Politics Attitude

Jun 24, 2008

iraq, nader

Two new government reports, released late Monday, agreed that civilian violence has decreased and security has improved in Iraq, but were pessimistic about prospects for political and economic progress and warned that costly military gains would remain fragile.

that's from barbara ferguson's 'future progress in iraq may be "slow and uneven".' and i agree with c.i. that the government reports are a joke. how is violence down? violence goes up and down in iraq - it never goes away - and calling it 'down' really just depends upon what period you are reporting on. it's nonsense. violence doesn't go away. in the last few weeks, there have been at least 2 mass graves found. no 1 knows when those people died. (it was during this war.) how do you count those when estimating if violence is up or down?

in march and april you had slaughter in basra and the sadr city neighborhood of baghdad.

reporters are not going around the country. the reality is very few reporters are even in iraq anymore. the networks are pulling them out (too 'costly') and very few papers even had them there to begin with.

violence is 'down' when reporters can move with ease through the country. they can't do that. they can't do even move with the same ease they would in any 'normal' war zone. they're holed up in baghdad, in the green zone. some go in and out of iraq (via the green zone) and some stay in the green zone (and go out with military patrols).

there is no 'safer but not safe'. remember when bully boy tried to use that nonsense? that's basically what the 'independent' arm of congress is pushing with their report.

i had an e-mail about the snapshot today before i'd even had time to read it. a bragg (that's his last name) whined that c.i. wasn't promoting the senators (including john kerry) who are trying to stop the no-bid contracts from going to total, et al.

do you know the actual story there? those senators are objecting, yes. but what they are recommending is that iraq's parliament pass the theft of iraqi oil bill. now maybe you're for a privatization of iraq's oil that would give big oil over 70% of the profits. i'm not and neither is c.i. we're not going to help promote john kerry, et al's shell game.

c.i. will address cnn's article tomorrow in the snapshot. among its findings are that there have been 20 women 'suicide bombers' so far this year. the larger topic is 1 c.i. has addressed repeatedly and there just was not room to do so today.

but, bragg, if something's not in the snapshot that you notice, guess what, there's a lot that's not in there. there were 2 awols picked up this week and c.i. was hoping to include those (they may or may not be war resisters - 1 was a female, 1 was male). c.i. has to pick and choose and generally goes with what is not being emphasized. condi rice's statement is in today's snapshot in full. i don't agree with her words or terms, nor does c.i. but it's news because condi went to iraq this year and pissed off state dept workers as she went on and on about the sacrifices ... by the u.s. military. does she not realize that she is the secretary of state and that she was addressing the people serving in the state dept? it was insulting. and c.i. heard about it from friends in the state dept. in terms of knowing her job & doing it, today's statement was news.

so there's some iraq news and i should do it more often but, like every 1 else in the community, i generally let c.i. do the heavy lifting. we all get to write about 'fun' topics. whatever we see as we log on that interests us.

c.i.'s got to cover iraq and, if you missed it, media coverage of iraq dropped considerably this year. c.i. covers war resistance every day because no 1 else does. no 1 else covers it every day. no 1 else can even claim to cover it every week.

there is also the political race and ralph nader (who c.i. may vote for or not, i don't know) is getting no publicity so c.i. will include nader in full. that didn't happen with hillary. she was excerted in the snapshot. but ralph is being ignored by the media - big and small - and that's 1 of those correctives that c.i. can do. it's about owning your own power.

and if cynthia mckinney's campaign hadn't announced that she was running to win the white house, just to get 5% of the vote, c.i. would be covering that as well. but time is limited and so is space. so c.i.'s not going to waste time on a candidate who isn't running to win the white house. ralph is running to win. and he should be on the ballot in illinois now.

this is from u.p.i.:

"They are so small-minded that to keep the myth up that it wasn't them that got Bush in the White House, it was Nader/LaDuke -- to keep that myth and sustain it in the public's mind, they can't possibly associate with me or have me testify. Even though they knew they blew it in 1,000 ways in '00 and '04," Nader said.

c.i. passed that on via e-mail because when we were on the phone earlier this evening, i had mentioned the positive response to last week's post on nader from my readers. he's a new name for many of them and some are too young to vote but they can volunteer, they can get the word out. they can make a difference.

and i'll again confess that, embarrassingly, i bought into the nonsense nader's railing against. i did blame him for 'spoiling' the election. and i knew al gore was not a perfect candidate who ran a perfect campaign. c.i. (who voted for gore in 2000) would get so frustrated with me over that and it would be 'let's go over this 1 more time.' eventually, i got it. we have a democracy in this country. that means, yes, that any 1 who wants to run for office should (unless they don't meet the rules due to a conviction or age requirement). but a democracy also means that candidates compete for your votes. no 1 owns votes.

so the people who chose nader chose nader. those were votes he won. if al gore wanted them, he could have competed for them. that doesn't mean he would have won them, but to claim that the votes nader won were 'stolen' votes or that nader was a 'spoiler' goes against what a democracy is supposed to be.

i'm supporting nader. i'm glad that there was such a strong reaction to last week's post and that so many of you are interested in him. some are learning of him for the 1st time. so it's especially important that this lie that he stole votes from gore be rejected.

i shared the nader quote with kat because i knew she'd get a kick out of it. so be sure to read her tonight!

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

Tuesday, June 24, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, a bombing in Sadr City, and more.

Starting with war resistance. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported. Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being told he was being deported, 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. Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." Meanwhile the Vancouver branch of the War Resisters Support Campaign needs help housing war resisters in that area:

Dear friends; the two things that we need help with most right now in Vancouver are housing for war resisters and your participation in our outreach and lobbying in Conservative ridings and keeping up the media visibility.
Below is a housing appeal, please pass it on freely.
Also in Vancouver we will be doing another visit to a Conservative riding, probably either Emerson's in Vancouver or Nina Grewal in Fleetwood-Port Kells. That is tentatively planned for Saturday June 28.
War Resister Housing Appeal
Do you have an extra-room or a fold-out couch in your home? Do you want to help end the war in Iraq? Would you like to see Canada, once again, become a sanctuary for American soldiers refusing to participate in an illegal war?
If you answered yes to the questions above, the War Resisters Support Campaign in Vancouver needs you!
The War Resisters Support Campaign helps American soldiers who have come to Canada seeking sanctuary. These young men and women face imprisonment in the US because they obeyed their conscience.
They turned their backs on George Bush's war.
We need volunteers to house US war resister for a few days to a few months, while we help them to get settled in and work their way through the refugee immigration process.
Right now in Vancouver we are in urgent need of housing for two war resisters.
If you can house a war resister in the lower mainland, for at least a week starting this week please contact James Leslie at jamesleslie@telus.net or (604) 736-9804

After Friday June 20, 2008 call or email Sarah Bjorknas at 778-837-1475 or vanresisters@yahoo.ca

For more info, or to volunteer housing in other parts of BC or the rest of Canada, please see our website http://www.resisters.ca/

Dear Campaigners; As you know, on June 3, the House of Commons did a pretty important thing. The MPs voted 137-110 for the War Resisters Motion, which would make it possible for the war resisters to apply for permanent residence in Canada, and which would stop the deportation of any of them, including Corey Glass, whose deadline to "leave or be removed" is now July 10.

The CBC and Newsworld, had a 7-minute report the previous Sunday (June 1), with Terry Milewski, a prominent reporter, anchoring the story. It was a great piece, and it mentioned that the vote would take place on the following Tuesday.

Then, on Tuesday, NOTHING -- NADA -- ZERO -- ZILCH!
MEDIA COVERAGE NOW IS SUPER IMPORTANT IF WE ARE TO GET THE CONSERVATIVES TO IMPLEMENT THE WAR RESISTERS MOTION.
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO DROP A LINE TO THE CBC AT
http://www.cbc.ca/contact/

AND LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT
MORE COVERAGE OF THE WAR RESISTERS ISSUE!
And by the way -- don't be shy about writing to your local media, or to "national" media like the Globe & Mail, which has ignored the story except for a teensy little paragraph that whispered "don't read this" the day after the vote.
The Tories would love this issue to disappear from view. Don't let them have their way.
PEACE,
LEE ZASLOFSKY

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 we noted the death of two US service members. Today Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports a split in the who of the shooting with Iraq's Ministry of Interior stating the shooter was "a local official and said he emerged from the building with the Americans" while eye witnesses insist the shooter "was a former council member who joined the Sunni Muslim insurgency after he was outsed from his job in sectarian fighting in 2006." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) identifies the shooter as "a council member" and notes that three other service members were injured as was 1 Iraqi translator. Citing eye witnesses Rafi Sleiman and Abu Dawood, London names the shooter as Raed Hmmod Ajil. Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reported yesterday that Raed Mahmoud Ajil was the council member who did the shooting. Those deaths took place as the Government Accountability Office released a report yesterday which James Glanz (New York Times) sums up as detialing a decline in violence and that "several crucial measures the Bush administration uses to demonstrate economic, political and security progress are either incorrect of far more mixed than the administration has acknowledged." 2 US service members killed yesterday, more today and we're supposed to accept that there's been an improvement in violence?

