Politics Attitude

Jun 18, 2008

the 2008 vote

marlene e-mailed to say she is supporting ralph nader. she wondered if i knew who c.i. was voting for?

i don't. i will probably never be told.

i know in the past, c.i. always voted for the democratic candidate for president. but i also know ava and c.i. made it clear again sunday that they would not vote for barack. if you've read the common ills since it started or recently, you know c.i. will not vote for john mccain.

that leaves cynthia mckinney (who c.i. likes but doesn't think her campaign staff is doing her justice), bob barr (who c.i. knows due to barr's work with the aclu as well as barr being in congress), ralph, write-in some 1 or vote for all races except the presidential 1.

i don't know but i did call elaine today and she said she was writing about nader tonight.

i mention that because it's your best hint. elaine and c.i. frequently split during a primary in terms of who they support. but they always vote the same on the offices in the general election.
so if elaine's supporting ralph then my guess is c.i.'s not just covering ralph, c.i.'s supporting ralph's run and will vote for ralph.

but, again, that's my guess.

marlene pointed out that ralph is in all the snapshots these days. and that's true, but as she also pointed out, she thought c.i. was for dennis kucinich because, when dennis was a real candidate in the race, dennis got more positive coverage than any candidate in the snapshots. and, of course, c.i. doesn't like dennis.

and that's the thing, you can never go by the coverage. c.i. will be fair. c.i. will praise some 1 for something they did that was notable and praiseworthy and you will never know c.i. loathes them. there's the guy who tried to force himself on c.i., for example (he's not in congress) and when there's been reason to mention him, c.i.'s noted him and to read it, you'd think c.i. thought the world of him. c.i. plays fair in ways i never do and never would.

kat last night was writing about how some 1 was assuming that because c.i. praised claire mccaskill's work in the senate committee tuesday, that meant - since claire supports barack - c.i.'s supporting barack! no. c.i. will not support barack. and c.i. may hate claire. i don't know on claire. but if claire was mentioned it was because she did something outstanding that deserved attention.

as a person, c.i. loves dianne feinstein but c.i.'s called her out at the common ills plenty of times on her votes and on her remarks in commitees. there was a woman in the house that c.i. thinks the world of personally and politically but she made an idiot out of herself in a house hearing and c.i. called her out for that.

never confuse the common ills with c.i.'s journal. it doesn't work that way. unless c.i. says 'my opinion,' c.i.'s voicing the community's opinion. and in terms of house or senate hearings, if c.i. has to cover them (c.i. would prefer not to, a friend's kid is now a house intern - or senate intern - and brought up all the hearings that were not getting attention. that's why c.i. started covering hearings.), c.i.'s going to call it fairly.

i'll give out 1 across the aisle. c.i. likes lindsay graham as a person and thinks he can be reached on some issues involving prisoners at guantanamo and elsewhere. but if you read yesterday's snapshot, you saw c.i. call him out for behaving like an idiot. so if some 1 gets praise for doing their job well, don't try to read that as c.i.'s supporting them. remember, c.i. never said a word against dennis kucinich until dennis gave his supporters away in iowa.

up until that point, you never saw c.i. say a word against dennis. and you saw c.i. argue for dennis' right to be covered and for his right to be defended. c.i. defended dennis on the u.f.o. 'scandal'. unlike the nation or the progressive, c.i. didn't shut dennis out of the race. if the race was noted in any way, there was something on dennis in each snapshot and it was never negative. and c.i. loathes dennis. i was at the 2004 convention. i remember that young student crying because dennis had sold out his supporters. c.i. was telling her not to blame herself and to just know that's dennis. (only in very strong terms.)

so the only indicator i would go by is elaine. and since elaine's supporting ralph, my best guess is that c.i. is as well.

ralph would get coverage regardless because c.i. finds the treatment ralph's received offensive. that was made clear in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 and 2007 at the common ills.

c.i. does not believe that any party or any candidate 'owns' some 1's vote. in a democracy, you have to work for votes and, if you don't get them, you either didn't work hard enough or the media was against you or both.

and c.i. corrected me on that personally after the 2000 election because i would rag on ralph.
(i am voting for ralph in november - i do not see the d.n.c. coming to their senses and giving hillary the nomination she earned.) don't take voters for granted. if you do, they can go elsewhere.

and if you come here very often, you know i pipe off when i want. and so i got that speech probably a dozen times from c.i. 'ralph did not steal or spoil the election. voters decided ralph was their choice and they voted for him.' i finally got the message but, honestly, assumed c.i. had voted for ralph in 2000.

i didn't learn otherwise. c.i. didn't think, as a stranger, it was fair to make the argument that ralph didn't steal anyone's vote without revealing 'i voted for gore.' and c.i. made it very clear online in 2004 and as 2005 began that there would not, at the common ills, ever be any nonsense about how some 1 stole a vote by running for public office.

by the way, we all tried to pull together a post quickly last night after we all lost them. ruth's 'Sexism and more' is a must-read and more than makes up for any posting problems the erest of us may have had.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, June 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the refugee crisis continues, Nader confronts myths, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Courage to Resist reports the latest on James Burmeister:

James Burmeister was serving in Baghdad, Iraq when his humvee was caught in an IED explosion and he was hit in the face with shrapnel. Suffering from the physical wounds, as well as emotional ones resulting from his injury and working with the military "bait and kill" teams, James went to Canada and was AWOL until earlier this year when he decided to turn himself in.
At this point, his fate is undecided. Because of his PTSD, James and his family are requesting that the Army gives him an "Other Than Honorable Discharge" in leiu of a special court martial which could send James to a military prison for up to a year. You can help!
1. Please contact the Post Commander General Campbell to request a speedy discharge for James. Contact the Fort Knox Public Affairs Office at 502-624-7451 or knox.pao@conus.army.mil and demand better treatment for our soldiers. Ask that they discharge PFC James Burmeister now so that he can get the help that he needs.
2. Attend a Press Conference at Fort Knox, KY on Thursday, June 19, at 11am.At N Wilson Rd & Knox Blvd, Radcliff, KY 40160 (map with directions)
3. Write James and give him words of support and encouragement. PFC James Burmeister; HHC - Building 298, Gold Vault Road; Fort Knox KY 40121

Meanwhile on Firday, war resisters in Canada will share their stories. Stathroy Age Dispatch reports that war resisters Josh Randall, Tim Richard and Rich Droste will share their experiences and answer questions and Michele Mason's Breaking Ranks documentary will be shown. The event will take place at the Quaker Meeting House, 359 Quaker Lane Coldstream in Ontario. What time? No time's given in the report at the Quaker Meeting House. You can use both links to continue checking for when a time is posted.

What is known is that Canada's House of Commons passed a motion to grant war resisters safe harbor and you can keep pressure on the Harper government right now. Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

Matthis Chiroux announced May 15th that he would not deploy to Iraq. The day he was due to report was June 15th and he did not deploy and explained why in a public statement. Leo Shane III (Stars & Stripes) quotes him explaining, "I don't feel like I'm doing illegal at all. We basically have no cause for military presence in Iraq. I'm making this decision because I believe my first loyalty is to the higher ideals of this country, which are being blatantly violated by our leaders. . . . It's not about what job I'd do. Any order to deploy there is unlawful."

Courage to Resist interviewed Matthis ahead of June 15th and in one section he explains how he came to learn about his rights and how he enjoys getting that information out to others:

I went to a peace event in Brooklyn where I met up with a number of Iraq Veterans Against the War and this is an organization that that I completely agree with all their basic points of unity. I basically felt like 'wow this is maybe the most intelligent and well spoken and in touch group of soldiers that I have ever seen in my life and they are all speaking out freedom and justice and peace in the wake of having their rights so violated and having violated the rights of others so badly." And one soldier in particular really, really did it for me. And her name is Selena Coppa and she's actually an active duty soldier who is stationed in Germany and she was on leave speaking out against the war in Iraq. And she started off with a disclaimer where she said you know 'the opinions expressed here are my own and not of the US military' and went on to talk about her feelings about the Iraq War and I looked at that and said, 'Oh my goodness. Here is an active duty soldier with the courage to speak up and speak out and, then you know return from leave to uniform and face her command afterwards.' And I looked at that and I said if she can do it then there's absolutely no reason I can't do it. And furthermore, I've been wasting my time with silence these last five years because somehow I've been convinced that I didn't have a right to participate in speaking for peace and justice at all because I had signed away those rights when I listed. And so many people believe this is true. And I have such a good time actually informing soldiers of what their actual rights are and then pointing them out in the regulations because a lot of it is jaw dropping when they realize 'Oh, you mean even as an active duty soldier you mean I can participate in peace protests as long as they're non-partisan and I'm not in uniform and I'm not speaking for the army? I had no idea that was possible.' And so I started there and I started going to IVAW meetings and I started planning an IVAW beneift at my college which finally came to fruition May 13th and I started speaking on the radio about my feelings concerning the Iraq occupation and why it broke my heart that I would have to deploy there June 13th.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Yesterday's snapshot noted the Baghdad bombing. NPR's Corey Flintoff (All Things Considered) reported, "Judging by the length of time it took for police and rescue teams to sort through the remains to arrive at a casualty count it was also extraordinarily destructive." Ned Parker and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) highlight "A 14-year-old girl, dressed in a black headdress and robe, towed a boy by hand and searched for her father. 'Where are they going to take the injured?' the weeping girl asked other distraught pedestrians." Hannah Allem (McClatchy Newspapers) quotess eye witness Muhannad Mahmoud: "People were screaming. A taxi driver pulled over and got out, with his face covered with black smoke. He asked me to check whether he was injured or not. One of the people told me he was hit by something really hard. He looked to see what had hit him and it was a man's arm." Richard A. Oppel Jr., Mudhafer al-Husainia and Ali Hameed (New York Times) quote survivor Ali Mustafa, "My shop collapsed on my head. There was a huge hole and a lake of blood [in the street] and burnt flesh of men and women and kids." Ali Mustafa also maintains the US military was present and caught off guard by the bombing: "They went crazy, but they tried to help people."

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a Mosul car bombing injured 14 people and a car bomb in a suburb of Mosul resulted in four people being wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left three police officers wounded and another resulted in the death of 1 police officer and another being wounded.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Monday Amnesy International issued reports on the Iraqi refugee crisis (text, photos, videos) and noted: "Iraq remains one of the most dangerous places in the world. Its refugee crisis is worsening. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, an estimated 4.7 million have been displaced both within and outside Iraq and for many the situation is desperate."

The first report is entitled Iraq: Rhetoric and Reality: The Iraqi Refugee Crisis (here for HTML and here for PDF). It notes how very "little or nothing" governments around the world have done to assist the refugee crisis (externally and internally displaced) that has reulted in at least 4.7 million people displaced. Those attempting to leave the country encounter numerous blockades and those who leave their homes and have not been able to leave the country are estimated to be 2.77 million. The blockades and obstacles in other countries mean many Iraqi refugees have to consider returning to Iraq which is still not a safe place but food and financial assistance is in short supply in the limited number of host countries an Iraqi refugee can enter. Amnesty observes:

Resettlement is a small but essential part of the response needed. Despite repeated calls for this option to be taken seriously, most states have ignored the calls and some of the most able to help have agreed only to minimal quotas. The UK, for example, a key player in the invasion that sparked the current refugee crisis, has an overall resettlement quota of 750, which includes places for Iraqis. The authorities in Chile and Brazil, however, have made positive moves in their approach to resettlement that deserve to be commended.

Iraqi widow Zahra and her family moved to Syria and she told Amnesty, "I will never return to Iraq where they killed my husband and took our house away." Amnesty notes that for all the talk of a decline in violence, the first portion of 2008 has already seen an increase from the Operation Happy Talk Wave of "violence is down!" only mere months ago. Along with violence, there is a lack of potable water in Iraq and there is lack of food (and remember that the rations program is being chipped away bit by bit by the puppet government to please the White House). Of countries taking in Iraqi refugees, Syria has "the largest Iraqi refugee population" with an estimated 1.5 million. Due to the large flow into Syria and due to al-Maliki insisting that Syria alter their visa program (remember The Myth of the Great Return?), many who previously could have gained asylum and entry to Syria are now rejected.

Today, some categories of people can obtain a visa. These include academics and their immediate families; Iraqi students enrolled in Syrian universities and other higher education institutions; children attending schools; truck and passenger drivers operating on the Baghdad-Damascus route; Iraqis who need medical treatment in Syrian hospitals, provided they have relevant official documentation; members of cultural and sporting delegations visiting or passing through Syria; and traders and business people with commercial interests needing to travel to Syria.
Families with children attending schools in Syria or with family members in need of medical treatment can apply for temporary residence permits, which must be renewed monthly and only for up to a year. Such permits allow Iraqis to obtain permission from the Syrian authorities to travel to Iraq with an option of returning to Syria within three months. With the school year nearing an end, concern is growing in the refugee community about the future of visas obtained this way.

After Syria, Jordan hosts the largest number of Iraqi refugees (450,000 to 500,000). The report notes Jordan's new restrictions. (These are also restrictions imposed by al-Maliki at the White House's insistence. All parentheticals are me and not the report.) Now for an Iraqi to be allowed to enter Jordan, they need to apply for a vise before leaving Iraq. (That would be done at Jordan's embassy. And that's outside the Green Zone in a very violent section of Baghdad.) The report notes that one plus to life in Jordan is universal education for all children. However, Iraqis in Jordan are like other refugees in that the economic opportunties are highly limited and they must live off savings.

Lebanon has the third largest number of Iraqi refugees (50,000) where they "suffered from a lack of legal status, detention and deportation, particularly in 2007. Until February 2008, Iraqi refugees in Lebanon were not given a secure legal status nor recognized as refugees by the state." Egypt has 10,000 -150,000 Iraqi refugees. Those living there do so without employment because they are not able to legally be employed, their children are not allowed to attend schools, they have no "official status" and cannot receive any social services. From the report, debunking The Great Return, we'll note:

The international community has failed to respond adequately to the Iraqi refugee crisis. Rather, governments have tended to ignore the crisis or distort reality for political reasons – for example, to try and back up claims of military "successes" or to distance themselves from the issue.
In this respect, examples of Iraqi refugees returning home have received substantial media coverage, particularly since October 2007, while little attention has been given to the limited choices available to the refugees or the dangers they might face back in Iraq.
The Iraqi authorities too have an interest in promoting an overly positive and optimistic picture of Iraq's security situation and expectations. The Syrian government's introduction of strict visa regulations in October 2007 followed a visit to Damascus by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who requested closure of the border. The request appeared to be aimed at limiting the negative press coverage spurred by the continuing mass exodus from Iraq – the most visible indicator of the continuing high level of danger and insecurity in Iraq.
Following this, the focus shifted to highlighting what were portrayed as widespread "voluntary" returns of refugees to Iraq as a sign of improved security. Amnesty International was informed by the Iraqi Embassy in Damascus that three private coaches were being used to take hundreds of people back to Iraq. The Iraqi government has strongly encouraged "voluntary" returns, particularly since the end of 2007. Such encouragement has taken the form of advertisements on state-owned television channels, asking people to tell friends and relatives to return because of the perceived decrease in violence, and an organized return convoy. There have also been official statements at the highest level, including Prime Minister al-Maliki's April 2008 speech to the European Parliament in Brussels, which called for Iraqis to return home. Figures given by the Iraqi authorities of the numbers returning continue to be much higher than those provided by other sources, including UNHCR and the Iraqi Red Crescent.

We'll return to the reports throughout this week and next.

Turning to the US presidential race, Ralph Nader notes:

Here is a counter-intuitive story for you. Why don't organized corporate interests challenge damage or risks to their clear economic interests?
Think about oil prices for big consumers, not just your pocketbook. Airlines are groaning, limiting flights, and laying off employees because of the skyrocketing price for aviation fuel. Executives in that industry say that fuel costs are close to 40 percent of the cost of flying you to your destination.
The powerful chemical industry is under pressure from the prices they're paying for petroleum-probably their main raw material.
The powerful trucking industry is beside itself with diesel fuel going to $5 per gallon.
You can add your own examples-cab companies, tourist industry, auto companies, etc.
Why aren't these very influential lobbies throwing their weight around Washington to get something done about the speculators on Wall Street determining what is paid for gasoline and related petroleum products? It is in their own economic interests.

Nader is running for president as an independent. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Today Amy Goodman interviewed him for approximately a half-hour on Democracy Now!. Earlier this week she asked someone who had not served in Iraq to tell her about his service in Iraq. This morning Goody got off another groaner:

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, you said in 2000 it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president. Do you feel that way today?

RALPH NADER: I didn't say that. I said the similarities between Bush and Gore tower over the dwindling real differences that they're willing to argue over. And, of course, my focus is not on some of the single issues. Obviously, Gore is better on Social Security, better on Medicare, better on gay, lesbian rights. Obviously in those areas, the Democrats have a much clearer position, better position, than the corporate Republicans. But in the gross area of corporate power and domination of every agency and department in our government, from the Department of Defense and Department of Labor, the Democrats are moving in the direction of the Republicans. It's quite clear in terms of their voting record. There are exceptions, like Henry Waxman and Ted Kennedy, Ed Markey. But for the most part, these parties have moved very heavily into the grip, the iron grip of corporate power, corporate money, corporate ultimatums on globalization, for example, and above all, the distortion of the federal budget in the direction of corporate contracts, subsidies, handouts, giveaways, and the swelling of this enormous, corrupt, wasteful military budget that's draining money.

We're going to repeat this reality: Candidates get the votes they win. The ones they lose go to another candidate. Goodman repeatedly used the angle that Nader's taking votes from Barack Obama. Well, if Barack would drop out of the race right now, think of all the votes Ralph could get! It's nonsense. Candidates earn your vote or they don't. They are responsible (and the media). Ava and I will address the interview Sunday at Third. Here is Nader responding to the issue of Iraq:

Six-month corporate and military withdrawal from Iraq, during which we negotiate with the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis for modest autonomy, which they worked out in the 1950s before the dictators took over. Under a unified Iraq, continue humanitarian aid, some peacekeepers from nearby Islamic countries, and UN-sponsored elections. That's the way you knock the bottom out of the insurgency. That's the way you get the authority figures, the tribal leaders and the religious leaders and others, who still have authority over millions of Iraqis, to get together, because the alternative is constant bloodshed and civil strife. So you give them a stake by using the only chip we have, which is to give back Iraq to the Iraqis, including their oil. Now that--otherwise, it's constant, constant strife.
You saw that huge explosion in Iraq, in Baghdad, yesterday. The Pentagon doesn't count Iraqi civilian tolls. They don't even count officially US injuries unless they occur right in the middle of combat. So US injuries are triple what their official figure is. And all the press, including the liberal press and the indie press, still uses that figure of some 32,000 injured soldiers, when it's triple that. I don't understand why they follow that kind of Pentagon line. So that's the way to deal with it.

iraq
iraq veterans against the war
matthis chiroux
leo shane iii
hannah allemmcclatchy newspapersthe new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.usama redhaned parkerthe los angeles times
npr

Posted at 08:28 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

he's got problems

ap reports that barack's having so many problems raising money that he and hillary will meet with donors together. that's certainly nice of hillary but it really doesn't matter.

she's not on the ticket, as patti solis dias proves, so who gives a f--k?

i'm really serious.

my husband and i won't give barack a penny. and you know elaine & c.i. won't. and considering how much they forked over 2000 and 2004 and the fact that they (elaine & c.i.) have made their feelings perfectly clear to other friends, i'm not surprised barack's struggling with big money.

what barack doesn't grasp is that he's an inteloper.

that's due to the fact that no 1 knows him and has nothing to do with his race.

it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that his parents probably weren't married (well, they weren't married - the u.s. does not allow 2 wives so if barack's parents had a ceremony, it wasn't legal because, in the u.s. bigamy's illegal).

it has nothing to do with michelle.

it has everything to do that big money knows each other, was raised with each other (unless they are 'new money' - which i am no my own but i'm married to 'old money') and barack's got the panhandlers on his side.

katty-van-van is not 'old money.' she's not even really 'money.' but her trashy family isn't going to be able to help.

they're 'show' money (from show business) and they're all living off something her grandfather did years ago. (i'd be very interested to know where katty-van-van stands publicly on copyrights and fair use and public domain since, the second she and her kindred can't rake in more dough off grandpa, they're going to have to get real jobs.)

he's got penny and elaine and c.i. know penny and will speak to her but they don't like penny. and most don't. that family's had too many scandals. (my mother-in-law will not even acknowledge penny.)

when i married in, i had to learn all the rules and, sorry, barack, you have the wrong people on your side.

you dress too snazzy for daily wear and come off 'flashy' to old money. i just thought of 1 woman who could walk him through it. but i doubt she'd bother. she is old money and will be voting democrat (because she always does) and she's astute, wise and a great social critic. but while she may vote for him, she's not going to risk her club membership by actually taking him by the hand and introducing him around.

you can have all the rejects in the world supporting you.

but you're nothing in their books.

barack was never smart enough to get an entre. the chicago political machine is thuggish and has always been considered that. so he can forget them and shouldn't count them as plusses.

oprah's new money and people grew tired of her some time ago.

there are things you do and things you don't do.

it would be easy to write it off as 'class' bias but it's really not that.

it's about how you conduct yourself.

katty-van-van's ridiculed as new money and borrowed money because she doesn't conduct herself well.

you can be as poor as can be but have outstanding manners and graces and be warmly welcomed.

barack's money backers are either involved in numerous scandals (often non-criminal but backbiting and betrayal) or else they're just thugs.

he's going to have to learn to dress down 1st off because show horses are for the tracks. (my mother-in-law will borrow that line and make it her own.)

i worked like crazy when flyboy and i were married the 1st time to always look great (i like to look good regardless) and it only bit me in the ass. c.i. took me by the hand and showed me who to wear and when to wear.

you don't flaunt, you don't parade.

doing so gets you a reputation.

you especially don't come off 'flashy' to people you are asking for money because you don't look like some 1 who budgets wisely.

and clothes aren't his only problem. abc news reports that the 'bounce' from hillary was not much of a bounce. (c.i. said the same thing sunday at 3rd, check the roundtable). barack's got no bounce and the article highlights all of his problems - all evident to any 1 paying attention during the primaries. voters don't think he has experience.

he still doesn't have 'unity' behind him. nancy pelosi, howard dean and harry reid should never have installed him. he has the same problems he always had and abc news reports he's whining that john mccain is getting better press.

ah-poor-baby.

can you believe that? the man whose press clipping file should look like gushings from teen people is whining about the press?

okay, there are problems with blogger/blogger tongiht. this is my 2nd attempt at a post. hopefully this will go up.

we're all getting 502 error and losing our posts when we go to publish but are all planning to post something tonight even though we've all lost what we're working on. (ruth didn't because she wisely called c.i. who told her to hit 'back' and immediately pull up 'manage posts'. by doing it immediately, the 1/4 a post you pull up does not go into 'auto save' knocking out what you already wrote.)

