My Plan for Iraq

On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

read more | digg story Read more!

The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes

This is the week that should have effectively ended John McCain's efforts to become the next president of the United States. But you wouldn't know it if you watched any of the mainstream media outlets or followed political reporting in the major newspapers.

read more | digg story Read more!

McCain's Deficit Reduction Proposal: Adopt Obama's Iraq Plan

The CBO projects $443 billion deficit in 2013 if Bush's tax cuts are extended as McCain calls for. On top of this McCain calls for additional cuts for the rich. McCain says he will pay for this by cutting Social Security, Medicaid,Medicare, and bringing troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan... Yes you read that right.

read more | digg story Read more!

Obama on Experience and Foreign Policy

Jan Touney, Managing Editor of the Quad-City Times, talks to presidential candidate Barack Obama during an editorial board meeting.Intense, brilliant, serious discussion, not soundbytes, 10 min. video with poor lighting, no glitz - all content! Obama's the leader for our times, endorsed by heavyweights and not for his "pretty speeches"! Watch this video and you'll agree Obama is the leader we need, now.i

read more | digg story Read more!

Obama Envisions New Iran Approach

In an interview, Senator Barack Obama said that forging a new relationship with Iran would be part of his effort to stabilize Iraq. How novel! A comprehensive approach, thank you Obama! He refuses to engage in further threats to Iran and preconditions to negotiations, and actually offers rewards to Iran for complying with U.S. and international requests. Kindly note Obama is the only true leader and statesman who considers the fate of the Iraqis in determining what our future role will be in Iraq, as well as in Iran. His principle goal in having any U.S. troops even in neighboring countries is to prevent genocide in Iraq, stabilize the region and to train Iraqi police and army staff, not support them in daily incursions, and only if they end sectarian divisions and work together on political solutions. Obama is the only one proposing an increase in humanitarian aid and America Centers where people can learn more about our country and democracy than the current propaganda. His entire approach is: what will increase stability in the Middle East, and what best serves our overall interests.

read more | digg story Read more!

Hillary Clinton's Flip-Flops and Last Night's Debate

In the light of last night's debate and Hillary Clinton's refusal to answer one single question, here are a list of her flip-flops from this campaign season alone.

read more | digg story Read more!

Hillary Clinton Backer Terry McAuliffe: Her Iraq Vote Flip Due To Gender

I'd add to the article below: Don't expect Hillary to apologize for Iran resolution, either - not because she's a woman, because she doesn't care how it impact us! Story below:

Terry McAuliffe, who serves as Chair of Clinton's presidential campaign and was Chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2001 to 2005, helped shed light on why Clinton will not admit her vote was a mistake during an August 30 appearance at a coffee shop in Grinnell, IA. Abby Rapoport, editor-in-chief of Grinnell College's Scarlet & Black student newspaper, was the only reporter present for McAuliffe's candid conversation, and she quoted him this way in the September 7 issue of the paper: McAuliffe declared that under no circumstances would she take back her vote. “A woman?” he almost yelled. “Can you imagine?”

Iowa Independent has verified from three other attendees of the event that McAuliffe was quoted accurately. Ironically, those attendees also told us that before discussing the connection between Clinton's position on her war vote and her gender, McAuliffe noted that he could only speak so candidly because there were no reporters present -- or so he thought.

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=3E4BBF99FE7D614CC72BCEDD0DB1F743?diaryId=1257 Read more!

Sen. Barack Obama: Right on Iraq, Right on Iran

Senator Obama has written an Op Ed against the Lieberman/Kyle Amendment, and it's brilliant. Despite Hillary's claims, her vote in 02 giving Bush authority for Iraq's invasion also applies to this terrible Amendment. He gives Edwards credit for opposing it and taking responsibility for his 02 vote (Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution and defended it heartily and publicly for 18 months, really, but Obama's polite). He also quotes Biden's statement against the amendment granting Bush authority to attack Iran. Obama shows why he is truly the leader we need - foresight, not only in 2002, but now in 2007. Thank you for speaking out so eloquently against the Lieberman/Kyle Amendment, Senator and future President Obama!

read more | digg story Read more!