Really? In Berlin today, US Secretary of State delivered the following statement: "The attack in Sadr City that killed State Department employee Steven L. Farley, along with Department of Defense civilian and military personnel today, is a terrible reminder of the dangers that our colleagues face daily in advancing our critical foreign policy goals. Steven Farley's devotion to public service was reflected in his many years of duty in the United States Navy Reserve, and to his hometown of Guthrie, Oklahoma. Farley was mobilized shortly after September 11th, and served with distinction on the staff of the U.S. Seventh Fleet in the western Pacific. Along with thousands of other citizen-patriots, he volunteered to serve in Iraq, joining the State Department in April of 2007. He was one of the hundreds of dedicated men and women serving on Provinicial Reconstruction Teams, helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild and revitalize their local governments after years of Saddam's tyranny. Our heartfelt sympathy and gratitude go out to Steven Farley's family and his wife Donna, and to the numerous men and women who worked alongside him in Iraq. I have conveyed my sympathy to Ambassador Ryan Crocker, I salute the courage and commitment of all of our colleagues in Iraq." That's included in full because it's the first time this year (or last) that Rice has remembered she's the head of the State Dept. (On her last visit to Iraq she forgot/refused to acknowledge the work done by the State Dept and, judging by her comments and whom she praised, appeared to think she was heading the Defense Dept.) So what's Rice talking about? James Hider (Times of London) explains: "Four Americans were killed today when an explosion ripped through a Baghdad council meeting they were attending as part of efforts to boost reforms in Sadr City, one of the capital's most sensitive trouble spots." The US military announced: "Two Coalition forces soldiers and two civilians serving with Coalition forces were killed after an explosion inside the District Advisory Council building in a southern neighborhood of Sadr City district at approximately 9:30 a.m. today. One Coalition forces soldier and three DAC members were also wounded in the attack." The announced deaths brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4106 with the total for the month so far to 22. AFP notes 6 Iraqis died in the blast and that the wounded include 1 "US soldier, three members of the district council and seven other Iraqis". CBS and AP report: "Tuesday's blast occurred in the office of the council's deputy chief as Americans and Iraqi officials were gathered nearby about half an hour before a meeting to elect a new chairman, said Hassan Karim, Sadr City's top administrator." Ernesto London and Saad al-Izzi (Washington Post) offer, "A spokesman for Sadr's office in Sadr City suggested that U.S. officials staged the bombing to 'create chaos and strife.' He said the explosion occurred in an area where only U.S. and Iraqi security forces can drive into." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) points out that, "The explosion shattered the relative calm that has been seen in Sadr City since a truce in mid-May ended fighting there between the Mahdi Army and the Iraqi government." Alissa J. Rubin and Graham Bowley (International Herald Tribune) note: "The neighborhood meetings are held regularly and well publicized, and they therefore can make relatively easy targets. The visit by the American troops to the meeting had been unexpected, however, the council spokesman, Ahmed Hassan, said. 'American forces do not attend regularly and that is why we were surprised this morning,' he said. 'The explosion happened inside the room where some members of the council and Americans were' in discussion, he said."

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

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one person, a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded two people and a Ninevah Province car bombing that left 2 people dead (plus the driver of the car) and fifty-seven people wounded. Reuters notes the number wounded from the Mosul car bombing has risen to seventy-three.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a mayor in Kirkuk was shot dead. Reuters notes a police officer (who was also a college student) was shot dead at the University of Mosul.

Kidnappings?

Reuters notes 4 college students kidnapped in Mosul -- two of which were later released.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpses discovered in Mosul.

Turning to US politics. In "The Triumph of double-think," Joseph (Cannonfire) examines the way The Cult of Barack requries that up be up until Barack says it is down. He specifically examines Barack's NAFTA nonsense -- Barack's lying about Hillary Clinton's stand, Barack's printed handouts and the way, and when it was revealed that Barack's 'tough' talk on NAFTA publicly came as his campaign's Austin Goolsbee rushed to assure the Canadian government that these were just words tossed out and Barack didn't mean of them. He goes into how an effort then took place to smear Hillary with an unsourced whisper claiming it was her campaign in talks with the Canadian government and charts how that lie was repeated online. But it wasn't just repeated online. Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! is available online, on radio and TV. March 9th, Ava and I observed:

Noting that Nichols was in Canada, Goody let Nichols smear Hillary Clinton with a false whisper (that two days later still hasn't panned out) presented as a "revelation" by never-a-journalist John Nichols. Remember how Bambi talked big and strong in the Texas debate about NAFTA? Probably not because he mainly repeated the answers Hillary had already given. But he did. He talked big, he talked strong. Down with NAFTA! But his campaign also talked to the Canadian government and assured them that, basically, you have to say certain things to get elected, you know, you have to put one over on those stupid American voters.

Amy Goodman likes to put one over on viewers which is why, before the show began, she was laughing with John Nichols about how they could introduce the unsourced smear against Hillary. (We are actually told she was "cackling.") Goody did that on the program with this fanciful lie, "Well we have covered the Barack Obama aspect of that [NAFTA] quite a bit. What are they saying about Hillary Clinton?" Goody thinks she covered Bambi's NAFTA-Gate "quite a bit"? No, she just thinks her viewers are too stupid to remember reality and that they are too lazy to check the archives

[. . .]

So informed viewers were most likely laughing when Goody declared that she had "covered the Barack Obama aspect of that quite a bit." She did two headlines. One minimized what had taken place by leaving out the fact that his campaign had offered non-stop denials over a series of days that only ceased when AP published the memo, the other that attempted to act as if the leaking of the memo was the story. (Yes, this is the same Goody who grandstanded recently on the shutting down of Wiki-leaks. Leaks are only good when they don't effect her candidate. And again, she calls this distract-from-the-discovered-lie-by-launching-an-investigation-into-the-leak nonsense out when the White House does it.)

Despite the fact that the AP had to publish not just the stories of NAFTA-gate but also the memo before Goody could get off her tired ass and note NAFTA-Gate, on Friday, she was eager to set John Nichols up so he could turn an unsourced whisper into a "revelation." It was nothing and not worth repeating. It certainly wasn't journalism but, hey, consider the two goons we were watching.

Yes, John Nichols of The Nation. And Amy Goodman. Who had nothing for the March 7th Democracy Now! broadcast. But he smeared and he lied with encouragement from Goody. "So this story just gets deeper and deeper and more complex," lied Nichols from Canada, 'hunting down' the story that was a non-story. But it was never about reality. It was about launching a smear, an unfounded rumor against Hillary because Barack had been caught lying. Saint Barack wasn't so saintly and it was really important to spread rumors and lies about Hillary to take the focus off that fact. As Joseph explains, "Even though Austan Goolsbee initially asserted that he never spoke about NAFTA with Georges Rioux of the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago -- and even though the Obama campaign officially denied the CTV report -- all parties now admit that Team Obama lied. Lied. The Canadian government conducted an investigation which confirmed the existence of the Goolsbee/Rioux meeting and sought to assign blame for the leak." Hillary's campaign was never in talks with the Canadian government about NAFTA. Barack's campaign was telling the government to ignore what Barack was saying, that it was just words. And now? Nina Easton (Fortune magazine) reported last week, "In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally repopen negotiations on NAFTA. 'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,' he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy. Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? 'Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself,' he answered." The article also notes Goolsbee's being dispatched to "the Canadian counsul general in Chicago" February 8th to provide "assurances that Obama's rhetoric was 'more reflective of political manuevring than policy'" according to a new memo that Fortune got a hold of. Yes, Barack lied. He lied to get votes when he needed them. He was caught out in the middle of lying and he denied it. His Holler Monkeys had to distract from the damaging revelation so they tried to drag Hillary into it and smear her with lies. Now that he thinks he has the nomination, Barack admits he never meant what was he was saying -- something he had Goolsbee tell the Canadian government in real time. He LIED to American voters while telling the Canadian government he was LYING. And he thinks he's qualified to be the leader of the United States?

Ralph Nader is running for president with Matt Gonzalez as his running mate. AP reports that they turned in over "50,000 signatures" yesterday and are now should be on the Illinois ballot in November. Team Nader notes:

Tomorrow, Senator Obama has a choice.

He can vote to defend the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

Or he can vote with the snooping Bush White House and the telephone companies.

The bill in question grants immunity to the phone companies that illegally participated in the White House's warrantless wiretap program.

