By MARTIN SIEFF
Published: Feb. 27, 2009 at 12:28 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama has ended the ban on news organizations photographing the flag-covered coffins of American soldiers killed in Iraq as they return to the United States through Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. The change will also apply to U.S. war dead from the growing conflict in Afghanistan.
Now each family will decide if news organizations can cover their family members' return. The ban was one of the many controversial innovations of the Bush administration in its managing of the media coverage of the Iraq war.
Bush administration officials and their supporters took the position that the ban preserved the privacy of the families of the dead. However, many critics argued that instead it callously and cynically deprived the war dead of an element of national recognition of their sacrifice for the country's cause while playing down the human cost of pursuing that cause.
It is difficult to refute that argument. The Bush ban was controversial precisely because it radically abandoned a cherished tradition that successive U.S. administrations and state and local authorities have all practiced in providing maximum honors and maximum public coverage to America's war dead for more than two centuries.
Critics also saw the photo ban as part of a Bush administration strategy to downplay the cost of the war in the minds of the American public, along with accounting for the financial cost outside of the main federal budget.
The announcement came just before President Obama flew to North Carolina on Friday to announce his plan to end the war in Iraq. The president said Aug. 31, 2010, would be the last day of U.S. participation in the Iraq war. However, there will still be 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops -- about one-third of current levels -- left in Iraq. Some of those who leave Iraq will be directed to Afghanistan.
Obama wanted to make these cuts, but he really had no choice about doing so. The Bush administration had already signed its long-delayed Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in December. Maliki's government was created by the Bush administration, but it has been moving ever closer to Iran and was insistent that the United States agree to remove its combat forces from Iraq.
Obama's decision will certainly play well with his support base, which was determined to evacuate U.S. forces from Iraq. Jon Soltz, an Iraqi war veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, which strongly backed Obama during the campaign, praised the president's decision.
"Removing roughly 100,000 troops from Iraq while leaving residual training and specialized forces is a huge step toward winding down the war," he said. "Those of us who served in Iraq have fought for this for years, and we're relieved that President Obama is now moving in this direction."
"Getting out of Iraq won't be quick, and it won't be easy," Soltz said. "But President Obama must continue this direction in Iraq, with the ultimate goal of having all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, or earlier."
Nevertheless, Obama's plan represents a huge gamble. Guerrilla violence in Iraq has been greatly reduced over the past two years, but it certainly has not been eradicated. The bloody civil war between the majority Shiite Muslims who President Bush empowered and the Sunnis of central Iraq who dominated the country for more than 80 years until Saddam Hussein was toppled could easily erupt again.
Even worse, Iran could make common cause with extremist Sunnis as well as the Shiite allies it has nurtured in the Iraqi government, army and militia in an effort to rapidly conquer the country.
Indeed, since Obama is not making a full pullout, he could produce the worst of all possible worlds. The troop reduction could make a renewal of the civil war or a hostile rising by the Iraqi army against U.S. forces far more likely, but having 30,000 or more U.S. troops still there could force Obama to recommit large forces to try to redeem the situation.
The future in Iraq, therefore, remains clouded with dangers. And no clear, secure, full exit strategy is yet in sight.
http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/02/27/Photo_ban_on_Iraq_war_dead_lifted/UPI-33241235755703/
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Maine Town Takes a Stand: Closes Tap on Water Privatization
Residents ignore the Board of Selectmen's position and vote to stop Poland Spring – and others – from harvesting their water.
by Edward D. Murphy
Published on Sunday, March 1, 2009 by the Maine Sunday Telegram
Shapleigh residents have banned companies from drawing or selling its water.
During a special town meeting Saturday morning, residents voted 114 to 66 to adopt the ban drafted by Protecting Our Water and Wildlife Resources, which had opposed Poland Spring's efforts to test, draw, bottle and market the town's water.
The ban had been opposed by the town's Board of Selectmen, which had favored instead a set of regulations on drawing water in the town that will be on the warrant for the regular town meeting on March 14.
"The problem in Shapleigh is that all three selectpeople want Nestle (Poland Spring's parent company) in here," said Shelly Gobeille, one of the leaders of POWWR. "This vote says they can't come in."
In September, residents adopted a six-month moratorium on water testing, which was seen as a precursor to Poland Spring's plans to set up a pumping operation. The town's planning board used the time to work on rules and regulations for drawing the town's water, but POWWR wanted to ban all major water extraction operations.
When the Board of Selectmen refused to put POWWR's proposed ban on extraction on the town meeting warrant - arguing that two legal opinions said it was unconstitutional - proponents circulated a petition that led to the special town meeting.
Gobeille said POWWR is now concerned that the selectmen could seek to derail the ban, but Bill Hayes, one of the three selectmen, said he's inclined to let the ban go into force without the selectmen getting involved. However, he said, others could challenge its legality.
"The townspeople voted to enact it," Hayes said. "If they want to incur the legal expenses of defending it if it's challenged, that's up to them."
Hayes said that if Poland Spring wants to draw the town's water, it would be better to regulate the company's operations and make sure the town benefits financially. He said talks with the water bottler never got to the point where a dollar figure was discussed, but the amount the town would earn "would have been significant. This would have been an opportunity to defer" some property taxes.
Mark Dubois, natural resource manager for Poland Spring, said he was disappointed by the vote at the special town meeting.
"It's kind of disconcerting as a company with 400 jobs right now in York County," he said. "It's our home, too, and we're very discouraged we can't have a basic discussion about what we do and do well."
Dubois said the company draws water from nine sites in the state now and has sufficient supplies of water for its current needs. He said the company would have been looking to draw water from Shapleigh in 2011 or 2012, but noted that it takes a long time to gain the state and local permits that are needed.
