Corruption "untouchable" in Iraq

American taxpayer dollars hard at work.

Medicines and supplies have been siphoned off and sold elsewhere because of corruption in the Iraqi government's Ministry of Health, according to a draft U.S. government report obtained by NBC News.

The report, written by U.S. advisers to Iraq's anti-corruption agency, analyzes corruption in 12 ministries and finds devastating and grim problems: "Corruption protected by senior members of the Iraqi government," the report said, "remains untouchable."

One potential problem, according to the report, is in the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The report said that "the prime minister’s office has on a number of occasions intervened on cases involving political supporters."

Read the rest of this post...

Cheney admits Iraq insurgency isn't in its "last throes"

He's a little late to the party, no?

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney acknowledged on Tuesday he was wrong in 2005 when he insisted the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes."

It was Cheney's most direct public admission of how badly the administration had underestimated the strength of America's enemies in the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq.

..."I thought there were a series of these milestones that would in fact undermine the insurgency and make it less than it was at that point. That clearly didn't happen. I think the insurgency turned out to be more robust."

Under-flipping statement of the year. Lest you think Darth has had any change in thinking about Dear Leader's Big Military Adventure, well, I've got a bridge to sell you.

But Cheney, an architect of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, otherwise gave no ground in an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" as he defended President George W. Bush's Iraq policy.

He said the Bush administration would still send troops into Iraq if it could do it all over again, even knowing what it knows now, including that more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel would be killed.

Nice. Read the rest of this post...

Breakfast with Speaker Pelosi -- and a question about gay families

Terrance Heath of The Republic of T (he's also a contributor to Pam's House Blend) was one of several bloggers and political types invited to breakfast with the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

As a gay father, he knew that this was an opportunity to ask a question about the issues that affect gay families (or non-families, as far as legal considerations go in most states). Here's his question -- and Pelosi's answer.

Childcare. Family leave. Health insurance. Even something simple simple as joining a freakin' gym isn't so simple when you have to make the case that you qualify as a family, when various and sundry laws say you actually don't. For example, I just started working as an independent consultant. I'm buying my own health insurance as a result (not cheat, by the way, but I'll talk about health care later). If I were legally married to my husband, I'd have the option of being carried on his insurance. But right now that's not possible. That's just one of many issues where LGBT families get the short end of the stick.

So I raised my hand, and when the microphone came to me, I managed to get something close to this out:

As a working father of a four-year-old, with another on the way [Ed. Note: At this point the Speaker gave me a big smile and said "Congratulations!"], and as a gay dad I'd like to hear more about strengthening families. How do we do it in a way that strengthens all families, and that recognizes the reality of diverse families; families where both parents work, families where parents aren't married to each other, families where the parents can't marry each other, single parents, etc.?

I'm not sure if the way I opened my question disarmed her, but I'd swear the Speaker blinked and even stammered for a minute, like she wasn't expecting that one. (Even though my question came close on the heels of one about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which the speaker favored getting rid of.) But it was only a minute. She quickly righted herself and gave an answer that basically, and I'm paraphrasing here until the transcript is up, that boils down to this: we should already be there, and we can get there by supporting the current agenda. Put another way, we can get to a more progressive place where we will strengthen all families, but not yet. 

That's about what I expected. It's a pragmatic answer. The way to get there is to strengthen our position in ways that are possible now. Which implies that what we're asking for isn't possible now.

The fact of the matter is that too many who should be in our corner are "not there," as in "we understand but are not willing to spend political capital on you -- but please open your wallet for me." There's always some political obstacle standing in the way, and the onus has always been on LGBTs to convince the general public that we are entitled to civil rights taken for granted by most Americans. Many of our Democratic "allies" in office aren't ready to come along until the public approval ratings hit the right target number for them to feel comfortable taking political risks (or, perhaps more accurately, doing the right thing).

That said, Speaker Pelosi is well-known as an ally for LGBT rights; she is working to pass the hate crimes bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. She will be the keynote speaker at HRC's annual dinner, where she will receive the 2007 Equality award for her leadership on LGBT issues. It just shows you how some of these topics need better framing and more open discussion -- we can all learn more on how to move these issues forward.

The audio of the breakfast is up at PoliticsTV. Read the rest of this post...

Bush threatens to veto health care coverage for kids and seniors, but think Bush, Cheney or Roberts had any problems with their health insurance?

Over the past two weeks, three of the top officials in our government have undergone major medical experiences. Bush had a colonoscopy and polyps removed; Cheney got some kind of new cardiac device; and John Roberts had a seizure that landed him in the E.R.

If those experiences had happened to most Americans, we'd be sorting through our health care plans to figure out what was covered and how much we owed. That is, if there was health insurance coverage. Meanwhile, I don't think Roberts is fretting that he had a pre-existing condition or whether E.R. visits are in his plan. The rest of us are tortured over things like that.

You know that none of those guys have any such worries. You're paying for them to have the best health care around. Yet, George Bush is vowing to veto the SCHIP reauthorization. This week, the House will pass its version of SCHIP reauthorization, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP), H.R. 3162. That bill will provide health care to 11 million kids while protecting senior citizens from the Bush effort to privatize Medicare. Yep, health care for kids and seniors. But, Bush can't have that.

Bush's veto threat really is a new low even for him. It's not a surprise that he's choosing the insurance companies and tobacco industry over the American people. But the Democrats are ready for this fight. Earlier today, I was at a Maria Leavey Breakfast with Speaker Pelosi who discussed this very issue. PoliticsTV has the audio. The Speaker is geared up. On this one, she is ready to get in the ring with Bush saying, "Okay, here's the fight....[Bush] is going to fight us on the tobacco tax and children's health. Welcome to the discussion....this will be a defining kind of debate for us."

A defining debate -- and it has got to be just the start of real reform. The health care system has to change. It works for Bush, Cheney, Roberts and the rest of the government officials, but not for most of us. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Now that you know I'm not an old dude, I can admit to having a little crush on Kate Beckinsale without seeming creepy. It dates back to her tour de force performance in noted cinematic classic Brokedown Palace (which I saw only because Claire Danes was in it; little did I know Kate would win my affections!), and has survived -- if tenuously -- even through the debacles of Serendipity, Van Helsing, and the like.

However, this threatens to annihilate that sentiment completely. Kate Beckinsale as Judy "I sold the Iraq war to the American public through the New York Times" Miller? Really?? And apparently Matt Damon may also sully his good name with this ridiculousness.

Because when I think of the Valerie Plame debacle, the protagonist that immediately comes to my mind is . . . Judy Miller.

*sigh*

In any case, chat away. Read the rest of this post...

O'Reilly's Markos-destroying scoop? A picture of Lieberman fixing George Bush's zipper.

The "big scoop" that FOX News' Bill O'Reilly was going to reveal last night, the photo that he found on the DailyKos blog that was going to "destroy" Markos utterly and totally? It's a doctored photo of Joe Lieberman fixing George Bush's zipper. I've seen this photo before, it's mildly amusing. But for O'Reilly to bill this as a shocker that the audience isn't going to believe, something so outrageous that it is going to "destroy" Daily Kos, is the kind of totally unmerited bluster that you'd expect from a desperate first year journalism student, not from a wannabe-major network. To say that there is no "there, there" is an understatement.

I'm posting this to show you, to show the real journalists who read our site, the kind of thing that passes for "news" on FOX. Not that it would shock anyone that FOX is simply yellow journalism at its worst, but still it's useful to be reminded in glaring detail just how silly and pathetic FOX's standards truly are.

Let me remind you again. O'Reilly's own Web site contained death threats against Hillary Clinton, suggestions that someone ought to launch a terror strike against the US Capitol, a death wish against Rosie O'Donnell, slurs against Muslims (including calling Islam a cult), and more. But that's okay. What's REALLY hateful isn't all of that, it's a picture of Joe Lieberman fixing George Bush's zipper.

Bill-o just jumped the shark. Read the rest of this post...

CBS report: Rise of gang members and felons in the military

You can't serve if you're openly gay or lesbian, but bring on the gang members and felons. A CBS report shows how bad the situation is.

The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier.

Most are guilty of misdemeanors, but around 100 in the past year had felony convictions.

George Bush's military is increasingly looking like the gang-infested, crime holes many young men and women are trying to escape from. What's appealing about a military that is recruiting folks convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats. The number of convicted felons enlisted in the U.S. military has almost doubled in the past three years, and 43,977 individuals convicted of serious misdemeanors such as assault have enlisted under the moral waivers program.

There's also a stunning piece by Radar Magazine's Seamus McGraw, Gangs of Iraq. It's a chilling account of how far the military has fallen, with its backdrop the murder of Sergeant Juwan Johnson a decorated war vet, who was killed as a result of a gang initiation by the Gangster Disciples while in the military.