Obama says he will seek to remove the immunity provision - but will vote for the bill if that doesn't succeed.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) calls the bill a capitulation to the phone companies and to the White House.

According to Senator Feingold, under under this bill, "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S."

Last October, Obama said he would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Now he says he will vote for it.

Liberal Democrats are surprised and outraged that Obama would flip-flop this way.

But we're not surprised.

From the beginning, we saw through Obama's "Change You Can Believe" mantra.

Obama is just another corporate candidate.

At times, he might sound like a progressive.

But he's not.

That's why we're here.

We're here to give the American people a choice in November.

You can support the corporate candidates - Obama and McCain.

Or you can shift the power from the corporate candidates and the corporations to the people.

And support Nader/Gonzalez.

Increasingly, progressives and liberal Democrats are seeing the light and breaking away.

What's your breaking point?

iraq

alexandra zavis
the los angeles times

james glanz
the new york times
mcclatchy newspapers

hannah allam

gina chon

the washington post
ernesto londono

alissa j. rubin

Posted at 08:51 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 23, 2008

katty-van-van and state of the world

to get the week started right,Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Wheel of Greed"

poor little katrina vanden heuvel, what a piece of trash.

she thinks because she pitched a few pennies at bernie sanders over the last few years (very few) that she's something wonderful but she's nothing but a lousy hypocrite. all her dumb ass jaw boning about the importance of public financing and when her hero becomes the 1st to break with public financing - the 1st presidential candidate ever (if he gets the nomination) - she plays dumb and won't call it out.

she's as pathetic as her trashy father.

she bought herself a seat at the table at the magazine because she couldn't hack it in the real world of journalism (i know the abc horror stories) and she's as pathetic at the nation as she was anywhere else.

she wants to be a player but she never will be. she took over the magazine at its highest circulation ever and no 1 wants to talk about circulation these days, have you noticed? because she's destroyed circulation.

before she becomes editor AND publisher, the nation covered iraq, covered war resistance, even used the term in print. katty-van-van takes over and the magazine becomes a worthless piece of crap - thereby reflecting her imprint.

a dull, democratic party organ. obsessed with elections - not in a deep manner but the sort of useless garbage you get from the chat & chews.

as a child, she lived in a fantasy world - resulting from no 1 wanting to play with her. and she's as out of touch today as she was then.

if barack's the nominee, he stands a good chance of losing. and katty-van-van will have promoted (non-stop) a loser and done so at the expense of the magazine. she'll have nothing to show for it politically or journalistically.

it's why you don't put mental midgets in charge of magazines.

think about it for a second. some 1 puts you in charge of the nation (after you buy your way in) and you can do anything. what do you do?

i'm sure you'd do more than write about how much pressure you were under and how you need multiple days off because your daughter was about to turn 16.

that alone tells you she's not a journalist.

children turn 16 every day of the year and most parents are not able to take off a lengthy period of days to plan and orchestrate everything. and most wouldn't want to. from her mansion in harlem, katrina is seriously out of touch with the country and the world.

and she spends all her time plotting alliances and take overs. they never come to pass (remember when she was going to take over the council on/for/of foreign relations?) but she's always convinced that the next insane scheme will make her important.

she'll never be important because she is so intensely shallow. that was obvious when she was still a child and i'm not really sure she ever grew up.

nothing she's ever done indicates she's anything but 1 of the 'ladies who lunch' who treats running a weekly magazine as if it's a hobby.

if liza featherstone or doug henwood were in charge, you'd get serious looks at the economic realities for people across the country. if alex cockburn were in charge, there would be 1 investigative story after another. if eric alterman were in charge, he'd be probing the elections a lot deeper than the laughable 'editorials' katrina & crew (handmaidens) put out. if katha pollitt were in charge, women might be taken seriously.

instead you've got a girl (not a woman, even at her age) who couldn't cut it as a socialite but, sadly, really wants to be a debutante. mother nature ensured that would never happen.

so she dabbles and the magazine under her reflects that.

along with subscriptions falling, it's also having problems getting stocked in stores that used to carry it. (my mother-in-law credits c.i. but c.i. says, 'all i did was speak to some friends to find out how well the magazine was selling in various chains. when they found it was pretty much a non-seller, they either cut back or stopped stocking it.') katrina has put her mark on the magazine and, sadly, it was just another urine stain.

i hope every 1 is paying attention that and aware of what a waste of paper the nation has become. this is not a minor issue.

whatever victor's faults (and he did decimate d.c. coverage), he had a mind and the magazine reflected that. now there's a ditz running things and that's reflected as well.

look at the awful story of last summer, the 1 they pimped as telling the iraqi experience which didn't interview 1 iraqi. that's bad enough. even worse is that she had to have 'balance' so to include members of iraq veterans against the war, she had to include the centrist group (led by the 'we have to stay' mommy's pantyhose) and a right-wing front group.

we would scream our heads off if the msm did that but, to katty-van-van, it's balance.

and of course the term 'war resister' couldn't be used in the article.

it's too controversial for katty.

she's trying to appeal to the crowd that reads the sunday arts section in the new york times.

trash.

great. i lost the whole post. i tried to publish and got a 'tempoary unavailable' message. i hit back and all i had was the snapshot and isaiah (which i had added in 1st). i was freaking out but remembered ruth called c.i. last time (when we all got the '502 error' last week) and c.i. was able to save ruth's post. c.i. wasn't able to save my entire post but, following what c.i. told me to do allowed me to get back a huge chunk of it.

i had a highlight and i went over this for about 10 paragraphs. i don't have it in me for that again but i do want to higlight leslie sanchez' 'Commentary: Can Obama's money buy him love?' (cnn):

Is Obama trying to buy the election? He threatens to outspend McCain by six -- perhaps eight --- to one. Now, rather than engage in a "Great Debate" about America's future, Obama is trying to win through tactics.
Since Nixon, most candidates have followed a predictable strategy: Run an ideological campaign during the primaries to lock up your base -- then move to the center for the general election.
This allows resources to be husbanded for fall campaign spending to increase turnout among people who only might vote -- including self-described independents, youth voters and so-called presidential-year voters, who only come out "when it's really important."

yes, he is trying to buy votes. that's why he's ignoring spending limits. the first presidential candidate (if he gets the nomination in august) to do so since public financing was established for presidential elections.

and he won't get called out by the likes of katty-van-van. they reward him non-stop. he is their great bi-racial hope. they never call him out and it's why he's such a lousy candidate.

he's a spoiled brat that's been fawned over and protected and that's why latinos and white working class voters do not like him. they don't like to the manor born barack.

he has nothing to offer and that's why katty-van-van had to spend 2 years demonizing hillary. she couldn't build barack up with issues or accomplishments (hence all the gushing praise) so she had to tear down hillary. at 1 point, it was so bad that the rag had an article calling hillary out for a missed vote in 2004 and only did an online correction when they were called out repeatedly. (hillary did miss the vote. her husband bill was having heart surgery. considering katty had to take 5 or so days off to plan that sweet 16 birthday, you'd think she'd understand some 1 with an actual family emergency.) katty-van-van doesn't like hillary because hillary worked for what she has whereas katty-van-van and barack had everything handed to them.

even so, neither can accomplish much. or are we all still pretending to notice that even as a legacy, he couldn't get into harvard right away? had to go to two different colleges 1st. go read ava and c.i.'s 'TV: Breaking what?' for realities on what panhandle media actually has to offer (or doesn't have to offer).

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

Monday, June 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, two US service members are shot dead in Iraq, war resistance continues, Nouri has a new target and more.

Starting with war resistance. Stefani E. Barner (Llewellyn Journal) notes, "When Lieutenant Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, his cause was met with international support -- and a Court Marshall. His case ended in a mistrial and at the last update, the Department of Defense was preparing to re-try him on charges of missing troop's movement and conduct unbecoming of an officer. If the D.o.D. decides to pursue a retrial, Lt. Watada faces up to six years in prison for speaking out against a war that he believes violates the oath he took upon receiving his commission. While Lt. Watada is not Pagan, his case along with those such as Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia -- both of whom chose to face prosecution and serve jail time rather than participate in a war they opposed -- have inspired some Pagan service personnel to follow suit, and spurred the larger Pagan communtiy to question what role we should play when it comes to the Conscientious Objector." Pagan resources for Pagan COs and resisters include Sacred Well Congregation, The Covenant of the Goddess, the Military Pagan Network and the Lady Liberty League of Circle Sanctuary. Barner notes, "In Hanna v. Secretary of the Army (1st Cir., Jan. 9, 2008) the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Army's Conscientious Objector Review Board had no basis for denying CO status to an Army doctor (Capt. Mary Hanna) on the grounds that her beliefs were not gained through 'rigorous training, study, or contemplation.' Because this ruling seems to exclude the need for formal religious instruction such as would typically be obtained through religious classes or from a spiritual authority such as a rabbi or minister, and instead allows individual spiritual and moral authority to influence the decision to seek CO status, Hanna v. Secretary of the Army should be extremely useful in dealing with the confusion that the diversity of Pagan philosophies can often present to organized institutions such as the military."