Copyright 2009 by The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram
by Edward D. Murphy
Published on Sunday, March 1, 2009 by the Maine Sunday Telegram
Shapleigh residents have banned companies from drawing or selling its water.
During a special town meeting Saturday morning, residents voted 114 to 66 to adopt the ban drafted by Protecting Our Water and Wildlife Resources, which had opposed Poland Spring's efforts to test, draw, bottle and market the town's water.
The ban had been opposed by the town's Board of Selectmen, which had favored instead a set of regulations on drawing water in the town that will be on the warrant for the regular town meeting on March 14.
"The problem in Shapleigh is that all three selectpeople want Nestle (Poland Spring's parent company) in here," said Shelly Gobeille, one of the leaders of POWWR. "This vote says they can't come in."
In September, residents adopted a six-month moratorium on water testing, which was seen as a precursor to Poland Spring's plans to set up a pumping operation. The town's planning board used the time to work on rules and regulations for drawing the town's water, but POWWR wanted to ban all major water extraction operations.
When the Board of Selectmen refused to put POWWR's proposed ban on extraction on the town meeting warrant - arguing that two legal opinions said it was unconstitutional - proponents circulated a petition that led to the special town meeting.
Gobeille said POWWR is now concerned that the selectmen could seek to derail the ban, but Bill Hayes, one of the three selectmen, said he's inclined to let the ban go into force without the selectmen getting involved. However, he said, others could challenge its legality.
"The townspeople voted to enact it," Hayes said. "If they want to incur the legal expenses of defending it if it's challenged, that's up to them."
Hayes said that if Poland Spring wants to draw the town's water, it would be better to regulate the company's operations and make sure the town benefits financially. He said talks with the water bottler never got to the point where a dollar figure was discussed, but the amount the town would earn "would have been significant. This would have been an opportunity to defer" some property taxes.
Mark Dubois, natural resource manager for Poland Spring, said he was disappointed by the vote at the special town meeting.
"It's kind of disconcerting as a company with 400 jobs right now in York County," he said. "It's our home, too, and we're very discouraged we can't have a basic discussion about what we do and do well."
Dubois said the company draws water from nine sites in the state now and has sufficient supplies of water for its current needs. He said the company would have been looking to draw water from Shapleigh in 2011 or 2012, but noted that it takes a long time to gain the state and local permits that are needed.
Copyright 2009 by The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram
ANSWER Coalition Responds to President Obama's Iraq Speech of Friday, February 27
All Out for the Mass March on the Pentagonon Saturday March 21, 2009!
With his speech today, President Obama has essentially agreed to continue the criminal occupation of Iraq indefinitely. He announced that there will be an occupation force of 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for at least three more years. President Obama used carefully chosen words to avoid a firm commitment to remove the 50,000 occupation troops, even after 2011.
The war in Iraq was illegal. It was aggression. It was based on lies and false rationales. President Obama's speech today made Bush’s invasion sound like a liberating act and congratulated the troops for "getting the job done." More than a million Iraqis died and a cruel civil war was set into motion because of the foreign invasion. President Obama did not once criticize the invasion itself.
He has also requested an increase in war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, and plans to double the number of U.S. troops sent to fight in Afghanistan.
President Obama has asked Congress to provide more than $200 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over the next two years, in addition to increasing the Pentagon budget by four percent.
Based on President Obama's new budget, the Pentagon would rank as the world's 17th largest economy—if it were a country. This new budget increases war spending. Total spending in 2010 would roughly equate to an average of $21,000 a second.
This is not the end of the occupation of Iraq, but rather the continuation of the occupation.
There is only one reason that tens of thousands of troops will remain in Iraq: It is because this is a colonial-type occupation of a strategically important and oil-rich country located in the Middle East where two-thirds of the world's oil reserve can be found.
Obama's speech was a major disappointment for anyone who was hoping that Obama would renounce the illegal occupation of Iraq. Today, the U.S. government spends $480 million per day to fund the occupation of Iraq. Even if 100,000 troops are drawn out by August 2010, that means the indefinite occupation of Iraq will cost more than $100 million each day. The continued occupation of Iraq for two years or three years or more makes a complete mockery out of the idea that the Iraqi people control their own destiny. It is a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and independence.
It is no wonder that John McCain came out to support President Obama's announced plan on Iraq. McCain was an supporter of former President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's war and occupation in Iraq.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld—the architects of regime change in Iraq—never had the goal of indefinitely keeping 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. They wanted to subdue the Iraqi people and exercise control with a smaller force. The Iraqi armed resistance prolonged the stationing of 150,000 U.S. troops.
Bush's goal was domination over Iraq and its oil supplies, and domination over the region. This continues to be the goal of the U.S. political and economic establishment, including that of the new administration.
President Obama decided not to challenge the fundamental strategic orientation. That explains why he kept the Bush team—Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Generals Petraeus and Odierno—on the job to oversee and manage the Iraq occupation. They will also manage the widening U.S. war in Afghanistan and the aerial assaults on Pakistan. There have been over 30 U.S. bombing attacks in Pakistan in the last two months.
We are marching on Saturday, March 21 because the people of this country are fed up with the status quo. They want decent-paying jobs, and affordable health care and housing for all. Students want to study rather than be driven out by soaring tuition rates. The majority of people want a complete—not partial—withdrawal of ALL troops from Iraq. They want the war in Afghanistan to end rather than escalate. They are increasingly opposed to sending $2.6 billion each year to Israel and want an end to the colonial occupation of Palestine.