New York Times Oct. 11, 2007 US Marines Look to be Removed From Iraq

"The New York Times reports today, The Marine Corp is seeking the authority to remove most of the 25,000 Marines in Iraq and re-deploy to Afghanistan. This move would have the Marine Corp take the lead role in combat efforts in Afghanistan, this according to Senior Military and Pentagon Officials." Just as Senator Obama recommended how many months ago? No wonder he gets so many donations from active enlisted personnel! This just goes to show things are a disaster on both war fronts. The Marines never run from a fight, they run to them. This means things in Afghanistan are very, very bad for the troops there. It also means, as Obama has always said (and Hillary is lately parroting) that there is no military solution in Iraq. The Army will be left to mop up the mess. If only we kept better track of our arms dealers, so many lives would be spared, so much insanity averted.

read more | digg story Read more!

Barack Obama: Experts Praise Barack Obama on Good Judgment

We can let Hillary back in to commit the same old blunders or vote for Obama to keep us from adding to our regrets. September Obama spoke against escalating threats against Iran; in October Hillary voted for the Lieberman/Kyle Amendment to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard terrorists and up the ante. We need a Commander in Chief worthy of the title, not a mouthpiece for the military contract lobby, foreign and domestic. The Clintons, after all, gave Blackwater their first contract.

read more | digg story Read more!

Obama takes on Hillary and Democratic rivals in NY

Video snippet includes Obama saying that anyone saying we can just walk out of Iraq with no consequences is not truthful, anyone claiming Social Security will be fine without raising taxes isn't truthful. For those of you wanting him to confront Clinton, this is it and this is how it'll be - it's the policies and the honesty that set him apart.

read more | digg story Read more!

Iraq War: "Never Coming Home" [Photo Essay]

Slide show from photographer Andrew Lichtenstein's new book tells the real story of loss when the soldiers, sailors, airmen and women and Marines don't come back. Immensely sad snapshots of the deepest loss, from the military funerals to the homes of bereft mothers, fathers, wives, children, siblings, and no doubt husbands. If you want to thaw a pro-war heart this holiday season, buy him/her this book. Definitely get it for the veterans and their families. It's so respectful - what a welcome change from how our Vietnam veterans were treated! Sure, everyone wearing the uniform isn't a saint, but most are just regular people, and no one deserves to be left behind with such emptiness where someone they loved used to be, and for such a cruel reason - power and oil.

read more | digg story Read more!

John Lombardi: Bad Day at Blackwater

The added obscenity about Blackwater few ever mention (why, I wonder?) is that it got its first federal contract in 2000 under the Clinton Administration. See Jeremy Scahill's book talk on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP_m4m62IfI&NR=1, 2 min. into the video, blink and you'll miss it! Why did Clinton give them their first federal contract?

read more | digg story Read more!

Congress to Address Oversight for Security Contractors (Sen. Barack Obama)

Obama speaks again on the contractor fiasco in Iraq, with a reminder of his amendment "Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act (S. 674)" to the defense appropriations bill to make contractors accountable for crimes, make them coordinate with troops, and document all the contractors and their expenses.

read more | digg story Read more!

Iraq Contractors Face Growing Parallel War - washingtonpost.com

In the news again, but never often or prominently enough, here are the military security force contractors, or mercenaries, if you prefer. The "surge" our beloved Congress let go through has, of course, resulted in huge increases in military/security contractor personnel, equipment and costs to the taxpayer, even as their deaths and injuries also grow. We should really think about this issue.

This article notes that these contractors, since 2006, are not even provided with the no-doubt bought-and-paid-for licenses the Iraqi "government" once issued them. They are operating totally outside the constraints of any law, Iraqi or American, and certainly outside of International Law [as is the US government in maintaining its Occupation of Iraq].

If you were a "Jericho" TV show fan, as I was, you know that in case of a national disaster, mercenary contractors - now as large a part of our Federal Emergency Management Administration as they are of our military, and FEMA must now await orders first from Homeland Security, which awaits orders from the President only - can go completely renegade if not catered to. They have great weapons and armor, nicer than our government's/country's own troops! Are you ready to resist a mercenary army on American soil? Is our National Guard ready?

These tens of thousands of contracted soldiers and security guards do not have any of the inadequate but certainly better-than-nothing benefits that our country's soldiers have, such as the retirement, life insurance and education benefits. Most of them are former soldiers who did not retire to get the maximum benefits. As a matter of fact, the contracting companies need so many "security officers" that they are enticing current Army, Marine, Air Force and Navy personnel to quit as soon as their current term is up and sign up as contractors for many times the pay of soldiers. As former soldiers, though they won't have the extra insurance the military provides, they will have access to the Veterans Hospitals, and we will pay for that.