Last week, outside Fort Knox, war resister James Burmeister's mother held a press conference. James Burmeister is an Iraq War veteran wounded in the war who went to Canada and came back this year to turn himself in. Last fall, Maria Hinojosa (NOW on PBS) interviewed him (as well as Agustin Aguayo) and noted, "During his many missions, James was caught in three road-side bombings." Burmeister explained that after one bombing (which was captured on tape) "I had actually passed out in my room. Passed out, just hit the floor."

Maria Hinojosa: James says that was the first sign of his post traumatic stress disoreder. He says doctors thought he also may have sustained a traumatic brain injury, so he was sent to Germany on medical leave. Two months later, while still on medication, he was ordered back to Iraq.

James Burmeister: They were desperate for people to get back there. They just needed people in Baghdad. They just need bodies to man the guns and the equipment.

Maria Hinojosa: James saw only two options: either go back to Iraq . . . or go AWOL, Absent Without Leave, a crime punishable by jail time and even court-martial.

James Burmeister: I got back home -- talked to my wife. You know, I said, "I think I'm gonna leave." It was like a 15 minute decision that I'm -- I'm gonna leave -- I'm gonna leave the army."

Saturday, Chris Kenning (Louisville Courier Journal) reported on Helen Burmeister's decision to "demonstrate outside the post [Fort Knox] . . . in hopes of persuading the military to let her take her son home" and quotes her stating, "I'm hoping to take him back to Oregon with me." Kenning notes that "fiscal year 2007" found desertion had "risen 92 percent since 2004" in the army.

Last week, Helen Burmeister spoke and was backed up by supporters carrying signs. One read "SHAME, SHAME ON the U.S. Army!" while some of the other signs read "I SUPPORT PFC James Burmeister & family! Let James be free!" and "Combat Troops DESERVE OUR SUPPORT -- Not Court Martials".

Helen Burmeister: I'm Helen Burmeister and I'm here today to support my son Prviate 1st Class James Burmeister. My son is an Iraq War veteran and I'm very proud of him today. He fought bravely in Iraq. He followed orders. He was wounded in a roadside bomb and he's been diagnosed with PTSD and a possible brain injury. Our request today is that the army release James. We want James to be able to put this traumatic experience behind him so he can begin to heal -- both emotionally and physically. I believe my son has done his part. Now it's time for him to be given the recognition he deserves. Short of that, we are requesting that he be allowed to go home to Oregon. And thank you. Thank you to everyone for all your support today.

Also showing support was Vietnam Veterans Against the War's Carol Rawert Trainer.

Carol Rawert Trainer: I am a Vietnam Era veteran and my husband is a retired USAF officer and Vietnam Veteran. We belong to Lousiville Peace Action Community and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, two great organizations that work for peace and justice. I learned of PFC James Burmeister through my involvement with the GI Rights Hotline. We are disgusted at the way the government treats our returning war heroes and we will not sit by and watch it happen. You hear the slogan 'Support Our Troops.' Well that is why we have come here today. I have personally heard too many horror stories of veterans in the Lousiville area who return from war and do not receive proper medical care or benefits or counseling for PTSD which is all too prevalent in this war. The Army seems to care more about their retention at any cost to the soldier and family than they do about the care of the soldiers affected by this war. Too many soldiers are battling their physical and emotional problems alone. The suicide rates have risen dramatically. This is obscene. We are here today to demand that the army grant James a discharge in lieu of court-martial. We are watching what the army is doing. James served honorably in Iraq and carried out his duties as commanded. He received head injuries and shrapnel in his face in the 3rd attack on his convoy. He also has PTSD and seizures and is on many medications as a result of his experience. When he was recuperating in the hospital in Germany he realized that what he was commanded to do -- killing innocent people, sometimes in bait-and-switch schemes, was immoral. The army trains these troops from basic to kill, kill, kill and does not differentiate between innocent Iraqis or insurgents. James could not, would not, do it any longer. He had to live with himself and his actions for the rest of his life. The army does not care about the lifelong problems these honorable soldiers face. In fact they were going to send James back to Iraq even though he was on medications for high blood pressure, depression, sleep problems and more. At least James is one of the lucky ones who realized he needed help before it was too late. Going back to Iraq would be dangerous to his life as well as to those who served with him. We are here today to support James and his family in their struggle for justice! James' family has suffered through other family circumstances that dictate that James be home to help them. We hope the army will grant James an immediate discharge not only for his own personal needs but for his families' needs. Even though he would not receive medical benefits which he needs, he would be home in a safe and loving environment. This is what is fair. This is what is just. James was there when the army needed him. Now the army must be there for James and the countless other heroes who need assistance and support as they cope with their war-induced problems.

A video of the press conference can be found here.

Meanwhile US war resisters in Canada continue to fight for safe harbor. Henry Aubin (Montreal Gazette) offered Saturday, "The federal government has ordered a deserter from the U.S. Army to return to the United States by July 10. If he doesn't leave voluntarily, the government will deport him. Either way, Corey Glass, a former sergeant, would become the first Iraq war resister to be booted out of Canada - thereby setting a precedent for other U.S. war resisters who are seeking refuge in this country. A majority of the House of Commons voted 137-110 two weeks ago in favour of a motion urging the government to refrain from ousting war resisters; about 100 of whom are believed to be in the Canada. All three opposition parties supported the measure, sponsored by the New Democrats' Olivia Chow. The Conservatives dissented. Yet the motion seems futile. Nothing obliges Prime Minister Stephen Harper to respect it - it's non-binding." To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, 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"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here.

In addition, War Resisters Support Campaign announces "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass" which is July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008. Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this motion." In addition, the Vancouver branch of the War Resisters Support Campaign needs help housing war resisters in that area. (And we'll note that in more depth -- hopefully in full -- in tomorrow's snapshot.)

Back to the US, Iraq Veterans Against the War Matthis Chiroux announced June 15th that he would not report to duty (as he'd stated he wouldn't on May 15th). Chiroux served his time and was honorably discharged. Then the army decided to 'recall' him and to send to Iraq. Chiroux knows the Iraq War is an illegal war and will not take part in that. On the 15th of this month, he explained, "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 swoare 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. . . . 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." Matthis' father Robert Chiroux told The Huntsville Times, "It was tough for me to get up where the cameras could see me . . . I don't agree [with his son]" but "[i]f a man can't stand up for his son, how can he stand up for his country?" And Ellis Eskew (WHNT, CBS) quotes Matthis explaining, "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 Iraq operation."

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 Iraq. Saturday, Haydar al-Alak and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reported that Moqtada al-Sadr Amara spokesperson Adnan Selawi states that Iraqi troops have committed abuses during the operation in Amara ("we found many breaches and violations") and that another member of Sadr's bloc (unnamed) stated there is stand-down order from Moqtada al-Sadr during the current crackdown on Amara. Walter Ibrahim and Tim Cocks (Reuters) report that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki promised today that the next to be raided would be Diyala Province. Why Diyala Province? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday that a woman detonated a bomb in Diyala Province killing herself and 16 other people. Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) added of the bombing, "A woman pretending to seek assistance from police detonated a suicide belt under her traditional robe today, killing 15 people in the busy civic center of Baqubah, police said." A report earlier today (no byline on the article) noted that the woman appeared to be around 35-years-old. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) cited Jassim Mohammed al-Saedi (a police officer wounded in the bombing) stating that the woman "stepped out of a car, walked toward a group of police officers and detonated explosives strapped to her waist." Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) states that violence in Diyala Province yesterday claimed "at least 25" lives. Citing the US military, CBS and AP report that the bombing was "the 21st suicide mission carried out by a woman in Iraq this year".

Meanwhile Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) report that Iraqi city council member Raed Mahmoud Ajil fired at US service members after they had attended "a weekly joint meeting on reconstruction" and 2 US service members died with three more "and an interpreter" left wounded. CBS and AP quote eye witness Hussein al-Dulaimi stating, "The attacker got out of the car with an AK-47 assault rifle in his hand and he started to fire on the American soldiers until he was killed by return fire." AP also reports 2 dead (earlier today the military was saying one dead).

In some of today's other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded three police officers. Reuters notes a Mosul roaside bombing left five people injured.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports and 1 police officer and 1 "civilian female" were shot dead in Mosul in an attack that wounded two more people. Reuters notes another police officer was shot dead in Mosul and a college student was shot dead as well.

Corpses?