Don't miss the important announcement about the
Dramatic Action Planned for the March 21st Pentagon March:
On March 21, 2009, March on the Pentagon
and the Corporate War Profiteers
Get Involved
* Find Transportation to DC
* Sign up if you are organizing transportation
* Download flyers and posters
* Add a link
* View list of endorsers
* Endorse
* Sign up to volunteer
* Donate
Go to http://www.pentagonmarch.org for more information.
http://themancommon.blogspot.com/2009/02/answer-coalition-responds-to-president.html
With his speech today, President Obama has essentially agreed to continue the criminal occupation of Iraq indefinitely. He announced that there will be an occupation force of 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for at least three more years. President Obama used carefully chosen words to avoid a firm commitment to remove the 50,000 occupation troops, even after 2011.
The war in Iraq was illegal. It was aggression. It was based on lies and false rationales. President Obama's speech today made Bush’s invasion sound like a liberating act and congratulated the troops for "getting the job done." More than a million Iraqis died and a cruel civil war was set into motion because of the foreign invasion. President Obama did not once criticize the invasion itself.
He has also requested an increase in war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, and plans to double the number of U.S. troops sent to fight in Afghanistan.
President Obama has asked Congress to provide more than $200 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over the next two years, in addition to increasing the Pentagon budget by four percent.
Based on President Obama's new budget, the Pentagon would rank as the world's 17th largest economy—if it were a country. This new budget increases war spending. Total spending in 2010 would roughly equate to an average of $21,000 a second.
This is not the end of the occupation of Iraq, but rather the continuation of the occupation.
There is only one reason that tens of thousands of troops will remain in Iraq: It is because this is a colonial-type occupation of a strategically important and oil-rich country located in the Middle East where two-thirds of the world's oil reserve can be found.
Obama's speech was a major disappointment for anyone who was hoping that Obama would renounce the illegal occupation of Iraq. Today, the U.S. government spends $480 million per day to fund the occupation of Iraq. Even if 100,000 troops are drawn out by August 2010, that means the indefinite occupation of Iraq will cost more than $100 million each day. The continued occupation of Iraq for two years or three years or more makes a complete mockery out of the idea that the Iraqi people control their own destiny. It is a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and independence.
It is no wonder that John McCain came out to support President Obama's announced plan on Iraq. McCain was an supporter of former President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's war and occupation in Iraq.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld—the architects of regime change in Iraq—never had the goal of indefinitely keeping 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. They wanted to subdue the Iraqi people and exercise control with a smaller force. The Iraqi armed resistance prolonged the stationing of 150,000 U.S. troops.
Bush's goal was domination over Iraq and its oil supplies, and domination over the region. This continues to be the goal of the U.S. political and economic establishment, including that of the new administration.
President Obama decided not to challenge the fundamental strategic orientation. That explains why he kept the Bush team—Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Generals Petraeus and Odierno—on the job to oversee and manage the Iraq occupation. They will also manage the widening U.S. war in Afghanistan and the aerial assaults on Pakistan. There have been over 30 U.S. bombing attacks in Pakistan in the last two months.
We are marching on Saturday, March 21 because the people of this country are fed up with the status quo. They want decent-paying jobs, and affordable health care and housing for all. Students want to study rather than be driven out by soaring tuition rates. The majority of people want a complete—not partial—withdrawal of ALL troops from Iraq. They want the war in Afghanistan to end rather than escalate. They are increasingly opposed to sending $2.6 billion each year to Israel and want an end to the colonial occupation of Palestine.
Don't miss the important announcement about the
Dramatic Action Planned for the March 21st Pentagon March:
On March 21, 2009, March on the Pentagon
and the Corporate War Profiteers
Get Involved
* Find Transportation to DC
* Sign up if you are organizing transportation
* Download flyers and posters
* Add a link
* View list of endorsers
* Endorse
* Sign up to volunteer
* Donate
Go to http://www.pentagonmarch.org for more information.
http://themancommon.blogspot.com/2009/02/answer-coalition-responds-to-president.html
The Corporate Media Is Shamelessly Pretending Racism Died When Obama Got Elected
By Janine Jackson, FAIR
Posted on February 28, 2009, Printed on March 1, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/129381/
There were early indications that corporate media coverage of Barack Obama’s candidacy would be squirm-inducing, putting on display the elite (mainly white) press corps’ murky ideas about race much more than any straightforward reckoning of black Americans’ situation or what an Obama presidency might mean for their concerns.
Journalists were sometimes embarrassingly frank about how they interpreted Obama’s blackness and what they hoped his success might mean. “No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery,” declared NBC’s Chris Matthews (1/21/07). “All the bad stuff in our history ain’t there with this guy.” “For many white Americans, it’s a twofer,” opined the New Republic (2/5/07). “Elect Obama, and you not only dethrone George W. Bush, you dethrone [Al] Sharpton, too.” (See Extra!, 3–4/07.)
Looking to find parallels for the “stuff” they did like, journalists turned to fiction, as when Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, 10/27/08) alleged that voters “decided they liked Obama when he reminded them more of Will Smith than Jesse Jackson,” or when CNN (6/22/08) told viewers that Michelle Obama “wants to appear to be Claire Huxtable and not Angela Davis.”
The fondest hope seemed to be that an Obama victory (if not his strong candidacy alone) would absolve us of any need to talk about racism any more. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (5/14/08) wrote that, in announcing his run for office, Obama was making a statement: that his candidacy would be the exclamation point at the end of our four-century-long argument over the role of African-Americans in our society. By electing a mixed-race man of evident brilliance, moderate mien and welcoming smile, we would finally cease seeing each other through color-coded eyes.
