Crossposted at Huffington Post.

As I surf the Internet and visit my favorite blogs, I read that many people are saying “why didn’t Barack Obama say this” or “why didn’t Obama say that?”  Many prominent Mideast experts and bloggers are expressing disappointment in Obama. They say his address to the Arab-Muslim world was “status quo patronizing,” “nothing but empty words,” “lip service,” and much more.  Jack Shaheen, one of the world’s foremost authority on media images of Arabs and Muslims, said he was duly impressed with Obama’s address to the Muslim world.    

Shaheen is the author of the groundbreaking work “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People.” His second book “Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs after 9/11,” was recently named the 2008 “Forward Magazine” social sciences book of the year.  Shaheen says Obama’s message set a positive tone for a sincere dialog about Muslims and Arabs myths and realities.  He believes Obama “brought these issues in a very candid and articulate manner to the forefront and he is committed from the get-go.”

I interviewed Shaheen shortly before the 2008 general election for Off the Bus and I checked back in to find out what he thought of Obama’s address to the Arab-Muslim world.    

So what are your initial impressions of Obama’s address to the Arab-Muslim world?

Jack Shaheen: The fact that an American president went to an Arab country and spoke not only young people throughout the Arab-Muslim world and Arab and Israeli leaders, but to world leaders and young people worldwide.  I say this primarily because it was a message of peace.  His words were designed to make people realize and understand that violence, the occupation of another people, and using religion as a weapon continue to go on.  But it needs to stop and we as human beings have a responsibility to shatter the myth and cease the hate rhetoric that we have.  

We need to begin a dialog to go forward.  We know that will not be an easy task, but [Obama] has set a tone.  I think it always begins at the top and hopefully other world leaders and young people will take to heart his message.  

We also need to understand that individuals must act on it.  We have to follow through as a country [to achieve peace].  We have to make certain that settlements no longer exist and that Israel brings down the wall.  Obama did not say that, but should have.  He could have compared that to the Berlin Wall.  But I think given the hate and the mistrust that exists in Israel – which is not being reported [in the U.S.], – I think he soft-pedaled that.  Which I can understand.  

I also believe that for more than a century, we have in one way or the other demonized Islam and Muslims. This has had a telling effect.  Many Arabs and Muslims are afraid to come to the U.S. because of harassment at airports, taken off a plane, or deported because you were Muslim or Arab.  Obama didn’t mention that.  But we knew instinctively that was what he was talking about.  Without saying it, Obama was telling the world ‘it’s OK to be a Muslim. The Muslims are like Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc.’

Now we know a lot of people are not going to shed their prejudices over time about Islam and Muslims.  But again, it’s coming from the top and that will filter down.  I think Obama is not going to let this go. He’s not going to stop with this kind of rhetoric.  He will continue to quote and cite the similarities between the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah.  Of course if I were writing the speech, I would’ve advised him that the Virgin Mary is mentioned more often in the Koran than she is in the Bible!  

Obama was trying to do several things [in his address].  He was trying to shatter crude stereotypes Americans have about Arabs and Muslims, help young Arabs and Muslims and Arab leaders shatter their misperceptions of Americans and Israelis, and help Israelis shatter the crude stereotypes they may have of Arabs and Muslims.  I think [Obama’s address] brought these issues to the forefront.  He’s not waiting until the last few months of his presidency to try and bring about peace.  Obama’s committed from the get-go.  This is the first.  

It reminded me – in some ways – when former president Richard Nixon speech when he went to China.  Americans had all these images of China as “dirty commies.”  Nixon goes to China and almost over night, our perceptions and policies began to change.  They’re not going to change that fast, but we’ve been here before.  We were able to turn this around with China.  I see no reason why we can’t do this.

My problem was that Obama spoke out against Palestinian violence, but not against Israeli violence. He said nothing about the Israeli aggression in Gaza from late December and early January.

I think he did all the things he could have done.  But look how many times Obama mentioned Palestine?  He also mentioned the occupation.  All of us have our particular biases.  We can always find things and say ‘why didn’t he say this or why didn’t he say that?’  But by and large, it was a speech to bring people together.  I think Obama treaded very carefully so much as to not to offend countries who will may step forward and negotiate with the U.S.  

First of all, we have to take into consideration that this is the key first step.  Obama set the correct tone for the beginning of the peace process.  No president before has ever done this.  Secondly, he did not speak to the Muslim world, he spoke to Muslims throughout the world.  This speech did not only take into consideration Arab Muslims – the ones who are most demonized – but other Muslims from all over the world.  No matter where they are, Muslims are persecuted and looked down upon because of their faith.  I think this president deserves a tremendous amount of credit for reaching out.  