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, June 17, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, another journalist is killed in Iraq, a bombing with mass fatalities in Baghdad reminds the press the Iraq War drags on still, the US Senate examines torture, and more.

Starting with war resistance. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. The vote found all the other parties outvoting the Conservative Party. That is the party of Stephen Harper who is the country's prime minister. On Saturday, rallies took place. Mario Cootauco (Canwest News Service) reported on one in British Columbia that US war resister Rodney Watson attended. Watson explained that he didn't want to return to Iraq, "There's no need for us to be over there and I saw that first-hand. I decided I needed to get out of there. I wanted to go just to be a support. I didn't want to go kicking down doors, killing children or innocent people or getting my hands dirty or anything. I support my country, but I don't support the way we're going about it." As Cootacuo observes, "It's now up to the Conservative government to implement the decision."

Joan Wallace wrote to Nanaimo Daily News over the weekend to share her opinion:

I agree with the writer who urges our government to comply with the recent vote in the House of Commons, in which a motion passed allowing U.S. war resisters to stay in Canada.
Phone calls and e-mails from thousands of Canadians went a long way in achieving this first step to open our doors to these men and women. Some of them have been in Iraq and seen the horrors of war and cannot with conscience support it any longer. Our doors must also open to those who enlisted to serve their country, but who came to the realization later that they could not go through with their commitment to fight in an illegal war that continues to breach international and human rights law.
Thanks to the NDP for putting this motion forward and also to the other opposition parties for supporting the motion.
It is now up to us to keep this issue on the radar. We need to write to our prime minister, to our MPs, and to the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and urge them to create the legislation necessary to grant a permanent haven in Canada to all U.S. war resisters.

To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

Turning to the US. Matthis Chiroux announced May 15th that he would not deploy to Iraq. The day he was due to report was June 15th, Sunday, and he delivered a speeh explaining why he wouldn't be deploying (see yesterday's snapshot). Iraq Veterans Against the War advises:

IVAW members Matthis Chiroux and Kris Goldsmith have been pounding the pavement in Washington DC, with the help of IVAW's DC chapter, to get members of Congress to support Matthis in his refusal to deploy to Iraq. Matthis was honorably discharged from the Army in 2007 after five years of service, but he received orders in February 2008 to return to active duty from the IRR for deployment to Iraq.

On Sunday, June 15th, the day he was due to report for active duty, Matthis stood with his father and supporters in DC and reaffirmed that he is refusing his orders on the grounds that the Iraq war is illegal and unconstitutional.

How you can help:

Contact your congressional representatives and ask them to publicly support Matthis.
Contribute to IVAW's legal defense fund to help Matthis and other resisters.
Send a message of support to Sgt Matthis Chiroux at thankyoumatthis@ivaw.org.

Find out more about Matthis Chiroux.

On Democracy Now! today, Matthis explained, "OK, I was supposed to report Sunday, Father's Day. I did not. I was in Washington, D.C. with the Iraq Veterans Against the War at their chapter house. I gave a short speech on the porch of our house there, and I stood with my dad, and I kept my promise to the military, I kept my promise to my country, to refuse an illegal order to participate in an unlawful occupation. . . . Well, right now it's turned into a bit of a waiting game, as far as the military goes. You know, I made my intentions clear, and then I followed through on them, and I'm waiting to hear from the military. There's no real way I can know what consequences to face here. You know, many, many members of the Individual Ready Reserve, about 15,000 of them, have been called up since the beginning of this occupation of Iraq, and only 7,500 of them have reported. So there's about half there that's unaccounted for. And many of those individuals have been ignored by the military, as they should be. It is an illegal order to call up and deploy to Iraq. Others have been charged with desertion. So, during a time of war, actually, desertion can be punishable by death. So, you know, my spectrum of consequence is in the situation range literally anywhere from nothing to death. So I will wait faithfully in the United States, as I promised to do, to see how the military will react."

Turning to Iraq, where the Times of London reports, "The most deadly Baghdad attack since March ripped through a crowded market today killing at least 51 people in the Iraqi capital." BBC notes, "The bomba appeared to have been timed to go off during the early evening rush hour, when the bus stop was crowded with waiting passengers." The toll for the wounded is currently seventy-five. Both figures may rise. Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Ali Hamid (New York Times) declare, "Survivors and relatives of the victims in the Tuesday blast were enraged and on edge. One man lost 11 relatives, including five female cousins. At a courtyard in front of the Kadhimiya Hospital morgue, people screamed, wept and shrieked. Some cursed the government for allowing the blast to happen while others called on God for revenge. People fleeing the balst site who were interviewed by a New York Times reporter at a cordon set up around the scene of the attack said there had been two boms, not the single explosion that Iraqi officials described." Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) informs, "Many victims were trapped in their apartments by a raging fire that engulfed at least one building, according to police and Interior Ministry officials".

Turning to some other reported violence today . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad motorcyle bombing that claimed the lives of 4 "Awakening" Council members and left two other peoplw ounded, a Bahgdad roadside bombing that wounded one police officer "and three civilians" and another Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in one person being wounded a Diyala Province car bombing wounded eighteen people.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad armed attack on "two employees of the prime minister's office" resulting in the death of 1 employee and the other being wounded. Bushra Juhi (AP) reports that Muhieddin Abdul-Hamid, an Iraqi TV reporter/anchor, has been shot dead in Mosul. Al Dulaimy explains the journalist was "a newscaster at a local station called Nineveh Television". Reporters Without Borders explains that he is the 216th journalist killed in Iraq (they divide up the category, here we just count all working on news as journalists because they're all doing more than one job) and they quote Samir Slouki explaining that threats had come in on on Al-Nakib. Reporters Without Borders states, "The journalist was ambushed in front of his home, an attack which bears the hallmarks of a number of armed groups that are the scourge of the press in Iraq. Even without any claim of responsibility, it is highly likely that the journalist was targeted because he worked for a state media. We urge the government of Nuri al-Maliki to open an investigation into who was responsible and to bring them to trial. The impunity that has prevailed in the country for more than five years only encourages the killers of journalists to continue their evil work." Reuters notes 1 "municipal worker" shot dead in Tuz Khurmato while a Mosul home invasion resulted in 1 woman being shot dead and another Mosul shooting resulted in 1 police officer being shot dead..

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 people were kidnapped in Kut by unnamed assailants who then set the kidnapped victims vehicles ablaze luring the police to the scene but a roadside bombing claimed the life of Col Ali Mohammed and left six other police officers wounded.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad

"It never entered my mind." "I had no knowledge of it." Either statement pretty much sums up the stonewalling the US Senate Armed Services Committee received today. The first statement was made by Retired Lt. Col Daniel J. Bumgartner Jr. and the second was by the DoD's former Deputy General Counsel for Intelligence Richard L. Shiffrin. They and the laughable "Dr." Jerald Ogrisseg ("Former Chief, Psychology Services" for the Air Force) made a mockery not only of the US Congress but also of humanity. Helping with that were Senators Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham. That said, there weren't a lot on the committee doing anything to take pride in.

SERE stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. The lie is that the military and psychologists -- some with the military, some brought in -- are doing something good. No, they're not. And several times during the first panel today, someone would almost reach that line before rushing away from it. The SERE program tried waterboarding on US service members. Why?

That's the question that no one wanted to ask. The implied reason is that SERE is attempting to study . . . What? You can have sat through the entire hearing and you never got an answer. You got lies. You heard talk of "survival" and "resistance." Gee, POWs can -- and historically -- have been shot. Does that mean the US needs to begin shooting service members for a study?

The big OH-NO! in the hearing was how SERE had mission creep. And that is appalling. But it crept from somewhere. It never should have been a program. No one, not even the chair Carl Levin, wanted to question SERE. SERE would not be acceptable in any civilian setting. The 'tests' being done -- such as water boarding -- would result in legal charges if implemented in a civilian setting. With the government and the military behind it, they are doing tests that are brutal. In the hearings, Richard L. Shiffrin and Jerald F. Ogrisseg tried to minimize what was going on and referred to . . . What they wanted to say was "safe word". They backed off because "safe word" will remind most people of S&M. And that's really what this is. Non-consensual S&M which is also known as torture.

You heard a great deal in the hearing from well meaning Senators where they decried what was done in Guantanamo or Iraq. But everyone needs to grow up enough to grasp that what SERE is doing -- and has done -- is not science anymore than Nazi Germany's 'experiments' were science. (I'm not referring to concentration camps in the Nazi illustration. I'm referring to the very well known torture techniques.) Shiffrin played with himself (scratching his chest, his left nipple) and smirked throughout. To Levin he would insist that things like "good cop/bad cop" have "been around for years." We're not talking a lawful interrogation; however. We're not talking about a one interrogator plays the nice one and the other the menacing. What SERE does is devise "bad cop" techniques and punishments. Until that's addressed, don't expect to see any real changes in the US.

Jerald Ogrisseg would use strange words for an alleged pshychologist. He would refer to his group as "the good guys" and he would float al Qaeda to try to spin the minds. For the record, al Qaeda didn't run the SERE program.

Senator Claire McCaskill would bring up the issue of "immunity in advance" annd wonder "what planet are we on? There is no such thing as immunity in advance?" Shiffrin found that so amusing, he not only chuckled, he played with his left nipple repeatedly. Despite, like McCaskill, having been a prosecutor, he attempted to dance around the issue forever. But, no, immunity in advance -- the White House policy -- has no known legal standing and goes against the rule of law as McCaskill pointed out. Shiffrin just wanted to be vauge (and to touch himself). McCaskill would ask for "the names of people" and point out -- as did other senators -- that they were looking for accountability and responsibility: then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, president of vice Dick Cheney, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, then-Homeland Security chief Michael Cherton. Others? "There are still people involved at the periphery of this that are in positions of responsiblity in today's government, so our frustration is that we would like to hold someone responsible, and i's like trying to catch shadows here," McCaskill noted. When pressed, Shiffrin defocused and tried to dance away. "Could you give me the names of other lawyers that were there when you were given the impression . . . besides, Jim [William] Haynes, who was in the room?" He finally moved away from "a number of people" to Charles Allen. He actually named others but he stated Allen was "in some of these meetings" plural which took the conditional "I believe" off the statement. McCaskill asked him about a meeting with Haynes and Shiffrin responded he would need a date.

Shiffrin: "If you me the day of -- of course I met with Mr. Haynes every day.

McCaskill: November 27, 2002.

Shiffring: I don't have a recollection.

"I think you're probably a really good lawyer and probably care deeply about your country," McCaskill told him but "we're trying to figure out here who decided that we're going to go ddown this road and when did it get decided?"

In the third 'panel' -- which consisted solely of William Haynes (fromer general counsel to the DoD), McCaskill pointed out that as senior lawyer William Haynes was over those under him. She noted the questions coming into him, "You had received the information from various lawyers . . . asking legal questions about these techniques?" ("This is again six years ago, so my memory is not perfect," was his nonsense reply.) The point McCaskill was making was the he was in charge of all legal issues for the Defense Department and (my point) he didn't do his job no matter how often he said "I take my, and I took my, responsibilities very seriously" (which he said later to Senator Jack Reed). McCaskill's point was that, reviewing all the documents available, she found no legal opinion other than Lt Col Beaver. She asked, "You have said the you relied on the legal advise of Lt. Col Beaver, is that correct?" He agreed it was and she pointed to the one page memo he wrote (that he would brag he typed himself during his exchange with McCaskill) which cites no legal precedent, doesn't cite Geneva, the US Constitution, any legal opinions. He tried to weasel out, he tried to cut off McCaskill. She would interrupt him with, "Wait, wait, there was no legal opinion in that package other than her [Beaver] legal opinon. Was there any other legal opinion that you relied on . . . written legal opinion that you relied on other than Lt Col Beavers' opinion?" He attempted to weasel out of that but, as McCaskill pointed out, no one he was naming was a lawyer. McCaskill's point was that this was a huge shift in the law (to put it mildly) and the Defense Department's chief lawyer created and/or waived through a policy (with questionable legal basis -- to put it mildly) and did so without any effort to create a legal opinion of his own. He would tell Reed he did an "analysis" but any attorney attempting to justifying billing by providing that one page memo would be laughed at. To Reed he would insist that the US Constition didn't apply nor did Geneva. Where is that analysis in writing? With Reed, he would finally admit, "I didn't write a memorandum to that effect." Reed would ask, "Did you write any memorandum?" Referring to the one page memo, Haynes would point to "that memorandum you have in front of you." The issue is did he blow off responsibilities or are there additional documents that have not been provided to the Congress.

Lt Col Diane Beaver participated in the second panel and told the Senate that she didn't believe the opinion she prepared "would become the final word. I did not expect to be the only lawyer to write an opinion on this monumentally important decision." Nor should she have expected that. Her argument should have been explored further up the line by people higher than her including Haynes. Reed would ask about these conditions placed on the torture techniques that Haynes referred to. Haynes stated everyone knew them, that it was obvious. Reed flipped a mountain of pages and noted that there were no conditions in them and asked Haynes to discuss the conditions which a testy Haynes refused. If they were so readily apparent to all involved, Reed would wonder, why was it that Haynes couldn't list them? In response, Haynes attempted to suggest Reed's comments were insulting to the US military to which Reed responded, "Don't you go around with this attitude that you protect the integrity of the military, you degrade the integrity of the military."

An out of control administration with no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law stained the reputation of the United States at home and abroad. The US government has been utilizing torture and the White House worked to create a fake legal basis for it. There was none. Those involved need to be held accountable but the Senate has accepted the idea that SERE isn't the problem. SERE is the problem. Without SERE, it wouldn't have happened. SERE argues it is defensive (it's trying to find out how to protect people from torture or prepare them for it -- reality, there is no prep and there is no protection if someone's captured). The committee wants to act shocked that a defensive research program would be used for offensive (illegal) actions. There's no shock there. It just took one out of control administration and SERE is as much an issue as is the White House. Repeatedly the first panel would say they never could have guessed (did Condi coach them?) that their work would be used for offensive actions. Reed would ask if it ever entered thier minds "when you were sending this information over to the General Counsel office why they needed it?" No. Never. They did their jobs, they insisted. And, in a way, they're right. But those jobs should never have existed. Experiments on humans that involve torture are not 'medical' and are not needed. McCaskill made the point that lawyers know about interrogations and know what works. She's right. And the medical field is not about creating harm to figure out how much a human being can hold up to. Again, those type of experiments took place in Nazi Germany, they are not supposed to take place in the United States. Punishing those responsible for implementing torture needs to take place but allowing SERE to continue just means someone else will come along at some point who will do the same as the current occupant of the White House. Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported this morning that today's hearing was expected to undersorce "that the use of the aggressive techniques was planned at the top levels of the Bush administration and were not the work of out-of-control, lower-ranking troops" and that the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency was "asked . . . for help devising the techniques." If SERE had not existed, it couldn't have been utilized.

Turning to the US race for president. Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader will be on Democracy Now! tomorrow. Today Team Nader notes:

You've asked for it.

Now, you've got it.

More videos.

Here's a brand new one featuring Ralph with Patti Smith singing "Awake from Your Slumber."

Here's one of Ralph shooting hoops.

Here's one of Ralph responding to someone who told him "Don't Run."

Here's one of Ralph in Googleland being interviewed by the staff at Youtube.

And here's one of Ralph outside the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, Maine urging the impeachment of Bush.

As a result of these and other videos, Ralph's probably the hottest politician - along with McCain and Obama - on the Internet.

Check out all of our campaign videos at the Nader/Gonzalez Youtube video page.

Now, we need your help to spread these videos far and wide.

Forward them to your friends and family to strike up that discussion you've been meaning to have.

Rate the videos, add your comments, and give the thumbs-up to other good comments.

Also, we need your help to put together a team of people to help push our Youtube videos, to help build our social networking sites, and to get as many people as possible to learn about the Nader/Gonzalez platform.

So, if you have some experience and are interested in helping do online activism for the campaign, please contact jacob@votenader.org now.