It’s not clear if Fineman meant Obama said that exactly, or if it was just implied by the way he “radiat[ed] uplift and glorious possibility.” Alas, he continued: “Well, that argument did not end. He and we were naive to think it would.”
Of course, “we” didn’t all imagine that a nonwhite man running for president would mean an end to racism; that belief seems endemic only in a press corps with a myopic understanding of how racial inequality works.
Thus Fineman lamented, “far from eliminating racial thinking from politics,” Obama’s campaign actually drew attention to the subject—in part because Obama let the Finemans of the world down by having a “message” that was “race-aware, if not race-based.”
Fineman, like many pundits, seemed to think that acknowledging the distinct experiences faced by people of color is tantamount to claiming these differences trump all other factors in life. Talking about race equals harping about race, and, well, that’s being racist, isn’t it? The goal is to be “post- racial,” which seems to mean maintaining that racial differences have no impact, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
For some, last November 4 saw the disappearance of racial inequity in America (“Promised Land: Obama’s Rise Fulfills King’s Dream”—Oklahoman headline, 1/19/09), and with it the need for any countervailing measures.
Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg (Chicago Tribune, 1/22/09) suggested that “opponents of racial quotas and other champions of colorblindness on the right should be popping champagne,” not to mention “rubbing Barack Obama in [the] faces” of all those foreign “finger-waggers eager to lecture . . . America about race and tolerance.”
For those who don’t see racial inequity playing out every day in disparate joblessness, incarceration or mortality rates, the presence of a brown-skinned man in the White House means there’s no more structural work to be done; those struggling from now on have no excuse.
At the very least, the black guy winning proved that there are no more voting rights concerns. USA Today (1/9/09) wondered whether the whole Voting Rights Act should be junked “now that a black man has won the presidency.” And for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jim Wooten (1/20/09), the Obama victory “plainly” meant that “the political system that discriminated and the people who designed it are dead and gone.”
The Obama victory was credited with the existence of a demographic of “successful” blacks, as illustrated by a magazine (Uptown) that launched in 2004 (“Magazine for Age of Obama,” New York Daily News, 1/19/09). And the hiring of an African-American to coach the Yale football team was “particularly significant in light of both the election of Obama as the nation’s first black president and in the consistently meager numbers of black head coaches at the top level of college football,” according to the New York Times (1/8/09)—though the particular relevance of the former is kind of hard to figure.
If being “post-racial” involves pretending race/ethnicity doesn’t affect opportunity, acting “post-racial” means renouncing any measure aimed at ensuring that. Post-election, Obama was called upon to follow through on his “promise” in this regard in early decisions on appointments and policy.
The New York Times (1/15/09) gave the New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen space to put some questions to new attorney general Eric Holder, including: “Do you agree with Mr. Obama’s implication that the Supreme Court needs someone who will side with the powerless rather than the powerful? What if the best nominee happens to be a white male?”
The L.A. Times editorial page (12/28/08) lauded Obama’s cabinet picks, in so doing matter-of-factly contrasting the hiring goals of “quality” and “identity politics”—in this context meaning the hiring of anyone who is not a white man; Obama, it declared, “has succeeded on both levels.”
Obama could also prove himself to be the right sort of black leader—the kind who places responsibility for black people’s problems largely with black people themselves—with an embrace of the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind law. USA Today (1/6/09) draped the case in appropriately patronizing tones with the cringe-worthy “How to Turn Obama’s Success Into Gains for Black Boys”:
You can see the message on brick wall murals in inner cities: Yes we can. You can hear it in the music of Black Eyed Peas’ frontman will.i.am: Yes we can.
You can imagine hearing it pass the lips of thousands of black mothers, perhaps after awakening their sons early to complete homework before they head off to school, just as President-elect Barack Obama’s mother did: Yes you can.
Black mothers encouraging their children? Just imagine!
The idea that, in the Age of Obama, a little early morning encouragement is all that separates black Americans from socio-economic success was abetted even by less unctuous reporting; in the midst of a fairly thoughtful, 8,000-word piece (New York Times, 8/10/08) on complexities in black political leadership, for instance, one is jarred to read that, now that “legal barriers no longer exist,” the “inequities in the society are subtler—inferior schools, an absence of employers, a dearth of affordable housing—and the remedies more elusive.”
If discriminatory treatment in education, employment and housing are deemed “subtle,” little wonder that calls for institutional change are heard as strident and outmoded.
Some journalists’ desire to “not see” racism as an obstacle led them to downplay the historical significance of Obama’s election. Finding “all the hoopla” unseemly, press critic Howard Kurtz scoffed (Washington Post, 1/20/09), “It is hard to envision this level of intensity if John McCain were taking the oath of office.”
It is indeed unlikely that McCain would have been heralded as the first black president in United States history; that’s true. Nor would he have been greeted with the overwhelming relief of those who wanted above all to see the back of a Republican White House that has brought endless war and economic havoc.
There are probably a number of multi-layered reasons many people—including, yes, some in the media—greeted the Obama victory with some measure of satisfaction. But when rich white pundits start suggesting that “there’s a lot of advantages to being black. Black is in” (Larry King, 1/21/09), all you can do is laugh.
As the Obama presidency moves forward, we should expect continued awkwardness: chin-stroking on how his “loping stride” and “fondness for pickup basketball” make for “a new White House iconography” (Washington Post, 1/19/09), and contentless verbiage a la Joe Klein (Time, 2/2/09): “He came to us as the ultimate outsider in a nation of outsiders—the son of an African visitor and a white woman from Kansas—and he has turned us inside out.”
Also unlikely to abate is elite media’s recourse to a litmus, usefully vague and changeable, as to whether Obama is performing like the approved sort of black politician, who is, in Howard Fineman’s words (Newsweek, 1/24/09), “shaped but not limited by [his] heritage.”
That line between being “shaped” and being “limited,” of course, will continue to be defined, and vigorously policed, by the elite white press corps.
© 2009 FAIR All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/129381/
Posted on February 28, 2009, Printed on March 1, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/129381/
There were early indications that corporate media coverage of Barack Obama’s candidacy would be squirm-inducing, putting on display the elite (mainly white) press corps’ murky ideas about race much more than any straightforward reckoning of black Americans’ situation or what an Obama presidency might mean for their concerns.
Journalists were sometimes embarrassingly frank about how they interpreted Obama’s blackness and what they hoped his success might mean. “No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery,” declared NBC’s Chris Matthews (1/21/07). “All the bad stuff in our history ain’t there with this guy.” “For many white Americans, it’s a twofer,” opined the New Republic (2/5/07). “Elect Obama, and you not only dethrone George W. Bush, you dethrone [Al] Sharpton, too.” (See Extra!, 3–4/07.)
Looking to find parallels for the “stuff” they did like, journalists turned to fiction, as when Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, 10/27/08) alleged that voters “decided they liked Obama when he reminded them more of Will Smith than Jesse Jackson,” or when CNN (6/22/08) told viewers that Michelle Obama “wants to appear to be Claire Huxtable and not Angela Davis.”
The fondest hope seemed to be that an Obama victory (if not his strong candidacy alone) would absolve us of any need to talk about racism any more. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (5/14/08) wrote that, in announcing his run for office, Obama was making a statement: that his candidacy would be the exclamation point at the end of our four-century-long argument over the role of African-Americans in our society. By electing a mixed-race man of evident brilliance, moderate mien and welcoming smile, we would finally cease seeing each other through color-coded eyes.
It’s not clear if Fineman meant Obama said that exactly, or if it was just implied by the way he “radiat[ed] uplift and glorious possibility.” Alas, he continued: “Well, that argument did not end. He and we were naive to think it would.”
Of course, “we” didn’t all imagine that a nonwhite man running for president would mean an end to racism; that belief seems endemic only in a press corps with a myopic understanding of how racial inequality works.
Thus Fineman lamented, “far from eliminating racial thinking from politics,” Obama’s campaign actually drew attention to the subject—in part because Obama let the Finemans of the world down by having a “message” that was “race-aware, if not race-based.”
Fineman, like many pundits, seemed to think that acknowledging the distinct experiences faced by people of color is tantamount to claiming these differences trump all other factors in life. Talking about race equals harping about race, and, well, that’s being racist, isn’t it? The goal is to be “post- racial,” which seems to mean maintaining that racial differences have no impact, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
For some, last November 4 saw the disappearance of racial inequity in America (“Promised Land: Obama’s Rise Fulfills King’s Dream”—Oklahoman headline, 1/19/09), and with it the need for any countervailing measures.
Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg (Chicago Tribune, 1/22/09) suggested that “opponents of racial quotas and other champions of colorblindness on the right should be popping champagne,” not to mention “rubbing Barack Obama in [the] faces” of all those foreign “finger-waggers eager to lecture . . . America about race and tolerance.”
For those who don’t see racial inequity playing out every day in disparate joblessness, incarceration or mortality rates, the presence of a brown-skinned man in the White House means there’s no more structural work to be done; those struggling from now on have no excuse.
At the very least, the black guy winning proved that there are no more voting rights concerns. USA Today (1/9/09) wondered whether the whole Voting Rights Act should be junked “now that a black man has won the presidency.” And for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jim Wooten (1/20/09), the Obama victory “plainly” meant that “the political system that discriminated and the people who designed it are dead and gone.”
The Obama victory was credited with the existence of a demographic of “successful” blacks, as illustrated by a magazine (Uptown) that launched in 2004 (“Magazine for Age of Obama,” New York Daily News, 1/19/09). And the hiring of an African-American to coach the Yale football team was “particularly significant in light of both the election of Obama as the nation’s first black president and in the consistently meager numbers of black head coaches at the top level of college football,” according to the New York Times (1/8/09)—though the particular relevance of the former is kind of hard to figure.
If being “post-racial” involves pretending race/ethnicity doesn’t affect opportunity, acting “post-racial” means renouncing any measure aimed at ensuring that. Post-election, Obama was called upon to follow through on his “promise” in this regard in early decisions on appointments and policy.
The New York Times (1/15/09) gave the New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen space to put some questions to new attorney general Eric Holder, including: “Do you agree with Mr. Obama’s implication that the Supreme Court needs someone who will side with the powerless rather than the powerful? What if the best nominee happens to be a white male?”
The L.A. Times editorial page (12/28/08) lauded Obama’s cabinet picks, in so doing matter-of-factly contrasting the hiring goals of “quality” and “identity politics”—in this context meaning the hiring of anyone who is not a white man; Obama, it declared, “has succeeded on both levels.”
Obama could also prove himself to be the right sort of black leader—the kind who places responsibility for black people’s problems largely with black people themselves—with an embrace of the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind law. USA Today (1/6/09) draped the case in appropriately patronizing tones with the cringe-worthy “How to Turn Obama’s Success Into Gains for Black Boys”:
You can see the message on brick wall murals in inner cities: Yes we can. You can hear it in the music of Black Eyed Peas’ frontman will.i.am: Yes we can.
You can imagine hearing it pass the lips of thousands of black mothers, perhaps after awakening their sons early to complete homework before they head off to school, just as President-elect Barack Obama’s mother did: Yes you can.