It’s human nature to look at a speech like this and say ‘well, had I been delivering this speech, this is what I would’ve said.’  I’m sure Robert Fisk would’ve come down much harder on the Israelis and Tom Friedman would have come down much harder on the Arabs, etc., etc., etc.  From that particular point of view, I think there’s enough in it to say it was fair and balanced.  

I was particularly impressed by the reception [Obama received] at Cairo University.  I don’t think Obama would’ve gotten that kind of reception in Israel.  There weren’t cue cards saying “applaud here” or “cheer there.”  Those who attended were sincerely moved by Obama’s speech and his commitment. I think that’s a very strong indication of the seeds Obama has planted.  Those seeds will develop and grow as long as he does not waver from his commitment.  

In terms of your area of expertise (media criticism), what issues are not being covered about Obama’s address?

I think the mainstream media have basically said that the Israelis didn’t mind it that much.  I don’t think that’s true.  There’s been a lot of blogging on how Arabs have reacted, but not enough about how Israelis are reacting.  I think we need to know that.  

I also think what we haven’t followed up on crude stereotypes, how we perceive them, and how Arabs and Muslims perceive us.  

I also think commonalities have to be addressed.  If I were Larry King, I would have a rabbi, priest and an imam.  I don’t think we can move forward on this until you shed these misconceptions that we’ve held for so many years.  

I think we need to define what they are and how does Obama plan on changing the way Israelis look at Arabs, or the way we look at Arabs and Muslims and vice-versa.  I think that’s the key and the major element. We should start with that.  

How does Obama’s address reflect Americans’ perceptions and misperceptions of Arab politics and Arab-Muslim culture?

I think with Arab politics, Obama is talking about being more open and more responsive to citizens of different Arab countries.  He does that by saying that political leaders have to be accountable for your people.  He’s not calling for democracy.  But he is calling for accountability.  That’s extremely important.  

In terms of Arab-Muslim culture, we need to have a summit.  We need to have a dialog to shatter these myths and I think the dialog comes with media leaders and all the countries involved.  It’s Hollywood, it’s the press, and it’s about what can be done so these crude stereotypes are not taken to an extreme.  If we continue vilifying one another, peace will never happen.  

So where do we go from here after Obama’s address?

I think we’ve learned that we have a leader who cares passionately about the human race, curtailing terrorism worldwide, and putting an end to an illegal occupation.  He is a leader who has respect for all faiths; he has the vision to see the commonalities among the faiths; and he is a leader that respects their differences.  

I see him as a fearless man and a champion of human rights.  I see in Obama a young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., only in many ways, he’s more universal.  There are elements of King and Mahatma Ghandi in Obama.  It’s all right there.  You can see and feel his passion and his commitment to each and every person.    

I wrote this last year for Huffington Post and it’s important now as it was last year. I hope you all find some meaning in this post.

DUMMERSTON, VT– Memorial Day weekend has come and gone. All weekend, I saw veterans honored on television, the newspapers, parades, etc. I saw more than my share of yellow ribbons, American flags, 21-gun salutes and more. But something was missing, something I wish would be covered every Memorial Day: voices of dissent, especially from those who served our country.

Don’t get me wrong. I support the troops. I support them just as much as those who support war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also support veterans in past conflicts. For many of them, Memorial Day means everything. But there are other veterans that never get heard. They are silenced, ignored and misunderstood because they have something vastly different to share. I’m talking about those veterans who served their country, survived the horrors of war and heal their wounds through advocacy efforts.

It pains me that veterans organizations advocating for peace are always overlooked on Memorial Day. For many of these organizations, getting into a Memorial Day parade can be a controversial ordeal. In Bremerton, Washington, Veterans for Peace were told to stay away from this year’s festivities. Why? Why should we honor one kind of veteran and not another? Why is it controversial to honor veterans who want their service be remembered differently? It seems that every Memorial Day, we miss another opportunity to honor veterans’ in a different and meaningful context. It’s time we open our minds to the complexity of the meaning of past military service. It’s well past time we honor those who fought and who speak out against war.

War is traumatic and many veterans who speak out against their actions (or their government’s policies) want their experiences to be validated, understood, and accepted. Anti-war veterans organizations must be honored to the same degree many of us honor Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion or Disabled American Veterans, ever Memorial Day. All veterans must be honored, even those who speak out against war.

I honor those who want to be remembered for their service. I honor those who lost their lives fighting for what they believed in but I also honor those who experienced the other side of war and want to make our country and our communities less-violent places. This Memorial Day I also honor the Veterans for Peace, Courage to Resist, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and Veterans Against the Iraq War. I’m sure there are many more. The members of all of these organizations served America and they love their country. It’s well past time we honor them on Memorial Day.  