Together, we are making a difference.

iraq
iraq veterans against the war
matthis chiroux

rodney watson
mario cootauco

richard a. oppel jr.
the new york times

mcclatchy newspapers

Posted at 08:24 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 17, 2008

nader, isaiah and more

let's start out withIsaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing"

hilarious!

now let's get serious to note a serious campaign. this is team nader's 'Will Obama Let Big Corporations Buy the Democratic Convention?' and this is different than what c.i. notes in the snapshot:

For most thoughtful observers, John McCain's pretensions to independence from corporate power dissolved in the face of his initial decision to stock his campaign from stem to stern with lobbyists.
Yet Obama's pledge to refuse special interest money and his ability to raise vast amounts from small contributors have led many to overlook the fact that his seed money of several million dollars came from Wall Street.
But Obama is now head of the Democratic Party, and the Democrats convention in Denver is inviting corporate donors to become "sponsors" of the convention, promising executives a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to rub shoulders with Democratic senators, members of Congress, and governors. According to The New York Times of June 7, donors who give $1 million or more are given access to all hospitality suites and private events, providing what one public interest group called, "special access to federal elected officials [and] national party leaders."
Perhaps fearing that some corporate officials might be as dense as the proverbial piano player at the whorehouse who claimed not to know what was going on upstairs, a brochure from the host committee proclaims that "this is a rare opportunity to play a leadership role in a substantive discussion on timely issues affecting your industry with . . . elected officials and members of the media."
We of the Nader Campaign invite Obama to throw open the doors of the convention, tip over the tables, and drive the money changers from the temple. We invite him to toss out the corporations and invite in the people, proclaiming a new Democratic Party, one in which the people will be the masters, and the corporations our servants.
And if nothing of the sort happens, we invite fellow progressives to come to the appropriate conclusion.

help me out on when big money became something to be thrilled about in a campaign? i seem to recall katty-van-van and a host of others mounting their high horses about money buying elections and the need for election reform.

these days, those 'progressive' leaders don't give a damn. it's all about barack. betray any belief, sell out any idea, that's the 'progressive' mantra of 2008.

if any of them had any self-respect, they'd be endorsing barack publicly. instead they go with the counter-insurgency supporting, never-going-to-get-the-u.s.-out-of-iraq, best friend of wall street barack.

you either stand by your beliefs or you don't. you can't bore every 1 with a lot of platitudes in off-election years and then say, 'oh come on, suck it up, vote democrat!'

that's nonsense. if that's the way katty-van-van is, the nation magazine should be asking the dnc to write their editorials. if nothing else, they'd be better written than what katty and the gang can come up with.

in 2004, when ralph declared his run for presidency, people shut him out. people told him not to run. it was disgusting.

people need to stand for something.

instead a lot of his 'name' supporters got cowed. michael moore, where are you?

or for that matter susan sarandon.

sarandon's let herself be cowed.

it's funny because i knew sarandon when she was trying to go from atlantic city (many years after) to something other than the hunger. and all she'd do was bore people with conversations about how she wanted to be political and tell the same damn story over and over. 'my manager said it was okay to be political. then he said "well you're not going to be like jane fonda are you?"'
she told that story over and over. i didn't represent her but i was representing a clinet at the time who was also doing a junket and i would tell him every time, 'they're all bored with that damn story. she's told it for years, she trots it out over and over. no 1 gives a damn about that story. the best thing you can do is be interviewed after she's bored them yet again with that dumb story.'

but there's susan. former nader supporter. prostituting herself for barack who is not ending the illegal war. not promising to either. we cover his cnn's statements in 'Editorial: Nader's a real candidate with real stands.' (i should note my feelings about sarandon are my own. i am not speaking for c.i. c.i. sees good in people i wouldn't give the time of day too. susan sarandon is 1 of those i would never give the time of day to. she's always struck me as a fake. when she was 'hot' in the 90s she was portrayed - and portraying herself - as a trailblazer and she wasn't doing anything that jane fonda hadn't done in the late 70s and early 80s at the same age sarandon was then. she hit the same wall fonda did. that's why she really doesn't have hit films anymore. that and people are sick of her 1st lady of film portrayals. when steam brings you to the top - atlantic city & bull durham - you don't move over to play marmie in little women unless you're trying to kill your career.)

ava amd c.i. wrote another amazing piece sunday, 'TV: Strength greeted with confusion, attacks & silence' and i want to highlight this from today's snapshot (snapshot will be posted below in full):

Sunday, Ava and I noted the attacks, 'confusion' and silences regarding Katie Couric's commentary calling out sexism in the media. And we linked to Betty's astute critique of how Ms. magazine might want to try thinking before leaping just became Barack wants them to. Betty did a wonderful job explaining how the slang terminology had changed in the last two years. But Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) catches another point: Michelle Obama on video calling Barack her "baby's daddy." Will Ms. rush to call out Michelle? Will they insist that Michelle's implying she and her husband are not married? Ms. has been pretty pathetic of late so anything they might do next would not be a surprise.

so if you missed it, on friday ms. magazine disgraced itself yet again. they were screaming that 'baby's mama' was sexist and it was so disrespectful to michelle obama because it was about an unmarried mother. by 2006, the word had morphed and no longer had to mean an unmarried mother. betty called that crap out. delilah boyd posted a video of michelle calling barack her 'babby's daddy.' will ms. magazine leap into action with a 'that's sexism! and racism!' post again?

ms. is pathetic. it really is. it didn't do s**t when hillary was attacked daily, when it was 1 non-stop sexist attack after another. the magazine takes its marching orders from the barack obama campaign.

i need to steer you to 1 more thing. at third we wrote 'Where are the demands? Where is the knowledge?' and what i really want to note here is this is part of a continuing series on war resisters that we will be doing where we recover the forgotten history. i wish i could tell you i help uncover but i don't. we just pick c.i. & elaine's memories. yes, i was around back them with them. but i have the worst memory and college was so long ago.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, June 16, 2008. Chaos and violence continue

Yesterday Matthis Chiroux spoke in DC. His father, who traveled from Huntsville, Alabama, and four members of Iraq Veterans Against the War stood with him as he explained why he was not deploying to Iraq.

Sgt. Matthis Chiroux: Good afternoon. We gather here this Father's Day on a very somber note. The American occupation of Iraq -- an illegal, immoral war which is ripping this nation apart as well causing an immeasurable harm to the Iraqi people and the people of the world alike. We gather in the remembrance of the sacrifice of many whose fathers weep on this joyous day for they know their own flesh and blood has been torn and siphoned from them for what we collectively hope will be this last blunder of American military might. We gather here and hope that our fathers will forgive us for the wrongs we have perpetrated on our bodies, hearts and minds alike in this cruel decade of disaster which stems from the very city in which we stand.
This father's day, we gather here to calm the vicious and vengeful alike. The first day I came to Washington, D.C. was less than one month before I shipped out to basic training. I was so moved by this country and its history that it reinvigorated my belief in the righteousness of what I was doing: Joining the army not only in search of personal progress but to participate in the efforts to bring justice to the individuals responsible for 9-11.
I remember standing at the base of the Washington Monument and watching the fireworks explode in the sky that Fourth of July and wondering how it was that we could have come under attack on American soil and believing firmly that I would be participatingin dealing justice for September 11th.
I remember standing before the Lincoln Memorial and feeling the presence of not just the former president and emancipator but of Martin Luther King and his dream for a brighter and more united future for the children of this nation.
That young me could not have known where he'd be standing almost six years later and what he would be saying this Father's Day. I am Sgt. Matthis Chiroux and tonight at midnight I may face further action from the army for refusing to reactive to participate in the Iraq occupation.
This fact hangs heavy on my heart as I look back at my five years of service in uniform. But I understand that what I am doing is in keeping with the values I shared with my friends-in-arms while we wondered if things could really get any worse?
Today I stand in resistance to the occupation of Iraq because I believe in our nation, its military and her people. I resist because I swore an oath to this nation that I would not allow it to fall into decay when I may be serving on the side of right. And my country is in decay and in these times of crisis Thomas Paine once said, "The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will flee from service to our country."
I stand here today as a Winter Soldier. To serve our nation, its military and its people in this dark time of confusion and corruption.
I stand here to make it known that my duty as a soldier is first to the higher ideals and guiding principles of this country which our leaders have failed to uphold.
I stand here today in defense of the US Constitution which has known no greater enemy, foreign or domestic, than those highest in this land who are sworn to be governed by its word.
I stand here today in defense of those who have been stripped of their voices in this occupation for the warriors of this nation have been silenced to the people who need to start listening.
We are here to honor the memory of our fathers who more than two centuries ago brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, as Abraham Lincoln once noted.
We are here to honor the struggle of our fathers and their fathers and their fathers before them to build this nation and bring it together -- through slavery and poverty, to sexism and racism, through materialism and imperialism. They built this nation and struggled to keep it alive as we've blundered and learned and blundered again. We owe it to our fathers to stand for this nation now when a dark cloud has descended upon it in the form of an administration who is stealing the lives of us all to wage an illegal war -- conceived in lies and birthed [born] of manipulation.
As a soldier I was told it was not my place to question the orders of those appointed above me. I had that lie trained into me from my first day of basic training to my last day of active duty. But I have learned the truth, the truth that the occupation of Iraq is inherently illegal and that it is my duty as a soldier to refuse illegal orders to reactivate and deploy in support of it.
I have learned that in these times of crisis one must look deep into their own values to know the path that they must walk. I have learned that feeling and thinking and speaking and acting and keeping with courage and honesty in preservation of a righteous cause is blessed and may give a person strength to utter truths that may calm the vicious and the vengeful alike.
I believe that this nation and this military may come to know the same truth: That the rule of law has been forsaken and we must return to it or be doomed to continue disaster. I believe in the goodness of the American people and I believe that justice is not dead because we as a people believe that it is our responsibility to resist the injustices done by our government in our names. We know this truth to be self-evident that our nation can unite to oppose an illegal occupation which is killing and scarring and shattering the lives of our youth and the Iraqi people.
On this Fathers Day, know, America, that your children need you. We need you to care for us and to care for our country which we will inherit when you are finished with her. We need you to end this occupation of Iraq which has destroyed a country and scattered its people to the wind like ashes in the tempest -- a tempest that has engulfed the nation of Iraq and scrubbed any sign of peace and prosperity from the surface of a civilization older than even history itself.
Fathers, we need you to care for your children and the children of Iraq for they know not why you fight and carry no fault in the conflict.
Fathers, your sons and daughters need you now to embrace peace for though we were attacked, we have dealt in retaliation that same suffering one-thousand times over to a people who never wronged us. The nation will know little healing until first we stem off the flow of blood and human life for justice and healing will never be done by a blade or a bullet or a bomb or a torture cell.
By continuing to participate in the unjust occupation of Iraq, we, as service members, are contributing to that flow of human life and we cannot now -- nor could we ever -- call the Iraqi people an enemy in the fight against the use of terror. But terror is all we now know. We are terrified of the prospect that we have been lied to. We are terrified by the idea that we have killed for nothing. We are terrified to break the silence. We are terrified to do what we know is right.
But never again will I allow terror to silence me. Nor will I allow it to govern my actions. I refuse terror as a tactic for uniting a people around an unjust cause. I refuse to allow terror to motivate me to do violence on my fellow man especially those who never wronged me in the first place. I refuse to be terrified to stand in defense of my Constitution. And I refuse to be terrified of doing so in great adversity.
As a resister to the Iraq Occupation, I refuse to be terrified by what may come for I know those who stand against me are in terror of the truth. But I will speak my truth, and I will stand by it firmly and forever will my soul know peace. Thank you.

Matthis Chiroux announced May 15th that he would not deploy to Iraq and yesterday was the day of deployment. At the start of this month, Matthis Chiroux appeared on The Scott Horton Show (audio link) and pointed out that recalling people in IRR back into the service really isn't allowed outside of declared wars and the US Congress never declared war on Iraq. He explained that encountering members of IVAW was when he began to see that service members have a right and duty to speak out. He also discussed how, following his discharge, he moved to NYC and had let his hair grow out ("about five inches") when he was informed that, discharge or not, he was being pulled back on. With Courage to Resist (audio link), Matthis discussed going into a deep depression when he first learned his discharge meant nothing and he was being deployed to Iraq. But "in mid-Marth I went to a peace event in Brooklyn" and encountered members of IVAW. He singeled out IVAW's Selena Coppa as someone who especially stood out. Matthis was not the only one to recently refuse to deploy. Courage to Resist notes that 5:00 a.m. last Friday was when Jose Crespo was due to report to be deployed to Iraq but that Jose informed the military this was a "could not" do that due to family obligations ("serious health crisis").

In Canada, war resisters are pressuring the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote. We're at a maximum on "K" (size of the e-mail) so this topic is being pulled and will be picked up tomorrow. In the meantime, to keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

In Iraq, confuse continued over the weekend regarding the treaty the White House wants. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported on Saturday that Moqtada al-Sadr's call for protests every Friday against the treaty were met in Karbala (and the photo run with the article demonstrated the protests continued in Baghdad as well) and that US officials were stating that the impasse was not a problem. Leila Fadel and Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, was making his displeasure well known and they quoted him stating: "Iraq has another option that it may use. The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil." CNN reported Bully Boy blustering in Paris Saturday that, "If I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis." Alissa J. Rubin and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) report today that members of the Iraqi Parliament are stating that it "will be very difficult" for a treaty to be finalized prior to July 31st and the reporters note: "The overarching question is how much control Iraq will have over the activities of the American military on Iraqi soil."

Returning to al-Sadr. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) noted the possible October elections and that al-Sadr's "latest approach appears to be an effort to ensure that he gets some representation in provincial governments. But by not running candidates directly under the Sadr banner, he may hope to avoid blame for a poor showing." Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) offers today, "Aides to anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said Sunday that although his movment will not field an official slate of Sadrist candidates in upcoming elections, it could support individual Sadrists running for office." It could also be that with threats to ban anyone from the list that's connected to a militia, al-Sadr could be creating a division within his movement (a clear one, those carrying firearms are supposed to have his written permission) that would allow his bloc to run for office. A point Dean Yates (Reuters) makes as well: "That could allow the Sadrist bloc to skirt a draft election law that bans any party with a militia from competing and possibly avoid a row with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over the issue. Maliki, himself a Shi'ite, has threatened to bar the movement from political life unless it disbanded the Mehdi Army." No one knows al-Sadr's reasonsings. "[A] day after Mr. Sadr announced that he was reorganizing his movement," Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) pointed out, al-Maliki ordered troops into Amara -- "a power base of" al-Sadr's. Ned Parker and Raheen Salman (Los Angeles Times) offer the backstory -- no participation in the 2005 elections, the assault on Basra "widely interpreted as a move against Sadr". Aref Mohammed (Reuters) reports al-Maliki is telling Amara residents that have until Wednesday to surrender all firearms and weapons (or?) and that al-Sadr's has order the Medhi Army to stand-down.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad bombings within 15 minutes of each other with the first claimeing the life of 1 Iraqi service member and leaving three more wounded as well as wounding five college students while the second explosion resulted in four college students being wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack that left four people wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that wounded one person, a Mosul home bombing that claimed the life of 1 child and left two people wounded -- this was one in a series of bombings in Mosul, four in all, aimed at various houses in Mosul today, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that wounded one person and a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 3 "Awakening" Council members and left another wounded.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 2 college students were shot dead at Mosul University by "Iraqi security forces" for the 'crime' of resisting arrest.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Turning to US political races. First up, LeftTurn is delinked. Repeating a LIE isn't journalism. Repeating a debunked LIE goes beyond shoddy. We're not in the mood for it. When it's June and you're repeating a lie debunked at the start of March, you're just pathetic. So is attacking someone because of your own shoddy system for comments but that's what happened to LavenderLiberal. No link to the trash attack, but here's LavenderlLiberal explaining why Obama is a "no" vote: "Really, to hell with it. Vote for the senior-disdaining, homophobic, DLC-beholden global corporatist with no experience, and lose the next three or four terms to the GOP. I just don't care anymore. As the Obamaniacs themselves keep telling me, there's no room for me in their mythical 'big tent.' I believe them."

In the real world, as opposed to Panhandle Media's Pravda for Obama, Naomi Klein (link goes to ICH) points out, "Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBNC, 'Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market'." Klein goes on to point out that show-boating Barack who stated he wouldn't shop at Wal-Mart has Jason Furman heading his economic team. Meanwhile, John Pilger (New Statesman) observes, "The nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, 'marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history', is a product of the new delusion. . . It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionsit. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The 'truly exciting and historic moment in US history' will only occur when the game itself is challenged." Pilger's article can also be found at Dissident Voice.

Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent candidate. West Virginia's Charleston Daily Mail includes this observation: "If you are as angry as I am that our vote did not count and the delegates chose our presidential candidat, vote independent. Vote for Ralph Nader. He makes more sense than Obama." Joel S. Hirschhorn (Swans Commentary) outlines reasons to support Nader: "In so many ways Ralph Nader deserves to be president of the U.S. more than any Republican or Democratic candidate. For anyone that understands the need to overturn the two-party plutocracy and the corporate money that supports both major parties, Nader is the only credible candidate. He is also the most honest one and the only one that has the best interests of ordinary Americans as his highest priority." Meanwhile Dave G. (Digital Journal) reports that anti-Iraq War candidate Ron Paul dropping out of the GOP race for the presidential nomination -- no, the media didn't rip into him to drop out the way they did Hillary but note the "him" -- has Nader and Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr competing for Paul's supporters. Paul Bedard (US News & World Reports) speaks with Chris Driscoll of the Nader campaign who explains that they're hoping to be included in the presidential debates this fall and Bedard notes Jesse Ventura's victory in Minnesota last decade, "He startd with little support in the polls, got invited to the Minnesota gubernatorial debates, and eventually won after people got a chance to compare him with his foes." Noting Nader's ballot access in Colorado, Joe Hanel (Cortez Journal Online) speaks with Jenny Przekwas whos is spearheading the campaign's Colorado work and explains, "We're concerned with voting our conscience and voting for a candidate that best represents our views."

Team Nader notes:

Obama and the Democrats are raking it in from the big corporations.

Big corporate executives, for some reason, like Obama and the Democrats, but do not like Nader/Gonzalez.

Therefore, we must rely on you - our loyal supporters.

After securing the nomination, Obama immediately ripped into absentee black fathers, while kowtowing to the right-wing AIPAC lobby.

What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong is that Obama is moving right.

He's got the corporate money, the powerful lobbies, and big business in his corner.

And he's not looking back.

But we have to make sure Obama knows that we are organizing.

And will be relentless in pursuit of justice throughout the year.

Obama might have the corporate executives and big law firms in his corner.

But we have you.

And with your help, Nader/Gonzalez will be on ten state ballots by the end of the month.

And forty by the end of the summer.

So once again, thank you for your generous and ongoing donations to our campaign.

Together, we are making a difference.

Sunday, Ava and I noted the attacks, 'confusion' and silences regarding Katie Couric's commentary calling out sexism in the media. And we linked to Betty's astute critique of how Ms. magazine might want to try thinking before leaping just became Barack wants them to. Betty did a wonderful job explaining how the slang terminology had changed in the last two years. But Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) catches another point: Michelle Obama on video calling Barack her "baby's daddy." Will Ms. rush to call out Michelle? Will they insist that Michelle's implying she and her husband are not married? Ms. has been pretty pathetic of late so anything they might do next would not be a surprise.

iraq

iraq veterans against the war
matthis chiroux

scott horton

the washington post
amit r. paley
the los angeles times
ned parker
raheem salman
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
suadad al-salhy

mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
mike tharp

thomas friedman is a great man

Posted at 07:28 am by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 13, 2008

the rollercoaster

doesn't it seem like the roller coaster never ends?

last weekend, hillary was giving the great speech that still left me sad. that was saturday.

it seems so very long ago.

we live in exciting times.

to bad it's bad excitement.

sunday you've got a veteran, matthis chiroux ordered to deploy to iraq and saying that he will not. he's taking a brave stand and the military's ready to prosecute him. he already finished his service contract, was discharged honorably and now they want to send him to iraq.

july 10th, canada's saying that corey glass will be deported if he hasn't already left the country. he would be the 1st u.s. war resister to be deported.
and then there's lt. Ehren Watada who finished his contract in december of 2006 but the military refuses to discharge him even after they screwed up their court-martial of him.

that's just some of what's going on in the world of war resistance.

and if you thought war resisters just weren't getting attention from crap ass 'independent' media because they were so determined to destroy hillary and install barack, uh, what's their excuse now?

where are they? doing nothing.

as always.

in other news, next week, same-sex couples can finally get married ... in california. but 2 counties are so offended by the idea of marrying 2 people who are actually in love that they've decided to stop issuing marriage licenses all together. they are kern county and butte county. the san francisco business news has the best story on that nonsense response:

"The idea that they don't have the resources is absurd," Newsom said. "It's ridiculous -- raise your fees to cover your costs and get volunteers."
He urged officials in the two counties to "be more honest and say we can't stand the idea of gay people getting married so we're going to break the law."
Newsom also quipped that he doesn't anticipate an onslaught of gay nuptials in Butte County.
"How many gay couples are going into Butte County to get married?" he asked.

gavin newsom is hot. and he's got a sense of humor.

and along with efforts to deny american citizens equal rights due to sexual orientation, we had rampant sexism called out by katie couric and a media that didn't want to discuss it. hats off to katie. t and i were talking on the phone yesterday about it and noting how there was no 'up' for katie in this. she knew she'd be slammed. she spoke up because some 1 had to and i am very grateful she did. that took courage. we don't see a lot of courage these days.

sexist republican and kooky 'religion' member arianna naturally provides 'equal time' to let a sexist respond that his calling hillary's voice 'shrill' wasn't sexist.

what would the world do without the socialite's cat litter box?

isn't it time progressives stopped considering arianna progressive?

what's the life lesson there?

position yourself as a right-wing crazy and then become a crazy for the other side when you can't hack it on the right anymore?

or maybe it's marry a gay man and grab half the money?

arianna, my 1st husband was gay. when i grasped that, we divorced. we are still friends and i've never told him he can't talk about me.

i also didn't stay married to him after i knew. or use gay porn videos to get him aroused so we could have a child.

your life's pretty pathetic only because you refuse to discuss it.

but i really don't think there's a life lesson in your example.

i really don't think you have anything to offer.

except cloaking hate in an accent and dubbing it 'progressive.'

jossip gets it right. and c.i.'s hitting the roof. ms. magazine has apparently done something even worse than before. (a friend at ms. is on the phone with c.i.). here's jossip:

Let’s not kid ourselves: As a whole, the mainstream media was biased against Clinton’s womanhood, whether they’ll own it or not. Perhaps they didn’t go out of their way to make stereotypical references when covering her campaign, but the most egregious moments in front of the camera – Chris Matthews calling her a “she-devil” – were only evidence of the underlying slant against her. Pundits, as they so often do, will hide behind the excuse that they don’t feel this way; they’re just communicating some of America’s sentiments about the candidate. And this is a farce. We would know: It’s the same line of reasoning Jossip uses daily. What better means to voice your true feelings about something than by claiming to be a voice of the under-represented? We’d love to call it a nasty little secret, but it’s not — secret, that is.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, June 13, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, SOFA talks break off (or do they?), Laura Bush sees a mending, al-Sadr issues instructions to resistance fighters, and more.