Black mothers encouraging their children? Just imagine!
The idea that, in the Age of Obama, a little early morning encouragement is all that separates black Americans from socio-economic success was abetted even by less unctuous reporting; in the midst of a fairly thoughtful, 8,000-word piece (New York Times, 8/10/08) on complexities in black political leadership, for instance, one is jarred to read that, now that “legal barriers no longer exist,” the “inequities in the society are subtler—inferior schools, an absence of employers, a dearth of affordable housing—and the remedies more elusive.”
If discriminatory treatment in education, employment and housing are deemed “subtle,” little wonder that calls for institutional change are heard as strident and outmoded.
Some journalists’ desire to “not see” racism as an obstacle led them to downplay the historical significance of Obama’s election. Finding “all the hoopla” unseemly, press critic Howard Kurtz scoffed (Washington Post, 1/20/09), “It is hard to envision this level of intensity if John McCain were taking the oath of office.”
It is indeed unlikely that McCain would have been heralded as the first black president in United States history; that’s true. Nor would he have been greeted with the overwhelming relief of those who wanted above all to see the back of a Republican White House that has brought endless war and economic havoc.
There are probably a number of multi-layered reasons many people—including, yes, some in the media—greeted the Obama victory with some measure of satisfaction. But when rich white pundits start suggesting that “there’s a lot of advantages to being black. Black is in” (Larry King, 1/21/09), all you can do is laugh.
As the Obama presidency moves forward, we should expect continued awkwardness: chin-stroking on how his “loping stride” and “fondness for pickup basketball” make for “a new White House iconography” (Washington Post, 1/19/09), and contentless verbiage a la Joe Klein (Time, 2/2/09): “He came to us as the ultimate outsider in a nation of outsiders—the son of an African visitor and a white woman from Kansas—and he has turned us inside out.”
Also unlikely to abate is elite media’s recourse to a litmus, usefully vague and changeable, as to whether Obama is performing like the approved sort of black politician, who is, in Howard Fineman’s words (Newsweek, 1/24/09), “shaped but not limited by [his] heritage.”
That line between being “shaped” and being “limited,” of course, will continue to be defined, and vigorously policed, by the elite white press corps.
© 2009 FAIR All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/129381/
All Troops Out By 2011? Not So Fast; Why Obama's Iraq Speech Deserves a Second Look
By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
Posted on February 28, 2009, Printed on March 1, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/129362/
Some anti-war analysts find hope in President Barack Obama's address at Camp Lejuene in North Carolina on Friday, in which he appeared to spell out a clear date for withdrawal from Iraq.
"I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Obama said in a speech that quickly generated headlines announcing that an end to the occupation is on the horizon. As far as rhetoric goes, Obama's statement seems very clear. But in reality, it is far more complicated.
Obama's plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to "conditions on the ground," meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama "assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. … The president assured him that there was a Plan B."
Despite Obama's declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC's Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that "military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years."
Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama's orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy.
Then there's the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.
Whether this job is performed by State Department Diplomatic Security or mercenaries from the company formerly known as Blackwater (or else a corporation more acceptable to the Obama administration), the U.S. will have a substantial paramilitary force regularly escorting U.S. VIPs around Iraq -- a proven recipe for civilian deaths and injuries. Obama's speech on Friday did not even address the question of military contractors -- a crucial omission given that their presence rivals that of U.S. troops by a ratio of over 1-to-1.
Finally, the Status of Forces Agreement, which supposedly lays out a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, contains a gaping loophole that leaves open the possibility of a continuation of the occupation and a sustained presence of U.S. forces well beyond 2011, "upon request by the government of Iraq." Article 27 of the SOFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq." Could this mean an election where the wrong candidate or party wins? What is the definition of a threat?
The Democrats' Response
Earlier in the week, when details of Obama's official Iraq plan began to emerge, expressions of surprise poured from the offices of the congressional Democratic leadership over his intention to keep a force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops in the country beyond 2010.
"When they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I anticipated," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was "particularly upset" according to the New York Times and did not understand "the justification." Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., exclaimed, "Fifty thousand is more than I would have thought."
The response from the Democratic power brokers was embarrassingly disingenuous. Obama said early on in his presidential campaign that he intended to keep behind a "residual force" of the scope he laid out. Those who have long protested this aspect of his plan were marginalized and ignored in both the corporate media and the Obama campaign.
The same Democratic leaders expressing their disappointment ignored the credible voices of dissent for years while supporting the occupation through votes and funding. That they would wait to express their dissent until long after it would actually have had an impact is one of the best examples of what has been so wrong with the Democrats' role from the beginning of President George W. Bush's declaration of war against the world and his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
If Pelosi, Reid, et al., really had a problem with a 50,000 troop residual force, they certainly had ample time to say so when Obama was running for president.
On Friday, however, these same Democrats welcomed the announcement that combat missions would be out by 2011. Reid praised Obama's plan, while cautioning that we "must keep in Iraq only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people." Following Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune, key Senate Republicans praised Obama's plan as well, while reminding everyone that it was an outgrowth of the Bush administration.
"It is encouraging to see the Obama administration embrace the plan of Gen. David Petraeus that began with the successful surge in 2007, and continues shifting combat responsibilities to our Iraqi allies," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Adopting the Bush Narrative
Beyond the headline-generating news, Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune delivered a number of lines -- wrapped in laudatory rhetoric -- that could have been delivered by Bush himself.
"I want to be very clear," Obama told the military audience. "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime -- and you got the job done." Perhaps it bears remembering that "removing Saddam" was justification two or three offered by the Bush administration after the WMD fraud was exposed.