Now that we’ve passed the 100-day mark of the Obama administration, I wanted to check in with author and comedian Dennis Perrin.  Last summer I interviewed Perrin for Huffington Post just after his new release Savage Mules: The Democrats and Endless War. Despite America’s love affair with Obama, Perrin’s still at it and the timing couldn’t be better.  Despite Obama reinstating military tribunals, preventing more torture photos from being released, and no end in sight for the troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, liberal bloggers and Democratic Party enthusiasts still rah-rah the president’s outrageous policies. Perrin has a lot to say about that, including his latest piece at Huffington Post and a recent blog post about The Nation.

It seems like you’ve taken some heat for your Jon Stewart story. What are they not getting about your post?

Well, I like Jon Stewart. I like “The Daily Show.”  Some people seem to think I was bashing him on purest grounds or something, whether political or comedic.  That wasn’t the case at all.   I understand what Stewart does and who he works for. I used to work for Comedy Central. Of course it wasn’t as big then as it is now.  But it is part of Viacom and it’s part of a larger media conglomerate.  Like any place else in the corporate media, there are some limits and unspoken assumptions about what is consider OK and what is considered taboo.  But I think calling any president – with the exception of George W. Bush – you might get some elite liberals saying ‘Well, you know, I didn’t like Bush either.  But calling him a war criminal is a little extreme.’  I think Bush would be the only I could think of where an American comedian or satirist hosting a major comedy show could call him a war criminal and get away with it.  Truman is loved by both liberals and conservatives.  Stewart was really hitting not only a presidential legend but a towering bipartisan figure.  I don’t know if Stewart really believed going into it whether he thought Truman was a war criminal or if he did think think that, then maybe he should back pedal  because he was going to get a lot of heat.  I don’t know what his thinking was really.  Either way wouldn’t surprise me.  But it just goes to show the limits.  I don’t think Stewart he could have left it unsaid.

Bill Maher said something a little less controversial after I left Politically Incorrect.  A little after 9-11 he said “it’s more cowardly to drop bombs from 30,000 feet than it is to crash a plane.”  Which I think is a rational statement.  Whatever you think of people who crash planes – I don’t think highly of them myself – I thought what Maher and Stewart said was accurate.  I just think it comes down to perceptions and from reading some of these comments at Huffington Post – which are primarily pro-liberal and/or pro-Democratic more or less – there is still an overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. that don’t see [Hiroshima and Nagasaki] as a war crime.  In otherwords, Japan got what it deserved and it saved a million American lives, which nobody can really prove.

It’s interesting to see people so easily defend mass murder six decades later and it unsettles me in a way.  It’s like we’ve advanced and progressed in a lot of ways, but there’s a lot of other ways where we’re right where we were (with American exceptionalism and such).  I don’t think Stewart is challenging American exceptionalism.  I think he makes fun of its excesses and other areas where it’s obviously ridiculous. But when Stewart said Truman is a war criminal, I just think he got to the core of what the system really is and for a corporate financed satirist like Stewart you just can’t make those kinds of insights and keep your job.  He could have gotten away with it without apologizing.  I don’t think it would’ve hurt him terribly. But if he went on and pursued that line of questioning I don’t think he’d stay long in the job.

Stewart’s apology reminded me of the time when John McCain went on “The Daily Show” in 2005. McCain emphatically stated that “Israel doesn’t torture.”  Stewart, who is not afraid to speak his mind, didn’t respond.  That prompted Alison Weir, of If Americans Only Knew, to write an open letter to Stewart explaining there is documentary evidence that Israel tortures Palestinian prisoners.  Your response?

Oh, I mean anyone who follows the issue knows that’s a given.  You even have people like Alan Dershowitz openly defending Israeli torture. He acknowledges Israelis torture because he defends it.  But the thing is with Stewart and Israel, is he actually did a great report during the siege of Gaza.  It got passed around all over the blogosphere.  It was a great piece and quite uncharacteristic.  Because I think it was clear how aggressive and brutal Israel was on this “caged population” and there were Israelis sitting in lawn chairs watching the bombardment.  What also surprised me was a lot of mainstream liberal outlets like Firedoglake and Glenn Greenwald were criticizing Israel and U.S. support of the siege on Gaza and I think that gave an opening.  Many people in the elite press started asking questions  about what Israel is doing to Gaza.  So any time you have media questioning the official truth, that’s where you can find openings in the debate.