It wasn't until May 2006, five months after the Army papered the base with fliers offering a $25,000 reward (later upped to $50,000) for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case, that investigators acknowledged a gang connection.

Ten months lapsed before the first suspect was charged. Since then, five soldiers have been charged in the case, according to a U.S. Army spokesperson. Only one of them, Specialist Bobby Morrissette - a friend who served alongside Johnson throughout his deployment overseas -- has been slated to stand trial.

But according to gang experts, including one who has been called to testify, the real mystery is why it took the Army so long to accept that Johnson was the victim of a growing epidemic of gang violence that has infected all branches of the armed services. Lax enlistment standards have inadvertently allowed thousands of gang members to join the military, including young men who belong to the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, and various white supremacist groups. But no gang has infiltrated the armed forces as deeply as the Gangster Disciples, a 100,000-member Chicago-based syndicate that has been linked to an assortment of crimes ranging from murder to mortgage fraud.

"There's no doubt about it -- the Gangster Disciples are the biggest [gang] in the Army," says Chicago Police Lieutenant Robert Stasch, who has spent 30 years tracking the group's rise from a handful of street-corner hoodlums to what he calls "the most sophisticated criminal enterprise in the United States."

Also:
* SLDN's The Frontlines: 8000 Rap Sheets; 100 Felons
* Too Sense: Crip Walking In Baghdad Read the rest of this post...

Is Fred Thompson All Hype?

According to several reports, Fred Thompson's campaign will report only $3 million raised so far, a disappointing figure.

Fred Thompson plans to announce Tuesday that his committee to test the waters for a Republican presidential campaign raised slightly more than $3 million in June, substantially less than some backers had hoped, according to Republican sources.

This means he probably has as many ex-staffers as he does donors. Fred Thompson is rapidly becoming the "New Coke" of the 2008 Presidential cycle, all hype, no substance. Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING... Home Depot dumps O'Reilly: "We will not... advertise on the Bill O’Reilly show"

Home Depot seems to have had a change of heart. They're now unequivocally telling their customers that they will not advertise on Bill O'Reilly's show. Oddly, however, they're now also claiming that they never advertised on O'Reilly's show.

From: Jarvis, Ron @homedepot.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 3:00 PM
To: JH
Subject: RE: PULL SUPPORT FOR OREILLY

Thank you for your email , we will not and have not advertised on the Bill O’Reilly show.

And here's another:

From: Defeo, @homedepot.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:07 AM
To: JH
Subject: FW: PULL SUPPORT FOR OREILLY

Good morning,
Thank you very much for your message. The Home Depot has a policy that prohibits the running of its advertising on programs that express strong opinions or political views. Please note that this includes Bill O’Reilly’s program.
Thank you,
Ron

Funny, though, that Home Depot already admitted to advertising on O'Reilly's show in the hateful email they sent customers just a few days ago - you know, the one where they blamed you for hurting the environment:

Dear C (me),

Thank you for contacting The Home Depot Customer Care.

We appreciate you taking the time to forward your concerns regarding The Home Depot's sponsorship of Bill O' Reilly's show on FOX.

The Home Depot has a strong passion for being environmentally responsible both in the Company's operating principles and in responsible retailing through our industry-leading Eco Options initiative, a program that allows customers to easily identify products that have less of an impact on the environment and empowers them to help make a difference in their own homes. We have led many initiatives with interest groups to develop standards and set environmental goals for ourselves and suppliers. Some of these at great expense and sweat equity to the company.

Our advertising campaigns have one simple objective to communicate with audiences in the most effective way possible. The Company is receptive to many forms and styles of media as we seek a balanced representation of programming to reach our customer base.

Unfortunately campaigns like this one cause us to take time away from our sustainability goals and address a variance of political views.

Sincerely,

Atul
Customer Care

Gee, Atul, it seems that your story is changing fast.

Perhaps Home Depot is doing "run of network" ads that appear across the FOX networks, with FOX choosing which shows the ads run on. A lot of companies like to use this kind of advertising to claim that they don't advertise on particular shows - it's a smoke screen and a lie. If this is the case here, then Home Depot needs to specifically inform us that they have asked FOX not to run any Home Depot ads on The O'Reilly Factor.

Having said that, Home Depot has some explaining to do if it thinks Hannity is any better than O'Reilly. FOX, across the board, smears gays, blacks, attacks the environment, and more. Home Depot needs to dump the hate network now, across the board.