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

Turning to the US race of president and moving quickly. Barack Obama continues to lie and break promises. Joseph (Cannonfire) explores the thinking of the Cult of Obama, their "gift for self-deception" which allows them to say the sky is blue when Barack says so and insist it is a purple when Barack changes his mind. He does this with various examples including NAFTA. Time permitting, we'll return to Joseph's findings tomorrow (but who knows what's going to be happening tomorrow) -- in the meantime, you can use the link to explore his writing. The perfect book-end to that piece is Glenn Greenwald (Salon) on Barack's broken promise to fight for the Constitution and against illegal spying on American citizens and the reaction to it from the Cult of Saint Obama: "In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA 'compromise' isn't really so bad after all." This has been going on all along. The 2007 year in review contains the following observation: "If independent media went out of their way to avoid Iraq and all Iraq related stories, what did they cover? 2007 was when the bulk of little media enlisted in the Barack Obama presidential campaign -- a Katrina coffee fetcher even went to work for it. Bambi would walk on his own and go to potty all by himself in 2008, indy media insisted, but right now he needed coaxing. And what better way to guarantee that than by lavishing him with non-stop praise. As they crowded around the potty chair, they produced many embarrassing moments." It's 2008 and he's still being babied. While he's stabbing the left in the back. People need to grow up and, for those doubters who need a reason, as LBJ was leaving the White House, Jules Feiffer looked back on what he had to offer ("LBJ in Caricature," Harper's magazine, February 1968) and included this point, "Defenders of Johnson further assert that had Kennedy lived, and made the same moves in Vietnam as his successor, he would not be subjected to the same sort of vilification. They are undoubtedly right -- which goes to prove how fortunate, in this case, at long last to have a President whose style coincides with his content. Kennedy could possibly have convinced us that Vietnam was a just war, and a whole generation of young people, hypnotized by charisma, could possibly have marched proudly off to napalm and defoliate knowing that their country stood firmly behind them." No, I don't think Barack's JFK. You can't buy charisma. But he's something to the Cult -- denied their own Janis Joplin so going ga-ga over Miley Cyrus -- the same sort of desperation/settle for anything that leads them to Barack. But what Jules is noting JFK could have gotten away with, the left better start realizing applies to Barack as well -- in fact, he's getting away with it right now while the left does and says nothing.

Meanwhile Ralph Nader is a candidate for president and Team Nader notes:

Watch The Nader Challenge.

Which Presidential candidate would eliminate the billions of dollars in corporate welfare we pay every year to the ethanol industry?

Obama!

Wrong. (According to today's New York Times, Obama actually has very close ties to corn ethanol industry - an industry that Ralph Nader has called "a multifaceted monstrosity radiating damage in all directions of the compass.")

Many people still consider Obama the progressive candidate in the race.

He's not.

He's just another corporate candidate.

Who's the progressive in the race?

Ralph Nader.

To drive home the point, today we launch The Nader Challenge.

Check out the video here.

Who favors single payer national health insurance?

Obama!

Wrong.

Nader/Gonzalez.

Who favors cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget?

Obama!

Wrong.

Nader/Gonzalez.

With your ongoing and generous help, we're destined to make a splash in November.

Together, we are making a difference.

iraq

james burmeister

pbs
maria hinojosa
now with david branccacio

iraq veterans against the war
matthis chiroux
corey glass
ellis eskew
chris kenning
henry aubin

mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
the los angeles times
doug smith

richard a. oppel jr.
the new york times
the washington post
ernesto londono

Posted at 09:15 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 21, 2008

barack insults women again

so john mccain announces may was a fundraising record for him with $21 million and, shortly after, barack's crowing he raised $21.9 million. yeah, i've seen that nonsense before, barack's inflated figures.

jake tapper and kate snow's 'Clinton's Ghost: Tense Moment in Obama's Meeting With Black Caucus' (abc news) reports on what happened when bi-racial barack met with the black caucus:

According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."
Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words -- "Get over it." She found them dismissive, off-putting.
"Don't use that terminology," Watson told Obama.

'if women ...' - before you even get to the insulting 'get over it' remark, i think we've already
been insulted. sheila jackson-lee had raised his problems connecting with women and his immediate response is what women should do?

barack, that's your problem. what kind of dumb ass candidate are you that you think you win votes by expecting others to come to you?

you have work to get votes, candy ass.

barack's been burped and changed so much, he's forgotten what a campaign really is.

what a loser.

barack's strongest bloc was eggheads and african-americans (including some eggheaded african-americans). if hillary were the presumed nominee, i don't think if sheila jackson-lee asked her how she was going to work to connect with african-americans that hillary would respond, 'if african-americans would think a moment they'd see john mccain wasn't for their issues and then they'd get over it.'

hillary would be out there trying to win votes. she'd probably have responded to sheila jackson-lee, 'that is a very real concern of mine and i'm going to work my hardest to win their support. i've got ____ and ____ planned and if you have any ideas or suggestions, please pass them on.'

but see, barack doesn't do that. the christ-child needs no help.

speaking with women in congress, including women that supported hillary, he doesn't think to ask for advice. even if he was going to blow it off, it is the polite thing to do.

instead he says what 'they' need to do, not what he needs to do.

that's not how you run a winning campaign.

barack's a loser and a liar.

ralph nader is the best candidate. and he is the candidate i'm voting for.

barack's still blaming women for his inability to connect with them. he's still saying that the problem is 'their problem' when it is very much his problem. women aren't running for president, barack is. he needs their votes. women do not need him. and he's made it clear that he's just too busy to be bothered trying to earn their votes. he wants 'sweeties' to just give him their votes.

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

Friday, June 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, today is World Refugee Day, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Matthew Chiroux was the subject of a broadcast CBS 23 News (WIFR, link has text and video) last night:

Mike Garrigan: 24-year-old Matthis Chiroux says he will not deploy to Iraq. The young soldier was asked to report to duty June 15th but he refuses, calling the war in Iraq and illegal war. Chiroux has been in the US army for five years and has completed a tour of Afghanistan; however, he says he has no intentions of returning.

Matthis Chiroux: My decision was entirely based on my desire to no longer continue to violate my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation.

NBC's WAFF 48 also reported on Matthis last night (link has text and video):

Kimberly Essex: An army Sergeant is refusing to deploy from Iraq and his family is dealing with his decision to do so. WAFF 48 reporter Eric Sollman joins us now and, Eric, you spoke with the soldier's father.

Eric Sollman: Yes, Kim, and being a military man himself, Robert Chiroux, he has mixed -- mixed reactions to the whole ordeal. His son Matthis, a military photo journalist, is one of thousands of military ready reserve troops recalled to combat and now, according to army officials, he's one of about 700 called from this group that have failed to report in the last seven years. Last time Matthis Chiroux made local news was when [clip from December 2004 shown] was four years ago. The story involved his girlfriend at the time and a car break-in. Now this US army Sergeant is making national headlines for refusing to redeploy to Iraq. He's not hiding his protest and his family isn't dodging questions either.

Robert Chiroux: My son made the decision not to report. He feels that the war in Iraq is unconstitutional and unjust.

Eric Sollman: His father Robert is a navy veteran who lives in Huntsville [Alabama]. He said his son was to report to Fort Jackson Sunday for reactivation from the Individual Ready Reserve. Matthis refused.

Robert Chiroux: My son has certainly indicated that if he had been called back from the Inactive Ready Reserve to active duty to serve in Afghanistan, he would not have hesitated to go. So I know that my son -- inspite of things that I have heard said of him -- he's certainly not a coward. He just has decided that he feels this war is illegal and he's taking a stand.

Eric Sollman: While Robert doesn't necessarily agree with his son's stand, he stands by him.

Robert Chiroux: My son asked me to come to Washington [DC] to be with him on Father's Day. I had some reservations about standing behind my son while he made his statement but he's my son and, of course, I love him and I'm going to stand with him.

Eric Sollman: And Robert says he would gladly take his son's place and serve if he could and, Kim, of course there were a lot of issues that we talked about that we couldn't fit into the story so we put his interview in its entirity on our website at waff.com.

Kimberly Essex: Well your heart just goes out to this father because he really is in a tough position. He wants to support his son but it doesn't coincide with maybe what he really believes.

Eric Sollman: And he says it's something that only a parent could understand.

WAYYTV's Brett Haas notes, "The 24-year-old is in Washington lining up support from like-minded members of Congress." AFP explains, "Chiroux served five years in the army, with tours in Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and the Philippines."

"Instead of avoiding the reality," the report notes, "the international community should be confronting a medium- to long-term displacement crisis, in view of the likelihood that Iraqi refugees will need sancturay for years to come. Recognition of the on-going nature of the crisis must be grasped now if the suffering of the millions of displaced Iraqis is to be ameliorated. Host nations need to be provided with on-going assistance and support from the international community through increased and sustained funding."

US senators Hillary Clinton and Ben Cardin and House Representatives Alcee Hastings and John Dingell sent a letter to the White House today on the refugee issue (Barack Obama refused to sign on). Here's the letter sent to the White House:

As you know, the Iraq War and subsequent ethnic and sectarian conflict has caused the displacement of millions of Iraqis. While we have great concerns about the United States response to this humanitarian crisis, we write to you about a specific population of especially vulnerable Iraqis: those who have worked for our government and American organizations in Iraq and whose lives have been placed in grave danger because of that service.

Recent statistics and reports have indicated that the current system of identifying and resettling our Iraqi allies has structural complications and procedural inefficiencies. Since March 2003, the United States has admitted fewer than 8,000 Iraqi refugees in total. Your Administration's goal of admitting 12,000 Iraqi refugees during this fiscal year seems an unlikely goal, given that less than 6,000 have been resettled to date. At a recent Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission) briefing, one panelist, an attorney providing pro bono legal services to help resettle Iraqi refugees noted, "unresponsiveness and protracted delays in interviews and processing have themselves contributed to…individual emergencies…The cost in human lives and suffering due to institutional breakdowns in such aberrational instances speaks to the pressing need to ensure that our system is better equipped to respond to these challenges."

The role our own government has played in prolonging the suffering of our courageous Iraqi allies who risked their lives to assist our country is troubling and simply unacceptable. To better understand why the Administration continues to delay processing our Iraqi allies for resettlement, we respectfully request that you provide us with the necessary information in response to the following:

• While we are pleased that the United States has opened a processing center in Baghdad to assist Iraqis at risk in applying for resettlement to the United States, we remain concerned by reports that the office lacks the necessary personnel and resources at this time to quickly and efficiently process those Iraqis who are in imminent danger. It is most troubling that only Iraqis with sufficient connections to enter the Green Zone are able to receive help. What is the Administration's immediate and long-term strategy to improve and increase the efficiency of the current processing system?

• At the Baghdad center, in particular, significant problems inhibit expeditious and efficient processing of our Iraqi allies. For example, logistical and security issues prevent access to the Green Zone for many applicants and contribute to complications with assisting applicants with medical conditions. In light of the inherent difficulties of in-country processing, what is the current status of a proposal by State Department officials to allow the Department of Defense to airlift Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants for expedited processing to a central processing center at the United States Ahmed Al Jaber Air Base in Kuwait?

As you know, this past April, England's Prime Minister Gordon Brown ordered an airlift of British-affiliated Iraqis to a military airfield in Oxfordshire, England in order to expeditiously and safely process them there. Denmark also evacuated and resettled 370 Iraqi interpreters and other Iraqis who worked for Danish troops prior to the Danish contingent's departure from Iraq last year. We strongly urge your consideration of a proposal similar to those that are now being successfully implemented by our Coalition partners.

• The appointment of Ambassador James Foley at the State Department and Lori Scialabba at the Department of Homeland Security as senior coordinators within those agencies with respect to Iraqi refugee issues was an important and useful step. However, it appears as if there are still problems with respect to interagency cooperation. One particular problem that has been identified is that FBI background checks, even for those Iraqis who have been working directly with the United States military in Iraq, are subject to inordinately lengthy delays. To address this ongoing issue, we strongly urge you to appoint a Senior Coordinator for Iraqi Refugee Issues in the White House.

• When will the Department of Homeland Security issue its policy directive to implement the provisions of Sections 1241-1249 of Public Law 110-181, the "Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act," for which it is responsible?

• What is your Administration's policy regarding medical parole for those Iraqis whose cases are of high priority due to serious medical conditions?

Our government has a moral responsibility to provide aid and protection to those courageous Iraqi allies who have risked their lives and the lives of their families to assist American efforts to build a democratic and stable Iraq. We are deeply concerned that, to date, you have not acknowledged their sacrifice or effectively marshaled the assets of our government to help them. We urge you to speak out about the service of our brave Iraqi allies and direct the appropriate agencies in your Administration to take immediate steps to provide them with the attention and resources they desperately need and deserve. Each day, more Iraqi allies face increased danger or even murder for their service to the United States. To ensure that more do not suffer because they chose to help us, a prompt response to these concerns is appreciated and we believe appropriate.

Sincerely,

Alcee L. Hastings, M.C.

Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S.S.

John D. Dingell, M.C.

Russell D. Feingold, U.S.S.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S.S.

Robert P. Casey, Jr., U.S.S.

John W. Olver, M.C.

Janice D. Schakowsky, M.C.

G.K. Butterfield, M.C.

James P. McGovern, M.C.

Timothy H. Bishop, M.C.

Joseph Crowley, M.C.

Diane E. Watson, M.C.

Earl Blumenauer, M.C.

Peter Welch, M.C.

Hilda L. Solis, M.C.

Ike Skelton, M.C.

Repeating, Barack elected not to sign. Consider it another skipped vote -- or, dropping back to the Illinois state legislature, a "present" one. William C. Mann (AP) observes, "A half-million Iraqis fled their embattled country in 2007, the third consecutive year more Iraqis were displaced than any other nationality, a survey of the world's refugees reported Thursday." The organization is US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) and they also rank the ten worst countries. For Iraq, they note: "Shia militias in Iraq have particularly singled out Palestinians for retribution since the fall of the Hussein regime in 2003. From 2004 to 2007 more than 85,000 Palestinians fled targeted violence, leaving only 15,000 in Iraq. Gunmen in Ministry of the Interior uniforms have killed Palestinians, firing on UN buildings in the process. Insurgents have tortured Palestinians to death and fired mortars into Palestinian neighborhoods." IRIN notes the UNHCR's findings that 50% of the 50,000 Iraqi refugees in Lebanon are children. Citing the International Organization for Migration, Kim Gamel (AP) explains, "But women and children who have been forced to flee their homes are particularly vulnerable because the men in the family have often been killed or abandoned them in a conservative Islamic society that generally doesn't value women in the workplace." Adnkronos International notes the Spanish Commission of Refugee AID (CEAR) which found that "All 1600 refugees who sought asylum in Spain in 2007 were rejected by the government."

On refugees, the Times of London's Deborah Haynes won an award from Amnesty Interntaional for her coverage of Iraqi collaborators who face obstacles to safe harbor from the United Kingdom. Haynes wrote multiple articles on the topic. As noted before, we're not concerned with the plight of the collaborators. They have their champions -- such as Haynes.

Meanwhile, the invasion of Amara continues with Iraqi troops and US troops taking part in the 'crackdown.' Hannah Allam and Ali al Basri (McClatchy Newspapers) quote Faiq Hanoun declaring yesterday, "The city is quiet even though the operation has started, and I haven't heard a gun-shot or the sound of a plane. Life is going on in the normal fashion. Markets are open and movement in and out of the city hasn't stopped." Ernesto London and Aahad Ali (Washington Post) note the arrest of the vice governor which "angered followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr . . . Sadrist leaders in Maysan have vowed to cooperate with Iraqi troops but have suggested that the government is trying to expand its presence in Sadr strongholds to weaken the movement politically before provincial elections scheduled for the fall." Alissa J. Rubin and Suadad Salhy (New York Times) discover, "There were reports of rough treatment and especially of arrests of eminent followers of Mr. Sadr. It was unclear whether the units making the arrests had warrants, as required under Iraqi law. If so, Mr. Sadr's followers said they would not protest the detentions. However, Mr. Sadr's supporters protested at least two cases in which Iraqi troops seized family members of wanted figures when they could not find the person they were seeking. Iraqi military leaders responded that they had arrested only one relative of a wanted man. The American military has used similar tactics, drawing criticism from Iraqis in and out of the government." ANTARA NEWS and AFP explain that today saw the arrests of five more aides to al-Sadr. Aref Mohammed (Reuters) quotes Adnan al-Selawi ("head of the Sadr movement's office in Amara) stating that "we found many breaches and violations" in the 'security sweep.'

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

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left seven people wounded, a Nineveh roadside bombing left eleven Iraqi soldiers wounded, a Mosul car bombing left six police officers wounded and, dropping back to yesterday, Diyala Province home bombings left one person wounded.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Iskandariya.

Meanwhile, in the US, Robert O'Harrow Jr. (Washington Post) reveals that the Democrats have set up a panel to investigate the contracts 'awarded' throughout the illegal war. The press release at US Senator Jim Webb's online office notes, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have named a co-chair and three additional commissioners to the Commission on Wartime Contracting. Established as the result of legislation introduced by Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) last spring and signed into law January 28, 2008, the Commission is charged with addressing the systemic problems associated with the federal government's wartime-support, reconstruction, and private security contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Today the US military announced: "One Soldier was killed and five wounded in three roadside bomb attacks on Coalition force patrols in Diyala province June 20. All casualties were evacuated to a Coalition hospital."