In the first Gulf War, there was a real split among American elites whether they should go to war with Saddam to secure Kuwait.  They were all against the invasion of Kuwait, but they were split on what they should do.  Leading up to the war, there were openings to debate the issue, even on national television.  I think that was with the case of Jon Stewart and that great piece.

But I think when you put Israel and torture together, that’s tougher for a comedian to deal with because that gets to the core of something.  Harry Truman being a war criminal is a core thing.  Israeli torture is a core thing.  It’s one thing to make fun of perceived excesses.  It’s another thing to go after core elements and it’s core elements that make up for what creates the excesses.  Stewart at his best is operating on the outer margins to the degree that the corporate media allows those openings to be pursued.

I know people who have worked with Stewart and they all say he’s a great guy, nice, and down-to-earth.  I’m sure of you got him in a bar, had a few drinks, and talked with off the record I’m sure he’s a lot better on this stuff than what you see on television and there’s an obvious reason for that.  What it comes down to, then you have to wonder how much cognitive dissonance can someone ingest before they break?  If they know one thing and can’t express it or have to edit it or tone it down, how long can that go on?

You’ve been tough on Barack Obama since he was nominated in Denver.  Now that we’re past the 100 days mark, what are some of Obama’s major flaws his supporters aren’t seeing or denying?

Well, I took Obama at his word.  There were certain things he said that I didn’t think [he’d follow through] like transparency in government.  I thought “yeah right.”  Anyone who hasn’t been president before promised all kinds of wonderful things when they get in.  But given how the system is set up and where the U.S. is at this moment in history is just not going to happen.  But I took him at his word because as I saw him as the one who’s going to fix the system after eight years of Republican excess.  This is the role Carter and Clinton played after GOP rule.  It’s almost pre-programed in a matrix kind of way.  Of course the advantage Obama has is that he’s African-American.  The cover that would give the U.S. was not unappreciated by media and political elites.  I remember Ted Koppel saying “if Obama gets elected, that’s going to show the world how we changed.”  Of course we haven’t changed and the elites are changing their tactics because they can’t go on with what those same tactics during the Bush years.

Today I was reading some reactions to Obama agreeing to block the torture photos from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Of course people were upset.  But it was like what did you expect?  This happens time and time again with anything Obama does that a lot of liberals don’t like.  It’s like they’re scratching their heads and wondering “where did this come from? This isn’t the guy I voted for.”  Well, I don’t know what you wanted to expect.  There is a change in tone and style.  I mean people were falling all over Obama at the White House Correspondents dinner.  I think the thing is with liberals and Obama is that I don’t believe there will be a significant liberal rebellion or mutiny against Obama.  Not like there was in 1979-1980 when there was a Ted Kennedy challenge to Jimmy Carter.  I mean you do have good critics going after him, like Glenn Greenwald and a handful of others doing great work on this.  But I think overall those who are critical of him come 2010 and 2012, they’ll be all ushered in under the tent to prevent president Romney or a president Palin or a president Joe the Plumber or whoever the hell gets the nomination and we’re right back where we started.  I think Obama knows this because there is no alternative to him from a progressive standpoint.  So he can continue to do what he’s doing, while soft-talking these people and knowing they’re not going to challenge his rule.

Glenn Greenwald reported the Obama administration threatened England to keep torture evidence concealed re: Binham Mohammed and he also reported on Obama’s latest effort to conceal evidence of Bush era crimes.  How is Obama hurting the state of the nation by preventing this information from coming forth?

Well, the official excuse is it’s being hidden from the Muslim world.  But the Muslim world doesn’t need more evidence of American torture and war crimes.  They live it.  This is aimed at preventing American citizens from seeing this stuff.  I don’t think people in Iraq or Afghanistan need more evidence.  How much more do they need?  There’s always going to be that dogged minority searching for the truth but for the mass majority of people if you could keep it out of their minds, it makes sense.  Obama is planning to expand these wars.  He already has.  So he needs public support. If these photos come out, it’s going to get a lot of play,  create a furor, and it’s going to result in damage control and that’s not where Obama wants to be right now, especially with his popularity figures and general lack of dissonance against his presidency.

You’ve expressed some disappointment with The Nation recently. What has The Nation done that’s gotten you so upset?