Starting with war resistance. As Dusti Fansler (Wellington Daily News) explains, "Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam War, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year." Sunday Matthis Chiroux is order to deploy to Iraq. This despite the fact that he was discharged and is in the IRR.

Chiroux made his decision public May 15th and Iraq Veterans Against the War carried his statements (text, video):

Good afternoon. My name is Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, and I served in the Army as a Photojournalist until being honorable discharged last summer after over four years of service in Afghanistan, Japan, Europe and the Phillipines. As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter servicemember's stories, I heard many stomach-churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand. In February, I received a letter from the Army ordering my return to active duty, for the purpose of mobilization for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thanks in great part to the truths of war being fearlessly spoken by my fellow IVAW members, I stand before you today with the strength, clarity and resolve to declare to the military and the world that this Soldier will not be deploying to Iraq. This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes. Furthermore, deployment in support of illegal war violates all of my core values as a human being, but in keeping with those values, I choose to remain in the United States to defend myself from charges brought by the Army if they so wish to pursue them. I refuse to participate in the occupation of Iraq.

Courage to Resist has posted an interview with him (audio only). At the end of last month, California's New University weighed in on the issue, "Whether you have signed up for the military, are currently enlisted, are open to the idea or are violently opposed to serving, what remains clear is that if you are tapped to serve in Iraq, just don't go. First, the conflict has proven to be aimless, as little has gone smoothly since the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. Second, because so many individuals are already unwilling to serve in Iraq, the U.S. army is ready to send just about anyone, whether they are prepared or not. Lastly, make no mistake that Iraq is a war zone. Despite the invasion being invalid, this illegal war can have the same effect on its soldiers as any credible conflict. . . . Over the years, the objectives of the war in Iraq have changed from toppling a dictator to finding harmful weapons to flat-out nation-building. As such, the Baush administration or its successor may attempt to shift the aim of the conflict again, to something that is anybody's guess. Still, know that the war in Iraq is an illegal and aimless conflicts and that soldiers such as Chioux should be applauded for their refusal to support it." May 23rd, he explained to Leia Petty (US Socialist Worker), "I didn't like the war from the start. I always thought it smelled fishy, but I knew at the time, the Army owned my ass for at least the next four-and-a-half years. So I got in line like most soldiers, and prayed night and day that I could trust American civilians to end the war. I was so disappointed when my prayers went unaswered. . . . I do want to be clear though that I did not make this decision to benefit any movement or serve anyone's agenda. I made this decision for myself, based on an intense personal conviction that what I am doing is not only right, but the only decision possible for me as a person and a veteran."

Two years ago this month, Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He cited the illegality of the Iraq War. In August 2006, an Article 32 hearing was held. In February 2007, a kangaroo court-martial took place. Over defense objection, Judge Toilet (John Head) ruled a mistrial. Toilet insisted that a new court-martial would take place immediately (March 2007 was when Head said it would take place). It has never

taken place. The Constitution forbids double jeopardy and the US military has been trying

to get around the Constitution but were stopped last November by US District Judge Benjamin Settle. Tara McKelvey (American Prospect) reports:

Watada, 30, is an unlikely icon of war resistance. At 5 feet 7 inches, he is unimposing and even shy, dressed in a Hawaiian shirt and sandals, with his dark hair cut Army-short and his ears sticking out. He was raised in Honolulu, where his father, Bob, worked for decades in campaign-finance reform, and his mother, Carolyn Ho, was a high school guidance counselor. Watada, an Eagle Scout,

joined the Army in March 2003, his senior year at Hawaii Pacific University and,

like everyone who enlists, pledged an oath that members of the U.S. military have taken since 1789. "It doesn't say, 'I, Ehren Watada, will do as I'm told.' It says I will protect the Constitution," Watada says. He supports war in principle and is not a conscientious objector--in fact, he offered to go to Afghanistan (his commanders turned him down). "I'm against the Iraq War," he says. "By law, the war is

wrong."

Pacific Citizen Staff reminds: "It was seven months ago that a federal judge blocked the U.S. Army from conducting a second court-martial of Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq with his unit in June of 2006. U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle ruled that a second

trial would violate Watada's constitutional rights, essentially agreeing with the officer's attorneys who argued double jeopardy -- that a person could not be tried twice for the

same crime." And Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) spoke with one of Watada's two civilian attorneys, Ken Kagan, and reports that Kagan believes "federal judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma will probably take up the matter early this fall. . . . Kagan said he expects the case to eventually go before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where it may take up to three years before a decision is rendered."

May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Iraq War vet and a US war resister Corey Glass was to be deported yesterday, however he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. The Laval News quotes War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofksy stating, "This is a great victory for the courageous men and women who have come to Canada because they refuse to take part in the illegal, immoral Iraq War, and for the many organizations and individuals who have supported this campaign over the past four years." In the US, the press has played mute with few exceptions. Already noted last week were Bloomberg News and the Los Angeles Times which did report the historic vote. Sunday, Jim Fox (Tampa Bay Times) included it in news roundup. Liam Lahey (Ontario Mirror Guardian) profiled Corey Glass this week noting, "Glass, who arrived in Canada in August 2007 and resides in a modest apartment in Parkdale, hails from Fiarmount, Ind. He voluntarily joined the National Guard in 2004 believing he could help in disaster zoen scenarious or to defend American soil should the country fall under an enemy attack and quotes Glass explaining, "It got to me one day after something that happened and I can't go into that detail but I had to quit. I didn't feel (the war) was the right thing to do from the beginning and I definitely didn't feel we should be doing this to the Iraqis." Dan Glaister (Guardian of London) notes, "A former US national guardsman will learn next month whether he can remain in Canada, where he has sought refuge from military service in Iraq." Mary MacCarthy (FRANCE 24) reports, "Corey joined the National Guard hoping to do humanitarian work, but ended up being sent to Iraq to work in military intelligence."

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq. The White House wants to push through a treaty with Iraq (the UN authorization expires at the end of this year). Steve Negus and Harvey Morris (Financial Times of London) report that the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, declares talks over a Status Of Forces Agreement is at a "dead end" and they noted the White House attempts to play down the news: "Zalmay Khalilzad, US envoy to the UN, told the Financial Times the Bush administration remained optimistic that a bilateral aggreement would be reached." At the US State Dept, they were spinning yesterday as well with press flack Gonzalo R. Gallegos insisted on denying to reporters that there was in prolbem in negotiations on the SOFA and declared, "I think that the UN mandate does run through the end of the year, we've got about six more months to get to that point. I believe that we had Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker up here last week. He spoke very clearly about his concerns that this be done -- more important to him, this be done right, be done correctly than quickly. There's time left. We're continuing with our discussions with the government of Iraq. It's important to us that this be done correctly and we will see where we got with that."

In Brussels today US Secretary of State Robert Gates was caught by surprise when confronted with the "dead end" remarks declaring, "I had not heard that and I'm not quite sure what the exact circumstances are. So I will have to, when I get home, find out what the status of those negotiations is, and whether there's a difference between what's actually going on in negotiations and the public posture. I just don't know the answer at this point." Which actually might be a wise position to take. Patrick Worsnip (Reuters) reports Hoshiyar Zebari (Foreign Minister of Iraq) states the talks are still ongoing.

Meanwhile AP reports Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement today declaring that resistance fighters battling the illegal occupation of Iraq "should be limited to a select group" (AP not al-Sadr quoted) and (al-Sadr quoted) "weapons will be in the hands of this group exclusively and will only be directed at the occupier." Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Sadr's statement was issued to his Mahdi Army militia and is the latest evidence that he is reacting to pressure from the U.S. and Iraqi military to disarm his followers, estimated at some 60,000. In August last year, he called for a cease-fire by his supporters, which was renewed in February for six months."

In the United States, Ben Pershing (Washington Post) documents that the war between Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) continues well after she trashed the Senate to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. At issue? The supplemental spending for the illegal war. Despite the fact that continuing to fund the illegal war continues the killing and Pelosi's Show Dancing of Opposition to the Iraq War, she insists that Congress must send Bully Boy something before July 4th: "I have made clear to the White House ... that we want to pass a bill that will be signed by the president, and that will happen before we leave for the 4th of July. I feel confident that will happen. . . . . We don't have that much time left. There are two and a half weeks left until the recess, and we will have a bill sent to the president by then, and it will have to be a bill that will pass in the House and the Senate." However, Pershing notes that US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid states there's no rush, "They [the Pentagon] have enough money till the end of July, so we're not really that panicked about it."

Today US First Lady Laura Bush gave the press conference on Air Force One while it headed to France. During the press conference, she spoke warmly of France, Italy and Slovenia (but didn't cite Germany by name -- read the transcript of the press conference, I'm being kind) before agreeing with a reporter that the relationship between the US and Europe is mending ("I think it -- yes, I think it's on the mend, and --" at which point someone told Laura Bush the conference was over). If Germany was frosty, Sunday doesn't appear to be shaping into a church social either. UK's Socialist Worker gets instructive with, "Tell George Bush: 'Go to hell!'" and notes, "He will land in Britain this Sunday 15 June and his final stop will be Belfast. Since he stole the US elections in 2000, Bush has brought untold disaster on the world. He has launched wars without end, run a worldwide regime of kidnapping and torture, and brought death and ruin to every corner of the world." And they also note:

Socialist Worker is calling on anti-war activists to defy a police ban on the George Bush Not Welcome Here demonstration.

A Stop the War Coalition (StWC) statement says, "We are calling on those who care for our democratic rights to come to Parliament Square at 5pm on Sunday 15 June. Some of those who signed statements accusing Bush of war crimes will be leading this protest."

StWC convenor Lindsey German said, "George Bush has been dictating British foreign policy for many years. Now it appears his security services are determining our rights of protest. This is a disgrace and we will challenge the ban."

Playwright Harold Pinter commented, "The ban on the Stop The War Coalition march in protest at the visit of President Bush to this country is a totalitarian act. In what is supposed to be a free country the Coalition has every right to express its views peacefully and openly. This ban is outrageous and makes the term 'democracy' laughable."

Turning to some of what Bully Boy (and Dems who refuse to stand up to him) have brought Iraq . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left three injured and a Baiji roadside bombing wounded a police officer.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the male in charge of an "Awakening" council in Uthaim was shot dead as were his 2 guards. CBS and AP report: "U.S. troops killed five suspected Shiite gunmen and detained two others Friday in a raid south of Baghdad, according to the U.S. military, and Iraqi police said two civilians were killed when they were caught in the crossfire."

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Turning to the US political race for president, will sexism ever be seriously examined? Let's not even consult Magic 8ball, it's too depressing. But Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bowman offer "Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage" today on the primary season. Women's Media Center -- not mentioned in the article -- is holding a panel on this topic Tuesday in NYC, free and open to the public. From nine in the morning until noon at The Paley Center for Media (25 West 52nd Street, NYC) and participants will include Juan Gonzalez, Christiane Amanpour, Sue Carroll, Courtney Martin, Celinda Lake, Mika Brzezinski, Catalina Camia, Geneva Overholser, Ron Wlaters, Dr. Kathy and Patricia Williams. "Sponsored by The White House Project, The Women's Media Center and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, the forum is free of charge and open to the press and the public." Click here for the announcement and for information on registering.

Staying with the US political race, Team Nader issues the following:

2008 Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader discusses a remark made to him by a fellow alumnus at a recent Princeton reunion. Watch the video here, read the transcript below.

Do you think Ralph Nader should run? If so, let him know now with your contribution. (Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.) - The Nader Team

****

I was at my Princeton reunion the other day, and a young alumnus came up to me - he was very kind - and he said "You know, I really like what you're doing - I like what you did - but please don't run."

I said "Do you realize what you are saying?"

And he said "Yes, I said please don't run."

I said "You're telling me not to use my First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition inside the electoral arena. You're telling me to shut up. Are you aware of what you're saying?"

He said "I understand, I understand, I like what you're doing, but please don't run."

So I went through and I said "Well, would you tell those voters instead of trying to determine which one was worse between the Democrats and the Whigs, the two major parties in the 19th century, and instead cut out and voted for the Liberty Party, which was the anti-slavery party - would you say to those candidates, 'Don't run'?"

And he sort of paused.

And I said "How about the people who refused to go least-worst between the Republicans and Democrats on women's suffrage? Would you tell those candidates 'don't run'? What do you say to that?"

And he paused.

And I took it up to date and I said "Would you tell Buchanan not to run?"

And he said "I understand what you are saying, but please don't run."

And I said "You know, unwittingly, you are engaging in a politically bigoted statement. Because you can oppose, and you can support, any candidates you want. But when you are saying to someone 'don't run' you are saying to someone 'do not speak, do not petition, do not assemble inside the electoral arena.'"

Now I'm saying this because I'm sure you've had these conversations with people. Look at the word spoiler. Spoiler is a contemptuous word of political bigotry. They do not accuse George W. Bush of being the spoiler in 2000, and last I heard he got more votes than I did, vis-a-vis Al Gore. It's only the independent and third parties that are called spoilers.

And think of the hubris here - these two parties have spoiled our elections, they've spoiled our government, they've spoiled our politics - and to have the temerity to say to someone who wants to reform the process that they are spoilers - they have no sense of humor - I mean, how do you satire satire?

- Ralph Nader, New York City, May 31, 2008 - Watch the video

"Ralph Nader should run for President so we all have a better choice in November. Please accept my support!"

iraq

iraq veterans against the war

matthis chiroux

tara mckelvey
ehren watada

gregg k. kakesako

jim fox

liam lahey

ben pershing
the washington post

mcclatchy newspapers

the new york times
katharine q. seelye
julie bosman

Posted at 10:42 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 12, 2008

lee cowan not a reporter nor is keith

sherry e-mailed to ask why i couldn't post the video on my own?

none of us can for the most part. we put the code in and then it either vanishes immediately (if we're in compose) or it vanished after we switch from "edit" to "compose." c.i. knows tricks around it and other things.

so the increasingly pathetic and limp keith olbermann needed to get it up last night (it must be tiring to have a girlfriend 1/2 his age) and just knew attacking a woman was the way to go. it's worked so well for him, hasn' t it? largely because the pathetic 'fair' and others have refused to call him out. so he went after katie couric for her editorial comment on wednesday's broadcast of the cbs evening news and also on a speech where she spoke of an unnamed commentator who couldn't be objective - by his own confession - on barack.

keith thinks she means lee cowan. from ava and c.i.'s 'TV: The Surreal Life stages comeback!' back in janurary of this year:

As many laughs as Gibson provided, it was more shocking what was going on at NBC/MSNBC. Correspondent Lee Cowan confessed on air to Brian Williams that it was "hard" for him to be objective about Barack Obama, whom Cowan was assigned to cover. Now in the world of a functioning mainstream press, Cowan would have immediately been reassigned. And should have been. Reporters are supposed to be objective and just the hint that you aren't, forget confessing on air that you find it "hard," is enough to damage the credibility of the news organization. At NPR, Michelle Norris has a set list of things she can do and cannot do in election cycles due to her husband's work. It's not that Norris couldn't be objective, most assume she could be, but it's that they don't want even the appearance that they're not being objective. Brian Williams, who bragged of his desire to censor the news before he took over as anchor (bragged on air to Jay Leno -- which is where all the really great news anchors go, right?), embarrassed himself by posting to his blog, "Lee was talking about the swirl of excitement that has hit the Obama campaign after Iowa -- the crowds, the hoopla -- all of it. Today we learned that rival political efforts were spinning this as some kind of 'bias' on the part of either Lee, or me, or this News Division, and that's just ridiculous. My response is as it always is in these situations: look at it again, listen to what's being said, and judge us by the quality and fairness of our journalism." Guess what, in a functioning news organization, you're biggest complaints wouldn't be coming from candidates, it would be coming internally. The fact that NBC didn't grasp the problem, didn't immediately pull Cowan off the beat and reassign him, goes a long way towards explaining the destruction of news standards in the MSM.

"Lee was talking . . ." only follows an announcement that, "To avoid the appearance of conflict, Lee Cowan will now be covering the Mitt Romney campaign after having stated on air that he found objectivity 'hard' when covering Obama." But we don't have a functioning press, do we?

if you ever doubted that, look at keith olbermann, proof positive that we don't have a functioning press or, for that matter, a functioning media critic set.

oh, i'm laughing now. i thought i would try to be fair and check out feminist wire daily. if they had something on keith olbermann's sexist attack on katie couric, i was going to highlight. no surprise, they didn't have anything on it. they've got nothing period. they have nothing on katie receiving the alice paul award tuesday - despite alice paul being a ground breaking feminist. what they do have this week (posted yesterday) is a news story on the womens media center's campaign against sexism. if you remember, we posted that video community wide over 2 weeks ago. but ms. magazine's feminist wire daily just learned of it.

how pathetic can you get?

( read 'Ms.went from playing dumb to outright insulting' for more on how pathetic that magazine can get.)

and i'm sure i'll be accused by some 1 in an e-mail that i was lazy but actually the roundtable for gina & krista's round-robin went a little over 2 hours and i have to give the baby a bath because i meant to do that this evening but there wasn't time. so that's going to be it for me tonight.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, June 12, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, today was the day Corey Glass was deported from Canada, what agreement did Iran and Iraq work out, Katie Couric stands up against sexism and Pig Olbermann attacks, and more.

Starting with war resistance. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Glass is an Iraq War vet and a US war resister in Canada. He was to be deported today. Now he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. And people and organizations are fighting very hard for Glass and other war resisters to be welcomed in Canada, not deported. Sault This Week carries the following:

FROM LEE ZASLOSKY, coordinator, War Resisters Support Campaign: The Opposition parties in the House of Commons joined together to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain permanent resident status in Canada. The recommendation was adopted by a majority of Members of Parliament from the Liberal, Bloc Quebecois, and New Democratic Parties. The Conservatives voted against the motion. The motion, which originated in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in December 2007, calls on the government to "immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members...to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and...the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions...against such individuals." Corey Glass, 25, a war resister who came to Canada in 2006 and was recently told to leave Canada by June 12 or face removal to the United States, welcomed the vote. "I'm thankful that the MPs voted to let me and the other war resisters stay in Canada. I'm also thankful to all the Canadians who urged their MPs to support us."This is a great victory for the courageous men and women who have come to Canada because they refuse to take part in the illegal, immoral Iraq War, and for the many organizations and individuals who have supported this campaign over the past four years. The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on the Conservative government to respect the democratic decision of the Canadian Parliament and immediately implement the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other war resisters. Lee Zaslofsky, coordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign, is a Vietnam War deserter who came to Canada in 1970.

To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to prisoners. The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision today in Boumediene et al v. Bush, President of the United States, et al [PDF format warning, click here for opinion]. CCR announces: "In one of the most important human rights cases of the decade, the Supreme Court of the United States held today, in a 5-4 decision, that the men imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay have the constitutional right to habeas corpus. One of the oldest and most basic legal protections, habeas corpus affords the incarcerated the right to stand before a judge and confront the charges presented against him or her. The Center for Constitutional Rights has been sending habeas counsel to represent the prisoners at the base since winning the first Guantánamo case, Rasul v. Bush, in 2004, and applauds today's decision." Ari Shapiro (NPR and link has text as well as audio from Shapiro and Ninan Totenberg) observes, "This is the third times the justices have told President Bush that his paln for handling foreign terrorists violates the Constitution." But there's more to today's news than that one aspect. James Oliphant (Baltimore Sun) points out, "In a decision related to its landmark holding Thursday granting Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights, the Supreme Court held that American citizens held prisoner in Iraq can also challenge their detentions in federal court. The court's ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was unanimous in holding that two American Muslims who traveled to Iraq to fight coalition forces there have access to U.S. federal courts to object to their continued detention in Iraq." The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is acknowledging that any American citizen held by American forces has a right to appeal that to the US court system; however, the opinion then offers that the two men (Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Omar) are held in Iraq and that the US courts cannot prevent them from being handed over to the Iraqi government. So it was a victory in terms of affirming that US citizens around the world do have access to the federal courts to appeal imprisonment by the US military but it will not prevent Munaf and Omar from being turned over to the puppet government in Iraq.

