be sure to read elaine's 'I don't support the War Resisters Support Campaign...,' marcia's 'Laura Kaminker: Her own little fan club' and betty's 'The sock puppet master calls.' all 3 posts are wonderful. how about that crazy kaminker, huh? kaminker and her sock puppets. if she didn't have her sock puppets, she wouldn't have any audience, would she?

and exactly how long is the ineffective war resisters support campaign going to use her as a 'face' - it's a scary face, granted, and it's becoming a dangerous face.

i'll move to other topics. let's go to the topic. this is from joan vennochi's 'For Jane Swift, harsh spotlight on Palin has familiar feel' (boston globe):

Jane Swift, the former acting governor of Massachusetts, hopes voters will start focusing on Sarah Palin's record as governor of Alaska and stop focusing on questions about her family.
But Swift is not surprised that, first, "folks are obsessing with the personal aspects of her life."
Swift, an early John McCain supporter, is protective about his surprise pick for running mate, especially when it comes to the media frenzy over Palin's family.
"I wish people showed more discretion with me," said Swift. She wishes the same for Palin.
The focus on Palin's 17-year-old, pregnant, unmarried daughter "is so far beyond the pale of what's appropriate," she said.
To Swift, the harsh spotlight on Palin has a familiar feel. Swift was pregnant with twins when, as lieutenant governor, she took over for Paul Cellucci when he left the governor's office before his term was up. Her personal life was criticized and her qualifications questioned.

i'm going to talk about the above in brief. i'm not going to focus on the daughter.

i'm going to focus on the fact that, until last year, i had multiple pregnacies which all resulted in miscarriages.

had i gotten pregnant at 17, it wouldn't have been the end of my life. my life would have been different.

it wouldn't be what it is today, to be sure.

whether it would be better or worse, i don't know.

and neither does any 1 else.

so when people think the way to make 'political sport' is to go after a 17-year-old girl in public, what they are saying is that they don't think she has a future and that it's more than worthy to humiliate her in order to score a few points for barack.

the 17-year-old girl is living her life and the last thing anyone pregnant needs is to be made the focus of trash talk. there's no reason for it.

this is the 1st and last time i intend to mention it at my site.

but i want all the 1s who are talking trash about that young girl to think about something: i had repeated miscarriages.

i had them and other women can as well. a 17-year-old girl already has enough pressure on herself without you tongue wagging and clucking. it is none of your damn business. and if you add stress to her and, god forbid, anything goes wrong in her pregnancy, you will be partly responsible.

you need to think about that before you trash her again.

it's not about republican or democratic. it is about respecting some 1's privacy. (and for any drive-bys, i am voting for ralph nader.)

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

Tuesday, September 2, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, propaganda continues, the US military announces a death and more.


On Monday, Al Anbar Province was 'turned' over to the Iraqis (don't try to define that term -- it's in dispute) and M-NF (Multi-National Forces) issued a press release officially and unofficially in the New York Times via their backchannel boy Dexy Filkins. There's not a great deal of difference between the two, there never is. The US military spits and Dexy's mouth is open trying to catch it. Nowhere in that overly long article does he even acknowledge that the 'handover' was repeatedly announced and repeatedly postponed. It's all rah-rah from Dexy. Reality, the US military long ago realized that they couldn't have any impact on Anbar. Which is why the "Awakening" Councils (Sunni thugs placed on the US payroll) were originally created. If the US couldn't scare the hell of out of the inhabitants, lets put thugs on the payroll, put them in charge and let that scare the hell out of the inhabitants. It's not a 'success' strategy but, hey, Dexy got to attend a parade and who knows how much praise he'll get from the US military for his 'reporting' this go-round. He certainly got plenty last time and, as Thomas E. Ricks revealed in the Washington Post (after Dexy left Iraq the first time), the US military considered Dexy to be their go-to-guy. As Christian Parenti long ago noted (2005), the reality is that Dexy of the paper and Dexy in person bear no recognizable relationship to one another. As if to prove that point made earlier today, this afternoon The Atlantic has published Jeffy Goldberg and Dexy's dishing in Q&A form and there's Dexy saying "I don't think so" (to whether Iraq is a democracy") and offering this on 'progress' and 'safety': "A couple of days later I went to Sadr City, also at dusk. Sadr City is a vast slum that takes in about three million people. It's the stronghold of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia, and it's been the scene of heavy fighting, as recently as a few months ago. I was with some Iraqi friends. It felt perfectly normal. Then one of my Iraqi friends said to me, 'What do you think would happen if you were alone?' And I said, 'What?' And he and the other Iraqis laughed and said: 'You'd be dead in ten seconds'." Go down, Dexy indeed.

In order to sell Anbar as 'progress' a number of facts need to be forgotten such as how many times Anbar was already supposed to have been handed over (last June most prominently). Forgetting is also required of last Thursday's Baghdad press confrence when 'freedom of the press' got a little too 'free' for US Lt Gen Frank G Helmick as he barked "one question, please, at a time" when realities began emerging about Anbar in the questions. Among the many hard-to-find-rah-rah-in-that statements was Iraq's Interior Minister Jawad al-Bulani's insistence that, "We're having a plan to develop the capability of Anbar police through providing them with arms." Good to know you're having a plan, to bad it's a bad plan and one that's not even implemented. AFP quotes US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker (whom they call "US ambassador to Bagdhad" -- which is certainly more telling) declaring limited success with Gen David Petraeus at the Monday events as the Americans cautioned that they were just withdrawing to their base and would still be around 'as needed' should the need arise. (Think the UK and Basra.) AP quotes US Maj Gen John Kelly at the same ceremonies declaring, "Al Qaeda has not been entirely defeated in Anbar, but their end is near and they know it." And, apparently, so does Psychic John.

No one's supposed to notice that Monday's big to do about nothing was to cover the fact that Iraq is no closer to holding provincial elections (a White House imposed benchmark) before the end of the year. AFP reports that there are exactly two weeks left for Iraqi lawmakers to come to agreement or else there will be no elections until next year,

Turning to the "Awakening" Councils. They are the thugs on the US payroll (men are paid $300 a month, women are paid far less -- and on one lodged an objection to that). They are the thugs who sold their allegience for coin. al-Maliki has surrounded himself with Shi'ite thugs and has always been threatened by the prospect of their Sunni counter-parts. He's made clear that the bulk of them will not be absorbed into any Iraqi body (police or military) and, in fact, has launched attacks on the Diyala Province. Erica Goode (New York Times) reports the al-Maliki government says it will begin issuing payment at the first of October and she quotes "Awakening" commander in Baghdad Ali Bahjet dismissing all the Happy Talk by noting that he has been "assured" by the US military "that 'our contracts will be renewed for the next six months, beginning Sept. 1'" and quotes him adding, "We are sure that the American will continue financing our program because this program . . ."

Turning to some of today's reported violence.

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that claimed 4 lives and left twenty-three wounded, a Ninevah car bombing that claimed 7 lives and left seven peopl injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 child and left his father and brother wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul car bombing that claimed 4 lives (plus the drive) and left six people wounded.

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "a mother and her two children" were kidnapped in Nineveh.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 2 corpses were discoverd in Suwayra.

Today the US military announces: "Multi-National Division -- Center reported a non-combat related death in Baghdad Sept. 2." It's the first death M-NF has announced for Septemeber (which doesn't mean it's the first death, especially considering how often they forget to do their job of announcing) and it brings the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4152.

Barbara Starr (CNN) reports US Secretary of Defense "Robert Gates is expected to present proposals to cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq to President Bush, along with proposals for beefing up American forces in Afghanistan". Barring some huge change of direction at this week's Republican Party convention, the two major parties will both be offering the American people cuts and calling them "withdrawal." Turning to the US presidential race, not content to disgrace themselves on the front page of the New York Times today, the press decided to do so at the White House. "One last question for you," a reporter who will remain nameless asks, "because this is another on that you hear a lot -- this issue is raising a lot of questions and sort of prompting a lot of debate about -- the idea of Sarah Palin, mother of five, soon to be grandmother of one, coming to Washington potentially as a vice president, in the most demanding job one could imagine. Any issues raised there about the whole motherhood-work divide?" Pay attention to Dana Perino (White House flack) responding because even WMC blows it (and Feminist Wire Daily still doesn't appear to have noticed a woman had been named as a running mate), " You know, I don't think that those questions would be asked if it was Todd Palin that was the nominee. And I think that Sarah Palin has proven that you can choose as a woman to be a mother and be a strong executive, and to have a wonderful, loving family. And that's what she's chosen to do. And I think that's why the party has rallied around her so fully." Exactly right. Dana Perino got something 100% right today -- a rare thing for her. But not only was it rare for her, it's too much for many 'lefties.' The question WOULD NOT and HAS NOT been asked of a man. But Palin, John McCain's running mate pick if he gets the GOP nomination, is being 'probed' in what should damn well remind many of the crap Kimba Woods and others had to put up with over 15 years ago. It wasn't right then, it's not now. The paper of little record tries to hide behind "Mommy Wars" to 'cover' the non-story. Susan (Random Thoughts) gets right to the point, noting no one gives a damn about Barak's two children while he's on a ticket but Palin is supposed to be uanble to have kids and run for VP: "The article reeks of sexism. The message is clear: If you're a woman and you've just had kids, don't bother running for high political office." Joseph (Cannonfire) notes the garbage that's been thrown at Palin already (false rumors) and where it's coming from: The Daily Toilet Scrubber and Andrew Bareback Mountain Sullivan. Somehow Bob Somerby, covering similar terrain, can only hiss at Andy Sullivan -- well Somerby's always been scared of his own shadow. As for a non-rumor regarding Palin's family that is also non-news, my opinion is here and Anglachel offers her own here. It's a real shame that Stephanie Miller (who wants no one digging through her closets) has chosen to demonstrate just how trashy she is on this topic and it's even sadder that Women's Media Center finds her to be a voice worth quoting in an article. As pointed out here last night, "And 'scoring' a 'win' for Barack via smut only further adds to the perception that he has nothing to run on and no qualifications. Why else would you be tearing into a young girl?"

The RNC is currently holding their convention and will select their presidential nominee (presumably John McCain). Amy Goodman's already found attention getting stunts to get her name in the headlines. She could have pulled the same stunts in Denver and faced the same police treatment. But Denver was about her selling the Democratic Party and Minneapolis is about her tarring and feathering the RNC. (Most years, we generally let the RNC tar and feather itself. But it's CrackPot time these days.) Ava and I addressed Goody's garbage Sunday but two things need to be noted Obama Groupie Patricia Wilson-Smith LIED on air and got away with it. She said early on (sticking with the talking point) that she was for Hillary originally, as she became more heated she wanted the whole world to know about the work she's been doing: ". . . I've been working so tirelessly over the last year and a half for Senator Obama". It's not both ways. Wilson-Smith lied. Get used to it. You'll see a lot more woman trying to tell you they were Hillary supporters at the start and then went over to Barack with the implication being that you can as well! Don't believe liars. Do what you want, but don't believe liars. The second thing is that, as noted, there was no convention bounce for Barack. As Ava and I noted:

The Thursday speech was a whimper (and as we feared last week, no one taught Barack to modulate). The entire week was a Love-In. Only, unlike past love-ins, it wasn't about "us" (however, you define the noun), it was about Barack. Try to get it if you support Barack (we don't) because you (his supporters and the media) continue to hurt his chances of winning in November. Americans want to elect a president to work for them. Americans aren't electing a Love God, a Second Coming, a Homecoming King. James Carville has famously (and rightly) called the first night as a disaster. It was a disaster. The disaster continued all week, with few exceptions. The convention was supposed to bring America on board. What was being sold? It wasn't the Democratic Party. It wasn't a need to make the country better. It was Barack, Barack, Barack, Barack. Over and over. Here's reality that the campaign better start accepting: Barack is not experienced. That's a reality. America will gladly take a chance on a candidate if they believe the candidate has something to offer them. You need to accept the reality and you need to drop the testimonials. If you're serious about getting Barack into the White House (we plan to offer advice when we cover the GOP convention as well), you need to start making it about America and not about Barack. It was a vanity parade. It was grown adults embarrassing themselves like Baby Soxers. It was never about where American can go, only that Barack could lead.
"Change to what?" was the question created during the primaries by the campaign refusing to be specific. "Lead us where?" is the question they replaced it with as a result of the convention. And, just like during the primaries, they had no answer to the question their actions raised. Four nights of non-stop infomercials told you there was a product named Barack and that you should buy it. But no one could ever tell you what Barack could or would do. Now people may buy a number of things from infomercials. They might buy a treadmill or a hair care product or anything else. But the infomerical has to tell you what it does. Repeating "It's great!" over and over doesn't sell the product. And the convention didn't sell to America. It may have picked up a few converts. It didn't provide what Barack needed or anything he could build on. Four percent is what we're told the 'bounce' was. Four percent isn't a bounce and isn't even beyond the statistical margin of error. In other words, four four days, a non-stop infomercial ran and it didn't sell a damn thing.

Yesterday, Cedric's "The polling doth not riseth" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! CHRIST-CHILD FALTERS!" noted the polls being released reflected no bounce. This is where reasonable take their heads out of their asses and begin to notice there is a problem -- yes, even if they are Barack supporters. Someone who is not a Barack supporter is Eric Patton (Dissident Voice) and he demonstrates how the right plays to win and the left plays to lose

The right wing makes their candidates earn their support. They don't beg and plead. On the other hand, it seems like the only thing liberals know how to do is piss, whine, cry, moan, complain -- and especially beg and plead.
If you have to do a "Progressives for ," instead of doing it after the candidate has wrapped up the nomination, a better strategy -- if you really want to win -- would be to pick a candidate like Kucinich (whom I personally am not enamored with for reasons that go beyond the scope of this essay; however, there is no doubt he was the farthest left of the Democratic candidates, and massive left support for him would not have been, I don't think, a bad tactical move) and get behind him strongly at least two years before the election, if not sooner.
Let's put this another way: Suppose McCain wins, which I think is likely. If you must support somebody, then begin in December 2008 planning for the election in November 2012. Find out if Kucinich is planning on running again. If he is, start your Progressives for Kucinich website then, bust your ass for four years, and see what happens.
So why didn't the liberals behind Progressives for Obama do that? Because for them, it's not about winning change -- it's about electing Democrats. It's about the home team. It's about the gang colors. As Obama was making his expected (by radicals) moves to the right, the phenomenal left-wing writer Paul Street asked Obama supporters how far was too far? Their answer was, in effect, that it made no difference.

Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are running for president and both candidates want a real end to the illegal war, not smoke and mirrors, not word games, just the illegal war ended. At McKinney's website John Judge outlines the differences between the Green ticket and the Democrat ticket:

As the Democratic National Convention continued, Green Party leaders called attention to sharp differences between the Democratic ticket and Green nominees Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente.
Greens congratulated Mr. Obama on his historic nomination as the first African American presidential candidate of an established party in the US. But Greens noted that the nomination of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente in July is also historically significant -- the first time a national political party has chosen two women of color. Ms. McKinney is African American and Ms. Clemente is Black Puerto Rican.
"There's a whole list of urgent issues that Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are talking about, while Barack Obama and Joe Biden remain silent," said Cliff Thornton, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States and co-founder of Efficacy, Inc. (http://www.Efficacy-online.org). "The Democrats don't want to discuss the
devastation caused by the failed War on Drugs, or abuses by the police, courts, and Homeland Security authorities. They won't mention the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections by the Republicans or address the mass displacement of poor and African American people from New Orleans. For Cynthia and Rosa, these are major issues affecting the future of our country."

Meanwhile, the Ralph Nader-Matt Gonzalez ticket files for the ballot in Kentucky tomorrow and their state coordinator, Jim Wiese, will hold a news conference at the Secretary of State's office at three o'clock in the afternoon tomorrow: "A broad range of issues face Kentucky voters this election. Kentucky has one of the nation's highest illiteracy rates, compounded by fluctuating, and sometimes frozen, teacher salaries. Coal strip mining continues in Eastern Kentucky, despite its devastating effects on the environment. Lastly, a universal health care plan is definitely needed in a state which holds a high incidence of diabetes cases. The Nader/Gonzalez Campaign offers solutions to these and many other problems facing the working families of Kentucky that Obama /McCain fail to offer. For example, Nader and Gonzalez will guarantee a decent education for all, ban mountaintop removal and launch a "Marshall Plan" to repair the Nation's crumbling schools, clinic, roads, bridges and other important infrastructure, creating millions of new jobs. Nader/Gonzalez favors a Canadian-style, private delivery, free choice of hospital and doctor, public health insurance system." Team Nader notes:

The general election campaign kicks off today.
To rev up our engines, drop $8 on Nader/Gonzalez now.
That's one dollar a week between now and election day--November 4.
I've worked on all three Nader campaigns--2000, 2004, and 2008.
And trust me on this one. This year, we have the best chance to break through.
Why?
There's a serious and growing independent movement away from the corporate Democrats and Republicans.
We're going to be on more state ballots this year -- 45 states (plus the District of Columbia) compared to 34 in 2004 and 44 in 2000.
We're heading toward double digits in a number of key state polls.
And because we are going to implement a nationwide get out the vote drive that will put 2000 and 2004 to shame.
Translation -- we're shooting for a three way race.
The last sixty days between now and election day will be a blur.
We have our Minneapolis rally coming up later this week. (If we don't all get arrested first -- apparently the police in Minneapolis arrest you for political organizing.)
We're in the process of transferring our ballot access crew over to our nationwide get out the vote drive.
And then it's going to be all out, pedal to the metal --- precinct by precinct drive --- until November 4--to let the American people know that they have a choice.
It's been one helluva year so far.
And it's going one knock down drag out fight.
Bring it on.
But first things first.
Thanks to your help, we have not missed one fundraising goal this year. And we don't plan to start now.
We're entering the home stretch of our most recent drive.
We're at $55,000.
But we need to hit $100,000 in three days -- by this coming Thursday September 4. That's $15,000 a day. It's go time.
So, give whatever you can afford now -- $10, $20, $50, $100.
And remember, if you give $100 or more now, we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver rally, the Minneapolis rally, and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD offer ends September 4 at 11:59 p.m.)
Onward to November.
And what we hope will be a three-way race.
Jason Kafoury, National Campaign Coordinator

iraq
the new york timeserica goode
dexter filkins
mohammed al dulaimy
mcclatchy newspapers
the third estate sunday review
the daily jotcedrics big mix

that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Softer Side of Narcissism" it went up today and doesn't it perfectly capture michelle obama's appearance on pbs last night. me, me, me.

poor michelle, she really does think the world revolves around her.

today c.i. wrote 'eleanor's smear.' i have known c.i. how many years? i have been a friend for how many years? (first year of college.) and while on 1 level it doesn't surprise me, on another level it blows me away.

it doesn't surprise me because no 1 writes like c.i.

it surprises me because no 1 writes like c.i.

i was lucky and heard it dictated this morning. we were all headed to the first speaking gig on iraq. if you think you love it, read over it again but this time read it out loud.

it is amazing.

there's a part where 'eergh!' needs to be. after amy goodman publishing in hustler there's an 'eergh.'

which isn't me complaining about the friend (i know her) who typed up c.i.'s dictation. she did a great job typing it up.

what a powerful piece of writing.

and done off the top of the head.

we were all ready to go this morning and c.i. was still working on the morning entries. we assumed (wally, kat, ava and i) we'd go upstairs and c.i. would say, 'give me 5 minutes.' instead it was 'i've been stuck in the e-mails. i've got 1 written but ...'

we headed for the car and c.i. explained what was going on. ava and wally filled me on more of it later in the day.

i kind of wish now i had gone with wally, ava and c.i. to see hillary's speech. i just knew i was going to be crying too hard. so kat and i (and flyboy and my baby) came back to the hotel.

women are outraged by what eleanor smeal did. or what she did now.

that woman is pathetic and was born pathetic and died pathetic. she is now post-dead, she is now the undead.

so c.i. has to return 7 calls a.s.a.p. and then we're almost at the 1st place where we're speaking. kat goes, 'we have 5 minutes.'

c.i. says (dialing), 'i can do it, i can do it. just tell me when we're down to 4 minutes and 30 seconds and i'll wrap up.'

and c.i. did it. dictated that in less than 5 minutes.

i was listening with my mouth hanging open.

c.i. captured it perfectly and did an amazing job.

backstabbers is the theme tonight and i'm going with ellie smeal because she is nothing but a democratic party hack.

that is all she ever was. she has never made demands, she has never stood up for women, she has spent years in d.c. 'compromising' with damn little to show for it.

it's no surprise that as soon as the going got tough, ellie bailed on hillary.

that's typical ellie m.o.

and it's no surprise that she would confess to the porcine 'beauty' katha pollitt. oh, let me pull katha in on this.

katha, word to the wise, ugly break ups? not a good idea.

your ex does a wonderful bit about you. i laugh and laugh.

katha is the woman who hates woman and, as c.i. once noted, she's a loud, ugly woman and, due to media stereotypes of feminist, mistakenly assumed to be 1.

katha's nothing but a 20th century closeted communist. her ex does a wonderful bit on katha taking orders from moscow. it's a joke but only slightly.

before cindy sheehan even announced her run for congress, there was 'feminist' katha writing the piece telling cindy not to run.

why?

because she doesn't like women.

like most closet communists of the last decade, katha's all about women's issues matter last.

which is why she wrote nothing on abeer until she was loudly and repeatedly critized. so she tossed in abeer for a 1/2 sentence.

abeer was gang-raped by u.s. soldiers while her mother, her father and her 5-year-old sister were murdered (by u.s. soldiers) in the next room. 3 soldiers took turns gang-raping her and then she was murdered. then there was an attempt to set her corpse on fire. she was 15-years-old.

and katha had nothing to say. nothing to say when it made news.

nothing to say when the article 32 hearing took place.

nothing to say when soldiers entered pleas of guilt.

when she finally wrote it, she was all over the communist promoted story of another woman's death that no 1 knew the reality of (then or now).

but the 15-year-old girl who was gang-raped and murdered? the 1 that 3 soldiers confessed to their role in the conspiracy? she wasn't interested.

and wouldn't have even done a 1/2 sentence on it were it not for the fact that she was being loudly criticized and even alexander cockburn had written about it.

so much for our 'feminist' katha.

red ass katha's all about herself.

she doesn't think media portrayals (or lack of them) matter. so when the naacp called out the networks awful record in casting african-americans in roles, there was katha insisting the naacp was wasting every 1's time.

she only supports barack because his support among the closet communists is legendary.

and, to be clear, barack's not a communist.

but he hung around a lot of wackos and that's good enough for the closet set.

katha was shocked that her hero red betty was meaningless to young women today.

her hero is meaningless because she always was.

my generation had no use for red betty either.

we weren't housewives in suburbia.

and we didn't care for red betty bringing the then party line (communist party) into the feminism movement which would be 'lesbians are sick.' red betty ripped apart lesbians, ripped apart straight women and accused them of being lesbians.

it's largely forgotten today and just remembered how red betty pushed that other feminists were c.i.a. plants but, before red betty (who once made me cry in real life) was repeating that lie, she was running on n.o.w. insisting every woman she hated was a lesbian.

red betty was in a political closet.

and she hated attractive women. i often assume she's katha's hero because, like katha, 'butt ugly' was the only term for her.

that's how i met red betty. c.i. was speaking at a women's liberation event and there i was, still in college and waiting backstage. and red betty didn't want me backstage. red betty thought i was an irritant and a fan of her's.

i didn't recognize her. i just knew some homely woman was ripping me apart.

c.i. came off stage from speaking and saw what was going on and ripped into red betty. c.i. let her have it. i knew c.i. loathed red betty. but that was something to see.

c.i. went over every 1 of red betty's communist publications articles (all vanished from the public record then - they have resurfaced) and all of red betty's meetings and actions in the communist party and told the liar that if she ever spoke to me ('or any woman') like that when c.i. was around, the clipping file (provided by c.i.'s publisher grandfather) would be freely and widely distributed and 'your closeted ass will be cooked.'

red betty was all, 'i'm sorry, i'm sorry. i didn't know she was your friend. i thought she wanted my autograph.' (i hadn't even looked at her until she started talking about how i wanted attention for my tits - 'tits' was the word she used. when she practically screamed that, i looked over to see who the hateful woman dissing me was.) red betty was then telling me she was sorry and trying like crazy to kiss c.i.'s ass.

red betty made a lot of women cry. she was a hateful, hateful person.

she had to be the center of attention and was threatened if another woman was even in the room.

so it's fitting that katha pollitt made red betty her hero.

2 of a kind and all of that.




team nader's super rally took place tonight:

D-Day Denver

D-Day.

Denver tonight 6 p.m.

University of Denver Magness Arena.

Sean Penn, Tom Morello, Cindy Sheehan, Jello Biafra, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez will be there.

Standing up to the corporate two-party controlled debate commission.

Calling for an opening up of the Presidential debates.

If you are in the area, see you at the event.

If you know people in the area, call them, text them, e-mail them -- and give them the details.

Free Speech TV will be streaming the event live on the Internet. (Wednesday, August 27, 7 p.m. Mountain time, 9 p.m. Eastern.)

Just click here to watch.

Also, Free Speech TV will be broadcasting the event live on Dish Network Channel 9415.

If you are home watching convention coverage on cable, watch for Ralph.

He'll be in the DNC belly of the beast at the Pepsi Center today.

He'll be on Fox TV with Neil Cavuto in this afternoon at about 4 p.m.

And MSNBC with Dan Abrams tomorrow morning at about 10 a.m.

Other mainstream media interviews are being nailed down as we speak.

Stay tuned for more details.

The bottom line is this.

The conventions are supposed to be about democracy.

But in fact, they're two big corporate parties.

Talk about corporate crime and corporate power, and you are drummed out of the building.

Talk the happy corporate talk, and they invite you in for a drink.

Thank you Ralph Nader for having the guts to stand up.

For the American people.

Against the corporate takeover of our democracy.

Stand with Ralph today.

If you are in Denver, come on down and join with us at the Magness Arena tonight at 6 p.m.

If you are not in Denver, give whatever you can afford -- $10, $20, $50, $100 -- to help defray the costs of tonight's event. (Renting the arena, sound, lights, stage hands, video crew and equipment, flying in road trippers, printing of 100,000 fliers -- you get the picture.)

By the way, great start on the fundraising drive -- we're at close to $15,000 after just two days. But we have to hit $100,000 by September 4. So, let's get 'er cranked.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

With your help, tonight, we will shake it up.

Onward to November.

The Nader Team

PS: Remember, if you donate $100 or more, we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver rally, the Minneapolis rally, and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD offer ends September 4 at 11:59 p.m.)

ShareThisShareThisShareThis

we got back to the hotel (kat and i) too late to catch that. we're planning to look for it tomorrow night online. if you caught it, feel free to e-mail.

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

the denver super rally is wednesday night.
and this is from team nader:

Obama's Credit Card Connection

Drop $39 now on Nader/Gonzalez.

Why?

To protest Obama's choice of the Senator from MasterCard for VP.

That would be Senator Biden.

(By donating $39 now to the Nader Media Fund, you'll be helping us report more on Mr. Plastic in the days to come, but for starters, check out this account of how Biden fronted for the credit card companies in Congress.)

Why drop $39 now?

As a protest against the VP candidate from MasterCard.

Because $39 is key rip off number for the credit card industry.

Let's say you miss your credit card payment by one day.

What does the credit card company do?

Exactly.

They sock you with a $39 late fee.

And now, if Obama/Biden win the election, MasterCard and Visa will have a lock on the White House.

And who will stand up to the credit card industry and tell them -- no more rip off late fees?

Obama/Biden?

McCain?

No.

And --

No.

Only Nader/Gonzalez will stand up to the avaricious credit card corporations.

Who trap their consumers with --

29 percent interest rates.
$39 late fees.
Over limit fees.
Double cycle billing.
Disappearing grace periods.
$15 phone payment charges.

And every other possible way to rip you off.

To keep you in hock.

Forever and ever.

So, step up to the plate.

And drop $39 on Nader/Gonzalez now.

You'll be protesting the corporate Democrats' descent into credit card hell.

And supporting the only campaign that has the independence and guts to stand up to the industry and say -- enough!

Protest now.

Better late than never.

Onward to November.

The Nader Team

PS: Remember, if you donate $100 or more, we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver rally, the Minneapolis rally, and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD offer ends September 4 at 11:59 p.m.)

ShareThisShareThis

now i want to talk about the whore amy goodman and whore is the only word for goody.

she coozed up to larry flynt in an hour long snow-ball session on democracy now and of course thought his hustler magazine was just the place for a progressive to publish.


she had 2 hours today and couldn't once note that it was the anniversary of the enactment of the 19 amendment. she doesn't bother with women's history - we're lucky to get 1 segment every 2 or 3 years - and she couldn't note it even though it fit in headlines (hillary speaks tonight) and even though she did a 'women's segment.

she's nothing but a whore.

and i really want you to think about it this week. whore goodman was willing to publish in a magazine that no 1 bought for the article.

she was willing to use women as slaves. use their naked bodies to whore out her work.

she is trash.

and she wants to get props for her crap?

she wants people to look at her and think she's some statement for equality?

she's a whore.

plain and simple, just a whore.

a playboy interview? we'd roll our eyes. but playboy is not hustler.

and she has NEVER apologized for her actions.

noam chomsky has.

he apologized this summer and explained he didn't know anything about hustler. they asked him for an interview and he asked them who they had interviewed. that's all he knew about them. (and he also was surprised that they didn't provide him with a transcript.) amy goodman has never apologized.

all this time later.

she only killed her deal - she was going to publish there regularly - when her ass got called out.

she's always going on and on about when the new york times is going to apologize for this or that. when is amy goodman ever going to apologize?

i stopped to watch hillary's speech.

it was wonderful.

didn't change my vote.

barack's not prepared, he's a sell out and i don't trust him.

onward!


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

some things are just too funny. for example, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Change You Can Believe In"



did you read the garbage in the new york times today about caroline kennedy?

how much of a liar can 1 woman be?

she's acting like she helped pick the v.p. slot.

c.i. told me in april that it was clark if it was hillary and it was biden if it was barack.

i could see the clark because he and hillary are tight. but biden and barack? c.i. explained biden would be forced on barack. the 1st week of june, it was 'it's going to be biden' from all the d.c. crowd. the establishment was pushing for biden.

and some thought c.i. was and that's why c.i. repeatedly highlighted biden beginning in april. no, c.i. just liked a hearing biden chaired as well as a more exploratory 1 biden did. and that's why some barack - misunderstanding that - supporters think c.i.'s about to come on board with barack. not going to happen.

both elaine and c.i. will not vote for barack. that's a decision from years ago when he told them that the u.s. couldn't leave iraq and talked like a war hawk. while begging them for money.

(and, yes, barack begged himself. a no-no for elaine. you let others present ask for your donations. you do not ask yourself. that he hadn't learned that after nearly a decade in the illinois legislature did not go over well with elaine. he either couldn't learn the basics or he was a money grubber.)

so there was caroline who is not the establishment (but appears to want in which means she has no power - they only want what they can't have and if you go your whole life as an outsider - by choice - as caroline did, and then want in, you have no power) telling the new york times this and that and being amazed that she did all this research and, get this, barack asked questions!

i don't know why that's shocking to her.

maybe she expected to brief him while he was on top of some hollywood starlet? you know, like her father would have been.

caroline didn't make the choice, barack didn't make the choice.

it was made for him. the delay might have been due to his wanting to get out of that choice and realizing that he had no choice?

he's in denver, hoping to find some love and votes. lots of luck there. ralph nader is in denver too and this is the latest from team nader:

Nader Flix

As a big part of the homestretch push to Election Day, we are starting a new media fund drive -- $100,000 in ten days -- by the end of the Republican convention.

We're cruising. You've helped get us on 37 state ballots thus far (more to come soon) and Nader/Gonzalez has been at 5% or above in several national polls. But the big bucks news media has responded with a deep freeze-out. So, it's up to us to break through and get our own message out.

Enter the Nader Media Fund.

We aren't tied down by narrow stylistic constraints. We don't worry about offending corporate America. We just need to get much busier creating, filming, editing, and distributing.

You can help us create high-impact media that will get the Nader/Gonzalez campaign message out there -- on television, radio, and the Web. Your contributions will fund radio ads, our creative campaigns will garner free television media (as our "puppet" debate did in 2004), and we will put high quality content in your hands for you to show to your friends and family.

Donate $100 to Nader/Gonzalez now and we will mail to you three 30-45 minute DVDs over the next month with exclusive behind-the-scenes footage hot out of the editing room -- "Nader Flix." First, the Denver Super Rally, then the Minneapolis Super Rally, then a special debate project that we are creating.

Our crew of professional filmmakers includes people from the pinnacle of the business. The photo here shows them in the middle of their drive from Los Angeles to Denver yesterday. They need tape and access to top-notch gear, lodging and transportation. They need your support.

Make our own media. It's what we've got to do. We need your help to make it happen.

Onward to November.

(The 3-DVDs for $100 offer is good until September 4, 2008, 11:59 p.m.).

ShareThisShareThis

ralph's in denver and providing the only unscripted offerings of any candidate.

by the way, i saw something in the new york times business section i wanted to highlight. i am not a big fan of george orwell. but his journals are 'meat' for the online world. jean stanton is posting online daily entries at orwell diaries.

i'm noting that for 3 reasons. the person over the blog (with the estate's permission, by the way) is a woman and i'll toss a bone for that reason alone. second, there's the fact that a lot of you may need a topic in the near future for a paper for school so this could let you consider 1 writer who is well regarded and respected. third, i just liked the idea of it.

i'm just going to turn this into a chatty post.

i was talking to jess this evening on the phone (after kat and i headed back to the hotel and left wally, ava and c.i. to take on the last 2 groups). jess was telling me about all the hideous e-mails to the public account of the common ills. and 1 in particular ticked him off.

that busybody has written me too. she thinks she knows everything. she really has no knowledge base to speak of.

she bills herself as a freelance journalist and apparently to get that title she includes the 14 of so 'letters to the editor' the new york times has published by her in 10 years. i know that because when she wrote me and ticked me off, i mentioned her to c.i. and was reminded of the will & grace episode where the guy upstairs from will and grace (ned) can't shut up about having yet another letter in that paper.

i guess since ned-ette left america, she no longer can get her letters published in that paper so she feels the need to e-mail websites. she's also bothered mike with her crap.

so jess reads her e-mail today and replies with 1 entitled 'when did you get your law degree?'

ned-ette is the most pompous blowhard and oh-so sanctimonous.

she was writing c.i. to inform that robin long was not extradited. (she was also presenting herself as being in charge of canada's war resisters support campaign, which she is not.)

what a dumb idiot.

don't butt in and try to correct c.i. when c.i.'s correct.

1st off, c.i. already researched it. 2nd of all, canadian legal scholars make the same point that it was extradition and not 'deportation.'

3rd of all, the judge used the word 'extradition' (a slip, a telling slip) in the court hearing.

why doesn't ned-ette just shut up? as most of you have probably guessed, she's the nerd who moved to canada because she didn't like the results of the election. she wasn't going to live in the united states if bully boy was president!

poor, little ned-ette.

she really needs to get a life.

no 1 needs to hear from her. jess made that clear to her informing her that if she had news to highlight, feel free to e-mail but that c.i. doesn't need a lay person interpreting the law, thank you very much.

she hadn't written back when i spoke to jess.

she won't. she gets pissed off when you call her on her crap.

jess tossed out his own law professors and his mother (an attorney) who also agree it's extradition. it's only some idiot who knows nothing about the law but thinks she knows everything who doesn't get it.

what a fool ned-ette is.


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


Monday, August 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, sometimes the US and the puppet al-Maliki agree on their stories (and sometimes they do not), and more.


Starting with war resistance. US war resister Robin Long was court-martialed in Colorado Friday and Karen Linne, Fort Carson Public Affairs Office, explained Friday afternoon that he was sentenced to 15 months behind bars, reduced in rank (to E1) and given a dishonorable discharge. Robin was held at the Criminal Justice Center in El Paso Country while awaiting the court-martial and he will receive credit for the time he has served ("about 40 days").

Friday Colorado Springs' News Channel 13 (ABC) reported on the court-martial:


Eric Singer: Now getting back to a story we told you about earlier on in the newscast, a judge at Fort Carlson sentences a soldier to 15 months for desertion. He ran to Canada.

Nina Sparano: Twenty-four-year-old Private First Class Robin Long was supposed to be deployed to Iraq three years ago. Only On News Channel 13's Scott Harrison was in the court room for the sentencing.

Scott Harrison: Early Friday afternoon, Private First Class Robin Long left this court room and walked down this sidewalk for the last time as a free man for the next fourteen months or so as he begins his sentence for desertion. Long seemed in good spirits as guards escorted him to a waiting vehicle. He also got a warm send off from peace activists and anti-war protesters who came to support him. Some supporters hired an attorney from Oklahoma to represent Long.

James Branum: He got to speak his mind about why he did what he did and he knows that, yes, he did the legally wrong thing but the morally right thing.

Scott Harrison: Long's sympathizers expected he would serve some time after going AWOL then fleeing to Canada to avoid deploying to Iraq but they think 15 months is too harsh.

Ret. Army Col. Mary Ann Wright: Four months, five months something like that -- which is pretty common among all of the ones who have gone AWOL and been public about it. I think that would be an appropriate punishment.

Sgt. Matthis Chiroux: Robin Long to me is a hero. He is an individual who stood up during a time of great, great crisis facing overwhelming adversity and opposition and stood true to what he knew to be right.

Scott Harrison: Coming up at six, we'll learn more about the influences effecting Private Long's life that led him to be at this court room today. At Fort Carson, Scott Harrison News Channel 13.

Nina Sparano: Long's sentence will be reduced by forty days because of time already served. He's also reduced in rank to private and will receive a dishonorable discharge.

Saturday KRDO offered another report:

Samantha Anderson: [The court-martial of] a Fort Carson soldier Friday at times became more of a debate about the Iraq War then about the soldier's desertion. In our continuing coverage, News Channel 13's Scott Harrison explains how more service men and women are taking stands to oppose the war.

Scott Harrison: For most men and women in the military, the decision to go to war is a simple one. They follow orders. It's part of the job of being in the armed forces. But Friday's court-martial here at the mountain post attracted other soldiers who have taken stands similar to Private Long in opposing the Iraq War. We told you Friday how Private Long pleaded guilty to avoiding a deployment to Iraq by fleeing to Canada. Among those supporting him at his court-martial were a retired Army Col. and State Dept diplomat.

Ann Wright: I resigned in opposition to the war in Iraq. And that's -- he went AWOL because of the war in Iraq.

Scott Harrison: Also present was a Reserve Sergeant who announced a month before his scheduled deployment that he wouldn't go, considering the war an illegal act of aggression.

Matthis Chiroux: I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen. My situation is quite unique.

Scott Harrison: Sgt. Chiroux says the Army has decided not to court-martial him partly because he gained sympathy and support in Congress for the growing cause of war objectors within the military. The different actions toward Sgt. Chiroux and Private Long show how the military itself can seem divided on the issue.

Ann Wright: And that's an interesting thing because one would think that the army throughout the world would have a common view of these things. And that maybe there wouldn't be such disparity.

Scott Harrison: These war objectors -- whether in or out of the military -- say there are hundreds of servicemen and women like Private Long and more will come as the war continues.

Matthis: Who takes his dedication to the Constitution so seriously that he is willing to face persecution for it? Not even our own president is willing to do that.

Scott Harrison: Private Long is believed to be only the second soldier court-martialed for desertion by fleeing to Canada since the end of the Vietnam war. And both of those cases have happened just within the last month. At Fort Carson, Scott Harrison News Channel 13.

Samantha Anderson: The other soldier Private First Class James Burmeister, received a six-month sentence and a bad conduct discharge the same week Private Long was found in Canada.

Robin Long wasn't 'found' in Canada that week. He was expelled from Canada July 14th. (He was extradited.) Second, there has been more than two US war resisters who went to Canada and then returned and were court-martialed. Darrell Anderson returned from Canada and turned himself in October 3, 2006 but was not court-martialed, as Jim Fennerty explained to Jim Warren (Lexington Herald-Leader) back in October of 2006 (article no longer available online, but quoted in this October 4th entry). Two others would follow him back to the US that year. Kyle Snyder would turn himself in and then self-checkout again when the US military broke the promised agreement. Snyder was informed that he was going back to his unit, despite the agreement that had been worked out. Snyder is married to a Canadian citizen and should not (unless Judge Anne Mactavish thinks she can get away with it) be under threat of deportation today. The other? Remember The Full Brobeck? Ivan Brobeck returned from Canada and turned himself in on November 7, 2006 (mid-term election day and Brobeck returned with an open letter to the occupant of the White House). Brobeck was court-martialed Dec. 5, 2007 and released on Feb. 5, 2007. As Robert Fantina (Political Affairs magazine -- one of the few to note Brobeck) explained, "Several soldiers who deserted after a tour of duty in Iraq have stated that cruelty towards Iraqi citizens was a factor in their desertions. One of them, Lance Corporal Ivan Brobeck, witnessed the abuse of Iraqi detainees and the killing of Iraqi civilians. Another, Sgt. Ricky Clousing, had similar experiences. His allegations of systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees are now being investigated by the military." Ivan Brobeck would be the first known US war resister that went to Canada and returned to the US to be court-martialed.

Back to Robin's court-martial. Jupiter Kalambakal (AHN) reported, "During the trial, Long, 25, of Boise, Idaho, said he fled when his unit was deployed to Iraq because he felt it was an illegal war, according to CBC. Prosecutors, on the other hand, said he abandoned his duty and his country." Tom Roeder (Colorado Springs Gazette via Albany Times Union) noted that Col. Debra Boudreau presided as the judge, that the prosecution called no witnesses and that the prosecution "showed a six-minute video of Long, sporting dreadlocks and a beard, telling a Canadian news reporter 'I think I was lied to by my president'." That's the October 2007 CBC interview Robin gave. The use of the video indicates Robin's civilian attorney James Branum was correct when he told Nick Kyonka (Toronto Star) immediately before the court-martial, "I think they want to prosecute him for free-speech issues without actually charging him." A McClatchy Newspapers-Tribune Services article in The New Haven Register reported Ann Wright was among the witnesses and she testified that the Iraq War "was against, the law, arguing that justified Long's fleeing to Canada. . . . The lone character witness called to speak for Long was Peter Haney with the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission. He had met the soldier three times while Long was awaiting trial in the El Paso County, Colo., lockup" and he testified, "I've observed Mr. Long in situations that would be trying to just about anyone. He seemed to me to be extremely poised and lucid." From that article:

In his testimony, Long talked about his life in Canada and attacked the war in Iraq.
"I feel the war on terror is a war on peace," Long testified, saying he planned to eventually move back to Canada where he has a girlfriend and a son born while he was on the run form the Army.
In Nelson, British Columbia, Long said he perfected his organic gardening skills and converted his Volkswagen to run on recycled cooking oil.
Long told the judge he wanted to serve little or no jail time, but would take a bad conduct discharge as punishment.
He wrapped up his time on the stand by telling the judge, "Peace, love and light."
Long's civilian attorney, James Branam, closed his part of the sentencing hearing by comparing Long to Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr.
"The morality of what he did should lessen the punishment," Branam told the judge.

Dan Frosch (New York Times) quoted Jim Branum stating, "I felt he doesn't deserve a day in prison. Any jail time is unjust." Nick Kyonka (Toronto Star) reported, "About two-dozen anti-war supporters gathered around the courthouse at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, Colo., yesterday afternoon as a military judge handed down Long's sentence." Other coverage included an AP article, Erin Miller filed a report for KBS Radio. David Fox and Jesse McLaren write to the Toronto Star to point out that the sentence proves Judge Mactavish was wrong in her decixion. Jesse McLaren: "Since it is now clear that deporting war resisters to the U.S. does indeed produce irreparable harm, the Harper government must enact the motion passed in Parliament to stop the deportations and let war resisters stay." David Fox: "Justic MacTavish claimed he would not suffer 'irreparable harm' if deported. How is a military jail sentence and a felony conviction not irreparable harm? No soldier should face jail for opposing the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. And Stephen Harper must be held to account for deporting Robin Long when he knew full well the persecution and punishment he faced in Bush's America." Robin's civilian attorney Jim Branumn notes Free Robin Long and at his own site notes press coverage here and here.

Friday, Free Speech Radio News reported on Robin and the lead up to the court-martial and Jeremy Hinzman. Jeremy is the US war resister who was the first to go to Canada and apply for asylum. August 13th, he was informed he had until September 23rd to leave Canada or be deported.

Jes Burns: Back in Canada, another war resister, Jeremy Hinzman, is fighting for himself and his family to remain in the country. The Canadian government has ordered the Hinzman family to leave by September 23rd despite a motion passed in Parliament in June calling for an end to the deporations. Earlier this week Hinzman spoke at a Toronto forum to discuss strategies to stem the tide of current deportations.

Jeremy Hinzman: Ever since we got here, if it wouldn't be for the support of all of ya'll . . . It seems like we've had our hands tied. The Canadian government intervened in my case, said that the illegality of the war was irrelevant to our refugee claim. We appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court and, in November of last year, they refused to hear our case. So being here for four and a half years, working full time, having a family, having friends we thought perhaps that we'd have a shot at compassionate, humanitarian grounds for staying here. and as Michelle said last week we found out that that is not going to be the case. It's pretty devastating but all I can say is that I'd rather -- or I'd proudly serve jail time rather than kill and displace innocent people.

Jes Burns: The current hope for Hinzman is a new federal appeal in his case. Alyssa Manning is a lawyer representing him and other war resisters. She says the decision to deport Hinzman was made based on the assumption there would be adequate protection for his religious beliefs and political opinions back in the United States. But new evidence has emerged -- evidence that has already been used to stay the deporation of another war resister Corey Glass.

Alyssa Manning: New evidence has since come out that was not available to the Federal Court of Appeal that says that soldiers who speak out against the war in Iraq are actually subjected to severe punishment by the military solely for speaking out. And it was based on this new evidence that the Federal Court issued a stay of removal in Corey's case. Justice [Orville] Frenette, for the Court, he said, "The applicant submits that if returned to the United States he will be court-martialed for desertion and he will be incarcerated in a military prison where, like Stephen Funk, Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman, he will suffer persecution and cruel and inhumane treatment." He then said: "I believe the evidence here shows that if returned to the US the applicant will suffer the harm he has described." So that's a clear finding from the Federal Court that what these resisters have been alleging would happen to them if they're sent back is actually happening

Jes Burns: Manning says there were definite errors in the decision to deport Hinzman and his family. She hopes a new round of appeals will convince the Canadian courts to stay the deporation.

To show your support for Jeremy and other US war resisters in Canada, Courage to Resist alerts, "Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca."



Moving to Iraq, over the weekend Nicholas Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that Nouri al-Maliki insists the assault in Diyala Province Tuesday was a "rogue operation" while Iraqi Islamic Party spokesperson responded, "We believe that such a raid could not have taken place unless Mr. Maliki had at least prior knowledge of it." From last Tuesday's snapshot:

Reuters notes a raid conducted by "Iraqi security forces" in Baquba on "the office of the governor of Diyala province" which resulted in the death of "his secetary". Reuters notes the name of the dead is Abbas Ali Hmoud and that Raad Rasheed Mulla Jawad (the governor of the province) has stated, "The body of the martyr [Abbas Ali Hmoud] will stay in the building until the iillers are captured." Though the US military admits at least 1 US helicopter was present they deny that the US military had any knowledge or participation in the raid. Maybe they were just jumping the gun on the August 22nd National Airborne Day? Also playing dumb is the puppet government in Baghdad which is ordering an investigation. AFP reports that Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, "ordered the formation of a committee to find out how Iraqi forces came to fight each other in Baquba" and notes that, in addition to the secretary being murdered, a bodyguard was also shot dead. CNN notes, "Hussein al-Zubaidi, a provincial council member, and Nazar al-Khafaji, the Diyala University dean, were arrested during the raid, the official said."

From Wednesday's snapshot:

Nicholas Spangler and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report four police officers were wounded in the Diyala actions, the governor's secretary was shot dead, Hussein al Zubaidi ("provincial council member and head of security committee") was arrested, computers were seized and "Taha Dria, a Shiite lawmaker from Diyala who was not in the government compound during the raid, said the armed forces were from Iraq's Emergency Response Unit, an American-trained unit similar to U.S. Special Forces" quoting him explaining that, "They were wearing khaki. Their weapons were American. The Humvees they used looked American. They didn't have any ranks on their shoulders. They didn't talk." They also report eye witnesses saw two US helicopters and that the helicopters fired on the Iraqi people. The US military issued a denial on accusations yesterday and maintained that one helicopter was in the area but for other reasons and it was not involved in actions. Ned Parker and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) note the US military's denial and also explain that "a prominet Sunni university dean" was also arrested, that the Iraqi forces involved "reports to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's counter-terrorism office" but al-Maliki claims he was unaware and his office insists, "These special forces work with the Americans. They are not associated with the Ministry of Defense. They have goals, and they didn't inform anyone else." Nichoals Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the US continues to deny any involvement in yesterday's lawless activities with US Big Gen James Boozer insisting, "It was what appears to be a rogue operations."

The US military is claiming "rogue operation" despite the use of two US helicopters and al-Maliki's following their lead. Today claims fly on other issues with al-Maliki and the US on different sides. Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports that al-Maliki is stating that there is an agreement (this would be the treaty called a "SOFA") "that all US troops will leave by the end of 2011" and the White House is stating "no final deal has been reached." AP suggests al-Malik has "dug in his heels" and that "[d]espite the tough words" there will be a compromise. At the US traveling White House (Crawford, TX), Tony Fratto declared in a press briefing today, "I know there are always reports out there in the press and I'm not sure I saw exactly what Prime Minister Maliki said. But clearly from our perspective, we've been working with the Iraqi government for a long time on this agreement. . . . We're discussing goals. As you know, you've heard us speak about different kinds of timelines or aspirational goals that may be acceptable. I don't have anything to announce on that. An agreement has not been signed, and so from our perspective, there is no agreement until there's an agreement signed. There are discussions that continue in Baghdad. We'd like to let them continue and to continue to show progress. What we're focused on is getting a good agreement, not getting an agreement by a particular date. So we'll continue those discussions."

Sunday Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) tackled The Myth of the Great Return and explained, "Out of the more than 151,000 families who had fled their houses in Baghdad, just 7,112 had returned to them by mid-July according to the Iraqi Ministry of Migration." Tavernise further reported: "The reasons for the hesitation are complex, based on dangers both real and imagined. In most cases, Iraqis say they feel safe with their neighbors but are not sure about other residents. Some are afraid of the new guards on their blocks. In rarer cases, they cannot face neighbors who they suspect helped in killings." Erica Goode (New York Times) reported the Ministry of Culture's Deputy Minister Kamal Shyaa Abdullah was assassinated Saturday in Baghdad (along with his driver). Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported a bomber blew his/herself up and claimed 21 other lives (thirty-two wounded). Today AFP reports the death toll from the bombing has risen to 30. Tina Susman and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) explain the bomber was a man who showed up at the festivities. Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reports that the gathering was for Sami Hanoush, the son of Adnan Hanoush -- an "Awakening" Council member, who had recently been released from Camp Bucca and that the assault, which was carried out by "a stranger in his late 20s," "was one of the deadliest attacks in recent months." Erica Goode and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) note the gathering was "a large dinner" and that the stranger was "a man wearing a yellow dishdasha, or large robe" and quotes Abdullah Hamdan stating, "I just lost my brother, but I pray to God to save my son." Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a mortar attack on the Green Zone, a Baghdad bombing that left one Iraqi service member wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that wounded three members of a family, a Baghdad bus bombing that wounded the driver, a Baghdad roadside bombing that left one person injured, and a Baghdad mortar attack on "a petrol station." Reuters notes a Tikrit roadside bombing that injured six guards of Maj Gen Hamad Namis Yasin ("police chief of Salahuddin province"), a Shirqat roadside bombing claimed 2 live and, dropping back to Sunday, a Mussayab roadside bombing that claimed the life of Lt Col Basim Mohammed and his daughter (two sons were injured).

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Iraqi soldiers shot dead in Baghdad. Reuters notes that 1 man was shot in Mosul.

Corpses?

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

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier died of wounds Aug. 25 at a Coalition Forces Combat Army Support Hospital. The Soldier was shot by a small-arms attack during a dismounted patrol in northern Baghdad. The Soldier was quickly transported to the medical faciality but later succumbed to the wounds." The announcement brings to 4147 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war (19 for the month thus far).

US House Rep Stephanie Tubbs Jones passed away last week. Kristal Brent Zook notes the passing at Women's Media Center. [And at Third we note the vindicative Nancy Pelosi and her decision to pull Tubbs Jones' website on Thursday.] Each week when Ava and I do our TV pieces at Third, we have a host of links we want to work in and never get to half of them. Jennifer Merin's "Women Film Critics: An Endangered Species?" (WMC) needs to be read and we wanted to note it Sunday but couldn't fit it in. We think we'll be able to note it this coming Sunday but in case not, there's the link. Peggy Simpson covers Joe Biden being named the running mate for Barack Obama -- if Barack ends up the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And this is presidential politics and personal. A number of e-mails are coming in repeating a point made this weekend by a friend with the Obama campaign: "You are supporting the Obama campaign now!" No, I am not. I like Joe Biden, I've known him for many years. I am not voting for war and when Elaine and I went to the big money fundraiser for Barack's Senate run it was obvious that Barack was not anti-war or for ending the Iraq War. I will not be voting for Barack. I will not be voting for John McCain (presumed GOP nominee). I've said that over and over. This crosses over with another topic (and Jess -- in the public e-mail account today -- asked me to please clarify that I wasn't voting for Barack with Biden now on the ticket so that the e-mails would stop coming in on that). Democracy Now! -- has the world ever seen more gossip on a broadcast. Gossip, gossip, gossip. And they don't even have their FACTS right when they do toss out the occassional fact. That includes Amy Goodman who is embarrassing herself. The friend with the Obama campaign said, "You know they are going to distort Joe" (meaning Panhandle Media) "and you're going to get sucked in that way" meaning defending Biden. Ava and I already decided to review Democracy Now!'s weeks worth of coverage on Sunday. We will correct the record then. It's not my job to correct them here. In fact, it's better for our TV commentary if Amy Goodman books IDIOTS AND LIARS all week long. Judging by today's offerings, she's already headed in that direction. Martha and Shirley (working the private e-mail accounts) note that members are shocked that basics (ones we've gone over here for some time) aren't known by Amy & her experts. What can I say, THEY'RE IDIOTS -- UNINFORMED IDIOTS. They didn't pay attention in real time, they don't know what they're talking about. But this is exactly how Team Obama thinks I'm going to get sucked in to rallying behind that ticket. It's not happening. Ava and I will cover the nonsense of Democracy Now! Sunday. I counted 16 errors/lies in today's broadcast and only heard a half-hour. I'm sure there will be many, many more during the week. It's tabled until Sunday. One more Biden-Barack note, Isaiah's comic went up Sunday on that. Also Lucas notes this broadcast of From The Vault which features a 1968 interview with Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry.

Ralph Nader, independent presidential candidate, is providing Ralph's Daily Audio Monday through Friday and this is "Bailouts on Your Back:"

This is Ralph Nader. The giant corporate destruction of capitalism is proceeding at an accelerated pace. It looks like captialsim -- that is the bearing of risk by the business -- is only for small business, not giant corporations that are deamed too big to fail no matter how their executives, overpaid as they are, undermine, weaken and damage the company their workers and share holders.
Three examples. The US government now has enacted legislation which provides for up to $25 billion in loan guarantees for the domestic auto companies. These are the same companies that for years opposed fuel efficiency standards while they sold customers their gas guzzling SUVs. Well when the price of gasoline went up, SUV sales went down and what's General Motors doing? Ford? Chrysler? They're going to Washington for, essentially, a tax payer bail-out. And they want more than $25 billion dollars in loan guarantees .
Next up is the nuclear industry. They can't get Wall St. financing for their new nuclear plants without a US government loan guarantee. They wanted $50 billion in recent legislation. But the Congress only gave them $19 billion for starters in loan guarantees. The Wall Streeters think that nuclear power is so risky and unpredicatable that they won't give them any loans without Uncle Sam guaranteeing them.
And then there's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years opposing adequate regulation and adequate capital-ratios and they took on very risky financial instruments and now they're diving and they're in consulation with? US Treasury for some variety of bail-out or guarantee.
And so it goes. The big guys are too big to fail and so they have no incentive to bear the risk or even let their owners -- the share holders -- control runaway CEO pay that's tied to inflating profits and taking on excessive risk so their stock options are worth more for their private riches.
Capitalism is used as a propaganda tool by giant corporations -- as a legitimization of what they're doing. That is: going into the market place, bearing the risk, succeeding where they succeed and accepting the verdict of the market place which, of course, is always beyond their control. This is The Big Lie.
Wall St. goes to Washington for bail-outs, hand-outs, give-aways and subsidies -- and that ought to be an issue in the presidential campaign.
You won't hear John McCain and Barack Obama talking about this at all. They're in the same boat of government subsidized corporate capitalism. This is Ralph Nader.



iraq
robin long
jeremy hinzman
darrell anderson
jim warren
the lexington herald leader
kyle snyder
ivan brobeck
robert fantina

Posted at 08:43 pm by politicsscree
Make a comment   Permalink