I’ve been reading The Nation since 1983.  The last great period The Nation had was during the mid to late 1980s.  They were really good back then when it came to the Cold War, Central America, and they were a much more radical magazine back then because Victor Navasky was running it.  Navasky liked to see a lot of different kinds of thought collide from Social Democrats to Marxists.  Katrina vanden Heuvel is just a mainstream liberal elite.  She’s into policy recommendations and I think she’s succeeded in making The Nation a respectable voice in the national debate.  But to be a respectable voice in the national debate, you have to tone down your anger and criticisms.  Since Obama came in, it’s like they’ve became really mystical with him.  They had an editorial about Obama’s first 100 days and they were generally supportive.  But they were worried what Afghanistan would do to Obama’s presidency.  In otherwords, his presidency was more important than Afghanistan or Afghan lives.  So I thought “Ok. This really shows where The Nation’s minds are right now.”  They’ve become a voluntary member of the state press.  I know they wouldn’t see themselves that way but I’ve read a lot of stuff in there where they really sound like they’re in Obama’s pocket.  The other thing is, like a lot of liberals online believe, that if they protest kindly enough, then Obama will listen because he’s got these good minded people pointing him in the right direction.  If they really believe that then they’re really naïve and they should not be running a political magazine in 2009.  If they don’t, then they’re cynical manipulators. Neither one seems appealing or noble to me and I think The Nation has taken a real dive as a result.  They also use to have a lot of great writers and their content has gotten really soft, centrist, and weak.  There are some good writers still.  I’m a big Jeremy Scahill fan.  Once in a while Alexander Cockburn will cough up something interesting from the archives of his mind, but it’s just become this primarily soft, white liberal organ now.

I’ve always encouraged dissidence of any kind within the Democratic Party and I would like to see that.  A lot of people say I’m a cynic, dead-ender, and a nihilist and I’m not.  A lot of things come and go but the system remains and I realize how difficult it is to make in-roads.  There are certain changes that do happen. They’re incremental and they’re important but one has to learn not to settle for that.  I know there are a lot of people out there trying to affect change and I support them.  If there’s anything I can do to help it along, then I do.  I was a big supporter of the Republic Window sit-in.  I would like to see more of that. I would like to see more direct action but I knew early on in the Obama administration that it was just not going to happen.  But I think hopefully as time goes on and he is shown to be who he really is, that will go away and people will get involved in a more direct way.  I’d like to see that and I will support it but I just have serious doubts based on my experience.  But I would like to be proved wrong.

Check out Dennis Perrin at www.dennisperrin.blogspot.com

Crossposted at Huffington Post.

“I’m more afraid of men [in my unit] that I am with the enemy.”

Those were the words that Helen Benedict heard from several female soldiers.  The enemy was within.  Since March of 2003, more than 160,500 women have served in Iraq.  More women have fought and died during this war than in any other since World War II, yet they still account for one in ten soldiers.  But behind their noble service and love for their country, many female soliders find themselves in virtual isolation among men.  Their seclusion, combined with the military’s history of gender discrimination and the uniquely challenging conditions in Iraq, has resulted in a mounting epidemic of sexual abuse, physical degeneration, and emotional distress among many femal soldiers.  

Author Helen Benedict uncovers the harsh realities female soliders face in her latest book The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women in Iraq.  Weaving together the poignant and grueling accounts of the war in Iraq, Benedict offers new insight into the lives of women in the military, before, during, and after the war.  The Lonely Soldier was released last month by Beacon Press and I recently spoke with Benedict about her latest work.  

 

What was this work a culmination of? Why was this book started?

Benedict: I followed the Iraq War from the beginning and I went to a vigil on the first anniversary [of the invasion].  That was when I met my first Iraq war veteran.  He spoke about the lack of armor, the mistreatment of soldiers, and the number of civilians being killed.  That peaked my interest because I thought that was a brave thing to say when you’re in the Army in the climate.  I went to a meeting he was part of and that was where I met my first female veteran, Mickiela Montoya, who I wrote about in the book.  She said “nobody believes that I was at war because I’m a female.”  Then I found out one out of ten soldiers are women and I was struck that we weren’t seeing them in the front page, in documentaries, television, or anywhere.  They were invisible.  So, I interviewed her and she put my on to another military friend, and I went form there, mostly finding soldiers through veterans groups. The women were very eager to talk to me because they all felt invisible.  [So I grew] curious why women would enlist in the military and what it was like to be in combat.  I didn’t realize how much I’d find out about sexual abuse until I start talking to them.  That’s not what I went out looking for, although the first thing Montoya said to me “there’s only three things the guys let you be in the military ‘a bitch, a ho, or a dyke.'”  I was hearing that from everyone.   I wrote an article for Salon and I got a lot of response to that and a lot of women and men were writing to me saying “I’ve got more stories to tell” and I found many more soldiers that way.    

What is it that the lay person doesn’t understand most about women serving in Iraq?