On Tuesday, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reported that prisoners "were likely to be held for longer periods as security risks than those prisoners taken when the U.S. troop buildup first began last year, according to Maj. Gen. Douglas Stone Jr., the former head of the Iraq detention program." Earlier this year, the US military [PDF format, CRC.OPAC.USA.Q1] noted: "Approximately 50 percent of those initially detained in Iraq are determined not to be inperative security threat, and these individuals are released at the unit location. Those assessed to be a threat are transferred to the TIF. At the TIF, the detaining command Magistrate Cell, consisting of judge adocates, conducts a thorough review of each individual's case. Based on this review, the Magistrate Cell either recommends the detainee be expeditiously released or retained as an imperative security threat." "TIF" refers to "Theater Internment Facility." Those claims, presented to the United Nations, just got tossed out the window via Stone's press conference this week. Felicity Arbuthnot (UN Observer) provides some reality on US prisons in Iraq:

However, "quis custodiat ipsos custodes?" "Who guards the guards?" Suppose the abusers are the United States military and the abused children are in their custody in Iraq. Neither Save the Children, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch (HRW) or other agencies have been allowed in to facilities where Iraqi children as young as ten are incarcerated in Iraq, under the oversight of Major General Douglas Stone, Deputy Commanding General Detainee Operations, Multi National Force-Iraq.
The US army has detained 2,400 children as young as ten years old since March 2003, according to a 21st May 2008 Human Rights Watch statement (some estimates are highter). Stone, who took over the position in May 2007, has named one correctional facility "The House of Wisdom", after the famous 9th to 13th century Bayt al Hikmah (House of Wisdom) at which scholars from around the globe studied and where Plato, Hippocrates, Euclid and Pythagoras were translated from the Greek and where Algebra was born.
In its 21st May statement, HRW said detention rates for children had risen drastically in 2007 to an average of 100 new cases a month from 25 a month in 2006. As of 12 May this year, the US military authorities were holding 513 Iraqi children classified as "imperative threats to security", HRW said in a statement.
Stone has said he is now fighting a "battlefield of the mind", introducing education and "religious enlightenment" to detainees. Amongst his charges of all ages are: "rotton eggs, you know, hiding in the Easter basket". Psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors and interrogators help identify these 'miscreants.' Juveniles are allowed no outside legal representation, according to the UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, Radhika Coomaraswarmy and there are allegations that, as with women, they are often held to force an adult family male to give himself up. Human rights abuses plummet little lower, apart from rape and child abuse.

Today the ACLU announced they had "filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit today for documents related to an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the abuse and torture of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Last month, the OIG released a report on the investigation, which was launched after internal government documents -- uncovered by another ACUL lawsuit -- revealed that FBI agents at Guantanamo raised concerns about abusive techniques used by military interrogators." The Bully Boy of the Unites States, in Rome making nice with Berlusconi, had his own announcement, "First of all, it's a Supreme Court decision; we'll abide by the Court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

And NPR doesn't have to agree with reality. Monday they aired a report on Iraq that's no longer up at their website. "The improved security situation in Baghdad has allowed government officials to reclaim abandoned government property. Displaced Iraqis had been living in the buildings after they were forced to flee their homes because of fighting. Now, they are finding themselves homeless again." Sound familiar? It aired Monday on Morning Edition. It's no longer part of the broadcast. But it was aired and it was disgusting. It was also offensive news re-pimped. If you paid attention, you heard that assertion in 2006. If you paid attention in 2003, you heard how the buildings ended up occupied and why. Edward Wong (New York Times) reported that "American military officials say that although they have allowed squatters to remain in public buildings throughout the city, the Iraqi transitional government that will take power on July 1 will almost certainly want the buildings back for their own use, or at least will want to charge rent. . . . But the transitional government will probably try to sell much of the city's public property, since there is no need to hold on to it, Colonel [Paul L.] Aswell said." The tag sale the White House was lusting for. So, to go by what's known, there is talk (again) that Iraqis squatting in government buildings may be forced out. But, as Anna Badkhen (Salon) reports, there's really nowhere go. Badkhen notes al-Maliki's announcement that refugees need to return and return to their homes; however "in a twist that exemplifies the difficulty of restoring normalcy in Iraq, many of the Iraqis who do decide to return home will face a new obstacle that is a byproduct of American and Iraqi efforts to quell sectarian violence. It is a new law called the National Policy for Displacement, and it states that no displaced Iraqis can be forcibly removed from the place where they found refuge. . . . Many Iraqis who fled their homes found refuge in homes that belong to other people, who had run away from the fighting to go someplace else. Now, as the owners return home, encouraged by their government, they are finding their homes occupied by squatters who are protected by the new rules."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad grenade attack that left six Iraqi soldiers injured, a Baghdad roadside bomb which "targeted the Shaab's mayor in Shaab neighborhood" and resulted in five people being injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which "targeted the major general's convoy Sameer Al-Waeli, the head of the social attention in the ministry of interior" and left six injured, three more Baghdad roadside bombing which resulted in nine Iraqi soldiers being wounded, a Baghdad home bombing that claimed the lives of 3 people and left fifteen injured.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Yesterday at the US State Dept, Gonzalo R. Gallegos (Press Relations Dir) held a media conference and was asked about Nouri al-Maliki's visit to Iran and he replied that he didn't "have an assessment in terms of that" and stated they were "neighbors" and his "hope that the Iranians can engage with the Iraqi Government in a positive manner." But did the Iraqi leader (or 'leader') and the Iranian government come to an agreement? At a time when the White House and the puppet are having so many problems over the treaty disguised as a SOFA? Reuters reported this week that there was an agreement (according to IRNA news agency) that papers were signed (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar and Abdul Qader Jassim -- Iran and Iraq's Defence Ministers respectively) on defense, on "[m]ine clearance and the search for soldiers missing in action" and who knows what else. How would Gallegos or anyone at the State Dept asses that?

Turning to US politics. Yesterday on The CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric delivered one of her Notebook pieces. The piece addressed the fact that sexism was rampant in the media coverage.

Katie Couric: Over the last week it's been almost impossible to pick up a newspaper or turn on a cable show and avoid the endless post-mortems on Hillary Clinton's campaign. Senator Clinton has received her fair share of the blame and so has her political team. But, like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life -- particularly in the media. Many women have made the point that if Senator Obama had to confront the racist equivalent of an "Iron My Shirt!" poster at campaign rallies or a Hillary nutcracker sold at airports or mainstream pundints saying they instictively cross their legs at the mention of her name, the outrage would not be a footnote, it would be front page news. It isn't just Hillary Clinton who needs to learn a lesson from this primary season, it's all the people who crossed the line -- and all the women and men who let them get away with it. That's a page from my Notebook, I'm Katie Couric, CBS News.

As Peggy Simpson (WMC) noted earlier this week, Couric was just awarded an Alice award (named after the groundbreaking Alice Paul) by the Sewell-Belmont House. At the ceremony, she gave a speech where she noted that the media's job was to be objective. Some are seeing this as reference to Lee Cowan's on air confession to Brian Williams that it's "hard" for him to be objective about Barack Obama. If it was a reference to Cowan specifically, Couric was correct and media critics would be quick to agree. When you confess on air that you have a "hard" time being objective about someone you're covering, in a real news world, your ass is pulled from that beat because it's not only an issue of whether you can or cannot be objective, it's also an issue of how you are perceived. Couric was 100% correct. And FAIR and other outlets -- all strangely silent today -- have long made that point. What gives with the silence? As Jake Tapper (ABC News) points out, Keith Olbermann -- supreme PIG -- elected to 'award' Katie Couric the "Worst Person in the World" 'award' last night in yet another of his foaming at the mouth attacks on women which MSNBC so loves to broadcast. Couric's media criticism in her speech accepting the Alice was correct and there's not an ombudsperson that can beg to differ with her (and NPR and Washington Post ombudspersons in the past have made the exact same call on the need to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest). Katie Couric's real 'crime' was daring to think that sexism was worth calling out because, as we have all seen for months and months, media 'critics' have stayed silent. They've treated sexism as a non-issue. Or, as Mike noted, when forced to deal with it, the way Howard Dean was, they toss out a word or two and then rush off to the topic of racism -- implying that sexism doesn't qualify as a topic in and of itself, certainly not an important one. Katie Couric was correct in her criticism and Keith Olbermann has attacked another woman for the 'crime' of expressing of an opinion. On the plus side, some seem to have received the message and we're not seeing non-trashing of Couric; however, some need to stand up and call Olbermann out. They egged him or gave their approval by refusing to call him out. Couric's comments are not out of bounds. They 'dare' to treat sexism as an offensive issue and 'dare' to say, yes, women matter in this world. For that, Pig Olbermann labels her the "Worst Person of the Week." Will FAIR stay silent? Will The Nation? We saw them stay silent for months as Olbermann foamed at the mouth and ripped apart women. Ava and I will be picking up this topic Sunday.

Team Nader notes the following:

If you haven't donated to Nader/Gonzalez yet, please give five dollars now.
Here's why: despite what you've heard, we're making a difference in the here and now.
According to an article in today's Politico, two words explain the reason Obama and the Democrats are sounding more populist: Ralph Nader.
The author, Jeremy Lott, writes this:
"Nader's challenge convinced the powers that be in the party that they simply cannot afford to let a serious challenger get to the left of the party's presidential candidate. That helps explain why Dean was given the DNC chairmanship over a Clinton loyalist and why concerns about electability were brushed aside to make way for the junior Illinois senator's nomination."
We don't buy Lott's conclusion that the Democratic Party is now Nader's party.
Most of the Democrats' populism is mere posturing.
They talk national health insurance, but reject single payer public health insurance.
They talk about peace in the Middle East, but bow down to the right wing Israel lobby.
They talk about change, but want to increase the bloated wasteful military budget.
So, yes, Ralph Nader has had an effect.
The Democrats are now talking a more progressive game.
But it's mostly talk, talk, talk, no action.
Nader, on the other hand, is the real deal.
The mainstream media, like Politico, is starting to take note of our grassroots, independent campaign.
Nader is at six percent in national polls.
We're moving aggressively nationwide to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
And to get Nader and Gonzalez into the debates.
But now, more than ever, we need your help.
Today, we ask each of you to donate $5 to Nader/Gonzalez.
Of course, the more the merrier.
But $5 is what we're asking from each and every one of you - our loyal supporters.
So do it now.
Hit the button.
And put five dollars on the real deal.
Thank you in advance.
Together, we are making a difference.

iraqcorey glasswalter pincusthe washington post
center for constitutional rightsnina totenberg
npr
katie couricthe cbs evening newsanna badkhen
mcclatchy newspapers
jake tapper
peggy simpson

Posted at 09:02 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

katie couric video

here's katie couric on last night's cbs evening news talking about the sexism in the 2008 primary season

Posted at 08:59 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 11, 2008

barack follies

Barack Obama's promise to deliver a "new kind of politics" took a knock yesterday with the departure of the man hired to check out potential vice-presidential running mates.
Jim Johnson, quit as unpaid head of a three-person search team after facing criticism from Republicans for the sweetheart loans he received from a sub-prime mortgage company.

that's from the independent of london and they're so in the tank for barack that the byline doesn't really matter. poor pond scum (that didn't report on the downing street memos), their crush isn't all that.

a george vandervoort writes the chicago tribune about 'reporter' zorn:

From reading Mr. Zorn's article, one might get the impression that this house purchase was Sen. Obama's only contact with the currently imprisoned Mr. Rezko. In reality, Tony Rezko has been a social friend and mentor of Barack Obama's for about 15 years. Rezko offered Obama a job in the early 1990s, while Obama as at Harvard Law School. Obama did not take them, but the two stayed in touch over the years. Obama and Rezko used to socialize over breakfast or lunch. Mr. and Mrs. Obama visited Rezko's home in Lake Geneva, Wisc. Rezko raised $250,000 for Obama's Senate campaign.

the reality (and george probably knows this) is that zorn is in the tank for obama and has been since barack's senate run. zorn was actively swallowing every thing the campaign fed him and was instrumental in launching attacks against jack ryan (obama's 1-time republican opponent) as well as earlier at the more popular candidate in the democratic primary (who was smeared with domestic abuses charges). zorn has been allowed to do this because the libertarian minders at the tribune think barack's a good right-leaner. a real paper would have removed zorn from covering obama about 4-years ago due to intense conflicts of interest. but the chicago tribune isn't a real newspaper.

or, as robert t. johnson puts it:

Over the years, we loyal Tribune readers have come to expect one-sided columns from Eric Zorn which seem designed to either smear or whitewash people and/or events. His recent piece on the Tony Rezko-Sen. Obama real estate deal does not disappoint. In his effort to absolve Sen. Obama of any wrongdoing, Mr. Zorn concentrates on trivia such as the price paid by Mr. Rezko for the lot adjoining the Senator's house, and the prices offered by competing bidders.

zorn doesn't know how to report. he only knows how to run a fan club.

go watch katie couric talking about sexism in the primary race.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, June 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, issues fall by the wayside for the 'issues' (smears and distortions) and more.

Starting with war resistance. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. He's no longer threatened with deporation on the 12th (Thursday) but has been 'extended' to July 10th. Will the Stephen Harper government really attempt to deport him? That will depend upon how much support Corey Glass has. Over the weekend Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) issued "NUPGE urges Harper to let Iraq war resisters stay in Canada:"James Clancy calls on minority Conservative government to respect the will of Parliament and stop the deportation of Corey Glass on June 12 Ottawa (9 June 2008) - The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is asking the Harper government to honour a House of Commons motion that clears U.S. Iraq war resisters and their families to live permanently in Canada.The non-binding parliamentary motion was approved June 3 with support from all three opposition parties by a margin of 137 to 110. Conservative MPs opposed the motion and the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated it will ignore parliament on the issue. The War Resisters Support Campaign, based in Toronto, estimates that as many as 200 American soldiers have come to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq. Many of those active in the campaign are resisters who were granted refuge in Canada during the Vietnam war in the 1960s and 1970s. In a letter to Harper, NUPGE president James Clancy urged Harper to intervene in the case of Corey Glass, who has been in Canada for the past two years. His application for citizenship on "humanitarian and compassionate" grounds was denied on May 21 and the Canadian Border Services Agency has ordered him to be deported on June 12. "From all indications, your government is planning to ignore the democratic will of the House of Commons," Clancy wrote. "I am urging you and your government to reconsider this position. This is a matter of some urgency. The war resisters have taken a principled stand against participating in an illegal and disastrous war in Iraq. Their reasons echo those that Canada used when it, too, refused to participate in this war," Clancy said. "Canada must continue to act to honour its own principles and maintain our status in the world community as a peace-building nation. We should quickly welcome the young men and women and their families who have come here to live in peace and who are already starting to contribute to our country's future," he said.Clancy urged Harper to "act now to make it possible" for the resisters to stay in Canada by: œ Stopping the deportation of people of conscience who have resisted an illegal war; and œ Supporting the democratic decision of the House of Commons and the will of the Canadian people. NUPGE More information: œ War Resisters Support Campaign

That's their statement in full and it's very important. A huge cross-section of people ensured that war resisters could stay in Canada during Vietnam -- students, labor, churches. NUPGE's stepping up is important. To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to US catty-claws. Senator John McCain made a statement that was clear and one that this community disagrees with. Appearing on NBC's Today Show, he was asked about withdrawal from Iraq. And stated he wasn't worried about withdrawal estimates ("that's not too important") and somehow it was time for Democrats to embarrass themsleves. What's McCain talking about? His position is that troops should stay in Iraq. He would argue he's not talking about a continued war, he would state that (as he said on Today this morning), troops should remain there as they do in Japan, South Korea, etc.

Anyone truly opposed to the illegal war has an opening to go after McCain. Sadly, we don't have a lot of elected officials really opposed to the illegal war. So instead it was time for hypocrisy and catty natures. Susan Rice -- a long time War Hawk and monger working for the Obama camapign -- repeated talking points of how McCain was "confused," "confusing," etc. As Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times) wonders, "Is that a code for suggesting McCain is too old to understand what is going on?" Rice denies it but the Catty Obama Crew has already attempted that nonsense before. They are the cattiest campaign. Senator John Kerry tried to rescue Rice. As usual, he failed (and needs to stop worrying about Obama's campaign and start worrying about the Democratic challenger to his own seat). US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi saw an opening and immediately issued her own statement: "Senator McCain's statement that it is 'not too important' when U.S. troops are redeployed from Iraq is yeat another indication how out of touch he is with the effect the war in Iraq is having on the readiness of our military. Addressing the national security implications . . ." blah, blah, blah. No one cares, Nancy. Everyone knows you're the Speaker of the House. Everyone knows you took power in January 2007. Everyone knows the illegal war drags on. Before you hop on your high horse you need to grasp just how disliked you are around the country. (Visit some campuses, Nancy.) Your self-serving statements only reflect poorly on you and Democratic leadership.

And that's the real revelation here, how Iraq is now a non-issue for Democrats. They can't even showboat convincingly because they've had nearly two years in which they controlled both houses of Congress and they didn't do a damn thing to end the illegal war. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, uses a lot of words as well. He only makes himself sound like a hypocrite. Too many to name embarrass themselves deliberately twisting McCain's meaning. Of all the people in the world who make sense on McCain's remarks, it's Senator Joe Lieberman. (Whom I personally loathe.) Lieberman labels the organized hit "reflexive attacks" and notes, "It's very obvious what John McCain is saying, and it's consistent with what he's said along the way." [Click here for the Baltimore Sun's Mark Silva's write up which includes text but also includes video of McCain on Today.] Lieberman also notes what Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Kerry and Rice don't, John McCain actually has a child DEPLOYED to Iraq.

We're not getting issues, we're getting smears. McCain firmly believes the US needs to remain in Iraq and he's not arguing for the illegal war to be continued, he thinks the illegal war (which he doesn't think is illegal) can be tranferred to a smaller US presence which would include many decades on Iraqi soil. That is his position.

It's a position the Democrats should love because it should provide them with the ability to present a strong contrast between McCain and themselves. Today we get smears, catty remarks (that were intended to be about McCain's age or mental well being), we get hypocrisy and so much more. The country (US) would be better off if we could address the issue. The issue isn't "Is McCain senile?" (he's not) nor is it "McCain disrespects the military!" (he doesn't). The issue is McCain has a viewpoint on how he sees the US presence in Iraq. Why can't the Democrats take that issue and run with it?

Partly because for all the nonsense of 'hope' and 'change,' Barack's advanced via character assassinations on his opponents and that's what's going on when McCain's sanity or his support for the military is questioned. It's catty, it's embarrassing and it doesn't help Barack appear mature. But there's no real difference Barack's calling for. June 5th he told Candy Crowley (CNN, link has text and video) that his Iraq 'policy' on withdrawal (his 'promise' throughout the campaign that US troops would be out of Iraq within 10 months of his becoming president -- in a speech in Houston, Texas, he dropped from 16 months down to 10), "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind." Really? Because in your speeches you don't include that qualifier. He added, "Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen. Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. I have to look at this issue from a broader perspective, though." He has to look at it from a broader perspective? Does anyone remember his stump speech that included that 'applause' line? No, because he didn't include it in his speeches.

Barack Obama is not promising to end the illegal war. He is not promising anything. That's the point Samantha Power was making to the BBC in April and why she explained that these 'pledges' he makes on the campaign trail mean nothing, that he'd decide what to do about Iraq if he got into the White House. Not before then.

And that's why this mock outrage is being created by various Democrats [on the very day that Michael Scherer (Time magazine) points out how faux outrage bit Barack in the butt]. It's a way to create the appearance of a difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. Heaven forbid we have a real difference.

