team nader breaks it down:

Solomon v. Greider/Cockburn/Kilkenney
Posted by The Nader Team on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 07:26:00 PM
ShareThis
Donate $3 now to Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
Three is the number of principled journalists who this week recognized the long term benefit behind Ralph’s run for President. (That’s a big number for the week before the election — trust us.)
Before we get to the three, check out one Norman Solomon, who again this week makes the tired old argument that Obama is the least worst of the two major party candidates.
And therefore educated citizens should not risk a vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Compare this lily-livered Norman Solomon approach to the three principled ones who weighed in on the Nader/Obama/McCain contest.
Number one, we have Alexander Cockburn, writing in this week’s issue of The Nation magazine.
Cockburn has been looking this month for one positive reason to vote for Obama. He’s still looking.
In an article titled "Against Obama," Cockburn makes the point that:
"Abroad, Obama stands for imperial renaissance. He has groveled before the Israel lobby and pandered to the sourest reflexes of the cold war era. At home he has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful."
Number two, we have William Greider.
Greider wrote an article, also in The Nation this week, titled "Nader’s Stubborn Idealism."
In it, Greider argues that Ralph is "a man of political substance trapped in an era of easy lies."
Greider quotes Ralph as saying "So long as progressives are willing to settle for the least worst alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power."
And number three, we have Allison Kilkenny who makes a similar point in the Huffington Post this week, in an article titled "The Least Worst Trap."

So, you have your three principled journalists.
And your Norman Solomon style unprincipled ones.
The principled ones will join with us — the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and you, our loyal supporters — on the winning side of history.
With the end of corrupt political party domination of our society.
When Obama/Biden engage in another risky foreign war.
When a Democratic Congress rubber stamps their rightward drift.
But to build toward victory, we need your help now.
To drive upward our vote totals.
And to send a message to corporate Washington — we’re here, we’re organized, we’re not going away.
So, donate your $3 today.
Join Nader/Gonzalez on the winning side of history.
Onward to November
The Nader Team
PS: Remember, if you donate $100 or more, we will ship to you the hard cover 40th Anniversary edition of Unsafe at Any Speed — Ralph’s historic expose of the American automobile industry — autographed by the man himself. It was the book that launched the American consumer movement and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. This autographed edition is b
ound to become a rare collector’s item after the election. So, get it now. Only a limited number left. (This book offer ends November 4, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.)
ShareThis

good for team nader. norman solomon's a joke. and so is his precious little fair. they sent out a top ten list that i've already told jim i want to carry over to 3rd this weekend or i'd be doing it here but i will tell you get ready to laugh at the liars and hypocrites of so-called fair. in fact laughing at the hypocrites is probably true of so many on the left.

like howard zinn. howie wants you to know that barack is who you have to vote for.

have to, howie?

howie's an old man where it hurts: on the inside.

he's scared and no longer able to dream.

so he tries to herd his followers into the barack tent and tries to pass selling out off as a sign of maturity. maybe senility but not maturity.

if all these losers had used even 1/4 of their barack loving time just to cover barack we'd be looking at a completely different election.

i'm voting for ralph and i'm proud to do so.

i'm voting for ralph because i refuse to give up on myself or give in to fear.

i'm voting for ralph because i believe in a future full of promises, not ever more restrictions.

i'm voting for ralph because he is standinng up and when some 1 stands up you can stand with them or play like you don't know them. i know nader. he is the heart of this country that demands fairness, equality and forward movement.

this is from news4jax.com's 'Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader Campaigns In Jax:'

Nader explained some of his differing viewpoints at an area library on Tuesday, for instance he favors Medicare insurance for everyone.
He said he wants to reduce the military budget and devote more money locally to things like road repairs. He said he would implement a six-month withdrawal plan from Iraq.


however, you vote, make sure it's what you can live with. that's it for me tonight. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, October 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the White House speaks of two US soldiers who died in Iraq yesterday . . . even though there were no reported deaths, the treaty continues to create tensions as does the US attack on Syria, and more.

Yesterday in Turkey, Hurriyet reports, General Ilker Basbug became "the first Chief of General Staff to ever attend a cabinet meeting" when he briefed the Council of Ministers on the country's "ongoing fight against terrorism". Deutsche Welle notes, "The Turkish Air Force conducted bombing raids Tuesday on suspected Kurdish separatist positions in nothern Iraq in the latest upsurge of violence between the two sides." RTT News adds, "The army said that its warplanes succssfully carried out a bombing operation on Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) hideouts in the regions of Hakurk, Avashin-Basyan and Zap in northern Iraq. The army said that the air raid was backed by heavy artillery firing, but did not mention the causalities among the rebel ranks." Iran's Press TV reminds, "Turkey has stepped up operations against PKK since the rebels attacked a Turkish border outpost in October 3 and killed 17 soliders." Middle East Online does the math, "It was the sixth Turkish air raid in nothern Iraq since October 3 when PKK rebels crossing from their base in the region attacked a Turkish border outpost, backed by heavy weapons fir from the other side of the border." At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Robert Wood declared, "Look, we, our case, look, the PKK is a terrorist group, we've said over and over again that it needs to go out of business, our position hasn't changed on this." AFP notes, "Earlier this month, Turkey's parliament extended by one year the government's mandate to order cross-border military action agains the PKK in northern Iraq, which has been in effect since October 17, 2007." The tensions and attacks have been going on since the start of the illegal war; however, this month was supposed to see some changes including alleged talks between Ankara, Baghdad and DC according to Ali Babacan, Turkey's Foreign Minister. Hurriyet explains potential changes, "The weekend U.S. raid into Syrian territory will hamper Turkey's efforts to create a more stable Middle East through mediating between rival Israel and Syria, according to experts." Hurriyet maintains Turkey had no advance knowledge of the attack on Syria and notes, "Turkey has so far hosted four rounds of indirect talks between Israel and Syria with the aim of bringing the bitter enemies together for direct talks. The fifth round, originally scheduled for Septemeber, was postponed after former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resigned amid corruption claims. . . . Washington has remained silent on the Olmert-led Israeli government's initiative to engage in indirect talks with Syria under Turkish auspices."