First, you’d be amazed how many people don’t know that women are in the military or even in ground combat in Iraq.  Everybody still thinks of military women doing paperwork in the back room.  I’ve had people tell me “you mean women are allowed to carry weapons?”  Women have been allowed to carry weapons since after Vietnam.  It’s just astonishing how oblivious much of the civilian public is.  They also don’t understand how women experience the double trauma of combat and being harassed or assaulted by the men they’re supposed to trust.  

What were the most shocking things that you learned about women serving in Iraq?

The degree and the prevalence of sexual assault was shocking.  The statistics I found looking at veterans from several of the past wars put together showed that 30% were rape, 71% were assaulted, and 90% were harassed.  These are studies done with veterans who were funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.  They were also published in Military Medicine or the Journal Against Violence Against Women.  The numbers shocked me.  But what also shocked me was how saturated the military is with misogyny.  There was the horrible language about women that drill instructors routinely use to denigrate male soldiers.  The most shocking of all to me was how many women are punished or threatened into silence when they try to report an assault.  The attitudes are really bent on doing everything they can to shut these women up.  

One of the things you mentioned early in the book was the amount of distrust between the military, which is a very insular institution, and the civilian world.  Is this in any way playing a big role why the armed forces are not willing to change? Why is that?

Well, in 2005, the armed forces started the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.  They did that in response from pressure to Congress, who in turn responded to public pressure after Tailhook and other scandals came up.  Most of it was a public relations effort.  Although they’ve done some things that are valuable, such as anonymous reporting.  So you could at least get help.  There are some efforts.  I can’t say they haven’t tried to do anything, but is it making a difference?  It really has to come from within the culture from the top-down and the bottom-up.  

In military and civilian life, it seems that men are predominantly the perpetrators against women and men in sexual and physical violence cases.  What is being done to teach men to about violence against women and men?  

There is prevention training that all recruits [are required to go through] and they just revamped it.  It’s  been going on for a few years, but up until recently, it was a joke.  It was like those trainings you receive in your freshman year in college.  Everybody just laughs it off.  One solider said to me, “we’d watch this and someone would lean over, pinch you on the ass and say ‘Oh, I’m harassing you!'” That’s was partly because the films perpetrated old stereotypes, like the sexy woman half-asking for it.  Apparently, the new films and lectures they show are better.  However, how much can you change a culture of misogyny with videos and lectures?  It’s better than nothing but it’s not enough.  What they need to do is put into place is real consequences, not only for the perpetrator but for the commander of the unit it’s happening in.  If the commander blocks an investigation, intimidates people into not reporting, or covers it up, she/he should be punished.  We don’t have enough of that.  

Do many women become disillusioned with the military after they complete their military service?

Some feel horrified, betrayed, feel bitter, and traumatized.  They can’t even go near a VA hospital.   They won’t go near veterans organizations because they tend to be male-dominated and hierarchical, just like the military.  Even the site of a solider can make someone throw up.  But more often, I’ve found many are completely torn between one side of them that’s loyal to the unit and the ideals of the military but they are also infuriated and horrified by the abuse and injustice.  They’re torn to whistle-blow or to be loyal.  If you report the incident, you’re turning against your best friends or your family.    Soldiers are trained to see their soldiers as their family.  It’s even more traumatic when one assaults them because it’s like incest.  That is much more traumatizing than assault by a stranger because the very people you trusted turned against you.  You can’t go home at the end of the day.  You have to live with them.  It’s a nightmare.  

Do many women serving in the Iraq feel that men in the armed forces are a much bigger threat than the Iraqi resistance, Al Qaeda?

I had a lot of women say to me “I’m more afraid of men on the inside that I was with the enemy.” I heard that a lot.  Not all women feel that way, but I heard it often.  

Many authors are using books as a means for social change.  Do you see your book playing that same kind of role and if so, what do you hope “The Lonely Solider” will achieve?

I would like women who are considering the military to read this, so they know what they’re going into.  I would like it to stimulate true reform and to inspire men to be responsible and not turn a blind eye. This isn’t something that’s fun anymore.  It’s all about respect, respecting women and fellow soldiers.  

They did it! The New Hampshire Senate just passed HB 436, the Marraige Equality Bill. The votes were 13 in favor 11 opposed.

The Concord Monitor:

The New Hampshire Senate voted, 13-11, today to allow adult same-sex couples to marry, approving an amended version of a House-passed bill after a vote to kill the legislation altogether failed by the same margin.

The bill passed by the Senate recognizes a distinction between civil and religious marriages and allows religious denominations to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for gay or lesbian couples. Civil marriages would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples under the law. “This bill recognizes the sanctity of religious marriage and the diversity of religious beliefs about marriage while still providing equal access to civil marriage to all New Hampshire citizens,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan, an Exeter Democrat.