When Barack is asked hard questions or hit with real criticism, his response is to whine that he wants to focus on the issues, that he wishes he could focus on the issues (and his waffles) but instead . . . His campaign launched a smear job on John McCain today. They didn't have to do that. They could have taken the issue of Iraq and presented an actual difference. Instead, it was John McCain's too old, he's senile, he doesn't appreciate military service, blah, blah, blah. Not an ounce of truth in any of those charges.

It didn't have to be that way. If Iraq's going to be an issue, let's have it be one, a real one. Let's see Barack stop the character assassinations and start having that always postponed conversation about the issues he keeps insisting he wants.

And anyone considering themselves part of the peace movement better start hollering. If this is what's going to pass for "Iraq discussions" ('McCain's old and crazy and he hates the military!'), don't even pretend that the illegal war is ending in the next four years. We should all be appalled and saying, "ENOUGH!" Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) explains, "Four years ago, as the sentiment against George W. Bush's administration mounted, the entire left-wing spectrum hung on tight to the coattails of John Kerry, grasping for dear life. Critics called it the 'Anybody but Bush' syndrome, but it should have been more aptly coined 'Nobody but Kerry.' Virtually every progressive cause, from labor to environment, had been co-opted by a mindset that would have ensured more of the same. There was no pressure put on Kerry to change, and he didn't." Naomi Klein called that nonsense out in real time and has repeatedly warned since then that the peace movement does not need to go silent for the 'good' of an election.

The peace movement can get co-opted again, it can buy into the Iraq War 'really doesn't matter,' or any other nonsense it wants but as someone who was on campuses after that crap, 'leaders' who think they can pull the wool over the young people again better grasp there will be fallout. The peace movement should call out any candidate who refuses to address Iraq. When Team Obama has the perfect opportunity to draw a real distinction and instead results to smears, it's an indication that Barack's not overly concerned about Iraq. The Iraq War is an ongoing, illegal war that will hit the six year mark next year. Any candidate who thinks character attacks are addressing it really isn't fit to run for the presidency. And anyone thinking "We just have to be silent until November" better accept the illegal war isn't ending via silence. As Joshua Frank notes, despite Democrats being given control of both houses in the November 2006 elections, "Two years later, we have nothing to show for it. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, yet have rubber stamped virtually ever Iraq war spending bill that has come down the pipeline -- ensuring the bloodbath for years to come."

Let's go straight into some of today's reported violence because the refusal to address Iraq allows the dying to continue.

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left seven more wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 5 lives with ten more people wounded, a third Baghdad roadside bombing that injured two, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that wounded six people and a Wasit bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer with four more wounded.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 4 in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 5 corpses discovered in Falluja ("shot and tortured").

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died of non-battle related causes in Baghdad, June 11. An investigation into the cause of death is under way." 4095 is the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war, 11 is the number for the month thus far.

As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer points out, "It doesn't matter that people of two nations -- the U.S. and Iraq -- are dead set against an agreement, or treaty -- for permanent, er, long-term military bases in Iraq. And never mind what having such a presence in Iraq would do to that nation's relationship with Iran (a major player on the ground), where leaders suspect that the bases in the 'enslaved' Iraq might be used as launching points to attack their country. The Bush administration is hellbent on banging out the much-denied treaty by the end of July." Leila Fadel and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report that the White Hous insists the negotiations on the treaty "can be completed by a July 31 target date" but the White House "is apparently scaling back some of its demands, including backing off one that particularly incenses Iraqis, blanket immunity for private security contractors." They also report that in the US Congress objections are coming from both sides of the aisle as well as from the chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Joe Biden) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (Carl Levin). Amit R. Paley and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) explore objections to the treaty in Iraq and quote Sami al-Askari ("senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki") stating, "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq. If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you hear anymore.'" Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) also quotes al-Askari, "There is the camp who still believe that we need the Americans to stay and the other camp that says we don't need them anymore. . . . If I'm from the group that believes in the need for the Americans to stay, and then they face me with such a draft, then I'll say, look, I'd rather go with the others." As was noted (and objected to) throughout The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Show that played Congress in April, the Iraqi Parliament will get a vote on the treaty (disguised as a "Status Of Forces Agreement" by the White House) but the US Senate will not. Apparently, Bully Boy needed to wipe his rear on the US Constitution at least one more time before leaving office so that Constitutional mandate that all treaties be approved by the Senate got tossed out the window. M.D. Nalapat (UPI Asia) argues that if SOFA goes through, the puppet of the occupation (al-Maliki) will fall and "other moderate politicians in Iraq could soon become history. From then onwards, public opinion in Iraq will almost certainly turn in favor of those Shia and Sunni politicians opposed to the pact, creating more followers of Moqtada al-Sadr and the former Baathists." Ghida Fakhry (Al Jazeera) asserts, "If the original deadline is missed, it could mean that major obstacles have emerged and that the plan to rush through a deal before George Bush steps down as president might also be in jeopardy." As Dan Eggen (Washington Post) observes, speaking from Germany, Bully Boy referred to Iraq opposition as "noise".

The Bully Boy of the United States: "First of all, I think we'll end up with a strategic agreement with Iraq. You know, it's all kinds of noise in their system and our system. What eventually will win out is the truth. For example, you read stories perhaps in your newspaper that the U.S. is planning all kinds of permanent bases in Iraq. That's an erroneous story. [58 bases.] The Iraqis know -- will learn it's erroneous, too. We're there at the invitation of the sovereign [puppet] government of Iraq. And I strongly support the agreement because I think it helps send a clear message to the people of Iraq that, you know, that security you're now seeing will continue. And one of the lessons of Iraq is, is that in order for a democracy to develop or in order for an economy to develop, there has to be a measure of security, which is now happening. So I think we'll get the agreement done."

Bully Boy went on to declare, "You know, as to -- look, Eggen, you can find any voice you want in the Iraqi political scene and quote them, which is interesting, isn't it, because in the past you could only find one voice, and now you can find a myriad of voices. It's a vibrant democracy; people are debating." Yes, it appears that one thing the America has transferred to Iraq is relief that the reign of the Bully Boy will end in a few months.

On the US political front, Team Nader breaks down the Lehman Brothers scandal whose Richard S. Fuld announced "a staggering $2.8 billion loss in the second quarter, exceeding the most dire forecasts" and yet nothing changes on Wall Street or, for that matter in Congress: "Still, there is no regulatory action in Washington which doesn't even move on behalf of consumers to regulate the New York Mercantile Exchange where rampant speculation, not supply and demand, decides what you are paying for gasoline and heating oil. With the politicians sleepwalking in Washington, while their campaign pockets are filled by Wall Street cash, isn't it time for the people of America to rouse themselves civically and politically? Act before the financial sector, using your money, shreds itself under the weight of its own top-heavy greed and cliff-hanging mismanagement." Ralph Nader is running for the White House. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Team Nader also addresses the NBA today by noting an objection Nader raised in 2000. Steve Powell (The Olympian), writing today of the criminal activity of "former referee Tim Donaghy" who has entered guilty pleas to multiple felony charges, points out: "Donaghy claims it happened in a playoff game in 2002. And looking at the Los Angeles Lakers-Sacramento Kings series, he makes a good case. Even at the time, consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a presidential candidate this year, sent a letter to Stern complaining about the officiating. The Lakers won the game after shooting 27 free throws in the fourth quarter.".

iraqcorey glasswarren p. strobel
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
the los angeles timesned parker
the washington postamit r. paleykaren deyoung

Posted at 08:35 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 10, 2008

talking post

1st off, no, there was no plan on last night's post. kat's 'carly' is magnificient but she and i did not compare notes and both decide to write about music last night. we laughed on the phone about it today. we were both just attempting to find something to write about that interested us and hopefully would interest people who visit our sites.

we will both be voting ralph nader in november if barack is the democratic nominee and neither of us was in the mood to talk about the election.

now elaine has a post tonight (not up yet, so no link to the post) where she's mentioning me. she called to make sure that was okay. i never call. i just tell whatever i want about elaine or c.i. and don't worry. but it was sweet of her to call.

i thought i'd talk briefly about that.

in her post she mentions c.i. and c.i.'s incredible instincts. she specifically tells the enron story.

i had either retired or was in the process of it. i'd made my money and was getting out of the rat race. fly boy and i had either just gotten married (the 1st time) or were about to. c.i. was very happy for us both.

i wasn't raised with money and was given a tip by my broker about a hot stock. i was sold on the thing and told it was the stock to have. so i sunk a huge portion of my money into it.

c.i. was visiting and i was so proud of myself so, of course i bragged. c.i. immediately told me you never put that much of a percentage of your cash in 1 stock, regardless of what it was. i probably rolled my eyes. i had a big stock broker. i'd worked my way up over the years. and i trusted my broker with my life. so c.i. asks what i bought stock in.

i say 'enron.'

have you seen the episode of will & grace when karen and rosario come back to the country and the authorities put rosario in jail for stuff karen was smuggling into the country? every time rosario's name is mentioned, karen clutches her stomach?

it was just like that. 'enron.' at 1st, flyboy and i were playing around and would say every few minutes. but when it became obvious that it wasn't just happening (the stomach cramps and our use of the word), we stopped and were honestly worried about c.i. flyboy was saying we needed to get to a hospital.

finally, i was freaking out, i said, 'fine, fine, i'll sell.' and i did and unloaded as much as i could then with more to come over the next few days. as soon as i did, c.i.'s stomach cramps stopped.

if it weren't for those stomach cramps, i would have lost so much money. i can laugh about it because i didn't. if i was 1 of those people who lost their entire savings, i wouldn't be laughing.

but elaine's mentioning that in some context (i'm not sure what) so i'll just note that there are stocks that c.i. just has a sense of. strongly positive or strongly negative. it doesn't work on every 1. but there are stocks that c.i. just gets a gut feeling on.

c.i. saved my ass on that 1 and flyboy just came in a second ago (he was putting the baby down for the night) and reminded me that we both (flyboy and i) had put money into enron on the advice of 'your idiot broker.'

flyboy also points out that when enron was going way up there, we both (he and i) complained about selling. but we would have stayed on for the full ride and lost what we put in. when it crashed, we were 'thank you, thank you' to c.i. and, as my husband points out, c.i. was all 'no big deal. it just didn't feel good. i'm wrong more than i'm right.'

it's why i always love to drag c.i. to a casino. c.i. hates gambling but if you can drag c.i. to a table, you can usually come out okay. craps, black jack, roulette, you name it. (c.i. will be very upset if i do not point out that c.i. is not psychic, doesn't think otherwise. but c.i. has some amazing instincts. especially when money is involved.) (like all of us, those instincts go right out the window when love walks in the door. however, c.i.'s had less messy love affairs than i have. but so have 99% of the world's population.)

whenever i was expanding the business, i would involve c.i. i'd be 'let's go see this new space i'm thinking about leasing' or whatever. and if there was any 'i don't feel good about this,' i'd mark it right off my options list.

but the enron moment will always stand out because just the name made c.i. ill. it wasn't 'i don't have a good feeling about this.' it was physically ill from the sound of the word. and, like i said, at first flyboy and i were playing around thinking it was something else and just a coincidence that everytime we said 'enron' c.i. had stomach cramps.

(c.i. always minimizes that and says, 'i'm sure my response was to the amount of money you had put into 1 company.' but i'm talking with flyboy right now and we both remember c.i. objecting to the amount of money but not being ill until we started saying 'enron.' and, i'm sure, c.i. will point out to me, 'if i was psychic, it wouldn't have taken 3 hours of stomach cramps to convince you to sell.' true.)

okay, that's the post for tonight. i was planning on talking about news but flyboy came back from putting the baby down and we got stuck talking about enron and then i'd write a bit more so i've spent way too long on this post. we've got a dvd a friend said we have to watch you. ('you'll love it!!!!' in case we don't, i won't mention the title. if we do 'love it,' i'll give the name tomorrow.)

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, June 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Canadian Jonathan Kay needs a history tutor to explain war resistance to him, a guilty plea is entered in a US court, and more.

Starting with war resistance, the BBC had US war resister Corey Glass and Jonathan Kay of Canada's National Post debate and have posted it today. The winner of the debate? Corey Glass. In fact, Glass didn't have to say one word to win. Not when conservative Jonathan Kay doesn't think a debate requires knowing facts. Kay argues: "There's no draft in the United States -- as there was in the Vietnam era: No one forced him to put on a uniform. Why should Canadians help this deserter go back on his freely given word?" Why did Canada do it during Vietnam? See, Jonathan Kay is only the latest in a long line of Dumb Asses who wants to hop on a soapbox without ever knowing what the hell he's talking about. Let's toss out some basics for everyone. January 1969 was an important month for Canada. Why? The issue of deserters.

Not the issue of draft dodgers, the issue of deserters. The US wanted Canada to refuse to give them asylum. At that time, pay attention Dumb Ass Jonathan Kay, both groups (deserters and draft dodgers) qualified to become Canadian citizens or permanent immigrants. Canada's Dept of Manpower and Immigration informed the world on January 30, 1969 that Canada was considering refusing deserters. In July of of 1968, the Canadian government had already encouraged immigration workers to begin refusing applications from anyone who was active duty meaning deserters could be refused. By January 1969, it was so bad that deserters in Canada (who had not already been granted either citizenship or permanent immigrant status) were being encouraged to apply in areas far from the borders because applying at the border could result in a "no" and being escorted back to the US side of the border (where an arrest would take place). Prior to that, Canada -- much to the LBJ administration's displeasure -- was regularly granting citizenship and permanent immigrant status to deserters and draft dodgers. As a result of the above, it became harder for deserters (but not for draft resisters).

That's why the new policy, explained May 22, 1969 by Allan J. MacEachen (Canada's Minister of Immigration) was so significant: "If a serviceman from another country meets our immigration criteria, he will not be turned down because his is still in the active service of his country. The selection criteria and requirements applying to him will be the same as those that apply to other applicants." Get it? There was a tiny move in July of 1968. January of 1969 there was a move to make it policy that deserters would be rejected/ejected. By May of 1969, that was no more. The draft was never the issue for granting war resisters asylum in Canada during Vietnam.

We can go as deep into this as we need to but, possibly, Jonathan Kay and other Canadians might just be so ashamed at this point -- that an American knows more about this aspect of their own country's history than they do -- that they decide it's past time for them to try brushing up on the facts?

Here's Corey Glass speaking from the BBC:

Last week I was in Ottawa, when the House of Commons passed a motion saying that the Canadian government should make it possible for conscientious objectors to get permanent residence in Canada. The motion also said that all deportation proceedings against us should be stopped.
But I may be deported anyway. On 21 May I was told that my last chance to stay in Canada had failed, and I must leave by 12 June (since extended to 10 July). I know that if I return to the US I will face imprisonment and possibly a criminal record.
I don't think it is fair that I should be returned to the United States to face unjust punishment for doing what I felt morally obligated to do. I am hoping that Canada, which stayed out of the Iraq War for reasons similar to my own, will reverse the deportation order and let me stay, as parliament has urged.

To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Iraq. Treaties. April 10th, US Senator Joe Biden outlined the basics:

We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq. One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.

On the Status Of Force Agreement, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "member of the two ruling Shiite parties" in the Iraqi Parliament are stating "the United States is demanding 58 bases" and quotes Jalal al Din al Saghir explaining, "The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abdominable that occupation. We were occupied by the order of the Security Counil. But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far." Rob Corbidge (The Scotsman) cites the bases as "the most obvious physical legacy". The Status Of Force Agreement is to replace the 2004 UN authorization which neither the White House or the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, wants to renew. (al-Maliki ignored the Parliament and the Constitution twice to renew it previously.) That authorization ends at the end of this year. Were it not renewed, there would be no cover for the US to remain in Iraq. As Nazila Fathi and Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) point out that the SOFA has "become a major political issue, further splitting Shiite allies of Mr. Maliki and the political movement of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric." al-Sadr has made clear his opposition to the SOFA and is calling for demonstrations every Friday to show objections to it. AP reports, "The Bush administartion is conceding for the first time that the United States might not finish a complex security agreement with Iraq before President Bush leaves office. Faced with stiff Iraqi opposition, it is 'very possible' the United States might have to extend an existing U.N. mandate, said a senior administration official close to the talks. That would mean major decisions about how U.S. forces operate in Iraq could be left to the next president, including how much authority the United States must give Iraqis over military operations and how quickly the handover takes place." Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) maintains that a big obstacle is the "growing economic and political relationship" Iraq has "with Tehran" that's become the obstacle. As Ashraf Khali (Los Angeles Times) points out, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki concluded a three-day visit to Iran after meeting Monday with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who warned that the continued presence of U.S. troops was 'the main obstacle on the way to progress and prosperity in Iraq'."

Dropping back to the August 28, 2007 snapshot:

Today James Glanz and Eric Schmitt (New York Times) report . . . "federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchasing and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces" -- "the largest ring of fruad and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here". Among those under investigation is "a senior American officer [Lt. Com. Levonda Joey Selph] who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005". The reporters cite an August 18th interview with Petraeus where he explained "he made a decision not to wait for formal tracking systems to be put in place before distributing weapons". There is no tracking system for the tax payer dollars and no tracking system within Iraq where the weapons were apparently passed around like candy. (US arms already glut the blackmarket in Iraq.) Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted that the "investigation includes the Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Department of Justice, the FBI and others. The senior officer, Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, worked closely with General Petraeus to set up logistic services for Iraqi forces." And in response to that, Pauline Jelinek (AP) reports, "The Pentagon is sending a team of investigators to Iraq because of the growing number of cases of fraud and other irregularities in contracts involving weapons and supplies for Iraqi forces."

November 11th, Eric Schmitt, Ginger Thompson, Margot Williams and James Glanz (New York Times) reported on the latest when Levonda Joey Selph's was visited by the paper at her Virginia hom and "Selph would say only that she was not guilty of any wrongdoing, and she said she was under orders not to speak to the press." AP reports Selph entered guilty pleas "to bribery and conspiracy in U.S. District Court" today and that "Selph admitted she leaked confidential government information about the contract to the head of the winning contracting company and helped him submit phony bid packages on behalf of six separate companies he controlled 'to create the appearance of competition, when, in fact, no competition existed.' In return, she was paid $4,000 by the contractor and took a trip with his wife to Thailand during which he paid $5,000 for Selph's airfare and accommodations." Everyone lives high on the hog except the Iraqi people. As Naomi Klein has documented, the Iraq War, for the White House, has been very much about""Baghdad Year Zero" -- where they would take an existing system, reduce it to rubble and rebuild it into their neocon, economic wet dream. [Also see Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism.] One of the non-stop efforts on the part of the US has been attacks on the rations system. Prior to the illegal war, Iraqis had ratiions card that the guaranteed the people basic necessities. Attempts to do away with them weren't working out so it's been a process of chip away bit by bit. Dropping back to the December 4th snapshot for the most recent attack: "The United Nations' IRIN reports that Abid Falah al-Soodani (Trade Minister) announced yesterday that, starting next month, 'the quantity of national food rations delivered freely to all Iraqi families will be futher reduced -- from 10 to five items.' Now let's be clear, this isn't just halfing the food supplies. He told the Iraqi Parliament that the five items provided will be provided in lower numbers. Here's what's getting cut out: tea, beans, children's milk, soap detergent and tomato paste. Here's what's getting reduced: rice, sugar, cooking oil, flour and milk for adults. What a way to say, "Welcome Home!" And to be clear, despite the lies, this has nothing to do with a government 'shortfall.' This is about ending the subsidies which Paul Bremer already tried once. The Iraqi government has more money than they spend at this point (though a great deal ends up in personal pockets) and this claim that they can't afford to supply children with milk is nothing but a lie." Today IRIN reports that Iraq's Ministry of Trade is floting a new plan that will mean more cuts but just of "those with high incomes". In the midst of an ongoing, illegal war and in a country with unemployment rates in excess of 60% since 2006?

Turning to readily acknowledged violence . . .
Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded four police officres, while another wounded two civilians and a Salahuddin Province roadside bombing claimed the life of "[t]he tribal leader of the AIBu Nasir clan" and wounded the leader's driver and two bodyguards. Reuters notes a grenade bombing on a home that left four family members injured and a Suq al-Shiyukh roadside bombing that claimed the life "of a member of the provincial council" and left four bodyguards injured.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants attacked an accountant in Salahuddin Province and stole $60,000. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Turning to US politics. This morning (no links to trash) Taylor Marsh declared that Senator Hillary Clinton had released her delegates -- no release took place -- and instead of saying, "Oops! My bad!" she wants to insist this afternoon it doesn't matter. The word "release" has a particular meaning in this context and if Marsh isn't smart enough to grasp that or how to say "My bad!", she really needs to find a topic other than electoral politics to cover. She also has taken it upon herself to act as if she's speaking for the Hillary campaign and for Hillary herself. Taylor Marsh is not speaking for the campaign or for Hillary. Elaine addressed Taylor Marsh last night and, as Elaine points out, Marsh is no feminist. No delegates have been "released." The convention is in August. A candidate would be very foolish to release delegates. In 2004, Dennis Kucinich gave a lot of promises and kept none of them at the convention. If he'd had a significant number of delegates, he could have made a difference. Any candidate would hold on to their delegates if only to ensure that issues will be addressed.

Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) points out: "The Democratic National Committee either doesn't get it or refuses to admit it. Nothing short of a lengthy, detailed mea culpa by the DNC and by Obama himself, directed to Clinton supporters for the sexist name-calling and personal, nasty characterizations Clinton was alone forced to endure, will do. Even that may not persuade these voters to consider supporting the party this fall. The DNC, Democratic Party leaders in Congress, and Obama should have been at her side, calling her treatment by the media (and even by some Obama supporters) unacceptable." Erbe points out that Barack misses the point appearing on CNN and also note the rush on the part of the media to say that it's all water under the bridge. And she points out the obvious: No one knows what Hillary supporters will do this fall if she is not on the ticket.

Though the media and the Obama campaign want to pretend this is over, there's no reason to hold that belief. Hillary gave a great speech Saturday. That helped Hillary. Her supporters waited to see some positive feedback from Barack and the DNC 'leaders' . . . and waited . . . and waited. This went beyond Hillary a long time ago. Probably around the time the thugs (Robert Scheer, Robert Parry, et al) went after Gloria Steinem and then thought they could turn Robin Morgan into part of the circus as well. Around that time it became 'acceptable' for White Males to show up with columns lecturing women that they shouldn't vote for Hillary -- as the PIGS assumed women would only vote for Hillary because she was a woman. And, strangely, the same White males, so quick to write "Don't vote on gender!" columns, never wrote "Don't vote on race!" columns. Get it? They were afraid to go that far but they were more than comfortable trying to shove women around in the public square. Next was the Obama's campaign's embrace of homophobia because what's more 'hopeful' than spreading lies that the LGBT community 'recruits' and children must be protected from them? It's confusing to faux feminists, but real feminists don't condone that b.s. And it is not going away. The LGBT factor especially is boiling right now and will continue to do so. It's Gay Pride Month. Poor little Sharon Smith, she can't write about that. Laura Flanders and Betsy Reed wanted to talk about homophobia . . . in terms of how it hurt John Edwards (a straight male). They're hypocrites but people catch on. These things are not going away and the DNC and Barack seem to think they'll just vanish. I'd love to know what they're basing that on because it's not based on any real world event. And on women, Bonnie Erbe isn't making predictions. One reason for that, as people who watch PBS' To The Contrary know, Erbe speaks to a vareity of women -- far, far from any echo chamber.

Ralph Nader is running for the presidency. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. As Team Nader points out, Friday's AP polling showed Nader at 6%: "And that's Nader at six percent with virtually no mainstream national press coverage." It should be added, that's Nader at six percent when the campaign's main focus right now is ballot access (meaning Nader has to raise his candidacy and ballot access while Dems and Repubes only have to get the word out on their campaigns). Brian Montopoli (CBS News) notes a CNN - Opinion Research Corporation poll that also found Nader at 6%. Ann Marie Somma (Hartford Courtant) reports on Nader's stop in Middletown, Conn where he spoke to "about 60 supporters at First Church of Christ" and told them, "Corporations have hijacked our government, turned Washington, D.C., into a corporate-occupied territory." Bill Coleman (Burlington Free Press) maintains, "In reality, the worthiest of candidates, namely Ralph Nader, is disregarded from the outset because the election of someone such as Mr. Nader would bring about a true day of reckoning for American corporations. . . . Yes, Ralph Nader supports an end to corporate personhood in contrast to Barack Obama or John McCain, whose campaigns are awash in contributions from corporate America. The differences between Mr. Nader and the candidates that you are permitted to read about or see on television each day are very far reaching and vast. For well over 30 years Mr. Nader has been actively supporting major cuts in military spending while Mr. Obama says that he wants to 'strengthen the military' and McCain also supports the extension of the U.S. oil empire." Patti Smith is doing her part for the Nader campaign and click here for a video of her at a campaign event at Cooper Union last month. Nader was in Cambridge over the weekend and Michael Horan (No Supper Tonight) posts the video and takes on the nonsense of a Nation editorial: "My initial reaction: somebody's not paying attention. Because I can answer that question without qualification, having watched Ralph Nader get up in front of a small crowd at First Parish Church in Cambridge Friday night and discuss each and every one of these issues. Head-on. (Along with tax reform, electoral reform, Palestine, the voting age, single payor healthcare, and etcetera). Issues that neither Obama or Hillary are going to acknowledge, much less address . The question isn't 'who is willing to point out the veritable herd of elephants in the room, and, great, stinking beshitted angry elephants at that?'; the question is why on earth The Nation and its readership, since they apparently share precisely the same ideals, refuse to acknowledge the obvious answer. Of course, what The Nation is really asking is, 'what magnificently-funded Democratic candidate bearing the corporate nihil obstat and the Wall Street imprimatur is raising these issues?' To which the answer is, such a beast does not, cannot exist in nature, and the absurdity of of asking this basilisk beast to bite the hand that feeds it-or rather, to devour its keeper whole--is patently obvious."

Today, Team Nader notes: "They say it's a foregone conclusion that either Obama or McCain will win the November election. After all, Obama and McCain are the odds on favorites to win. On the other hand. If you believe in betting against the crumbling corporate controlled two-party system. Then you have a choice. The long shot independent - Nader/Gonzalez. (Of course, if you bet and win, all that you will get is a shift of power from the big corporations back to the people. Not bad for politics.)"

iraqcorey glass
liam lahey
walter pincusthe washington post
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadelrob corbidgehoward lafranchinazila fathirichard a. oppel jr.the new york timesashraf khalilthe los angeles times

Posted at 09:24 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 9, 2008

music

sherry e-mailed me an article and i'm going to quote some of it at the top. it's geoff boucher's 'SoCal Songbook: "California Dreamin'" by the Mamas and Papas' (los angeles times) and mama michelle phillips is speaking:

"He had the lyrics for those first eight bars that night," said Michelle Phillips, the only surviving member of the Mamas & the Papas. "I added the next few lines about the church. He hated it. Just hated it. But he didn't have anything better." That portion of the song -- " Stopped in to church / I passed along the way / Well, I got down on my knees / And I began to pray" -- has an interesting history.
Not everyone hears the same lyrics, and that includes the people who sang it."We were on the road after the song was a hit and I was a doing a sound check with Cass [Elliot], and I sang the lyric. She looked at me and said, 'Wait, what did you say? I thought the lyric was 'I pretend to pray.' That's how she had been singing it all along!"
The Phillipses divorced in 1970. Michelle would become a successful television actress and used "California Dreamin' " as the title of her 1986 autobiography. She was shocked when, shortly before his death in 2001, her ex-husband publicly said she didn't deserve to share the songwriting credit with him on the classic. "I was hurt," she said. "It didn't make sense to me."

i don't like john phillips and i met him repeatedly throughout his life. i think he got worse when he got clean (or maybe just more calculating). he seemed (my opinion) to get clean and realize he'd wasted the 70s and a portion of the 80s and had nothing to show for his life except the mamas and the papas. at that point, it was time to steal credit like crazy.

he tried to steal from michelle and cass.

with michelle, it was just hateful and i always thought he felt he could get away with that. (due to their divorce. the way some men always think they can trash their ex-wives.) with cass, he was a little more clever. you wouldn't realize he'd just insulted in until a few minutes after unless you knew how he was. cass was an artist and, if you paid attention, john would try to strip her of that earned credit.

the last time i saw him was before he got sick (and every 1 says that didn't make him kinder). i was visiting c.i. and we were eating dinner somewhere, i don't even remember where.

i looked over and said, 'don't look but i think john phillips is walking over.'

he was.

he said hello to c.i. and managed to remember me (sometimes he didn't). he was not invited to sit down but seated himself and was on semi-good behavior for about 10 minutes. then the pleasantries were exchanged and it was time to go down memory lane which was never a happy time with john.

he starts putting down denny and c.i. rolled the eyes but that was just 2 sentences. then he went to town on cass and c.i. said, 'you know, i'm really not going to listen to you belittle her. thank you for dropping by the table.'

he slid his tongue over his lower lip, starting with the left side of his mouth and pulling it in a little after the half-way point. he was looking at c.i. and you could tell he was trying to figure out what he was going to do next. c.i. made it easy for him, 'john, you can leave now.'

he was just evil.

i liked him better as a drug addict.

he was irresponsible and prone to depression (and yelling at times) then but he was a person. when he went clean, he had this really dark presence, this menacing presence.

so i always will believe, he got clean and realized how many years he'd wasted.

nothing could make him happy because the gifts he had writing songs with michelle or denny or by himself were so far in the past. he wasn't a singer. he didn't have a bad voice it just wasn't unique by itself. and his fame was always on his writing because his voice was so no big deal.

cass, michelle and denny you can pick out the mix - unless cass and michelle are really blending. but john was just the other voice in there.

michelle (solo and with the group) always acted the song. i don't mean the lyric. i mean she always had an idea of what the song was and her voice captured that. and that's always why i thought she and cass were so great together because cass acted the song as well. it was never (solo or group), 'oh let me hit this and this and this and this' and always more of a 'how do i serve this song?'

denny was 1 of kind and very sweet. i met him less than i did john but he was a very talented singer. but john. ugh. denny & michelle always seemed aware what year it was and weren't living in the past. (were because denny passed away last year.) and that's really what john should have done but he was just so bitter. when denny or michelle talked (still talks for michelle) about that time, it was with joy, a sense that it was a good time. they could remember the bad times in that period but that wasn't the focus. and they went on with their lives and had things to share after the band ended.

i always felt (my opinion) john orchestrated a lot of the drama in the group and was never called on it. i don't think his bitterness was just over 'those days are gone.' i think it was over the fact that he thought he could be a solo and he couldn't. and there was no way he could manipulate people the way he had during the mamas & the papas. he only invited michelle back in the group (after firing her) because it wasn't working without her. (as he himself admitted over and over in the 80s.) but even then, he'd brag a bit about how he got her back in the band and back in his life. he seemed very aware, in his bitter years, just how he had played the group.

when he cleaned up and i bumped into the 1st time, i was so depressed/offended, i had to stop listening to the music. it took me about a year or 2 before i could. (and i love them. i have their albums on vinyl as well as the boxed set from england with all the tracks on it.)

so that's my musical memory for the night.

and i'm not endorsing drug use or saying stay away. i am noting that when he was heavily self-medicated, it kept him from facing a lot of truths. when he cleaned up, he couldn't avoid them.

if you're new, i've talked about michelle before. i think she's wonderful. and think i've covered that (such as when she was on npr last year). but in case any 1 drives by and thinks, 'what about michelle?' she's wonderful. i have victim of love on vinyl and cd. (her solo album.)

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, June 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, justice in England (if not in the US), Corey Glass is told he does not have to leave Canada June 12th, the US military pumps service members full of drugs, and more.

Starting with Corey Glass. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. He will not be deported Thursday (the 12th). Torstar News Service reports: "Initially ordered to leave the country by June 12, Glass' departure date has been extended to July 10, after a month-long appeal process by his lawyer was finally approved last week." So he has a month to appeal. Dan Robson (Toronto Star) explains, "The former American soldier was set to become the first Iraq-war resister to be deported from Canada, after his application for refugee status was rejected more than two weeks ago. Glass said his lawyer put forward the appeal so he would have sufficient time to properly settle his accounts and allow him to leave his job in a professional manner." Friday, Amnesty issued their statement, "USA: James Corey Glass has right not to serve in Iraq," which noted, "Amnesty International believes James Corey Glass to have a genuine conscientious objection to serving as a combatant in the US forces in Iraq, and would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience if imprisoned on his return to the USA."

And last Tuesday, the House of Commons in Canada voted to let war resisters stay in the country. Krystalline Kraus (Rabble News) reports, "Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPs (137 in total) stood in favour -- literally stood up to vote as procedure dictates, though for a second the line of MPs could be confused for a makeshift honour guard of sorts -- of the 'war resister' motiong. From the ranks of the Conservative Party, 110 MPs stood against" and quotes US war resister Robin Long explaining, "I feel a small but growing and powerful group of people have woken up and are taking a stand . . . and these people are going to wake everyone else up, leading the people back to power and away from the corporate agenda Bush." October 1, 2007, Robin Long was arrested and told he would be deported.
The New Democratic Party of Canada issued a statement "calling on the [prime minister Stephen] Harper government to reexamine their decision to deport Long and allow him to stay in Canada." By October 4, 2007 the threat volume was lowered. Last week, Dianne Mathiowetz and Jaimeson Champion (Workers World) reported, "The motion to halt the deportations is a strong step against a series of recent reactionary rulings issued by the Canadian Supreme Court. The court's refusals to hear the appeals for refugee status filed by numerous GI resisters have paved the way for the possible deportation of dozens, if not hundreds, of conscientious objectors. The vote in the Canadian Parliament comes on the heels of a deportation order given to GI resister Corey Glass. Glass, an Indiana resident, signed up for the National Guard in 2002. He was deployed to Iraq in 2005 and served five months as a military intelligence sergeant before going AWOL to protest what he deemed an 'illegal and immoral' war. Glass moved to Toronto, Canada, in August 2006." Kevin Brooker (Calgary Herald) argues, "There are many outward reasons why granting sanctuary to an estimated 200 former soldiers should be an automatic gesture for Canada. Foremost is the simple fact that the United Nations itself, not to mention enlightened voices around the world, declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to be a violation of the UN charter. It also would support the Nuremberg Principles, which compel a soldier to withdraw from military acts, like this one, which are patently illegal." And Jan Heynen writes to the Ottawa Citizen to support war resisters:

Let them stay Last Tuesday, the Opposition parties in the House of Commons joined together to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would require the Canadian government to allow permanent resident status to U.S. war resistors and their families and to cease all deportation and removal proceedings against the war resisters. Canada refused to join the war in Iraq. It is consistent with that decision to accept people into the country who don't agree either with the legality of that war.The illegality of that war has been demonstrated many times. It has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives, both Iraqi and U.S. Our own government should follow the parliamentary directive, which many people agree with. It can restore some of the shine to our reputation in the world as a peacemaker. Jan Heynen, Ottawa

To keep the pressure on, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to England where gender discrimation and harasment appears to be taken much more seriously than in the US. Caroline Gammel (Telegraph of London) reports that Rabia Siddique ("female major who helped rescue two SAS Soldiers" and also "a lawyer who worked for the Army Legal Services") went public about being being "victimised by senior officers and subjected to months of religious, racial and sex discrimination and quotes her stating, "For the last several years I have very much enjoyed and been honoured to serve my country as a legal officer in the armed forces. Unfortunately I have been treated unfavourably because I am a Muslim, Asian woman. As a result of this treatment my career, which I was fully committed to, has suffered which has caused me great distress. Because of this I have felt compelled to bring a claim to this employment tribunal." In the US, Rabia Siddique might next pop up in the news a year and a half from now. Instead, Caroline Gammel later reported that Siddique's case had been resolved and "an undisclosed settlement was agreed. Her lawyer Joanna Wade said Major Siddique had been 'very happy' with the agreement, but refused to divulge details. Part of the deal was the latter from Gen Sir Richard" and quotes Siddique declaring, "I am also pleased to hear what the Chief of the General Staff has said about lessons that may be learnt, which is primarily what I was seeking by bringing these claims." Tom Kelley and Michael Seamark (The Daily Mail) report, "Military chiefs have vowed to learn lessons from the treatment of a female Muslim Army lawyer who was 'given a hug instead of a medal' for her part in trying to free soldiers kidnapped in Iraq. , , , A last-minute settlement was agreed yesterday as her case was due to be heard by Central London employment tribunal." The kidnapping case referred to was the two British military personnel caught in Basra with bombs, guns, etc. in a civlian car, wearing wigs and disguises to appear "Iraqi". Robert F. Worth (New York Times) noted in real time, "The arrest and detention of the British officers, who were in Arab dress, was handled appropriately, said the spokesman, who agreed to discuss the episode on the condition of anonymity. A judge issued an arrest warrant and informed both the Basra governor and the city council about the case, he said." Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) observed then, "The fight broke out when British forces attacked a police station after the detention of two British soldiers apparently disguised in local dress." Solo, Tavernise reported, "The official said that the soldiers were undercover officers dressed as Iraqis and that Iraqi police officers had arrested them after the men fired at a traffic police officer." Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) first reported on Rabia Siddique's case at the first of this month. Military service member or civilian contractor, think of all the US women who wait and wait for something resembling justice. Which usually never arrives.

Meanwhile Mark Thompson (Time magazine) reports on 'treatment,' "For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicaines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resources: soldiers on the front lines." Yeah, I think Louis Mayer used to trot a line like that out years ago at Metro and we all know it did wonders for Judy Garland. Remember, when everything falls apart (as it does), the defense is always that it's never the organization's fault, only the individuals. While US service members are pumped with drugs, AP reported on puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki visiting Iraq and insisting to Iran that the treaty and he the White House are trying to force through will not allow Iraq to be used as a stage to launch a US war with Iran. The question of course is does the puppet tell the White House the truth or does he tell Iran the truth? AP notes: "Iran fiercely opposes the deal, fearing it will lead to permanent US bases on its doorstep amid fears of an eventual American attack. Iran has led a vocal campaign against the deal, with powerful former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani vowing last week that people in Iraq and the region won't allow it. That has led to US accusations that Tehran is actively trying to scuttle the agreement - putting al-Maliki's government in a tight spot between its two rival allies." Asraf Khalil (Los Angeles Times) reports that while the talks went on, "a public affairs program broadcast on Iranian television" featured "one panelist" who "compared American bases in Iraq to the installation of Russian missiles in Cuba during the Cold War betwen the United States and the Soviet Union." Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reports that while the meetings were going on, the US military in Iraq was yet again trumpeting the capture of a supect that they insisted was linked to Iran but, as Kramer noted, "The United States military regularly announces the detention of militia fighters it says are operating with Iranian support. Iranian authorities deny they have a hand in the fighting."