Turning to US politics, Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing [see Wally's "THIS JUST IN! DNC OR GOP? WHO CAN TELL?," Cedric's "Extreme DNC Makeover!," Mike's "LAT and Barack -- liars liars pants on fire," Ruth's "Barack sells out, Matthis stands firm," Kat's "Glen Ford, Kevin Zeese" and Rebecca's "the liar barack" and yesterday's snapshot] leads the New York Times to editorialize "Public Funding on the Ropes" and Team Nader notes:

Ralph Nader stands for shifting the power from the big corporations back to the people.

Period.

Full stop.

End of story.

Contrast that with Senator Obama.

The old Obama said that he thought NAFTA was a "big mistake."

The new Obama isn't so sure.

The old Obama said he would abide by public spending limits in this election.

The new Obama he says he won't.

The old Obama said he was for a change in foreign policy and surrounded himself with innovative thinkers with a chance to make a difference.

The new Obama has surrounded himself with veterans of the military industrial complex status quo.

The old Obama talked economic populism.

The new Obama talks corporate-speak and surrounds himself with economists from the Chicago School.

You know where Nader and Gonzalez stand on corporate power.

And that isn't changing.

We're at six percent nationwide in the most recent CNN poll.

We're going to be on ten state ballots by the end of June.

And we're shooting for 40 by the end of the summer.

Together, we are moving forward.

And together, we will make a difference in November.

Onward.

Non-Iraq related, independent journalist David Bacon continues to explore the issue of immigration. And his latest is "HOW DO YOU SAY JUSTICE IN MIXTECO?" (TruthOut). NOW on PBS (airs tonight in most markets) asks: "Will a booming worldwide middle class drive up consumer costs?" PBS' Washington Week will include AP's Charles Babington, Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus and CNBC and the New York Times' John Harwood.

iraq
matthis chiroux

mcclatchy newspapers
hannah allem
ali al basri
the washington post
ernesto londono
aahad ali
david bacon
alissa j. rubin
the new york times

washington week
pbs
charles babington
doyle mcmanus
now on pbs

Posted at 03:46 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

Jun 19, 2008

the liar barack

'this decision was a mistake.' ap reports that senator russ feingold said that today. what was he talking about?

barack obama broke another promise today.

i know, i know. it's so very hard to keep track of the 'hope'ium, of the 'different kind of candidate'. this was his promise to use public financing in the general elections. barack promised to. then he broke his promise.

he's trying to say that the problem is with the system.

he never voiced any objections when he was making his promise.

but he's greedy. you know how greedy people are. they lie a lot.

that's barack obama.

a liar.

the baltimore sun reports he's got a new commercial he'll begin airing tomorrow which brags about public law 110-181 and how important it is ('health care for wounded troops who'd been neglected') but barack never voted for the law. the vote took place january 22, 2008 and barack was campaigning.

'this is an important law!' the commercial tries to say, but apparently it wasn't important enough for barack to vote for it.

again, he's a liar.

good for russ feingold for calling barack out. but wait and see if any 1 else does. barack wants to take us back to the days of watergate. people should be getting really worried and considering all the lies he's told and broken promises he's racked up already, people should get that he is not to be trusted.

this is what he will be attacked with - his inability to tell the truth.

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

Thursday, June 19, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Matthis Chiroux gets attention from Big Media, Barack finds a new left belief to sell out, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Matthis Chiroux announced May 15th that he would not deploy to Iraq. Chiroux had served in the army and been honorably discharged. Then came the 'recall.' The day he was due to report was June 15th and he did not deploy and explained why in a public statement. Ben Evans (AP) covers Chiroux story today and gives the backstory of being raised in Auburn, Alabama, getting his diploma from Auburn High School, signing up with the army. Evans reports that the military has not yet contacted Chiroux for refusing to deploy and he quotes Chiroux explaining, "I have just come to the point where I have the strength to stand for what I know is right. I feel like it's my responsibility as a soldier and keeping with the higher values of this nation to oppose this . . . I'm not going anywhere. They know where to find me."

The refugee crisis. Today on KPFA's The Morning Show, co-host Aimee Allison spoke with Sarnata Reynolds of Amnesty International and Joshua van Praag (director of Iraqis In Egypt) about the Iraqis who have been internally and externally displaced as a result of the illegal war. "Most Iraqis are in an urban setting," Reynolds explained of external refugees. "They've actually gone into communities and gone into cities" making it more difficult for relief to be provided from one central location.

Aimee Allison: Is there any historical precedent for this number of people being moved around and what did history teach us about what can be done, what should be done in order to deal with this crisis?

Sarnata Reynolds: The scale of this crisis, as Joshua's pointed out too, it's incredible significant historically. We have seen other huge refugee crisis emerge -- or displacement crisis. Afghanistan actually -- right now -- another country where the US has involvement, has a huge displacement crisis. The difference with this one though is that the amount of people who have left and are really struggling with nothing -- either inside Iraq or outside Iraq and the failure of the international community to respond really at all. Or the primary response of apathy which is really just basically they don't care is shameful. And so what we know from the past and what we know right now is that refugee crisis require international responsiblity and that they require the sharing of the responsiblity.

Aimee Allison: I mean, what's going to happen long term if the international community -- all the countries in that region as well as the United States don't step up with some solutions, some money, to help these people?

Sarnata Reynolds: Well what we're going to see again is people living inside Iraq or outside Iraq without homes, growing more and more desperate, without access to education, perhaps without access -- or right now anyway -- without access to work, without access to health care and people will become more and more destitute. Without any -- Hope will decline, of course it will decline, hope is already declining and so -- It's hard to say what will happen. What we know for sure is that more and more people will become destitute and how they will be treated by host states right now, we don't know. As time goes on, we don't know what will happen if more people aren't resettled out of the region and into countries where they can begin to restart their lives and build their family structure again. . . . In terms of historically the scale of this it's hard to predict because it's a huge massive amount of people what we know is that the vast majority of them can't go home right now, probably won't be able to go home for many years and some of them will never be able to go home.

Allison is co-author, with David Solnit, of Army Of None. Reynolds was discussing Amnesty International's new reports on the Iraqi refugee crisis (text, photos, videos). Yesterday we started noting Amnesty's Iraq: Rhetoric and Reality: The Iraqi Refugee Crisis (here for HTML and here for PDF) with sections two and three and ended with some of section four (the myth of the great return). Majid is a father of seven and a widower who had to return to Iraq: "Majid had fled Iraq in February 2008 after two of his nephews, Mansour and Sami, aged 17 and 19, were beheaded by members of an armed group in a rural area north of Baghdad. The young men's mother, Rasha, was reportedly present when in December 2007 armed men in civilian clothes knocked at the door and took away Mansour and Sami. Rasha went to Baghdad and informed Majid about the incident. In the evening a photographer informed the family that the heads of Mansour and Sami had been found on the banks of the Tigris river." In Syria, Majid was unable to be granted residency and the savings were quickly gone : "Weeping, he explained to Amnesty International that he had no alternative but to return to Iraq."

The reality of the small return (as opposed to The Myth of the Great Return), Amnesty finds, is that Majid's experience is the norm with 46% of those who returned also citing the money issue and another 25.6% citing the visa issue. That left 14.1% who returned. Willingly? No. They weren't informed, they were misinformed by a media quick to repeat the propaganda as news. The 14.1% returned after hearing "that the security situation had improved." That never happened. [And credit to the New York Times' Damien Cave and Cara Buckley one more time for telling the truth when it still mattered.] Amnesty points out that the issue of the returns also includes "duration" and that no one had bothered to collect information on that. Amnesty's research indicated that the bulk of returns are planned as "temporary stays".

Looking outside the MidEast, Amnesty finds other obstacles facing refugees. The UK cuts off support services after 21 days if your application for asylum is rejected, the Netheralands do the same after four weeks of the second appeal. Belgium also cuts off most assistance following a rejection and reducing rights (and designates you an "illegal immigrant"), while Denmark pulls most of your rights (such as employment). Germany's especially 'creative.' They're in the midst of taking refugee status away from Iraqis they granted it to previously -- granted while Saddam Hussein was ruling Iraq. Let's repeat that: Iraqis who entered Germany and applied for refugee status, prior to the start of the Iraq War, were recognized as refugees. These same people ("approximately 18,000 Iraqis") are now being informed that they are no longer refugees. Apparently, the government believes Iraq is now safe. It takes a lot of nerve to remove a refugee status after you've granted it -- especially when you're expecting them to return to a war zone.

From this section we'll note the following:

At present, Amnesty International believes that the time is not right for returns of any kind to Iraq, whether they are explicitly forcible or effectively forcible but disguised as "voluntary". In addition to obligations not to forcibly return Iraqis in a direct manner as discussed below, Amnesty International believes that all states must ensure Iraqi refugees are not forced into a situation where they have no real option but to return, so indirectly forcing them to return.