The legislation cannot advance to the governor for his signature or veto unless both houses approve the same version.

The bill was SUPPOSED to go to Governor John Lynch’s desk but because this is an amended version, it now goes back to the House AND THEN the Governor’s desk. The House already approved their version of HB 436 not too long ago by a slim margin. I expect the amended version to pass in the House again. Mike Caulfeld of Blue Hampshire expects the House will pass it.

First Vermont, now New Hampshire, next Maine!

More to come.  

WASHINGTON, DC- This story is blazing like a wildfire across the Internet. It appears that former Vermont senator Jim Jeffords may have inspired another high ranking Republican Senator to jump ship. But unlike Jeffords, this senator switched parties.

Senator Arlen Specter, of Pennsylvania, is about to have a press conference announcing he's leaving the Republican Party to become a Democrat. It's still not clear why he's leaving the party or why he didn't choose to become an independent or why he chose to be a Democrat. Either way, this is big because the Democrats now have a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate… and they're still waiting on the Al Franken-Norm Coleman senate race in Minnesota. The Dems now have 60 seats in the Senate.

NBC's Chuck Todd said “This was a straight up survival decision.” OK then. We'll find out more at his press conference today.

To read more click here.
Kos weighs in. His verdict: “Don't expect much.
GMD's very own Kagro X begs to differ. Sorta.
Kagro X has a second update on what it means.

Crossposted at Huffington Post.

In one of his final interviews, former president George W. Bush told ABC News Martha Raddatz that the war in Iraq was justified because of al-Qaeda.  But Raddatz said that wasn’t “until the U.S. invaded.”  Then Bush responded with “So what?  The point is that al-Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand… we have denied al-Qaeda a safe haven because a young democracy is beginning to grow, which will be an important sign for people in the Middle East.”  

But how much of a presence does al-Qaeda really have?  Very small according to Jurgen Todenhofer, author of the new book, Why Do You Kill? The Untold Story of the Iraqi Resistance.  Todenhofer was a member of the German parliament for 18 years and spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria political parties on development aid and arms control.  He has visited the Middle East several times over the last 50 years and has written two best sellers about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  

In his latest book, Todenhofer travels to Iraq as an unembedded journalist and gives an inside look at what is the Iraqi resistance.  His firsthand observations reveal the myths and realities behind the resistance fighters and the terrorists and Todenhofer tries to set the record straight by talking directly with those who fight the occupation.  

Todenhofer is currently on an American speaking tour and I caught up with him in Washington, DC where he was giving a talk.                  

Begin reading below the fold!

What are the major myths associated with the Iraqi resistance?

When you read about Iraq, 99% of the articles you read are written by embedded journalists.  If I went to Iraq as a professional journalist, I would also be embedded.  As a private man, I tried to show the other side.  We always see the side of how the Pentagon wants to show Iraq because they will never bring a journalist to Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul, or other places the Pentagon doesn’t want to show.  You always see what the Pentagon shows you.  Which is OK.  I don’t criticized that.  This has always been the way reporters write about a war.  I try to show the other side.  

I went to Iraq a year and a half ago and met with the resistance.  They told me all they wanted because there were no machine guns, officers, or U.S. soldiers around.  I think it’s important to listen to the other side. When I was there, I felt ashamed.  I had the impression that because we don’t see the other side, we don’t know enough about the misery of the Iraqi people.  We have no idea what the resistance is.  It’s difficult to give a figure because nobody knows for sure how many they are.  I would compare the Iraqi resistance with that of the French resistance during the German occupation.  It’s composed of everyone: bakers, students, teachers, workers, farmers, etc.

Many ordinary people suffered under the Iraqi occupation.  People told me their mother was shot because she asked the U.S. soldiers who searched the house, not to break the furniture.  Another story was a boy who lost two of his brothers. His name is Zaid.  He is a 22-year old student who likes America, admires America, and doesn’t want to participate [in the resistance.]  Then in summer of 2006, his brother Haroun was killed by a U.S. sniper.  Then in winter 2007, their house in Ramadi is bombed.  When it was bombed, the family ran went to a relative’s house.  When they arrived, they realized they forgot something.  His youngest, Karim, says “I’ll do it.”  After that, he’s shot by American forces.  Zaid wants to save Karim, but everyone is preventing him since there’s shooting in the streets.  The whole family is forced to see the Karin die.  That night, he decides to fight.  Fighting for Zaid is to attack tanks, Humvees, and not civilians.  That’s the difference between the resistance and al-Qaeda.

How big of a presence does al-Qaeda have in Iraq?