This is the Bully Boy of the United States speaking to the United Nations September 23rd:

Sixty-three years ago, representatives from around the world gathered in San Francisco to complete the founding of the Charter of the United Nations. They met in the shadow of a devastating war, with grave new dangers on the horizon. They agreed on a historic pledge: "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, and unite their strength to maintain international peace and security."
This noble pledge has endured trying hours in the United Nations' history, and it still guides our work today. Yet the ideals of the Charter are now facing a challenge as serious as any since the U.N.'s founding -- a global movement of violent extremists. By deliberately murdering the innocent to advance their aims, these extremists defy the fundamental principles of international order. They show contempt for all who respect life and value human dignity. They reject the words of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or any standard of conscience or morality. They imperil the values of justice and human rights that gave birth to the United Nations -- values that have fueled an unprecedented expansion of freedom across the world.
To uphold the words of the Charter in the face of this challenge, every nation in this chamber has responsibilities. As sovereign states, we have an obligation to govern responsibly, and solve problems before they spill across borders. We have an obligation to prevent our territory from being used as a sanctuary for terrorism and proliferation and human trafficking and organized crime. We have an obligation to respect the rights and respond to the needs of our people.

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker (New York Times) cite the above (beginning with "As soveriegn states . . .") as what unnamed "administation officials" cub "the clearest articulation" of the White House's position. The clearest articulation is international law and the US is in violation of it when it enters another country without the host country's permission to conduct any activity. The idea that unnamed weasels can point to remarks made regarding "sovereign states" without anyone (including Schmitty and Shanks) pointing out that "sovereign states" have "sovereignty." But what's to be expected when Schmmitty and Shanks writes, "This month, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former top commander in Iraq, said that the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has dwindled to less than 20 a month from a peak of more than 120 a month a year ago." Really? The US is now only sending 20 a month? Because, pay attention Boom-Boom Boys, the US make up "foreign fighters." All non-Iraqis security/military forces on Iraqi soil are "foreign fighters." But you have to write with a strong sense of entitlement if you're not going to cite any legal objections to the created-out-of-whole-cloth 'logic' for bypassing a nation-state's sovereignty. The first clue that there's no real legal underpinning is that the writers have to cite Israel as an example -- actions condemned widely in the international community.

Unnamed officials whispering to the press say that the illegal raid was targeting 'terrorists' and some say it was CIA-led. Were that the case, it would need to be addressed with the American people frankly as would the White House's notion that they can create their own legal 'understanding'. If you factor in recent remarks by Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden -- on how if Barack Obama's elected president he will be tested and you won't like his 'solutions' but you must go along like good soldiers and you will eventually see the wisdom of his ways -- the attack on Syria is even more appalling and even more frightening. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports Syria's response today included closing an "American school and cultural center in Damascus" and she reports that Ali al-Dabbagh, speaking on behalf of the Baghdad government, "denounced the helicopter raid" declaring, "The Iraqi government rejects the U.S. aircraft bombardment on Syria territory, considering that Iraq's constitution doesn't allow its land to be used as a base for launching attacks on neighboring countries." At the US State Dept today, Robert A. Wood briefed the press and, asked about the closings, stated, "I've seen, actually heard about the reports but we have not been officially notified by the Syrian government. So until we do, I don't have much further to say on it." Wood then attempted to stick with his intent not to comment stating, "I'm not going to comment on it" and then, "Nothing to add." However, he then went on to make a statement.

Robert A. Wood: No, I don't. But let me just say as Sean [McCormack] said yesterday with regard to, you know, the flow of foreign fighters across the border. The Syrians have made in the past, taken some steps in the right direction, but there's a lot they need to do. And we have spoken to Syria about what they need to do. One of those things that we'd like to see happen is for them to better screen individuals coming inot Damascus Airport. For them to better patrol their borders. And, uh, you know, we want them, third, on this third point, we want them to deny foreign fighters safe haven in Syria. And so Syrians know what they need to do. We want to see those things happen. And that's just a general overview of what we'd like the Syrians to do with regards to foreign fighters.

"These are things we've been saying for some time," Wood declared when he was asked why the State Dept couldn't make those comments yesterday and he added that this is general policy with regards to Syria and has been "for some time."

Wood was also asked about the treaty masquerading as Status Of Forces Agreement in terms of had the Iraqis proposed any changes and he stated t

Robert A. Wood: As we've said many times, as I've said over and over again last week, this is a good agreement. It was carefully negotiated by both sides, if the Iraqis have some concerns about the text, they can certainly compile those recommendations and forward them on to us officially. That has not yet happened. There are lots of voices in Iraq that you know have problems with various aspects of the agreement. That's understandable. Iraq's a democracy. But until the Iraqi government compiles these concerns into a, you know, onto a piece of paper and forward it to us officially I can't really respond.

He then went on to declare, "I never talk about deadlines on anything but we obviously have a December 31st deadline, that's the only real deadline." December 31st is when the United Nations mandate that allows foreign fighters to be on the ground in Iraq. Without the mandate, there is no legal basis for the US to remain in Iraq. At the White House this morning, spokesperson Dana Perino was asked about any "Plan B" should the treaty not go through and would they pursue a renewal of the United Nations mandate?
Dana Perino: It's certainly not our preference. It wouldn't be what we want to do. We want to be able to move forward with both a strategic framework agreement that we've organized with the Iraqis that talks about the broad contours of our relationship, both economic and diplomatic and also political. So we want to be able to move forward with that with them. But when it comes to the strategic -- I'm sorry, the Status Of Forces Agreement, we remain confident that we'll be able to get one. However, if we don't, there will be consequences for that. And Secretary [of State Condi] Rice and Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates have both talked about that. And I don't think there are Iraqis -- I don't there are any Iraqis who think that they are ready to do this all on their own -- deep down. They might say that and it might help politically for them in their own country domestically to be able to say that they could do it on their own, but even just yesterday we saw two of our soldiers who were killed in a suicide bombing, So Iraq still has a lot of violence that they have to deal with. Our soldiers are the ones who are there to help them deal with it, and they're going to need our help for some time. And that's how we got to the agreement that we have, with the broad outlines that you've seen reported in the press. So we'll continue to work with them. We'll see what the amendments say. There might be something that we can work with, it might not. So I need to see those amendments and I need to hear from Abassador Crocker before I say any more.

Before we got any further, what is Perino speaking of regarding "yesterday"? ". . . even just yesterday we saw two of our soldiers who were killed in a suicide bombing . . ." She said that today. There's been no announcement of any US service members dying in Iraq yesterday. What is she talking about? Are their two deaths that haven't been announced? Did she misspeak? ICCC lists the last US service member death as having taken place October 24th (Cody J. Eggleston). (4188 is the current total of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.)

Returning to the treaty, Wood wants something in writing before he will comments. He may soon get it. Mariam Karouny and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) report that amendments to the proposal were drawn up today and "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will now send U.S. negotiators the proposed amendments to the security deal, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports of the amendments, "Iraq has demanded a clear commitment from the US that its forces will have left its soil by the end of 2011. The stance was revealed in a newly toughened-up version of a draft military pact that could eventually see the US presence forced to make their exit much sooner." CNN states it's "unclear" when the proposed amendments would be submitted. Today Leila Fadel updates her Sunday report with Roy Gutman "U.S. threatens to halt services to Iraq without troop accord" (McClatchy Newspapers) which informs that Gen Ray Odierno is the heavy throwing around threats to Iraqis that they'll lose $6.3 million in US aid as well as "$10 billion a year in foreign military sales" if they do not accept the treaty (or the UN mandate is not renewed) and that the US would no longer share intelligence "and would cease to provide air traffic control, air defense, SWAT team training or advisers in government ministries". And that's only one of the pressures on the puppet government regarding the treaty. The attack on Syria has created another and Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) covers the bind al-Maliki is thought to be in with regards to Iran: "If Maliki pushes the U.S.-Iraq security agreement through parliament without support from his Shiite partners, 'the Iranians will turn his life into hell. He will have no chance of winning in the south,' Attiyah, the political analyst, said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said the Iraqi people have a 'duty' to resist the Americans. The Iranian parliament speaker, Sli Larijani, wanred of 'unpleasent impacts' is Iraq sings the deal. And a senior cleric with ties to Iraq's Shiites, Ayatollah Kadhim al-Husseini al-Haeri, has pronounced the accord 'haram,' or forbidden under Islam."


US Secretary of State Condi Rice met with Massud Barzani, president of Iraq's Kurdish region, in DC today. AFP quotes him stating, "The issue of the strategic agreement was the main theme of the meeting." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported this morning on the failure of the oil law which was rejected and on the Kurds rejection of al-Maliki's efforts to create a new form of "Awakening" Councils for the areas that the central government in Baghdad and Kurds dispute: "It has become an article of faith for Kurdish political leaders that the Kurds have a right to fold Kirkuk into Kurdistan. The Kurds are also seeking to maintain influence over a number of other disputed areas along their borders with the rest of Iraq. The centeral government has long opposed Kurdistna's claims to Kirkuk because it wants access to the region's oil wealth, and also because historically many other people have lived there: Turkmens, Arabs and Christians, many of them Assyrians." The paper's Sam Dagher reported that "al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of the Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending the national police and army from Baghdad and trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in the province, who have deep-seated feuds with the Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani." On the issue of Iraqi Christians in that region, Dagher notes:

Mr. [Atheel al-] Nujaifi and his brother Osama, a member of Parliament in Baghdad, blame the Kurds for instigating a campaign against the Christians in Mosul to deflect the central government's pressure. One Kurdish leader called the accusations "ludicrous," and the United States military said it was most likely the work of militants linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. But a group of Christian leaders who met with General Thomas last week in the town of Qosh, outside Mosul, blamed the struggle between the central government and Kurdistan for the plight of their people. Sweeping out both sides, they said, may be the only way to restore calm and trust."You have done a great job removing Saddam's regime," the Rev. Bashar Warda told the general. "Continue with removing this regime, and start over again."

Meanwhile Reuters reports that Yunadim Kanna (MP, Christian) states "a few hundred" of the approximately 2,200 Iraqi Christian families who fled Mosul have returned to their home while Jawdat Ismail of the Displacement and Migration Ministry in Mosul places the number as being around eighty.

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

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left four people wounded, another that wounded three people, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left thirteen more people wounded, a second Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left five more injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing that injured two people, a Tuz roadside bombing targeting LT Col Shamal Mohammed (who survived), a Diyala Province roadside bombing that wounded three people and an Al Anbar Province bomber ("explosive vest") who took his/her life as well as the lives of 2 police officers with three more wounded.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Nineveh Province attack on police recruits in which 4 recruits were killed and four more were injured, an armed clash in Kirkuk that resulted in two participants being injured, also in Kirkuk a driver for an "Iraqi Christian lawmaker" (Yonadim Kanna) was wounded in a shooting,

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. China's Xinhua notes 20 corpses were discovered in Nineveh Province ("80 km west of the provincial capital of Mosul") and they remind that 34 corpses were discovered last week outside of al-Qaim. Hammouci explinas they were found in a house's basement on a tip "from local residents." Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Tal Afar and another (police officer) was found in Hilla.

Next week the US elects a new president. The Republican presidential candidate is John McCain, Sarah Palin is his running mate. Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports that Joe Wurzelbacher -- better known as "Joe the Plumber" -- has made his endorsement: "Wurzelbacher campaigned for McCain in Columbus, Ohio this morning. He said Barack Obama wants to redistribute wealth and would make America a socialist nation, according to the Associated Press. He also said he believes Obama will raise taxes on the middle class, despite Obama's promises to cut their taxes." Jake Tapper and Matthew Jaffe (ABC News' Political Punch) report that Joe Biden introduced himself in Florida stating, "I'm Joe -- not the plumber -- Joe the Biden." Tapper and Jaffe also note a polling setback for Barack and wonder how that . . . "Oh, right …his running mate said the world would test the mettle of a young President Obama with an international crisis and it wouldn't be apparent initially that the Obama response was the correct one." Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports weather and bus breakdowns on the road with the Palin camp. Conroy also notes that Governor "Palin will deliver a policy speech on energy security Wednesday morning in Toledo, Ohio". Will that get coverage? Her speech Friday on special-needs children didn't. And let's be really clear that the press refusal to cover that and instead focus on a woman's clothes said much more about their own bias and immaturity.

The McCain - Palin campaign has released a new ad:

McCain-Palin 2008 Launches New Television Ad: "Compare"
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest television ad, entitled "Compare." The ad highlights the clear choice Americans have at the polls this year. For higher taxes, policies that spread the wealth around, increased government spending and pain for small business, Barack Obama is the clear choice in this election. For policies that promote economic growth, help working Americans, lower taxes and eliminates government waste, the choice is John McCain. The ad will be televised in key states.VIEW THE AD HERE: Script For "Compare" (TV :30)ANNCR: Your choice...For higher taxes ... for workin' Joe's.Spread your income ... keep what's yours.A trillion in new spending ... freeze spending, eliminate waste.Pain for small business ... economic growth.Risky ... proven.For a stronger America, McCain.JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

In other political advertisement news, Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign announces their own media buy:

Today is a big day for Nader/Gonzalez.
Thanks to you, beginning today -- our radio ads will air in 22 markets in 12 states.
Click here to listen to the 30 second version and 60 second version of the radio ads.
Today through election day -- the ads will run six times a day on radio stations in the following areas:
Upstate New York
Northern California
Michigan
Ohio
Connecticut
Oregon
Florida
Minnesota
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Virginia
Please forward these radio ads to your address book, friends and family.
Also, we'd like to move these ads into as many markets as possible.
We can make it happen.
But we'd need to raise a boatload of money.
And soon.
So, if you haven't given yet, please donate whatever you can to Nader/Gonzalez today.
Our goal is to hit $4 million by election day.
We're about $190,000 away.
So, let's crank it up.
And help drive our last widget upward to the finish line.
Onward to November.

Team Nader also issued a request today:


We need your videos.
And we need them now.
With one week to go, we need your help to convince undecided voters to vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Over the last seven months, we've received countless stories and written testimonials from you -- our loyal supporters -- about why you plan to vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Now, we need you to help us show the country the full spectrum of Nader/Gonzalez supporters -- among them Independents, Republicans, Democrats and Greens.
So, we've come up with a video contest.
You send us your video testimonial telling us why you are voting for Nader/Gonzalez.
We'll pick our favorite ones and post them to our official Nader/Gonzalez YouTube channel.
And then we'll send them to our supporters to forward to their friends.
So, here is how it's going to work:
In your video, tell us your name, where you live, a little bit about yourself and your family, and most importantly, why you are voting for Nader/Gonzalez.
Your video testimonial should be 60 seconds or less.
Make the video.
You can do it from your webcam on your computer, from your videocam, high quality, low quality -- it's the message, not the quality, that we're looking for.
We need your video testimonials to convince America that it's time to break away from the corrupt two political parties.
So, send along your "Why I'm Voting for Nader/Gonzalez" videos now.
And we'll post the best ones later this week.

Ralph's running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Ralph gets some attention at CBS News' website via a reposting of William Greider from The Nation, "Why Ralph Nader Runs:"Nader stood at the podium and read from a lengthy speech describing the corporate dominance of politics, the stranglehold exercised on dissent by the two-party system, the presidential candidates packaged like soap and cars, the failure of left-liberal progressives (including The Nation) to demand conditions on their support for the Democratic candidate. "The hypocrisy of liberals, which may in some ways be unconscious, is empowering the forces that are destroying our nation," Nader asserted in an even-tempered voice. "The left in this country has been successfully cowed by the Democratic Party," he continued. "The votes of progressives are taken for granted by Democrats.... By allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we have demonstrated that we have no moral substance. We have no line that can be never be crossed, no stance so sacred and important that we are willing to stand up and fight back."So long as progressives are willing to settle for the "least worst" alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power, he suggested. This kind of talk from Nader drives some people to rage against him. He returns the favor by discussing "the rage that many in our nation feel towards liberals." Barack Obama, he insists, does not intend to alter anything fundamental about the causes. "This rage is a legitimate expression of very real betrayal," Nader explained. "The working class, most of whom do not vote, watch Democratic candidate after Democratic candidate run for office promising to support labor and protect jobs and then, once elected, trot off to Washington to pass the corporate-friendly legislation drawn up by the 35,000 lobbyists who work for our shadow government."

Meanwhile Lance Selfa (Socialist Worker via Dissident Voice) calls out the 'progressives' insisting upon providing non-stop cover for Barack:

What has unfolded is a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, minimize or ignore Obama's gestures or actions that fly in the face of progressive values. On the other, accentuate the differences between him and McCain, no matter how small they might be on particular issues.
A good example of the former was the reaction of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) to the recent Wall Street bailout bill and Obama's support for it.
To its credit, PDA opposed the legislation as a "sellout to greedy fat cats," as PDA National Director Tim Carpenter called it in an October 2 press release. Carpenter pointed out that Senate changes to the bill (what he called "lipstick") and renaming it a "rescue plan" didn't change its essence as a "blank check bailout."
Yet two days later, Congress passed that blank-check bailout. The administration's efforts to round up support got a boost from Obama, who campaigned for the bill and persuaded leading members of the Congressional Black Caucus to switch from "no" to "yes."
In many ways, Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership led the way to the bill's passage. And what did PDA say about that? Nothing. Its next official press release, dated October 10, quoted Carpenter as saying, "We're stepping up our efforts during these closing weeks to elect Obama and a more progressive Congress. We've already started. New-voter registration coordinator Bruce Taub and a team of Massachusetts volunteers just returned from a four-day trip to Pennsylvania."
Given that PDA and other progressive Democrats are invested in an Obama win and substantial Democratic coattails, it's unlikely they would have taken the opportunity to denounce Obama or the Democrats.
But then, that's not their modus operandi anyway. Progressives for Obama initiator Tom Hayden even explained: "I have no problem with Barack Obama supporting the bailout package as long as it keeps him on track to the presidency. He needs to be critical, to offer amendments, and to promise to return to the crisis the day after November 4."
[. . .]
This is the way "progressive" politics oriented on the Democratic Party is played -- because when all is said and done, it is no more than liberal gloss on the politics of the "lesser of two evils."

iraqroy gutmanleaila fadel
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
sam dagherthe washington postmary beth sheridancorinne reillywilliam greider

above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Me, Joe Biden" and that's our laugh. but we've got another: james rowley.

rowley writes 'McCain Criticizes Obama on `Wealth-Inequality' Talk (Update1)' for bloomberg news. can you figue out what that is because it's not reporting.

a 2001 radio broadcast included barack as a guest. john mccain states barack told about redistribution of wealth.

now let me stop real quick because most of you know about barack's 1995 tv interview where he did that as well. apparently the press hasn't caught on to that. this is not the tv interview, this is a radio interview.

so what did barack say?

that's where james confuses us.

he tells us what a guy who was on the program with barack (and who also gave $500 to barack's 2008 campaign) says what barack means.

i guess barack was the guy's boyfriend.

i mean that's always the excuse, right? we say, 'i know he said ---- but he meant ---'. that's what we do with our boyfriends.

so i guess barack was the guy's boyfriend.

but i saw the video on youtube when i was looking at a mccain campaign video last week - it was a side bar. here's a site that i think it right-wing but it's got the video embedded in it (and that's easier for me to find than going through mccain campaign videos while waiting for the interview to pop up on the side at youtube).

so james, why don't you watch the video. it's from 1995. forget what the blogger says, tell us what barack says there.

and james, if you want to report, that means you tell us what barack said.

you didn't do that in your bloomberg article, now did you?

no.

where is the direct quote from barack, the full quote?

you offer defense from people who know barack.

but you forget to quote what he actually said.

how about you do that. and how about you explain why i know the topic better than you do?

you're supposed to be a reporter. try acting like 1.

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


Monday, October 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq has new 'neighbor problems,' Dana Perino will not comment -- she won't -- she really, really won't, Iraqi Christians get some global attention and more.

Iraq has serious problems with its neighbors. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that northern Iraq was bombed by Turkey today and last night. The tensions between Turkey and the northern region of Iraq have been ongoing. World Bulletin News reports a political development that emerged last week and was little noticed, US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama weighed in with an announcement at his campaign website last week which spoke of "resotring the strategic partnership with Turkey" and in which he said, "That relationship has been deeply strained in recent years, most importantly by the Bush administration's misguided and mismanaged intervention in Iraq, which has helped revive the militanst threat posed to Turkey by the PKK. . . . Barack Obama and Joe Biden will lead a diplomatic effort to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders and negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guarantees Turkey's territorial integrity, and facilitates badly needed Turkish investment in and trade with the Kurds of nothern Iraq." How that will play out with some of Barack's Cult members in the US is unknown. A number of them with outlets (especially in the northern west) have been public in their ardent support for the PKK. Meanwhile Turkish Daily News reports that former CIA agent Charles Sam Faddis' book Operation Hotel California: The Clandestine War Inside Iraq asserts that, "Turkish soldiers and CIA teams were nearly involved in an armed clash during America's invasion of Iraq in 2003".

Turkey is Iraq's northern neighbor and this week it takes second place on the tensions list. Syria is Iraq's western neighbor (actually, northwestern). Yesterday Reuters reported that US and Iraqi officials were summed by the Syrian Foriegn Ministry following an attack which the Telegraph of London described as follows: "In an echo of the Israeli air strikes which last year targeted a suspected Syrian nuclear facility, US military helicopters were reported to have crossed into Syria to drop troops who then executed the mission.The state news agency Sana reported that eight civilians had been killed in the raid. 'Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 16:45 local time (1345 GMT) on Sunday,' it said. 'American soldiers' who had emerged from helicopters 'attacked a civilian building under construction and fired at workmen inside, causing eight deaths. The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory,' Sana said." Tony Perry (Babylon and Beyond, Los Angeles Times) wondered, "Was the weekend raid a way for the U.S. to warn the insurgents, and their Syrian cohorts, that although the U.S. is retreating from the border, it is still on watch and able to strike?" Today Ellen Knickmeyer and Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) explained, "U.S. attacks inside Syria are extremely rare, though the U.S. military has stepped up security along Iraq's border with Syria in recent months to stem the traffic of fighters and weapons into Iraq. U.S. officials say many insurgents, particularly suicide bombers, arrive in Iraq via the Syrian border." Reuters reports: "A deadly raid on the Syrian side of Iraq's border, blamed by Syria on the United States, targeted an area used by insurgents for attacks on Iraq, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Monday." CNN cites Sgt Brooke Murphy as one military spokesperson stonewalling: "Unfortunately, we cannot confirm anything at the moment." Borzou Daragahi and Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) explain, "In Washington, several military representatives who were asked about the operation did not deny that a raid had taken place. Although they would not confirm the attack, they used language typically employed after raids conducted by secretive special operations forces." AFP quotes an unnamed "American official" who states "The operation was successful" and claims the attack was targeting a 'terrorist'. Martin Sieff (UPI) reminds, "Cross-border attacks in any conflict carry the risk of widening it uncontrollably. That is especially the case here, since Syria is the main Middle East ally of Iran, and tensions between the United States and Iran remain high over Tehran's drive to acquire long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. And the risks of escalation are far greater when ground troops are involved in the incident, not just airstrikes."

At the White House this morning, spokesperson Dana Perino repeatedly refused to comment although she did, at one point, invite the press to attempt to physically force a comment out of her. Here are Perino's responses to questions about the attack on Syria:

*"The United States government has not commented on reports about that and I'm not able to here either."

*"I can't comment on it at all, no."

*"I'm not going to comment in any way on this; I'm not able to comment on that."

*"I'm not going to comment on the reports about this, no, I'm not. Anybody else?"

*"I'm not going to comment on it at all. This could be a really short briefing."

*"I don't know. I don't know."

*"Jim, all I can tell you is that I am not able to comment on reports about this reported incident and I'm not going to do so. You can come up here and try to beat it out of me, but I will not be commenting on this in any way, shape or form today."

*"I don't believe anybody is commenting on this at all."

*"To give you an answer to that would be commenting in some way on it and I'm not going to it."

*"Nothing."

"*I understand the reports are serious but it's not something I'm going to comment on in any way."

While the White House refuses to comment, all tongues are not being held. Caroline Alexander and Thomas Penny (Bloomberg News) quotes Walid al-Moualem, Syria's Foreign Minister, stating, "We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government and they need to investigate and return back to us with the result the investigation of why they did it." Al Jazeera quotes al-Moualem stating, "All of them were unarmed and they are on the Syrian territories. This killing of civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression. The Americans do it in the daylight, this means it is not a mistake it is by determination, by planned determination. [Some sources spell the name differently such as Moullem and Muallem -- we're using the United Nations' spelling: Moualem.] BBC informs that Syria's spokesperson Jihad Makdissi tells them the attack is "an outrageous crime and an act of aggression. If [the US has] any proof of any insurgency, instead of applying the law of the jungle and penetrating, unprovoked, a sovereign country, they should come to the Syrians first and share this information." And Syria's reaction is not isolated. Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim (Babylon & Beyond, Los Angeles Times) report, "The pro-U.S. faction within the Lebanese government condemned the U.S. move. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora accused the U.S., which funds his military, of an 'unacceptable' violation of Syrian sovereignty. 'Any military attack against an Arab country or on a small country by a larger country is an act we reject,' said a statement issued by his office." And the situation has created fallout outside of Syria. Catherine Philp and Deborah Haynes (Times of London -- link has text and video) explain that "Britian and Syria cancelled a planned joint press conference of their foreign ministers in London today as the fall-out continued over an American military raid into Syrian territory that left eight civilians dead.

"But Syria is problematic for me but, more importantly, for the Iraqis because it doesn't seem that there's much being done on the other side of the border to assist this country in terms of maintaing the border and the integrity of, you know, Iraqi sovereignty." That may be the most recent statement on Syria from someone speaking on behalf of the US government. US Gen John Kelly made that statement (from Iraq via videolink) in a press briefing at the Pentagon October 23, 2008. Among his other comments regarding Syria was in noting a physical barrier was being constructed: "Syria, different story; it's a long border. It's the longest border really. There hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years. We're in the process of rebuilding. And that's really at this point just building a large berm of sand and some ditching to keep certain vehicles from crossing the border and from the Jordanian border all the way up north. And we're working our way north, past the Euphrates River."

Syria's Foreign Minister raised the issue of the treaty masquerading as a SOFA today, "Also the question arises here: Is this the production of the agreement between the administration and Iraq, the defensive agreement, where many Iraqis are saying that the sovereignty of Iraq is at stake and the American will use the Iraq's territories to launch aggression against neighbouring countries? These are question marks." A question mark is the Status Of Forces Agreement itself but Syria wasn't the only raising questions regarding the SOFA as a result of the attack on Sunday. Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports Labi Abbawi (Iraq's Foreign Ministery undersecretary) stated, "We are trying to contain the fallout from the incident. It is regrettable and we are sorry it happened," and that the attack will be used by "some . . . for the argument against the agreement." Much arguing over the treaty in Iraq already. Over the weekend, Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki would not sign the treaty without "national consensus" according to Sheikh Jalal al Din al Sagheer. The US reaction was not pretty. Leila Fadel and Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reported last night that the US was threatening to "shut down military operations and other vital services" in Iraq unless the treaty is signed off on and that Iraqis (rightly) see this as "political blackmail": "In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq's economy, educational sector and other areas - "everything" - said Tariq al-Hashimi, the country's Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn't know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