Amnesty International also believes that voluntary returns should not be promoted at present. This view is shared by UNHCR, which does not regard the conditions as conducive to return in safety and dignity as required by international standards. Amnesty International opposes all forms of encouragement of voluntary returns, including indirect and coercive means such as restricting assistance and forcing people into destitution. Amnesty International believes that such policies not only impact on the enjoyment and fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights, but may also put the state in a position where it is in breach of the principle of non-refoulement.

It's too violent for returnees. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing ("adhesive bomb stuck to a civilian car") that claimed 1 life and left two people wounded.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a woman was shot dead in front of her home in Mosul and her husband was wounded. Reuters notes a police officer was shot dead in Mosul

Kidnappings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Mahmoud al-Dwadi was kidnapped by gunmen yesterday" in Diayal Province and that his corpse was discovered by police.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and lat last night ("11:30 p.m.") Sadiq Ismail's corpse was found in Albu Sabah. Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Tuz Khurmato.

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera magazine reports, "Iraqi police and soldiers swept house to house through the southern city of Amara and surrounding Maysan province" today. Aref Mohammed (Reuters) estimates 250,000 people inhabit Amara. CBS and AP report that the region's deputy governer (Rafia Abdul-Jabbar) "has been arrested" or 'arrested' by Iraqi troops.

Turning to the peace movement in the United States. The good? Retired Col. Ann Wright continues traveling to speak to groups. Samantha Fex (Molokai Times) reports on Wright's visit to Hawaii: "Col. Wright also provides information about the realities of military enlistment because she wants people to be able to make the most informed decision possible when joining the military" and quotes Wright stating, "It's wonderful to be able to come to a place like Molokai. Small towns and small communities in our country seem to be the places where most of our military enlistees come from. So, it's important to come to a community like this to acknowledge what's going on." The bad? Eric Ruder (Dissident Voice) nails it in his recent piece where he notes no major demonstration since January 27, 2007, a failure to connect with the ones opposed to the illegal war, a desire to repeatedly water down arguments to reach those who still haven't made up their minds, moderate demands (or 'demands') and the cow-towing to the November elections: "The problem is that an electoral calculation without a genuinely antiwar candidate runs smack up against the need to build an antiwar movement capable of forcing whoever ends up in the White House to bring the troops home now."

What does our 'vital' and 'living' peace movement have to show for it? Nicholas Johnston and James Rowley (Bloomberg News) report that the Congress voted yesterday to give Bully Boy all the Iraq War funding he wanted. No conditions, no timelines. That would be the Democratically controlled Congress. Democrats control the House and the Senate. The November 2006 elections were supposed to bring 'change' and they brought nothing. All the Democratic 'leadership' has done is create a back-and-forth over funding the illegal war. It has not stopped funding it. It indicates it will or might. Then it goes ahead and does it anyway. So you get some griping before American tax payer moneys are handed over and that's really all you get for handing control of both houses over to the Democrats. The Iraq War is dropped as an issue by activists and the Democratic Party makes a few noises about Iraq in an attempt to drive up votes in November. And the illegal war drags on. As Mike observed last night, "It's time for CODESTINK and all the other groups that can't focus on Iraq to leave the stage. Just go away, no one will miss you."

Wall Street: $19,103,119; Big Energy $1,102,918; Pharmaceutical Co.'s $696,063. That's Barack Obama's "donation" totals and can be found in this Ralph Nader video. Those numbers explain why Barack broke his pledge regarding public financing. Sam Youngman (The Hill) reports that Barack declared today "that he will not accept public financing for the general election". As Brian Edwards-Tiekert worded it on the seven a.m. news break on KPFA (first segment of The Morning Show), Barack is "abandoning an earlier committment to use public financing if his Republican rival did as well" and "Today's announcement marks the first time that a presidential candidate has opted out of the public financing system for a general election since that system was created in 1974." Back in February, Jeff Zeleny and Steven Greenhouse (New York Times) quoted Barack declaring, "If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward. It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don't even know if the other side will agree to it." At the LA Times' political blog, trash Amina Khan is an embarrassment -- but that was clear when we said "LA Times' political blog," wasn't it? And they wonder why so many are about to lose jobs? At the grown ups table, Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post) quotes John McCain (presumptive GOP presidential nominee) declaring, "Senator Obama's reversal on public financing is one of a number of reversals that he has taken. He said he would stick to the agreement. He didn't. This is a big, big deal. He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." Jonathan D. Salant (Bloomberg News) quotes Barack explaining, "The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system." How interesting, go back to the February New York Times link and you won't find any of those 'concerns.' They appear to have sprouted overnight. No talk of 527s. This is appalling and you need to see how Panhandle Media plays it because early indication appears to be that our 'left' media outlets are rushing to justify it and, in fact, celebrate the decision. One more belief tossed on the bonfire for the Cult of Saint Bambi. Public financing came about for a reason and, while it does need fixing, Barack's not proposed fixing it. (Like his Iraq War 'plan,' "Details to come later!") He's never voiced concerns for the system. Now he wants to pretend that anything other than greed is at play here. And what's Panhandle Media going to do? Go ga-ga again at the dollar signs? Do they have even an ounce of integrity left at this point or have they sold it all off as an in-kind-contribution to St. Bambi?

Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer issued the following on Barack's decision:

Democracy 21 is very disappointed that Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has decided not to accept public financing for his presidential general election campaign.

We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.

We do not agree with Senator Obama's rationale for opting out of the system. Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system.

With his decision, Senator Obama will become the first major party presidential nominee to reject public financing for his general election campaign, since the public financing system was established in 1974.

Senator Obama's decision to opt out of the general election public financing system makes it all the more important for Senator Obama to personally make clear to the public in no uncertain terms that if he is elected, one of the early priorities for his Administration will be enacting legislation to repair the presidential public financing system.

In the current Congress, Senator Obama is one of the three lead Senate sponsors of the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 (S.2412), legislation to fix the presidential public financing system, particularly the system for presidential primaries. The other lead Senate sponsors of this bipartisan legislation are Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

Revitalizing the presidential public financing system is essential to protecting the integrity and credibility of the presidency and the interests of citizens in fair government decisions.

It needs to be called out. But watch everyone hope and pray that their past words on the buying of elections is forgotten. Which is why the really embarrassing trot out an American Enterprise Institute type to praise Barack's decision. AEI? That's who the left takes its cues from? They also made time to slam and slime Ralph Nader. How very 'left' of them. Ralph Nader is running for president. Ballot Access notes Indiana's restrictive laws and that "Indiana is one of only five states in which Ralph Nader has never appeared on the ballot." They noted yesterday that Nader will be on Arizona's ballot. Bitchier Than Thou is asking North Carolina residents to sign the petition so that Nader can make the state's ballot. And Team Nader issued this press release earlier this week from Ralph Nader:

"During his Nobel Laureate acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway, Al Gore laid out in stark terms the single most important act the next President of the US can do to avoid dangerous climate change:

'And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon – with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.'
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html

Senators Obama and McCain both oppose a CO2 tax and instead favor the more politically expedient, manipulatable, evasive cap-and-trade approach.

In the last eight years, Al Gore has invested too much in trying to protect our climate to just a write a blank check of endorsement to a candidate on one of the most important perils of our time.

I challenge Al Gore, as one of the leading figures in the war on global warming, to uphold the courage of his convictions and demand that Senator Obama support a carbon pollution tax.

The people want the next President to take action to reign in global warming. The litmus test for whether a Presidential candidate is serious about global warming is if he or she has the courage to support a CO2 tax.

Unlike a cap-and-trade program, which can be easily gamed, a straight-out carbon tax on hydrocarbon production at the production source forces better choices of technology from the get-go.

Meanwhile Iraqi oil production is not suffering. They're at record levels. But Big Oil wants Iraq and Andrew E. Kramer (New York Times) reports they've got it, via no-bid contracts. Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP all have contracts -- not via the Iraqi Parliament which refuses to legalize the theft of Iraqi oil but via Iraq's Oil Ministry. Andy Rowell (Oil Change) observes, "The long wait may finally be over to claim the last great prize left for the oil industry. But not, importantly, how the oil industry, or the Bush administration wanted it to."

AP states: "The deals, once signed, are something of a stopgap measure to help Iraq begin to increase production until the country is able to approve a new national oil law - now held up by political squabbles among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds."

iraq

iraq veterans against the war

matthis chiroux

kpfa

the morning show

brian edwards-tiekert

the new york times
jeff zeleny

the washington post
perry bacon jr.

aimeee allison
david solnit

nicholas johnston
james rowley

mcclatchy newspapers

andrew e. kramer
andy rowell

Posted at 09:39 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment Permalink

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."

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