So, we are paying at least double for for these "security officers", most of the profit is going to the company hiring them, then we foot the bill for their healthcare if/when they get injured or their stint as contractor-Veterans results in any long-term health impact. The contractors might be left disabled, mentally unstable, unemployed, homeless, and we will have to take care of all that - not the contracting companies like Blackwater and Halliburton, who will be happily spending our money in places like Dubai in Saudi Arabia to avoid paying US taxes. And if those contracted-then-dumped soldiers decide America hasn't treated them right - who knows, as Rummie so infamously said?

Time to stop paying for contracted mercenaries, um, sorry, "security officers". We're getting ripped off big time, and these lovely contractors will have become accustomed to utter lawlessness, and will have as many problems with mental illness as any of the enlisted soldiers. Write your congress and newspapers: Stop funding military contractors who don't care for their employees, don't obey laws, ignore the legal authority of the US Congress, and profiteer from war and occupation!



Iraq Contractors Face Growing Parallel War
As Security Work Increases, So Do Casualties
By Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 16, 2007; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- Private security companies, funded by billions of dollars in U.S. military and State Department contracts, are fighting insurgents on a widening scale in Iraq, enduring daily attacks, returning fire and taking hundreds of casualties that have been underreported and sometimes concealed, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials and company representatives.

While the military has built up troops in an ongoing campaign to secure Baghdad, the security companies, out of public view, have been engaged in a parallel surge, boosting manpower, adding expensive armor and stepping up evasive action as attacks increase, the officials and company representatives said. One in seven supply convoys protected by private forces has come under attack this year, according to previously unreleased statistics; one security company reported nearly 300 "hostile actions" in the first four months.

Parallel War
Security contractors employed by private companies are fighting a parallel war in Iraq. The buildup of this private force, which guards convoys, sites and personnel, has mirrored the increase of U.S. troops.
Private Armies
Four Hired Guns in an Armored Truck, Bullets Flying, and a Pickup and a Taxi Brought to a Halt. Who Did the Shooting and Why?
More Stories
Special Report

The majority of the more than 100 security companies operate outside of Iraqi law, in part because of bureaucratic delays and corruption in the Iraqi government licensing process, according to U.S. officials. Blackwater USA, a prominent North Carolina firm that protects U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, and several other companies have not applied, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. Blackwater said that it obtained a one-year license in 2005 but that shifting Iraqi government policy has impeded its attempts to renew.

The security industry's enormous growth has been facilitated by the U.S. military, which uses the 20,000 to 30,000 contractors to offset chronic troop shortages. Armed contractors protect all convoys transporting reconstruction materiel, including vehicles, weapons and ammunition for the Iraqi army and police. They guard key U.S. military installations and provide personal security for at least three commanding generals, including Air Force Maj. Gen. Darryl A. Scott, who oversees U.S. military contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I'm kind of practicing what I preach here," Scott said in an interview on the use of private security forces for such tasks. "I'm a two-star general, but I'm not the most important guy in the multinational force. If it's a lower-priority mission and it's within the capabilities of private security, this is an appropriate risk trade-off."

The military plans to outsource at least $1.5 billion in security operations this year, including the three largest security contracts in Iraq: a "theaterwide" contract to protect U.S. bases that is worth up to $480 million, according to Scott; a contract for up to $475 million to provide intelligence for the Army and personal security for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and a contract for up to $450 million to protect reconstruction convoys. The Army has also tested a plan to use private security on military convoys for the first time, a shift that would significantly increase the presence of armed contractors on Iraq's dangerous roads.

"The whole face of private security changed with Iraq, and it will never go back to how it was," said Leon Sharon, a retired Special Operations officer who commands 500 private Kurdish guards at an immense warehouse transit point for weapons, ammunition and other materiel on the outskirts of Baghdad.

U.S. officials and security company representatives emphasized that contractors are strictly limited to defensive operations. But company representatives in the field said insurgents rarely distinguish between the military and private forces, drawing the contractors into a bloody and escalating campaign.

The U.S. military has never released complete statistics on contractor casualties or the number of attacks on privately guarded convoys. The military deleted casualty figures from reports issued by the Reconstruction Logistics Directorate of the Corps of Engineers, according to Victoria Wayne, who served as deputy director for logistics until 2006 and spent 2 1/2 years in Iraq.

Wayne described security contractors as "the unsung heroes of the war." She said she believed the military wanted to hide information showing that private guards were fighting and dying in large numbers because it would be perceived as bad news.

"It was like there was a major war being fought out there, but we were the only ones who knew about it," Wayne said.