The US attack on Syria wasn't the only one over the weekend with fall-out. Al Jazeera reports that a US attack on Falluja Friday resulted in Saturday assertions by the Iraqi Islamic Party ("biggest Sunni Arab political party" and head by Iraq's Sunni vice president Tareq al-Hashemi) stated there was a "hidden political motive" behind the killing of one Iraqi so, as a result, the party "suspended dealings with American military personnel and civilians". Staying with Falluja, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a new report which included details of a sewage treatment plant for Falluja. Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) explains how $100 million can be spent on doing nothing in Falluja: "Sewage continues to run in the streets, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that the system may never be properly connected to individual homes, lacks the necessary fuel to operate and is unlikely to ever cover the full city." Though budgeted for 32.5 million, the cost now stand at $98 million. Kim Gamel and Pauline Jenkins (AP) add: "The report describes U.S. Embassy officials frozen in 'indecision' over how to finish and pay for the project. Last Nov. 2, 'after more than 15 months of meetings, briefing charts, official memorandums, and countless e-mail exchanges,' the report says, the officials decided to terminate outstanding contracts that were to be paid for by Iraqis and complete the remaining work with U.S. money, but make the project smaller." Ernesto London (Washington Post) adds, "South Carolina-based FluorAMEC began work in July 2004. By September 2005, amid concerns over delays and unforeseen costs, the contract was terminated. U.S. officials awarded 45 contracts to Iraqi companies to finish the work. The report does not allege that money was stolen and does not fault FluorAMEC." In related floundering, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) examined the issue of what happens to Iraqi prisoners as Iraq takes over control of its own country, "Under the proposed new rules, the United States military would need Iraqi permission to make arrests and then would have to turn suspects over to the Iraqi authorities within 24 hours. Less clear, however, is what will happen to those already in detention -- about 1,000 people in all." And staying with corruption, Saturday James Risen (New York Times) covered a new finding by the Pentagon that KBR is in "serious contractual noncompliance" and the paper ads that there are more records about safety violations than were previously known (at least 18 lives have been lost due to electrical 'work' by US contractors in Iraq).


On the subject of crisis confronting Iraqi Christians, Pope Benedict XVI publicly addressed the crisis again yesterday. Catholic News Agency reports:Following Mass in St Peter's Basilica that concluded the Bishops' Synod, Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday defended Christians in Iraq and India who are "victims of intolerance and violence."Greeting the thousands of faithful present in St. Peter's Square, the Holy Father noted that the synodal assembly is a clear example of ecclesial communion because the Word of God, that is the person of Christ, is the center of attention. According to the meaning of the word "church," the Pope expounded, "We experienced the joy of being gathered around the Word." Pope Benedict reflected on the relationship the Word of God and Sacred Scripture. The Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum teaches that good biblical exegesis includes both the historical-critical method and the theological because "Sacred Scripture is the Word of God in human words." Each text must be read and interpreted remembering the "unity of Scripture, the living tradition of the Church and the light of faith." Scientific exegesis and lectio divina are both necessary and complementary to understand the spiritual meaning that "God wishes to communicate to us today."

Vatican Radio reported yesterday (audio link), "Pope Benedict announced today he will be visiting Cameroon and Angola in March of next year. He was speaking during the final mass of the Senate of Bishops where he also appealed for the defense of Christian minorities in Iraq and India. Chris Altieri has this report."

Chris Altieri: The Holy Father made the announcement in his homily during mass on the 30th Sunday during Ordinary Time in St. Peters Basilica which he celebrated with over three hundred bishops and priest con-celebrate to mark the closing of the 12th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. After mass in St. Peters' Basilica, Pope Benedict prayed the Sunday Angelus with the faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square. In remarks before the Angelus Prayer, Pope Benedict spoke of the suffering of Christians in several places around the world especially recalling the persecutions of the faithful underway in Iraq and India. The Pope said he makes his own the appeal launched by the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches on the final day of Synod deliberations in which the pratriarchs sought to bring the tragedy underway in certain countries of the east to the attention of the international community of religious leaders and all persons of good will. The Holy Father said Christians there are victims of intolerance and cruel violence. They're murdered, threatened and constrained to abandon their homes in search of refuge. The Pope said that he's sure that the ancient and noble peoples of those countries where Christians are a minority have learned over the course of the centuries to appreciate the contribution the small but diligent and industrious communities of the faithful make to the common good. Pope Benedict called on civil and religious authorities in all nations to make every effort to ensure that the rule of law and civil concord be restored as quickly as possible and that honest citizens be able to count on adequate protection from the institutions of the state. In his homily, the Holy Father said that all those who participated in the work of the Synod will bring home the renewed knowledge that the Church's principle task at the start of this new millenium is above all to let itself be nourished by the word of God in order to make the new evangilazation more effective. The Pope said it is now necessary that the Ecclesiastical Experience of the Synod reach every community and that all the faithful must understand the need there is of translating the word we have heard into gestures of love because this is the only way to make the Gospel Proclamation credible despite human weaknesses that mark individuals. I'm Chris Altieri.