"We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government," Obama went on, "and you got the job done." (The idea that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki regime is either sovereign or a government is hotly debated in Iraq.) "And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life -- that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."
As much as could be said about this, perhaps the best response was delivered on Friday by Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks, who knows the situation in Iraq about as well as any journalist.
"We won't know for 10 or 15 years whether we actually did something right, even in removing Saddam Hussein," he said on MSNBC. "We may very well end up with a strongman, stronger than Saddam, closer to Tehran and certainly will be anti-American. That's in some ways the best-case scenario if that country holds together."
Regardless of what happens down the line, the world knows the truth about the lies that both Democrats and Republicans promoted in support of Bush's war against Iraq. Rather than inspire hope among Iraqis, the U.S. occupation has devastated their country and opened Iraq's gates for unprecedented violence and instability in their country and the region.
Obama, the candidate, used to riff on these truths on the campaign trail. The contradiction between President Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune and his rhetoric before he was elected should serve as a warning to those who take his words at face value. But more important, combined with his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Obama's adoption of key lies from Bush's Iraq narrative should be seen as a dangerous indicator of things to come.
Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/129362/
Posted on February 28, 2009, Printed on March 1, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/129362/
Some anti-war analysts find hope in President Barack Obama's address at Camp Lejuene in North Carolina on Friday, in which he appeared to spell out a clear date for withdrawal from Iraq.
"I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Obama said in a speech that quickly generated headlines announcing that an end to the occupation is on the horizon. As far as rhetoric goes, Obama's statement seems very clear. But in reality, it is far more complicated.
Obama's plan, as his advisors have often said, is subject to "conditions on the ground," meaning it can be altered at any point between now and 2011. Underscoring this point, a spokesperson for New York Rep. John McHugh, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on Friday that Obama "assured [McHugh] he will revisit the tempo of the withdrawal, or he will revisit the withdrawal plan if the situation on the ground dictates it. … The president assured him that there was a Plan B."
Despite Obama's declarations Friday and the celebrations they have sparked on the liberal blogosphere, the Pentagon certainly seems to believe its forces may well be in Iraq after 2011. NBC's Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported on Friday that "military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all U.S. forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated. And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years."
Some have suggested that such statements from the military are insubordination and contrary to Obama's orders, but they could also reflect discussions between the White House and the Pentagon to which the public is not privy.
Then there's the monstrous U.S. embassy unveiled last month in Baghdad, the largest of any nation anywhere in the history of the planet and itself resembling a military base. Maintaining this fortified city will require a sizable armed U.S. presence in Baghdad and will regularly place U.S. diplomats in armed convoys that put Iraqi civilian lives in jeopardy.
Whether this job is performed by State Department Diplomatic Security or mercenaries from the company formerly known as Blackwater (or else a corporation more acceptable to the Obama administration), the U.S. will have a substantial paramilitary force regularly escorting U.S. VIPs around Iraq -- a proven recipe for civilian deaths and injuries. Obama's speech on Friday did not even address the question of military contractors -- a crucial omission given that their presence rivals that of U.S. troops by a ratio of over 1-to-1.
Finally, the Status of Forces Agreement, which supposedly lays out a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, contains a gaping loophole that leaves open the possibility of a continuation of the occupation and a sustained presence of U.S. forces well beyond 2011, "upon request by the government of Iraq." Article 27 of the SOFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq." Could this mean an election where the wrong candidate or party wins? What is the definition of a threat?
The Democrats' Response
Earlier in the week, when details of Obama's official Iraq plan began to emerge, expressions of surprise poured from the offices of the congressional Democratic leadership over his intention to keep a force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops in the country beyond 2010.
"When they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I anticipated," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was "particularly upset" according to the New York Times and did not understand "the justification." Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., exclaimed, "Fifty thousand is more than I would have thought."
The response from the Democratic power brokers was embarrassingly disingenuous. Obama said early on in his presidential campaign that he intended to keep behind a "residual force" of the scope he laid out. Those who have long protested this aspect of his plan were marginalized and ignored in both the corporate media and the Obama campaign.
The same Democratic leaders expressing their disappointment ignored the credible voices of dissent for years while supporting the occupation through votes and funding. That they would wait to express their dissent until long after it would actually have had an impact is one of the best examples of what has been so wrong with the Democrats' role from the beginning of President George W. Bush's declaration of war against the world and his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
If Pelosi, Reid, et al., really had a problem with a 50,000 troop residual force, they certainly had ample time to say so when Obama was running for president.
On Friday, however, these same Democrats welcomed the announcement that combat missions would be out by 2011. Reid praised Obama's plan, while cautioning that we "must keep in Iraq only those forces necessary for the security of our remaining troops and the Iraqi people." Following Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune, key Senate Republicans praised Obama's plan as well, while reminding everyone that it was an outgrowth of the Bush administration.
"It is encouraging to see the Obama administration embrace the plan of Gen. David Petraeus that began with the successful surge in 2007, and continues shifting combat responsibilities to our Iraqi allies," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Adopting the Bush Narrative
Beyond the headline-generating news, Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune delivered a number of lines -- wrapped in laudatory rhetoric -- that could have been delivered by Bush himself.
"I want to be very clear," Obama told the military audience. "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime -- and you got the job done." Perhaps it bears remembering that "removing Saddam" was justification two or three offered by the Bush administration after the WMD fraud was exposed.
"We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government," Obama went on, "and you got the job done." (The idea that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki regime is either sovereign or a government is hotly debated in Iraq.) "And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life -- that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."