After a year of protests by Wayne and logistics director Jack Holly, a retired Marine colonel, the casualty figures were included. In an operational overview updated last month, the logistics directorate reported that 132 security contractors and truck drivers had been killed and 416 wounded since fall 2004. Four security contractors and a truck driver remained missing, and 208 vehicles were destroyed. Only convoys registered with the logistics directorate are counted in the statistics, and the total number of casualties is believed to be higher.
Iraq Contractors Face Growing Parallel War - washingtonpost.com Read more!

Terrifying Turkey-Iraq scenarios discussed at Hudson Institute

Turkey's government is nervous - are the crisis scenarios discussed by the Hudson Institute mere scenarios, or plans? One of the scenarios includes the incursion of the Turkey military into Iraq, which according to some news sources this past week, has already happened. Whatever the goal of the conference, here is yet another diplomatic fiasco generated by the American neo cons, just as these two supposed allies of the US are toe-to-toe.
Terrifying scenarios discussed at US think tank

A Washington-based think tank is reported to have had participants at a closed-door meeting, including Turkish military officials and civilian experts, discuss various crisis scenarios for Turkey in a brainstorming session.

Tülay Tuğcu
Assassi-nation of the recently retired chief of Turkey’s Constitutional Court, Tülay Tuğcu; a plot where 50 people would lose their lives in a terrorist act claimed by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in İstanbul’s Beyoğlu district; and a cross-border operation by the Turkish military into Iraq were among the possible scenarios discussed at the Hudson Institute, known for its anti-Islam discourse and neocon stance, both favored at the time of the US invasion of Iraq. Sources close to the think tank said that a significant number of the participants from the US objected to the scenarios floated during the session, asserting that they were too “unrealistic,” and refrained from making comments on the possibilities mentioned. About 20 participants attended the conference, which lasted a couple of hours, the same sources said.

At least one of the Turkish participants opposed a scenario in which terrorist leaders in northern Iraq were captured by US authorities and handed over to Turkish authorities, according to sources. This opposition was based on the reasoning that such a move would be perceived as US support for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) ahead of the general elections on July 22. The suggestion that the AK Party would benefit if the US supported Turkey in its war against northern Iraq-based terrorism is not new in Washington. In a report written last month by Soner Çağatay and Yüksel Sezgin, associates of the Washington Institute, the authors argued: “Can the AK Party sustain its latest strategy? Assuming that its apparent tactic of political polarization works, other variables could have an impact on the party’s public support. For instance, terrorist attacks by the PKK would hurt the AK Party significantly. Alternatively, the party’s popularity would be boosted if the United States pressured Iraqi Kurds to extradite into Turkish custody those PKK leaders currently based in northern Iraq.” US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza said the scenarios being spoken of in the Hudson Institute were “insane,” according to a Turkish translation of his remark. Bryza also said that the US had no concern about the outcome of the general elections in Turkey, as long as the government is democratically elected. He added that Turkey’s democratic structure was most important for Turkey.

A group of AK Party deputies visiting Washington described the incident as “disgusting,” and said it would spell “treason” if Turkish participants really argued that PKK leaders should not be handed over to Turkey due to domestic political reasons.

Officials at the Turkish Embassy in Washington said they had heard that a meeting would be held at the Hudson Institute, but they had not been invited. No Turkish diplomat participated in the meeting, the same officials underlined.

Brig. Gen. Süha Tanyeri, director of the General Staff’s Strategic Research and Study Center (SAREM), Brig. Gen. Bertan Nogaylaroğlu, Turkey’s defense attaché in Washington, and Zeyno Baran, director of the Center for Eurasian Policy and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, are rumored to have been among the meeting’s participants.

The scenarios discussed at the Hudson Institute dominated a press conference held on Thursday at the Turkish Embassy by AK Party deputies, led by İstanbul deputy Egemen Bağış, who is also a senior advisor to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Saying that a brainstorming exercise based on the question “What will happen in Turkey if the head of Turkey’s Constitutional Court is assassinated?” had been held during a closed-door meeting at a US think tank, journalist Hasan Mesut Hazar asked Bağış as well as two other AK Party deputies, Reha Denemeç and Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, about their reactions.

“I condemn all kinds of efforts that accept killing of any Turkish citizen, be it a senior judge or not, as the starting point or as part of a scenario. These are really shameful. I also condemn those who attempt to do such a thing in a country that alleges to be a democracy,” Bağış said.

“Certain quarters set to become engineers of social projects designed in Turkey or certain quarters who try to determine the course of politics in Turkey from abroad do not have the right to say a word about Turkey’s national unity and Turkey’s national security,” he added.

Journalist Yasemin Çongar said “certain experts and officials argued at the meeting that the capture of PKK leaders by the US at this stage and their being handed over to Turkey would be unfavorable for political reasons,” and asked the deputies visiting Washington for their reaction.

“I find it disgusting that those persons who are from those lands assume an approach, saying, ‘Let’s wait for a while, let losses of people continue for a while’, just because of their political expectations concerning Turkey, while our commanders, conscripts and civilians are losing their lives. I harshly condemn it. These are approaches beyond politics that are equal to treason,” Bağış said.

“If there are certain persons who favor increasing the number of soldiers being martyred by the PKK because they believe that this will have an impact on the political life in Turkey, I say that they are traitors,” he added.

When journalist Yılmaz Polat asked whether the said discussion was the one held at the Hudson Institute, and hence organized by Zeyno Baran, Bağış said, “I don’t know that.” Facing insistent questions from journalists, Bağış, Denemeç and Çavuşoğlu said they didn’t have any information regarding those behind the controversial remarks and whether there were Turkish officials at the meeting. “I say that it is disgusting if the allegations are true,” Bağış said.

Meanwhile the hypothetical scenarios were described as being simply “too stupid” to have any credibility, by the former co-chair of the joint Turkish-EU Parliamentary Commission, Bülent Akarcalı. “These are simply too stupid to be credible. The US government has always been close to independent think tanks. So even if this is not an organization that is part of the US State Department, the US government should make a statement. In addition it is also important to know how much of these comments are adopted by the US administration. I believe the Turkish representatives that attended the meeting must have been there to prevent any mistakes that might have been made.”

Republican People’s Party (CHP) deputy Şükrü Elekdağ, a retired ambassador, referred to the Hudson Institute as a “serious institution,” but continued, “This is absurd.” Elekdağ, who served as ambassador to the US for 10 years added: “I don’t think serious people would take such scenarios seriously. They are trying to manipulate the country. It is a humiliating scenario.”

International relations Professor Hüseyin Bağcı of Ankara’s Middle East Technical University (ODTÜ) said he expected more scenarios on Turkey with sources in the US. Expressing concern that the Middle East could be restructured, Bağcı said: “I think intervention in northern Iraq would be wrong. That would create enormous problems for Turkey.”

They could be taking Turkey’s pulse

However the scenarios were not uniformly condemned as outrageous. Retired Ambassador İnal Batu said the Hudson Institute has a habit of “acting” out similar scenarios, even world wars. “It is very scary when it is very close to us. I don’t see anything strange. It would have been very different of course had this been a state institution,” he said, adding: “This is quite fashionable in the US. We have war games too. Senior officers attend such classes.” Batu also said that if the meeting had involved military officials from NATO countries then the participation of Turkish military officials was only natural.

Although he stated that acting out scenarios was not strange, Batu noted that if the claim that a Turkish representative indeed opposed handing over PKK terrorists to Turkish authorities by US forces in Iraq, “That would hurt us.” He added that speaking about something like this with foreigners would be “very wrong.”

Oya Akgönenç, Felicity Party (SP) representative responsible for foreign relations, said that in her opinion the content of the talks leaked to the press had the intention of taking Turkey’s pulse. “They will come to a conclusion and make some analysis. Leaking this story is perhaps a preparation, a way to determine an attitude,” she suggested.

Retired Ambassador Nüzhet Kandemir said US-based think tanks always worked on a number of scenarios. However he said that such scenarios never came under the spotlight during his time as Turkish ambassador to the US because he never allowed such a thing to happen. He also said Turkey would never let any of the Hudson scenarios become reality.

16.06.2007
ALİ H. ASLAN WASHINGTON http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=114232
Read more!

ARE WE SICK? OVER 40,000 VIOLENT DEATHS IN U.S. PER YEAR

OK, here’s just one reason I’m tired of the focus on the huge, media-vulture events and our knee-jerk compulsive-obsessive responses to them. I’m as exasperated as most Americans with our lack of progress to end this stupid Occupation of Iraq, and the ongoing disaster in Afghanistan. The fact is, though, I would be immensely exasperated even if we didn’t have these occupations going on, even if we weren’t the biggest arms dealers usually to both sides of any conflict anywhere in the world.

On average every year since 9/11, about 20,000 young people from ages 10-34 die violently – they either commit suicide or are murdered.

We’re supposed to have a “terrorism” crisis, and it’s supposed to be coming from outside the US, with some “homegrown terror cells” too. We’re spending billions (let’s just forget “millions” as a large measure anymore, when we’re dealing with budget deficits in the trillions) to “prevent terrorism”. We’re spying on regular people’s web surfing habits, emails and phone calls because over 3,000 people were killed in a one-day attack.

Meanwhile, our young people, as young as age 10, are being murdered or committing suicide at the rate of 20,000 a year. These young people, people who could be (hopefully already haven’t been) our nieces, nephews, sons, daughters, young parents, grandchildren, cousins, brothers and sisters – all were not killed in a war. What’s wrong with this picture?

Well, we’re rightfully protesting the deaths of almost 4,000 soldiers now, along with the lifelong injuries of tens of thousands more. That’s been in four years. That’s about 1,000 soldiers a year – while 20,000 young people of about the same age as those soldiers (some much younger) are dieing right here in that same year.

Why don’t we care about these “domestic” deaths? Why don’t we demand, with equal vehemence, that our government deal with these deaths as a crisis? Twenty times as many people as soldiers in Iraq, some as young as 10, most between 15-34, die of violent causes every year. Another 9,000 or so people between 35-44 die violently, either by murder or suicide. That's almost 30,000 people between 10 and 44 years of age dieing violently in the US per year! Between the ages of 44-64, another 10,000 who haven’t been felled by cancer or heart disease or accidents are also murdered or commit suicide! In one year!

Inside our country, in one year over 27,000 people commit suicide; another 13,000 are killed. I'll bet you didn't know suicide kills more people than homicide, eh? You don't see a huge movement to arrest all those suicidal people and throw away the key [yet!] - your news only tells you that you must distrust your neighbor and expect to be murdered anytime, anywhere.

These 40,000+ violent deaths are from CDC statistics from 2004 – and as poverty spreads, despair and violence spread, and poverty has increased for millions of people in America. Expect higher numbers for 2005 and 2006.

So what do I want you to take from this? Well, keep it in perspective, please. While we’re being jerked around by our media and politicians to focus on things they control completely, we are letting these daily atrocities go, for the most part, unchallenged. These 40,000 murder/suicides per year are ripping at the very fabric of our existence. It’s as if we were being attacked by an outside enemy and mustering no defense whatsoever.

If it were an outsider killing this many in our country, even most of us who oppose empire-wars would join to defend ourselves against such a virulent attack. Why don’t we demand some national defense against this institutionalized (as in "routine", "ignored", "treated as normal") attack on our humanity?

Mental health PACs and interest groups aren’t in the news much (unless there’s a massacre!). They’ve never been busted for bribing legislators or singled out by those wonderful millionaires and actors who push the “liberal” agenda. Yet really, what’s more likely to impact our lives, our families, our homes? Are you or your loved ones more likely to die from global warming this year, or terrorism – or murder, or despair?

Take a look at the figures, and if life at home here in the US isn’t what it should be, let’s start demanding changes here, too, not just in our policies overseas. We won’t really value life any more elsewhere until we start valuing life (and not just fetuses) here. There are more demonstrations to protect fetuses than there are to stop the despair and violence within our own communities. It’s no coincidence that so many feel so helpless to change national and foreign policies when we live so tenuously right here.

We need mental health care for everyone that is fully paid for and available at many times the levels we have now. We need real mental health care, not pharmaceutical-industry-sponsored pill-pushing and “Ta-ta! See you when you need more!” We need to stop ignoring the despair that’s so close to home and so frightening to us all. We need to reach out to those who are close to the edge, not run from them – there’s nowhere to run; they’re in our communities, they are “us”.

Even in the presidential election endless season, only John Edwards stresses mental health for everyone, and Barack Obama wants improved mental health care for troops and veterans. None stress anything other than the methods and treatments that are obviously woefully inadequate. The 40,000 needless deaths will continue, year after year, while we wait for government and the media to even acknowledge it's a real problem they can help change.

As long as we have such easy access to weapons that easily kill others (and we always will so long as the US is the biggest arms dealer – by multiples! – in the world), we have to treat the epidemic of violence against others and ourselves as what it is – A CRISIS! Leaving millions of people in a state of poverty, anxiety and despair that could drive them to kill others and/or themselves is a stupid and cruel domestic policy.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/charts.htm Read more!