanding, there's an acceptance that that's the need that's going to come up. Though not yet over, the week is winding down and it's a week in which 6 US soldiers have died in Iraq. 5 died on Monday, 1 died Wednesday. OzarksFirst (link has text and video) reports that Pfc Matthew J. England was the soldier who died Wednesday "when an IED exploded near the military vehicle he was driving" and is survivors included mother Pamela Hengen and father Daniel England. The Ozark County Times runs a photo of Matthew England. The five who died on Monday were finally identified by the Defense Dept yesterday: The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of five soldiers who were supporting Operation New Dawn. They died June 6 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with indirect fire. They were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Field artillery Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. Killed were: Spc. Emilio J. Campo Jr., 20, of Madelia, Minn.; Spc. Michael B. Cook Jr., 27, of Middletown, Ohio; Spc. Christopher B. Fishbeck, 24, of Victoville, Calif.; Spc. Robert P. Hartwick, 20, of Rockbridge, Ohio; and Pfc. Michael C. Olivieri, 26, Chicago, Ill. For more information, the media may contact the 1st Infantry Division public affairs office at 785-240-6359 or 785-307-0641. Jim Woods and Randy Ludlow (Columbus Dispatch)report on 20-year-old Robert Hartwick whose survivors include Linda Hartwick (mother) and Robert A. Hartwick (father) and two sisters. He was on his first tour of duty in Iraq. His mother remembers him as someone who loved to fix things starting with a go cart when he was 5-years-old and who didn't "hunt because he could 'never hurt any animal'." The Chillicothe Gazette adds that he "was a combat medic and had joined the Army in June 2009." And making it back to the United States alive does not necessarily mean making it to safety. Pat Doyle (Star Tribune) reports on Lt Comd Jim Pierce: Pierce tended to Iraqis in the Iraq war with the same care he gave wounded Americans. But those who knew him well say he never recovered from the experience -- especially the sight of severely injured children -- and returned stateside traumatized, depressed and suicidal. "He was blown up psychologically," said a sister, Amy Bursch of Foley, Minn. Pierce, 52, a retired officer, died May 23 at his home in Goodview, Va. Authorities have not ruled on a cause of death; a medical examiner said it is under investigation. Memorial services will be held Saturday at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Bird Island. Jim Pierce was a member of the Navy and may or may not have taken his own life but for those who are struggling with that issue, the Army notes these resources: Suicide Prevention Lifeline - 1-800-273-TALK (8255) Military One Source - 1-800-342-9647 The Defense Center of Excellence (DCoE) - 1-866-966-1020 Army G-1, Army Well Being Liaison Office - 1-800-833-6622 Wounded Soldier and Family Hotline - 1-800-984-8523 CONUS DSN: 421-3700 OCONUS DSN: 312-421-3700 Real Warriors Campaign WLOX reports on Iraq War veteran Gene Dufree who, as part of the Mississippi National Guard's 1556h Charlie Company, deployed to Iraq in 2005. Five soldiers he served with died in Iraq. He remembers, "These were great guys. Husbands, brothers, great outstanding people. It leaves an emptiness in you that you will never overcome. [. . .] Knowing what I had been through, I prayed to God that those guys did not have to endure what we had to go through." iraq afp prashant rao al jazeera jane arraf the christian science monitor the los angeles times ned parker the washington post reuters npr the diane rehm show mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi aswat al-iraq cnn tim craig ozarksfirst the columbus dispatch jim woods randy ludlow the chillicothe gazette the ozark county times the star tribune pat doyle zawya al mada al rafidayn xinhua mu xuequan antiwar.com jason ditz justin raimondo