Ron Jarvis, Vice President of Environmental Innovation
ron_jarvis@homedepot.com

Frank Blake, Chief Executive Officer
francis_blake@homedepot.com

Carol Tome, Chief Financial Officer
carol_tome@homedepot.com

PS Here's another Home Depot email:

From: Defeo, Ron [mailto:Ron_DeFeo homedepot.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:07 AM
To: JH
Subject: FW: PULL SUPPORT FOR OREILLY

Good morning,
Thank you very much for your message. The Home Depot has a policy that prohibits the running of its advertising on programs that express strong opinions or political views. Please note that this includes Bill O’Reilly’s program.
Thank you,
Ron

Read the rest of this post...

UPS complies with NJ civil unions law -- will offer partner benefits to gay employees

The pressure worked. United Parcel Service, urged by New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine in a letter last week to extend benefits to partners of employees, will now recognize the state's civil union law, which declares CUs are entitled to equal recognition under the law as civil marriage.

As you will see below, UPS wanted to extend the benefits, but the company read the law as preventing the company from doing so. From Lambda Legal:

"We are pleased to see that UPS has decided to do the right thing in the end and provide benefits to the same-sex civil union partners and families of its employees in New Jersey," said David S. Buckel, Marriage Project Director of Lambda Legal and the attorney who represented the UPS employees. "In a statement, UPS's Senior Vice President of Human Resources said 'Based on initial legal review when this law was enacted, it did not appear that a "civil union" and "marriage" were equivalent.' UPS is joined by hundreds of employers around the state in hearing that civil unions are different from marriage and that is to be expected when people are given second-class status. The consequences to such ongoing mistakes are severe, and rather than going employer to employer and explaining civil unions one by one, the legislature has a quick fix: allowing same-sex couples to marry."

In May of this year, Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier, who is a driver for UPS who requested to have her civil union spouse, Heather Aurand, added to UPS's benefit plan so that the couple would not have to continue paying for a second, inferior, health insurance plan for Heather and could stop paying down a second yearly deductible. UPS responded with a letter outlining why it was denying spousal benefits to Brazier and Aurand, saying, "In summary, you cannot add Ms. Aurand as a spouse because New Jersey law does not treat civil unions the same as marriages,[emphasis added] and the Plan requires a dependent spouse to be a spouse as defined under applicable state law." Aurand is a stay-at-home parent who is raising the couple's three children. The couple has been together for over seven years.

Tom Walton, 42 is also a UPS driver who asked to have his civil union spouse and partner of 15 years with, Mearmon Davis, 44, added to his healthcare plan and was denied as well, but following advocacy by Lambda Legal and a letter from Governor John Corzine, was advised he could now add Davis to his benefit plan.

As I said in my earlier post on this issue, when the legislature was forced by the state Supreme Court to ensure that gay and lesbian couples received equality under the law as married couples, it decided to create a "separate but equal" civil unions rather than open civil marriage to same-sex couples. However, that structure prevents the use of the word "spouse," which companies are using to deny benefits because that term is legally reserved for married couples.

For presidential candidates clinging onto civil unions as a panacea to the "problem" of the demand for marriage equality, they need look no further than the Garden State to see that there will be a legal quagmire from day one.

Related:

* NJ: Civil unions are a separate and unequal failure Read the rest of this post...

Will a new documentary on Mormons help or hurt Mitt?

John's already blogged about why Mitt is no JFK. Here's a snippet of a press release about a documentary, 'A Mormon President' Uncovers Anti-Mormon Feelings, that is slated for release this fall. The film is by Adam Christing, a member of the Mormon History Association. It's hard to tell whether this is going to further inflame the evangelicals Mitt is courting, since many believe LDS is a cult.

Production has begun on a new documentary film, A Mormon President, which explores the historical roots of current presidential candidate Mitt Romney's biggest challenge to being elected President: his Mormon faith.

"Very few people realize that Romney is not the first Mormon to run for the White House," noted Christing who studied theology at Biola University in Los Angeles. "The first Mormon to run for the Presidency was actually the first Mormon, the prophet, Joseph Smith. Those who want to understand Romney's challenge today, must first understand Joseph Smith."

..."Joseph Smith is one of the most captivating religious figures in U.S. history," noted Christing. " He was loved by nearly half the state of Illinois and hated by the other half. There is evidence that a political conspiracy was hatched to assassinate him shortly after he announced his run for President."

A Mormon President will be released in the fall of 2007 and will shed light on the deep undercurrent of anti-Mormon feeling in some parts of the country. Christing recently filmed at Haun's Mill in Missouri where 17 Mormons were brutally massacred in 1838. His crew entered a bar in a small town near the site of the massacre, and was stunned to discover that, for some of the townsfolk the 170-year-old tensions still remain. "That massacre never happened, the Mormons are a bunch of thieves, and we'll never vote for a Mormon president," Christing was told by one local.

Since the hard core bible beaters are quite fixed in their beliefs, I doubt anything is going to change their opposition to Romney, but it looks like Mitt's going to give it the old college try.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Thursday he'll probably deliver a speech explaining the role his Mormon faith plays in his political life, but he argued he's made strong gains among evangelicals despite questions about his religion.

...During a campaign appearance earlier in the day, Romney was asked about his views on appointing a "God-fearing Mormon" to the Supreme Court. Romney has been asked about such matters frequently in question-and-answer sessions he holds almost daily. "I'd go after people who will follow the law and I wouldn't apply a religious test either," Romney said.

...In March, a Gallup poll found that 46 percent had a negative opinion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant group, considers the LDS church a cult and many other Christian denominations also do not recognize Mormon baptism.

It appears Americans in general are still cool to the idea of a Mormon president (Rasmussen Reports, Nov 2006):

Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate. Only 38% say they would consider casting such a vote while 19% are not sure (see crosstabs). Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

I doubt that this documentary will change many minds, but it will be interesting to see how it will be received.

Related:
* Conservative evangelicals in a tizzy over GOP presidential choices
* Fundamentalist "ex-gay" activist: Mitt Romney's beliefs disgrace the birth of Christ
* Caption this Mitt photo Read the rest of this post...

Why Romney is no JFK

JFK never ran as a Catholic. JFK never intended to jam to his religion down America's throat. Romney, running as a religious right candidate, is doing quite the opposite. Romney isn't just running on his faith. He is openly proud of the fact that he plans to use his religion as a litmus test to determine his position on every issue. While JFK assured us that he wasn't going to be taking orders from the Pope, Romney assures us that he will be taking orders from Pat Robertson and the men at the Concerned Women for America.

Kennedy believed in the pluralism of America. Romney does not. Romney, like so many Republican candidates nowadays, wants you to live your life like a good member of HIS religion. And if you don't, he's going to pass laws making sure that you do.

That's why it's relevant that Romney is a Mormon. If we are expected to live under Mormon law, we deserve to know a bit more about that religion before casting our votes. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

So, between the seizure of Justice Roberts and the raid on the home of Senator Stevens, never a dull moment.

"Benign seizure" has the same oxymoronic ring to it as "benevolent dictator." Well, to my untrained ear, anyway. I have a feeling John Roberts isn't spending too much time worrying about his insurance coverage. Thanks to your tax dollars, that guy probably has the best insurance around.

Start threading the news. Read the rest of this post...

Reading the Brown-Bush meeting tea leaves

With so many mixed messages from the first meeting of PM Brown and Bush, we may not know the direction this relationship is going until the next serious status check in Iraq which is in October. A few items to consider from the joint press conference yesterday:

* Start time was delayed by 20 minutes
* Bush referred to Brown as "Gordon" while Brown referred to Bush as "Mr. President"
* Brown talked of "full and frank discussions" with Bush
* Bush heaped praise on Brown though Brown did not return the compliment
* Brown avoided using Bush's favorite "war on terror" phrase
* Brown did not say he was accelerating the departure from Iraq, but he also did not change the current talk of bringing home troops on schedule.

Stay tuned... Read the rest of this post...

Australia now suggesting "double secret probation" evidence on terror case

As if the Howard government had an ounce of legitimacy left, the latest spin on the "terrorist doctor" who was held under obscure and unusual powers by the government yet was released after three weeks without being charged, is that the supposed evidence is so secret, they can't tell anyone about it. Uh huh. After three weeks of being held they are unable to find even a single charge that would stick, then release him and send him home to India, but sure, he's really guilty. Of what, we have no idea but if the Australian government told you, the entire police investigation on the failed terror attack in Scotland would crumble. If the "top double secret" information was so valuable and Dr Haneef is so dangerous, why did they release this scary man? Sounds like another trick out of the Bush bag of tricks. Read the rest of this post...