As much as could be said about this, perhaps the best response was delivered on Friday by Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks, who knows the situation in Iraq about as well as any journalist.
"We won't know for 10 or 15 years whether we actually did something right, even in removing Saddam Hussein," he said on MSNBC. "We may very well end up with a strongman, stronger than Saddam, closer to Tehran and certainly will be anti-American. That's in some ways the best-case scenario if that country holds together."
Regardless of what happens down the line, the world knows the truth about the lies that both Democrats and Republicans promoted in support of Bush's war against Iraq. Rather than inspire hope among Iraqis, the U.S. occupation has devastated their country and opened Iraq's gates for unprecedented violence and instability in their country and the region.
Obama, the candidate, used to riff on these truths on the campaign trail. The contradiction between President Obama's speech at Camp Lejeune and his rhetoric before he was elected should serve as a warning to those who take his words at face value. But more important, combined with his plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Obama's adoption of key lies from Bush's Iraq narrative should be seen as a dangerous indicator of things to come.
Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/129362/
California declares drought emergency
Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:46am EST
By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday declared a state emergency due to drought and said he would consider mandatory water rationing in the face of nearly $3 billion in economic losses from below-normal rainfall this year.
As many as 95,000 agricultural jobs will be lost, communities will be devastated and some growers in the most economically productive farm state simply are not able to plant, state officials said, calling the current drought the most expensive ever.
Schwarzenegger, eager to build controversial dams as well as more widely backed water recycling programs, called on cities to cut back water use or face the first ever mandatory state restrictions as soon as the end of the month.
"California faces its third consecutive year of drought and we must prepare for the worst -- a fourth, fifth or even sixth year of drought," Schwarzenegger said in a statement, adding that recent storms were not enough to save the state.
He called on urban water users to cut consumption by 20 percent and state agencies to implement a water reduction plan. Meanwhile, the state of emergency will let planners fast-track some infrastructure building.
Legislators have also revived a $10 billion bond package to build new dams, fund conservation programs and build plants to recycle waste water and recharge aquifers.
"There is a bit of a perfect storm, pardon the pun, developing here," Republican state Senator Dave Cogdill told Reuters after introducing one of the new bond packages. "I hope the attitude toward surface storage, the larger projects, has changed."
The state water department will report on conservation progress by the end of March, and if the situation has not sufficiently improved, water rationing and mandatory cuts in water use could be instituted, the governor said.
California produces more than half the nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts, and farmers in recent weeks have been staggered by reports that the main federal source of irrigation water will go dry this year and the top state water project will not fulfill more than 15 percent of requested water.
The Central Valley, a fertile but arid region stretching some 500 miles from Bakersfield to Redding, is the agricultural heartland of California, which ranks as the nation's No. 1 farm state in terms of the value of crops produced -- more than $36 billion a year.
Concern about California's tight water supply is on the upswing at the same time as officials in the state capital of Sacramento rally behind the idea of creating jobs with public works spending. Unemployment in the most populous state rose to double digits -- 10.1 percent -- in January.
Water planners and environmentalists are also broadly in agreement that climate change is creating a more erratic climate that could lengthen dry spells.
"We're going to have droughts. That's a fact of life. They may be worse in the future," state water chief Lester Snow told reporters on a conference call.
(Additional reporting by Jim Christie; Editing by Christian Wiessner)
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51Q5XC20090228
By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday declared a state emergency due to drought and said he would consider mandatory water rationing in the face of nearly $3 billion in economic losses from below-normal rainfall this year.
As many as 95,000 agricultural jobs will be lost, communities will be devastated and some growers in the most economically productive farm state simply are not able to plant, state officials said, calling the current drought the most expensive ever.
Schwarzenegger, eager to build controversial dams as well as more widely backed water recycling programs, called on cities to cut back water use or face the first ever mandatory state restrictions as soon as the end of the month.
"California faces its third consecutive year of drought and we must prepare for the worst -- a fourth, fifth or even sixth year of drought," Schwarzenegger said in a statement, adding that recent storms were not enough to save the state.
He called on urban water users to cut consumption by 20 percent and state agencies to implement a water reduction plan. Meanwhile, the state of emergency will let planners fast-track some infrastructure building.
Legislators have also revived a $10 billion bond package to build new dams, fund conservation programs and build plants to recycle waste water and recharge aquifers.
"There is a bit of a perfect storm, pardon the pun, developing here," Republican state Senator Dave Cogdill told Reuters after introducing one of the new bond packages. "I hope the attitude toward surface storage, the larger projects, has changed."
The state water department will report on conservation progress by the end of March, and if the situation has not sufficiently improved, water rationing and mandatory cuts in water use could be instituted, the governor said.
California produces more than half the nation's fruits, vegetables and nuts, and farmers in recent weeks have been staggered by reports that the main federal source of irrigation water will go dry this year and the top state water project will not fulfill more than 15 percent of requested water.
The Central Valley, a fertile but arid region stretching some 500 miles from Bakersfield to Redding, is the agricultural heartland of California, which ranks as the nation's No. 1 farm state in terms of the value of crops produced -- more than $36 billion a year.
Concern about California's tight water supply is on the upswing at the same time as officials in the state capital of Sacramento rally behind the idea of creating jobs with public works spending. Unemployment in the most populous state rose to double digits -- 10.1 percent -- in January.
Water planners and environmentalists are also broadly in agreement that climate change is creating a more erratic climate that could lengthen dry spells.
"We're going to have droughts. That's a fact of life. They may be worse in the future," state water chief Lester Snow told reporters on a conference call.
(Additional reporting by Jim Christie; Editing by Christian Wiessner)
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51Q5XC20090228
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