Kramer also notes 2 US service members died from bombings Sunday (one in Baghad, the otehr in Kirkuk). The number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war currently stands at 4094. Also on Sunday, Reuters reports, the Turkish military and the PKK again fought on the border and "an operation against the rebels" PKK "continued on Monday." CBS and AP notes, "U.S. soldiers under heavy fire during a raid Monday in northwestern Iraq called in airstrikes and killed five suspected al Qaeda in Iraq militants, the military said." The airstrike comes as Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports Iraqi officials are saying they want the US service members "confined to their bases" and off the streets. In other Iraq news, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) also reports on the diplomatic front: "The Turkish Prime Minister is preparing to make his first trip to Iraq since the invasion, while Jordan will soon send an ambassador to Baghdad, in the latest signs of a desire in the region to work with the US-backed Iraqi Government. Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, and Jalal Talabani, the President, during his forthcoming stay, according to Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi Government spokesman." Who would Jordan be sending? The post has not been filled.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left twelve injured, a Baghdad grenade attack that left two police officers wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two police officers, a Zanjili grenade attack that wounded two Iraqi police officers, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded one police officer, an Al-Muradiyah roadside bombing that injured four women who "were doing farming in one of the orachards," an Al Wahihiya mortar attack that claimed 1 life and left two injured and a Dali Abbas roadside bombing injured one person.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot up a Baghdad jewelry store resulting in 3 deaths and two police officers wounded, unknown assailants shot dead "two prominent Sheikhs in Mosul," a woman was shot dead in Balad Ruz, a "retired officer" was shot dead in Hibhib and a shooting in Muqdadiyah left two "seriously wounded". Reuters notes a Mosul home invasion where two residents were murdered and a police officer shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 25 corpses (unidentified) at the Baquba morgue were buried after 40 days without being claimed.

iraqcorey glass
kevin brookerdan robsondianne mathiowetzjaimeson champion
robin longamnesty
the new york timessabrina tavernise
andrew e. kramermcclatchy newspapers
richard a. oppel jr.
robert f. worth
ashraf khalilthe los angeles times
deborah haynes

Posted at 09:07 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 7, 2008

e-mails, i get e-mails

An Article 32 -- the military's equivalent of a preliminary hearing -- may be held as early as next week at Camp Pendleton. Winnick is a sniper attached to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.
In 2004, while also serving with the Three-One, his quick thinking and aggressiveness during the battle for Fallouja were extolled by author Bing West in his book "No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah."

that's from tony parry's 'IRAQ: Marine hero now accused of crimes' (los angeles times) and that's some iraq news for you. now let's dive into e-mails.

why, oh, why, oh, why can't i find it in me to support cynthia mckinney?

that's a jerk named steven's question. he doesn't think it's fair to blame greens for 'refusing to call out sexism'. excuse me, steven, greens like medea benjamin and kimberly wilder actively contributed to the sexist attacks on hillary clinton. they didn't just stay silent, they contributed. so did ted glick and all the other ridiculous pieces of trash.

now that we've cleared that up, cynthia had my support. she lost it because i'm not interested in voting for a presidential candidate that's not trying to win the white house.

that and the fact that she surrounded herself with sexists like glick, that she allowed a piece of trash/scum who loathes all feminists (and wrote two pieces attacking all feminists - of all races - that were published at counterpunch) means she doesn't know how to discipline her rag-tag campaign.

it also would have cost cynthia nothing to stand up and say, 'excuse me? nutcrackers being sold by msnbc at airports? with hillary on them? these vile words? as a woman i'm offended.'

cynthia never did.

she lost my vote. it's gone.

if hillary's out of the race (which appears likely barring a barack scandal), i vote for ralph nader gladly.

tpd wanted me to know that yes, 'kimberly wilder is nuts, but she doesn't speak for all greens.' so where's the green critique on the sexism in this campaign?

you can rush off and write something after the fact but, when it mattered, you gleefully stood back and enjoyed it. you may pretend to be opposed to sexism but you HATE hillary so much that you didn't care what tactics were used against her and when your own party used the same tactics against her and propped up barack, you found it delightful.

kiss my ass. as a national party, you're a joke. you'll always be a joke.

it's because you refuse to act like a political party. and members refuse to demand that the party stop fretting over what's best for the democratic party.

you're pathetic and you have no real issues, just a bunch of blah, blah, blah talking points that your candidates appear unable or unwilling to develop. you're running for something, you just can't figure out what.

don't like what i'm saying?

you stayed silent while women were attacked. not only did you stay silent a large number of you contributed to the attacks.

kiss my ass about your vast concern for social justice.

LIE.

if you gave a damn about social justice you would have called out misogny. you didn't. you exposed yourselves as frauds and fakes.

you can lie to yourself from here to tomorrow. you're obviously very good at lying to yourself because you continue to believe that the leaders of your 'party' really want the white house. year after year they wuss out and betray the grass roots. you should have started expelling those liars a long time ago.

as c.i. notes in today's snapshot, barack's now saying if he gets into the white house he's not sure troops can withdrawn. medea benjamin, where's your pathetic ass?

huh, medea?

now that's not really new because it's what samantha power said in the spring.

but pathetic medea benjamin - who supposedly wants to end the illegal war - hasn't protested barack.

that's because she's really about trashing women.

go trash yourself, medea. looking at the area around your eyes, it appears you've already started.

a good e-mail came in from community member keesha. she knew what blog ripped off c.i. and e-mailed with a copy and paste of the comment she left there today:

As a Hillary supporter, I come here to see women supporting other women. This is my final visit. ----- didn't discover the link she's elading us to. Another blogger, a pro-Hillary one, steered people to it on Tuesday afternoon. At least nine other blogs then noted it and gave credit to the woman. ----- wants me to believe that she just happened to discover her link on Thursday? Her link to a May 14 blog post? I don't like stealing, I don't like women who refuse to credit other women. I'm sure my comment will disappear but I'm done with TGW and maybe for a second or too people can know why. It is not feminist to stab other women in the back and steal their work.
Keesha 06.06.08 - 3:49 pm #

i've put '-----' in place of the name of the blogger. otherwise, that's the unedited comment keesha left and, she's right, it probably will be removed.

and i have run out of time.

okay, let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, June 6, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack isn't 'pledging' to do anything on Iraq, the VA computer systems lack all security, Nader qualifies for Arizona ballot, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Teviah Moro (The Orillia Packet & Times) reports that the Quakers in Orillia will demonstrate tomorrow in an attempt to register their support for war resisters in Canada. Ottawa, Nelson, B.C., Victoria, B.C., Port Dover, Sarnia and Strathory will also hold demonstrations. Moro notes: "Organizers of the Orillia rally, to be held outside the Opera House from 12:30 to 1:30 p. m., aim to explain the underlying issues of the pending deportations and will have petitions on hand."The rallies will be taking place to underscore the recent action in Canada's Parliament. Tuesday Canada's House of Commons passed a motion granting war resisters safe harbor. The motion is non-binding but it is hoped that the country's prime minister, Stephen Harper, will honor it. It is especially important with regards to US war resister Corey Glass. May 21st, US war resisters and Iraq War veteran Glass was informed that he had until June 12th to leave Canada or he would be deported. That is six days from now. Will the non-binding motion prevent the conservative Harper from ordering Glass' deportation? Rick Salutin (Toronto Globe & Mail) doesn't seem optimistic noting that from an AIDS conference (global conference) to any other issue, Harper loves to say no to the people: "Lately, it's been no to a safe-injection site in Vancouver; provincial climate plans; Ontario's budget; an inquiry into the Bernier case; letting U.S. war resisters stay. For a government, the Conservatives are uniquely, bizarrely litigious, the sign of a mentality that loves to fight."With more on that, this is from Michael Werbowski (OhmyNews International) reports that the vote on the motion "comes just in time for US army recruit Corey Glass, 25, a war resister who came to Canada in 2006 and was recently told to leave Canada by June 12 or face removal to the United States, welcomed the vote. Upon hearing the news of the motion passed by the lower house, Glass expressed his appreciation for the parliamentarians, "I'm thankful that the MPs voted to let me and the other war resisters stay in Canada. I'm also thankful to all the Canadians who urged their MPs to support us."

Meanwhile, It was two years ago today, as Austin Jenkins (OPB News) notes, that Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq in June 2006. In August 2006, he faced and Article 32 hearing. In February, he faced a kanagroo court-martial. Judge Toilet (aka John Head) declared a mistrial over defense objection as Watada was about to take the stand (after which the defense would have rested and the military jury would have reached a decision). Judge Toilet forgot a lot that day. He announced that a new court-martial would take place in March but that was really beyond his call (and why no court-martial took place then). He also forgot about the US Constitution, popularly known as "the law of the land," and it's provision against double-jeopardy. In November of last year, as Judge Toilet repeatedly tried to force another court-martial, US District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that no action could take place until the double-jeopardy was resolved. Watada has been in limbo since. William Cole (Honolulu Advertiser) speaks to Ehren's father, Bob Watada who has "suggested to his son's attorneys that they somehow force a conclusion to the issue" and whom Cole quotes stating, "The attorneys are talking to the Army. They aren't telling me what they are saying, but they are talking to them." Austin Jenkins (OPB News) quotes one of Watada's two civilian attorneys, Ken Kagan, declaring, "It's conceivable that the appeals process in the 9th Circuit could consume anywhere from 18 months to three years. So that is a limbo that is very hard for Lt. Watada to imagine but he's prepared to do what he needs to do."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Shhhh. Listen? It's the sound of hundreds of computers in Panhandle Media booting up over their sobs as they force determination to yet again sell their political crush as someone who will end the illegal war. Media anointed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is not 'anti-war' and is not seriously opposed to the illegal war. But if you didn't have Tommy Hayden, Laura Flanders and the gang lying for him non-stop, people wouldn't think otherwise, now would they? (Those two named because they have both -- in February -- talked about how Barack's feet need to be held to the fire and yet they've never done so. Someday I suppose, as the Mighty Bosstones once sang.)

The Press Trust of India reports that Barack told CNN he would "not tule out the possibility that conditions on the ground could alter his policy of immediately beginning a troop withdrawal and that Barack insisted of his 'pledge' to end the illegal war, "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind."
Confronted with his statements on withdrawal policy, Obama replied, "Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind". He spoke of "broader perspective"s and offered praise for Gen David Petraeus. It's shocking only if you've trusted the liars of Panhandle Media. Barack has changed his position on the Iraq War repeatedly. While running for the US Senate, he told Elaine and I at a big money, private fundraiser that he didn't favor withdrawal. His attitude was that the US was in Iraq now and had to win. (Neither Elaine nor I contributed to his run. We both immediately walked out of the fundraiser.) At that point he was a myth of the radical left, an "anti-war" candidate. The press picked up on that and he became the "anti-war" Senator which required ignoring not only his public statements (his many public statements) but his continued voting for the illegal war once he got into the US Senate. Throughout the campaign, he has signaled (and sometimes stated) to the mainstream press that his stance is far from it's portrayed. "Hopelessly Devoted To Barack" Tom Hayden made a real ass out of himself doing a quickie write up of an NYT article co-written by Michael Gordon. The reality of what was what was in the transcript of the interview which the paper posted online. In February, after his advertsiments where he robotically declared that his mother died of cancer, the campaign went into overtime with an advertisement that played like the Pepsi Generation (truly, it was the late 60s and early seventies Pepsi generation commercials). To a bad 'rock' guitar, the commercial opened and featured quick shots of Barack barking out sentences while groupies swooned. "We want . . ." he barked over and over, a laundry list of demands. The Iraq War was on it. But Barack wasn't running to be "we," he was running to become the nominee of the Democratic Party and then the president. There were no "I will end the Iraq War." All he did was offer what "we" wanted. It got the psychos in Panhandle Media excited. Of course, were he serious about ending the illegal war, his campaign would have stolen not the Pepsi commercials of that period, but the Coke commericals: I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony . . .

There was no "pledge" or "promise" made to end the illegal war, despite the groupies like Tom Hayden going bug-eyed crazy in their efforts to pretend otherwise (a fleeting sentence delivered in Houston, TX, as ginned up by Hayden into a new plan for Iraq). Then came the crash and burn of his advisor (a counter-insurgency supporter and War Hawk) Samantha Power. The pathetics in Panhandle Media made themselves laughable -- and include John Nichols, Davey D and BuzzFlash at the top of that list. Poor Samantha "fired" (Power resigned) for calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." Poor sweet Sammy. No, she resigned because of the damage she did with the press in England. The "monster" insult was the trivia the MSM pumped out. On that same trip, she insulted Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK and presumed ally of the next US administration regardless of who becomes president, and she gave an interview (that Panhandle Media refused to cover) to the BBC where she explained that Barack would be not be held accountable, if elected president, to any 'pledges' about Iraq he's making on the campaign trail. She explained, as an advisor to Barack and a campaign insider, that any plans about what to do in Iraq would be decided only after he entered the White House. Had that interview gotten the attention it should have, Barack would have faced tough questions. That didn't happen. It wasn't of interest to the corporate media (which still wants the illegal war) to give it much traction and the rejects of Panhandle Media are in love with Barack because of his 'connections' (his using of) Saul, Bernardine and Bill. They deluded themselves into believing he was a Socialist when he is just a user who will use anyone regardless of political ideology in his efforts to climb to the top.

The Queen of the Beggars, Amy Goodman, wanted credit for a few minutes (two?) she aired of her speaking with Barack. In it, he basically repeated what Samantha Power had said. Goody never pursued that in panel discussions (all panel discussions accepted the lie that he was against the illegal war and would immediately end it). Goody never connected it with the Samantha Power BBC interview (though Barack was making the same points Power had months prior) and she never wrote one of her bad columns, where she recycles some segment of her show, on the topic. It was lie, lie, lie, denial, denial. They worked overtime not to include Eli Lake (New York Sun) report in the narrative. Lake reported that the "day-to-day coordinator" of Barack's campaign had just written a paper which argued for 60,000 to 80,000 US troops to remain in Iraq "as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office."

Among the very few who have tried to maintain perspective and stick to reality about War Hawk Barack are Phyllis Bennis, John Pilger, Doug Henwood and Juan Gonzalez. It's a very small list. By contrast, most have offered 'reasons' of support for Barack like the insane Dave Lindorff who believes Barack should be supported because Barak is "a black candiate who has risked jail by doing drugs."

The violence continues every day in Iraq and Barack, not even having the nomination, already signals it's a-okay with him. In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a home bombing in Sulaiman Beck, a Jalwla roadside bombing that wounded one person. Reuters notes a woman blew herself in at a Ramadi police station claiming the life of 1 police officer and injuring four more and, dropping back to Thursday, that 4 people were killed in Sadr City from a US air strike.

Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 suspects shot dead in Al Anbar Province, 1 police officer shot twice in Al Anbar Province and wounded and 1 civilian shot in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 3 police officers were shot dead in Dour.

Kidnappings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person kidnapped in Kirkuk.

Yesterday CNN's Jamie McIntyre broke the latest Department of Defense news on CNN Newsroom:

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Asked to resign, which is code for firing, is the top civilian in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and the top military general in charge of the Air Force, Air Force Chief of Staff General Mike Moseley. The two top leaders of the Air Force are being replaced because Secretary Gates has received a highly critical report of how the Air Force has reacted to an embarrassing incident last year which a B-52 bomber flew across country with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles that nobody knew were live nuclear weapons until the plane landed in Barksdale , Louisiana .There were supposed to be big changes made from that. But a recent inspection of the base was less than satisfactory, and Secretary Gates just got a report on his desk from an independent investigator, a Navy admiral who has been in charge of reviewing what the Air Force has done to take care of this. It's not just this issue though. There have been a number of leadership issues in the Air Force including questions about a conflict of interest around a high-profile public relations contract that was left from the Air Force. And all of that together led Secretary Gates to decide that he was going to take decisive action.It's not unlike what he did when he heard about the shortcomings at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital . In that case, he fired the Army secretary and head of the hospital there, as well -- Brianna.

There have been a number of issues with the Veterans Administration Dept as well but no heads are rolling. At the start of the week, Mary Mosquera (FCW) reported, "Sensitive data on about 1,000 patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military hospitals might have been compromised, Walter Reed spokesman Chuck Dasey said. The names of the patients, who are enrolled in the Military Health System, their Social Security numbers and birth dates were among the personally identifiable information in a computer file that was shared without authorization, officials said June 2." AP broke this news about the May 2006 breach at Walter Reed. The key point of the reports is how the Office of Management and Budget issued orders, in 2006, for increased securit on the part of the VA. But they broke it with the government explaining this week about the 2006 computer breach. We (Ava and C.I.) revealed earlier this week that there's a VA breach that took place after the breach the government is now admitting to. This breach has nothing to do with Walter Reed. The basics are that an over-forty-years-old male (who name rhymes with "Los Lobos" and who is a veteran) used a civilian computer to access veterans records. The government is not only aware of the breach, they investigated it. They didn't do a very good job. The government does not know what the person viewed or changed. They know that, from the basement of a non-federal government building, he used a PC to enter the VA's computer database without permission or authorization. Present when he did this was a woman (also a civilian and one who has never served in the military) whom the government never questioned. What the government did do was call together the suspect's superiors at his place of employment -- a four story building whose fourth floor is not used for anything (the basement counted as a floor makes for five floors) -- on the second floor in what passed for an investigation. Those civlians 'assisting' in the investigation of the breach that happened at their place of business were known as "administration." (E.g., they spoke with "administration.") The investigation could not figure out whether the supsect was telling the truth about why he entered the VA system without permission and, certainly, to know about that they should have spoken with the woman present when the breach occurred. The suspect offered two versions of his story and that may be what confused the investigators (though it was very simple for us to track down the particulars). They do know, due to the suspect admitting to it, that the records of someone who served during Vietnam (and only during Vietnam) were accessed. (Hint to reporters, that leads to your human interest angle). The suspect briefly told government investigators a story regarding that Vietnam era veteran that the investigators did not buy; however, it was easily checked out had they bothered to speak to the Vietnam veteran (which they never did). There is fear that the suspect altered the Vietnam veteran's record (we are told by civilian sources that no alteration of that record took place). Why does the government think that? It goes to the human interest angle. In terms of hard news, the angle is the "how." The "how" of it goes to a huge flaw that was supposed to have been addressed and was never addressed. It goes to lack of oversight at the VA.

We're not here to spoonfeed news outlets, get off your lazy asses and don't expect two media critics to do all your work. (It's as if today's Woodward & Bernsteins expect you not only to spill the beans, but also type up their reports and then wipe their asses.) The federal goverment made a big deal this week about honesty and 'fessed up to problems in May of 2006. The 2007 breach is more serious not because of the suspect or what he may or may not have done but how he got into the system without authorization. The breach should never happened and were basic guidelines followed (guidelines that any civilian computer system would follow), it never would have happened. The big story is the "how" of the breach, not the "who." And it goes to the OMB's orders not being followed. The first three digits of the civilian location where the breach took place are "312." The street has "East" in it. And the street's name was also the name of a long running TV show but in singular not plural. We're done spoonfeeding the press except to advise NYT that Ralph should have had this story.

This is our third (here's the second) and last spoonfeeding. After the "how," the "who" still isn't the next big story. The big story then is how the federal government attempted to bury the breach. That wasn't just by still not telling the public about it. It also included a rush to wrap up the investigation before it was complete (the orders for the wrap up came from high up). That's why the woman who witnessed the breach was never interviewed. It was that woman's computer that was used to breach the VA system. There's no reason not to interview her. All this time later, she's still not been interviewed by the government. When the investigation was ongoing, a family emergy meant she was "unaccessible" (to her place of employment but nothing prevented the investigators from seeking her out away from her place of her work) and the rush to wrap up the investigation and keep the entire matter on the down low meant she was never interviewed. The big story is the "how" and goes to the lack of security. The next angle is the rush to keep the story as quiet as possible which includes rushing through an investigation. The suspect himself is really not a huge part of the hard news story. (And the suspect, for the record, is the only person we have not spoken to.) (There are feature articles to be found throughout.)

In other news, the UN Rights of the Child Committee is calling out the US government for (a) the imprisonment of juvelines in Iraq, Afghanstan and Guantamo and for (b) military recruitment of under-18-year-olds in the US.

Turning to US political news, Team Nader reports that US presidential candidate Ralph Nader needed nearly 22,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Arizona and that over 65,000 were collected. Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez should now be on the ballot in Arizona -- barring any dirty tricks on the part of the DNC. Despite Nader's strong polling when his name included in the polling, there is an effort on the part of the MSM and Panhandle Media to ignore his campaign. Today, Team Nader points to another example of how the independent candidate is shut out of the discussions and argues the case for Nader-Gonzalez as the only agents of change:

"How do you get people to vote against their own self interest? That's the trick.
One way is to make people believe in a dream. That's what all of the mainstream politicians are doing - feeding that dream. Obama is feeding a dream - a dream of change and renewal. He's feeding a dream that the conditions that surround us - Iraq, the economy, the racial divide, the class divide in this country - that they are magically going to go away by voting for this centrist Democrat. That is nonsense, of course. Obama is not proposing any structural changes. McCain is feeding us the dream, the fantasy of power and control. That somehow the military might of the U.S. will prevail across the globe. These are fantasies that are being fed by the politicians. They are not so much lies, as delusions. But we will have brought it on ourselves by supporting these politicians.
By ignoring any candidate or any ideas that might conflict with those dreams. The Obama moment is a feel good moment. It makes us feel good. But the programs Obama is proposing - up and down and all around - are the same centrist Democratic positions.
The same people are going to be running the show. All of the corporations are rapidly switching their contributions to the Democrats."
These are the words of the American novelist Russell Banks.
We heard Banks the other day interviewed by Chris Lydon on Radio Open Source. (Listen to the interview here.) What wasn't mentioned was Nader/Gonzalez. So, let us say it loud and clear. Nader/Gonzalez. Shift the power from the few to the many. Free our government of corporate domination. Restore the sovereignty of an engaged people. Don't fall for the trick. Help us put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot. We're on our way to give the American people a choice in November. But we need your help. And we need it now.
You can give up to $4,600. But please, give whatever you can. Shift the power.
Feed the living, breathing people-powered alternative. Support Nader/Gonzalez.

iraqcorey glassteviah moroehren watadaaustin jenkinsrick salutinmichael werbowskiwilliam cole
cnn newsroomjamie mcintyrejohn walcott

Posted at 05:48 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink