“In May, 2009, a man named Ibn Shaikh al-Libi supposedly committed suicide while being held in a Libyan jail. Al-Libi is a deeply, deeply interesting fellow. Back in 2002, he was tortured by Egypt under US direction. It appears that the reason the US government had him tortured was not to stop some imminent attack on the United States, but to generate alleged—and false— links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that could justify invading Iraq.”

The article goes on to cite Nick Baumann’s  2009 article for Mother Jones:

“Al-Libi was the man whose false confession, obtained under torture, of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda provided the Bush administration with its casus belli for war with Iraq. It didn’t seem to matter that al-Libi’s claim that Bin Laden had sent operatives to be trained in the use of weapons of mass destruction by Hussein’s people didn’t make any sense. ‘They were killing me,’ al-Libi later told the FBI about his torturers. ‘I had to tell them something.’ A bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee report would later conclude that al-Libi lied about the link ‘to avoid torture.’”

This revelation about Ibn Shaikh al-Libi is just one of what has been a constant stream of skeletons falling out of the Pentagon and State Department’s closets since Egyptian police fired tear gas canisters labeled “Made in the USA” at protesters in Tahrir Square.  

Of course it’s always easy to look back on a series of events and/or decisions and stand in judgment of what an elected official or a political party should or should not have done.  But while hindsight may always be 20/20, the resulting criticism is not always fair nor prudent.   However, sometimes the only way that individuals, and in this case a nation, can move forward is to carefully examine past mistakes, evaluate the consequences and, commit to changing course.  There was never a better time for this type of examination than when President Obama was elected to office, on a wave of dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of the Bush/Cheney era, and with a mandate for change.  And when in January, 2009, then House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H.R. 104, a bill to establish a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties  to investigate the policies that were undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers, it was the Obama administration’s opportunity to clean the the US’ foreign policy closets.   The opportunity was missed. Now, 8 years of a previous administration’s embarrassing dirty laundry is spilling out, one dirty item at a time.

As a Political Voices of Women contributing editor, Marcia G. Yerman wrote in 2009:

“A litmus test for many will be the stand that the Obama administration puts forth on accountability regarding the actions of Bush and his key players on the issue of torture and civil rights. The conversation is out there, and has been featured in numerous posts including a January 9th article at Talking Points Memo by Elana Schor. Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, has been seen on both the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow shows, where he has been explaining the high stakes for all Americans in getting this right.”

As I wrote at the time,  I believed that Americans and the global community deserved answers to questions about the Bush administration policies that lead to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the suspension of habeas corpus, the NSA wire-tapping program, extraordinary rendition, torture, the no-bid contracts to war contractors, and more.  It was my opinion that if  President Obama and the 111th Congress failed to at least public hearing on these issues that there failure to do so would come back to come not only the President, the Democratic Party but US foreign relations.   My support for H.R. 104 had less to do with the criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials, than a desire to see the record straight and a framework for real change built on a solid foundation.  There are still Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and that the Iraq war was all about the desire to spread democracy to the Middle East.  This, of course, if probably the same group that believes that President Obama is a Muslim. 

So now, instead of an investigation by a bi-partisan panel, the White House and State Department are busily spinning answers to questions about the US’ relationships with the regimes of Mubarak, Qaddafi and Bahrain’s royal family and, the American public is learning about our foreign policy via Wikileak’s unveliing of State Department cables and CNN’s pictures of Beyonce’s private performance for the Qaddaffi family.

Congressional hearings would have been much kinder. 

From “Baker’s Dozen About Obama” by Ellen Keim

Here are thirteen of my “Obamic” impressions, for what they’re worth:

First of all, I hope people can separate what they think of Obama–either his track record or the man himself–from the historical fact of his presidency.

Second, I can’t even imagine how much pressure he feels to be the best for fear that he may ruin the chances for another black candidate.

Third, I never thought he was the “Messiah” as some did, so I never expected him to be super-human. Some people are getting disenchanted because they expected perfection and instant gratification.

Fourth, I don’t think people are giving him enough credit for what he has done, either because they don’t agree with it or because it isn’t their pet project.

Fifth, he hasn’t been President for all that long. Considering the messes he inherited, we should expect fixes to take longer than a year.

Sixth, I don’t think we have seen the positive effects yet of the way he has reached out to the Muslim community around the world.

From Marcia G Yerman, “Thoughts for a New Decade: What I Wish for Women“

As we move into a new decade, I can’t help looking over my shoulder at all the things I would like to leave behind.

VIOLENCE: Number One – Violence perpetrated against the female gender. Whether it is domestic violence behind closed doors in the United States, acid being thrown in the faces of young girls in Afghanistan trying to attend school, or rampant rape as a tool of war…It must end.

DYSFUNCTIONAL HEALTH CARE: I would like to discard health care that doesn’t take into account the needs of women, and policies that don’t speak to the disparities in care for all members of the female community at the local, state, and national levels.

UNEQUAL CHANGE: I would welcome a roll back on the wage disparities between a woman’s paycheck and a man’s, taking into account a gap that is even larger for women of color. Moving forward, I would like more support for women working in the services sector, where wages are lower and benefits are commonly non-existent. More legislated awareness for the work/life balance issues that often drive women to choices based on the need for flexibility, as they seek to mesh family responsibilities with a career agenda, would be helpful.

From Margaret, “Free Speech and Corporations“:

Over the weekend, I posted a link on my Facebook page to a Keith Olbermann commentary on the SCOTUS decision that was issued on January 21, 2010. Now, I’m not a fan of Olbermann as a general rule, but I found what he had to say pretty much nailed what has me concerned about this decision. I don’t often publish anything on Facebook that is politically oriented, but I feel as if this decision has such far-reaching implications that it transcends “politics” and really has the potential to impact my daily life. In short, it scares the living crap out of me.

And from Onedia Hayes Sylvest, “Lifting the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy — Those Arguments Against Sound Familiar“:

I am a retired navy commander. I retired in 1994 just after the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy was begun. I thought it was insufficient then and I thought the reasons for taking such a half-baked (read another word there) stand was a little brass short of what it should have been. I also heard lots of reasons (and some of those are being repeated now by such people as John McCain) that sounded remarkably familiar.

When I first entered the Navy women did not have pants in their uniforms, they had to leave the service if pregnant, their husbands could not be claimed as “dependents” without proof that the navy woman provided at least 51% of his monetary support. We did not have top ranks or positions, there were no women with stars on their shoulders and we were denied access to many jobs/skill areas solely because of our gender. Women could not serve on ships or on aircraft and the primary reasons offered sounded almost identical to those I heard in 1993 and that I am hearing now.

I know that I served with gays and lesbians in the navy. Most were talented and dedicate. Some were not or even disruptive. However, neither the talent and dedication nor the poor performance and disruptive behavior were caused by their sexual preferences. The same traits and performance were equally present in both heterosexual and homosexual service people. In those days if you wanted to get someone eyeballed by the chain of command then feed the rumor of homosexuality. In my early days many people even assumed that women in the military were probably lesbians and if not they were either looking for a husband or were not of good moral character. The environment bred, I think deliberately, some level of hostility to any who did not fit the accepted image of what a sailor, CPO or officer should be. In the 70′ the primary targets were women and homosexuals.

This is just a sampling of what women are saying.

Want to read more? Why not join us and make your voice heard.

BlogHer contributing editor Mata posted on this today – Is it a joke, or is it hatred disguised in Biblical language?

She quotes Frank Schaeffer who appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night. Here is a video clip (you need to get about 50 seconds in)…

This is beyond disturbing, it’s down right scary.

I’m interested in knowing what others in this community think about this extreme hatred toward our president. Is it going too far? Let us know what you think in comments.

Big Government by WageLaborer

Obama wants to double the amount of US troops in Afghanistan and is pressuring NATO to supply more, also.

He insists that we must “win” in Afghanistan, but doesn’t say what “winning” is. When asked, the military commander states that he has no idea.

But, reading between the lines, as I have learned to do in this Orwellian society we live in, they are trying to establish a US friendly strong central government in Afghanistan.

How’s it working out for them? Not so well. Afghanistan is a decentralized tribal country, (much more than Iraq, where, although family ties are still strong, a strong central government existed before the US invaded and took it over.) Democracy Now had an interesting interview with an aid worker who told how US contractors built 41 courthouses and then tried to hand them over to the Afghan Justice Dept, who pointed out that they didn’t have staff, furniture or utilities to run them. The tribes have their own system of justice.

Every centralized government has gone through a period where they consolidated their power. Most people don’t like being run by tribal warlords. The US has its own stories of towns run by corrupt sheriffs in cahoots with the local elite, especially in the South. We have the story of the taming of the Wild West, with the same scenario – big government coming in and restoring justice corrupted by violent local thugs in power.

So Americans tend to think of Big Government as the arbitrator of justice. Federal troops escorting 5-year old African American girls to elementary school past jeering crowds of boorish white people. Starting with Teddy Roosevelt, the protection of some of the most beautiful parts of America, like Yosemite and Yellowstone, from private predation. The Supreme Court as the last chance for a fair trial.

Ironically, those Americans who don’t like Big Government tend to be the more politically conservative, especially in the South, where many are still angry that their tribes lost to the Feds 144 years ago. But these are the same ones who are especially enthusiastic about killing Afghans who resist having outside agitators coming in to their country and forcing centralized oppression on them.

Americans need to quit worrying about the tribal warlords in Afghanistan. What we have here is worse. We have corporate warlords who have captured our centralized government and are using its powerful structure to loot and oppress us.

The bank bailouts are the most publicized, but the giveaway of public land for private profit is just as outrageous. What about taxpayer subsidies to corporations who shut down American factories and move them to cheaper labor countries? What about the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the last three decades? What about the relaxing of air and water pollution rules?

And the ongoing attack on our personal freedoms. The latest is the proposal to centralize and computerize our medical records, so that everything you tell your doctor, the results of your lab tests and xrays, etc., will be available to whoever has access to those records. In other words, thousands of people, including insurance companies and the FBI and the military.

And now you have to submit fingerprints, bodily fluids and background checks to get many jobs! You now have to show two forms of ID to get a job. You can’t travel out of the USA without a passport. You can’t buy a plane or train ticket, or check into a hotel, without a government issued ID.

Listen up, America. You can’t “export freedom” to other countries when you don’t have it here. Do you want to see our future? Look at Iraq. They now have checkpoints, fingerprints, retina scans, more prisons than they had before, and soldiers breaking into their houses without warrants.

The corporate warlords who have seized our government have the same plans for us. Let’s concentrate on regaining our own country and quit trying to conquer other people’s countries.

What do you think? Let me know in comments.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Last November 26 as the race for nomination began in earnest I posted an Open Letter to the Candidates. I think it relevant that I now post it again with a few additions highlighted in bold.

Well, since it is here and easy to step onto, I am pulling out the soapbox this morning. This is an open letter to all the presidential candidates about what I want from my next president. Here it is not in priority order since I don’t want to make this too hard:

1. I want you to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within the first 100 days of office and to provide medical care for the wounded and support for the reserve military to return to their civilian lives.
2. I want you to find a way for everyone in this country to have medical care !
3. I want you to find a way for everyone in this country to have affordable medications.
4. I want you to find a way for every young person to have access to higher education.
5. I want you to improve our schools and get our teachers better prepared and better paid.
6. I want you to find a way to ensure that the people who have entered a tacit agreement to turn over some of their earnings with the understanding that they would have a return as social security annuities will in fact get that return on investment.
7. I want you to behave as a Global CITIZEN rather than as the AUTOCRATIC PATRIARCH telling your global brothers and sisters how to run their countries.
8. I want you to strengthen our relationships with other countries and to broker agreements that will improve our security and our economy and that will reduce barriers and build alliances.
9. I want you to use more diplomacy in dealing with world issues and NOT rush to invade, conquer and quash.
10. I want you to be as concerned about what is happening in Burma and Darfur as Iraq and Iran.
11. I want you to refuse to build a WALL across our border and to develop a considered approach to immigration issues that is not fueled by fear, prejudice and narrow vision.
12. I want you to ensure that religious thought does not dictate decisions such as who may or may not enter into the civil contract of marriage. Such issues are for (of-age) individuals to decide not government.
13. I want you to reduce the availability of automatic weapons.
14. I want you to ensure our environment is protected.
15. I want you to use passion, vision and focus to develop and deploy real alternatives to fossil fuels as energy in this country. Kennedy took us to the moon in a decade … we can do the same to solve our energy problems.
16. I want you to sign the Kyoto agreement and to work diligently to reduce global warming.
17. I want you to immediately take appropriate action to improve our economy for the small towns, the working people and the small business owners of this country not simply for the big cities, the moguls and the financial houses.
18. I want you to be a person of integrity and intelligence and to surround yourself with passionate, dedicated people of equal intelligence and integrity.
19. I want you to do what you said you’d do while trying to get me to vote for you and to not use clever ways of speaking to avoid telling the truth about what you’re doing. (thanks Mary Ann of DSS)
20. I want you to lead us, inspire us, unite us, redefine us.
21. I want you to understand the need for and the way to build consensus when leading change.
22. I want you to promote harmony, to inspire pride and confidence, and to unite us.
23. I want you to protect the constitution and not erode the rights protected by the constitution!
24. I want some sane and reasonable regulations or restrictions on the financial community (or some creative and realistic solution) to restrain the overwhelming greed and corruption that brought us to our current dismal financial situation. I don’t have the answer but creative problem solving that does not simply put a band-aid on a headache can certainly be developed over the next four years. And while you are looking into that, how about reconsidering the federal stance on usury.
25. It is absolutely reprehensible that we as a nation continue to employ land mines in our warfare strategies.We need to change that! See references below.

The Ottawa Treaty or the Mine Ban Treaty, formally the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, bans completely all anti-personnel landmines (AP-mines). As of 2007, it has been signed/accessioned by 158 countries. Thirty-seven states, including the People’s Republic of China, India, Russia and the United States, are not party to the Convention. (Wikipedia)

Arms Control AssociationI KNOW. These are big expectations, but not unreasonable and they are the goals and expectations that will allow us to be a truly great and powerful nation.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Did you see this? It’s truly an outrage!

The following Associated Press article ran in the Detroit Free Press on October 10, 2008. My comments follow.

BALLOT GAFFE: Is it Obama or Osama?
Who is running for president? In an upstate New York county, hundreds of voters have been sent absentee ballots in which they could vote for “Barack Osama.”

The absentee ballots sent to voters in Rensselaer County identified the two presidential candidates as “Barack Osama” and “John McCain.” In the United States, the best-known individual named Osama is Osama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaeda terror group.

The county elections office faxed a statement in which the two commissioners, Democrat Edward McDonough and Republican Larry Bugbee, said they regret the error but never acknowledge what the error was.

“It’s human error, it’s very unfortunate, it’s an embarrassment to our office, obviously,” McDonough said.

###
Compiled from the Associated Press

MY RESPONSE:
Let me say it up front: Yes, Rensselaer County is a Republican led county. However, there were supposedly three proofreaders and no one caught the error before the absentee ballot went out to over 300 residents.

Certainly, no one expects stupid errors on a simple ballot with names we’ve all become extremely familiar with. I suspect the person who typed the ballot assumed right—that no one would be paying close enough attention to notice until it was too late.

What could incite an American—let alone a New Yorker—more than being asked to vote for Osama? By the way, the letter “s” is no where near the letter “b” on the keyboard. The “s” is typed with the middle finger of the left hand and the “b” with the index finger.

A more accurate “typo” would have been “Onama”, “Ovama” or “Ogama.” Nah… those don’t have the same effect—and they certainly would have been caught.

Osama: Willful or ignorant?
I believe there are three options:
1) Either the individual who typed the ballot was typing with one finger and truly made a mistake;
2) It was a Freudian slip of the finger by a mindless, out-of-touch individual who actually believes the negative emails circulating that refer to Obama as Osama; or
3) The individual purposefully committed election fraud by attempting to reduce the number of votes cast for Obama due to the incendiary reference to Osama Bin Laden.

What about the election commissioners who didn’t catch the error? They probably didn’t see it. How often are simple, routine actions thoroughly analyzed? It’s not excusable, but very likely that proofing an absentee ballot is something that is delegated or neglected entirely.

I’m typically very optimistic and always ready to give others the benefit of the doubt—but this incident is extremely suspicious to me. Why, well, because I don’t believe in coincidence—and Osama—well, it’s just not your typical typo.

What do you think?

Taking on McCain on Veterans’ Issues…

In the first presidential debate a couple of weeks ago, John McCain boasted that he’s always been a champion for veterans. I’ll take care of them,” he said. “And they know I’ll take care of them.”

Unfortunately for McCain, facts keep getting in the way of the claim.

In recent years, McCain’s ratings from veterans’ groups have been less than impressive. The Vietnam Veterans of America, for example, recently compiled a list of key votes, and found McCain voted against the group’s position 15 times and with the group eight times. (Obama, in contrast, voted with the VVA 12 times, and against it only once.)

McCain’s true record on Veterans’ Issues…

McCain postures himself as a real fighter for veterans. Recently, however, veterans’ groups have taken issue with this stance and issued some reports showing that the opposite is, in fact true. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America points out that McCain missed 6 of 9 important votes on veterans bills this year and stood in the way of passage of the new GI bill. VoteVets.org has issued this ad taking McCain to task for his position on that same bill:

So, the facts prove that McCain has a very poor record when it comes to veterans’ issues.  I think more people should be calling him out on this. What do you think?