The importance of al-Qaeda is marginal, but the Pentagon says all the attacks are because of al-Qaeda. I’ve had several discussions with resistance leaders and one could say there are 100,000 resistance fighters and 1,000 to 2,000 al-Qaeda right now.  Now with the recent attacks in Mosul, there’s a big chance the Pentagon will say al-Qaeda is responsible because they need to justify their war.  I try to tell the story about Zaid, his family, and all the other Iraqis.  I don’t say I’m the only one who knows the truth, but I know how it feels on the Iraqi side to be occupied by a western country.

Another difference is that many people within al-Qaeda are not part of the real al-Qaeda. The real al-Qaeda are is a very small group. The ones who conducted the brutal and unacceptable attacks on September 11, are the real al-Qaeda. Afghans and Pakistanis know they’ve lost all their capabilities. One part of it is killed, one part of it is captured, and the other part is hiding and trying not to be discovered. They’d be crazy to stay in touch with the young terrorists in the U.S., Europe or elsewhere.  The al Qaeda in Iraq are copy cats. They call themselves al-Qaeda because it’s the most famous terror brand name.  Unfortunately and the western countries call them al-Qaeda to justify their war.

Months ago I was in Afghanistan.  I met with Hamid Karzai, Afghani foreign minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta, and ex-Taliban leaders.  They all told me there’s up to 200 al-Qaeda and 30,000 Taliban in their country and they have no contact with Osama bin Laden.  Otherwise it would be very easy to catch bin Laden, if they had contact with him.

Terrorism and al-Qaeda are ideologies. Ideologies can’t be shot down.  Now that bin Laden and al-Qaeda lost their operational capabilities, they can still give hate speeches on Al Jazeera and such, but they have reached their goal because their ideology is now globalized and decentralized.  These new terrorists communicate via Internet.  They train by the Internet.  They can make suicide bombs and all kinds of things.  We have to learn to fight against an ideology.   How do you do that?   You can’t shoot it down.  With our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we’ve strengthen their global terrorism.  The only reason to defeat global terrorism is peace.  A just and fair peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, the most difficult one, a fair and just peace in Palestine.

What can the media do to improve coverage on the occupation?

I think almost all the journalists are doing a great job. because they have to write articles every week. The only chance they have to survive and write articles every week is to be embedded with the U.S. military.  You have that problem in all wars.  You only get to see it from one side. Therefore, I can’t give any suggestions.  I went to Iraq three times as an unembedded journalist and I always felt I was in danger and those who were with me. If you a real journalist or editor, you cannot allow your people to risk their lives like that.

Where would journalists need to go in terms of reporting accurately of what’s going on in Iraq?

There are two things I believe.  Western journalists should talk with the resistance. It’s not difficult to know where they are.  I spoke with the leader of the resistance and it’s possible for other journalists to do so.  They also have to go to the neighboring countries where they can meet many of these people.  I think that’s an obligation.  You will never meet al-Qaeda, but it’s probably more likely to talk with the Iraqi resistance.  You’ll get incredible stories from these people because they know what’s going on in Iraq.

The second thing I’d suggest is American politicians need to talk with the resistance, not just Nouri al-Maliki.  When the Americans left Vietnam, they spoke to the Viet Cong resistance.  When the French left Algeria, they spoke to the National Liberation Front.  The Americans have to speak with the Iraqi resistance for many reasons.  al-Maliki is part of a collaboration government and all collaboration governments are kicked out once the occupation troops are gone.  It was the case in France, Vietnam, and Algeria.  This government wants at least 50,000 troops. Americans should speak with (and for) the resistance.   It’s in their hands and they are ready to make open a new chapter without hate.

In case you missed it, Fred Armisen and Bill Hader appeared on Weekend Update to discuss their role in the recent gay marriage victory in Vermont.

BRATTLEBORO- The venue shifted indoors today but that didn’t stop up to 50 people from cramming into the basement at St Michael’s Episcopal Church. It was a good turn out and some of Windham County state reps spoke about the upcoming vote on S.115. Speaking today were Sarah Edwards (P-Brattleboro), Dick Marek (D-Newfane), Ginny Milkey (D-Brattleboro), John Moran (D-Wardsboro), music by Mike Mrowicki (D-Putney), and of course Senate Pro Tem Peter Shumlin.

Here’s the YouTube. Sorry if the quality sucks. I had a flip camera in one hand, my one-year old son in the other, and my four-year old son trying to distract me. Enjoy!

Just a little FYI from across the Connecticut “Riv-aah.”

The New Hampshire marriage equality bill passed the House 186 to 179. Now on to the Senate.

Proud to be a Granite Stater… living in Vermont!!!!