Asia News also quotes the Pope declaring, "I am certain that the ancient and noble populations of these nations have learnt through centuries of respectful coexistence to appreciate the contribution made by the small but hard-working and skilled Christian minorities to the development of their common homeland. They do not ask for privileges; they only want to continue to live in their own country alongside with their fellow countrymen and women, as they have always done." Deborah Hayndes (Times of London) reports, "The mass exodus from Mosul, which was condemned yesterday by the Pope, has eased but many families remain too traumatised to follow the lead of Abu Masarra, 39, preferring to squat in monasteries and the spare rooms of houses in towns and villages to the north and east of the city. Questions also remained about who carried out the attacks, which left more than a dozen Christian men dead and three houses destroyed. Allegations ranged from al-Qaeda fighters, who have killed Christians in the past, to power-hungry elements linked to the northernmost Kurdish region of Iraq. The Kurdish authorities denied any connection." Luca Galassi (Italy's Peace Reporter) adds, "The attacks have motivations that are both religious and political. Anti-Christian pamphlets have surfaced in the city in recent days. Last Saturday, armed men blew up three houses owned by Christians in the al-Sukar district. The houses were empty: at least a thousand families have fled from Ninive province, an exodus which, according to the governor Duraid Kashmulah, is destined to continue, if not increase." Lebanon's Daily Star editorializes, "There is another disturbing element to the latest round of ethnic cleansing to take place in Iraq since its government was overthrown by the US-led invasion in 2003: The loudest Arab voices trying to call attention to the crisis are here in tiny Lebanon, where Christian religious and political leaders have been joined by their Muslim counterparts, both Sunni and Shiite, in condemning the attacks and demanding action to stop them. That speaks well (for once) of this country's frequently divided elites, but it says something far less flattering about most of the Arab world. It will be recalled that during the run-up to the illegal invasion that led to years of bloodletting in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Western capitals and other cities to voice their rejection of the entire project. Most of them were Christians, and there they were standing up for the rights and interests of mostly Muslim Iraqis whose fates were about to be tossed into the maelstrom of war." Catholic Culture notes two other voices issuing calls -- Cardinal Emmanuel-Karim Delly ("patriarch of the Chaledean Catholic Church) declared of the international community, "Up to now you have been silent and you have not spoken about us despite all of the sufferings we have had to bear the past three or four years and more than half a century"; while Bishop Rabban Al Qas of Arbil "took a harder line, saying that the Iraqi government and its American defenders share the blame for allowing the intimidation to continue unchecked." Kenneth Timmerman (Global Research) asserts, "The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has taken the Assyrian Christians in Ainkawa and in the Nineveh Plains hostage in their efforts to win more territory in the coming votes on the status of Mosul and Kirkuk. On Oct. 17, Iraqi security forces arrested six men in connection with the most recent targeted killings of Christians, and found four of them had ties back to the KRG militia, not al Qaeda. While Kurdish leaders protest they have made efforts to protect freedom of religion and have allowed evangelical Christians to proselytize in Muslim areas, nevertheless they are engaged in a cynical effort to use the Assyrian Christians as political pawns to expand their own power."

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack on US service members in Baghdad which lead to a raid later in the day. In some of the other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 3 lives and left five wounded, another that left two wounded, a Baghdad 'sticky' bombing that claimed 2 lives and left seven injured and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of the driver and 1 police officer with two more police officers wounded. Reuters notes a Dour roadside bombing that claimed 1 life (government employee) with six more wounded and a Tuz Khurmato bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Iraqi soldiers wounded in a Mosul shooting and 1 person shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.


Turning to the US presidential race. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Team Nader's Loralynne Krobetzky is collecting "Breaking Point" stories for the campaign and shares this one today:


Ralph and Matt,I just wanted to drop you a line from here in Florida. I am proud to have voted for you today. It is the first time I have voted since 1992…and I know that you represent me and millions of others who have been seeking truth and liberty. I voted in Lee County Florida and the turn-out at my precinct was in my estimation a record. I waited in line for aproximately 1 1/2 hours (which was well worth it) and as luck would have it there was a guy in from of who had an Obama button on. He asked me who I was voting for and I said, "I am voting for a third party." He said, "You can tell me, you're voting Nader right?" I thought OK I'll play his game.He went on to ask me the obvious question. (I saw it coming--I was licking my chops!!) He asked me why I would vote for a candidate who can't win. I said because "today I am voting my conscience and not the Evil of two lessers." I told him I would not vote for either corporate candidate -- Obama or McCain. By the time I was through explaining to him about the erosion of the Constitution, the MSM Blackout, Wall Street Bail Out, etc, I had him thinking at the very least.Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez, it has been a gratifying experience for me to have watched you two unite millions of Americans behind truth, justice, liberty and the foundation of the Constitution. "We The People"…WE Will Decide!!!Sincerely,
-- Patrick Brian Lee

Staying with Ralph (and this is what Ava and I wrote Sunday with one word changed), Saturday Ralph was trying for a world record: Most speeches in a 24-hour time period. Early this morning (midnight), they announced Ralph had made the world record. 15 speeches were required (each at least 10 minutes long) and -- no surprise for the campaign whose motto should be "Surpasses All Expectations" -- they made the work with 21 speeches. Always going the extra mile, Ralph Nader. Team Nader notes, "In the coming days, the Nader/Gonzalez campaign will submit all the paperwork, photography and video footage to Guinness World Records to be evaluated and decided upon. For more information and to see a full itinerary, please visit http://www.votenader.org/events/marathon/".

John McCain is the GOP presidential candidate and Sarah Palin is his running mate. Jimmy Orr (Christian Science Monitor) reports, "The Republican nominee for President slammed Barack Obama for comments Obama made in a radio program seven years ago which surfaced early this morning. The McCain campaign says these remarks are further proof that Obama's fundamental philosophy is one of higher taxes in order to spread the wealth around." Orr quotes McCain stating, "It is amazing that even at this late hour, we are still learning more about Senator Obama and his agenda. In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote -- 'tragedies' of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society. That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor. It means taking your money and giving it to someone else."

Today the McCain - Palin campaign released a new ad. Click here for video, text below:

JOHN MCCAIN: The last eight years haven't worked very well, have they?
I'll make the next four better.
I know your life savings have been hit hard, but we'll rebuild them.
Barack Obama wants to increase taxes on your savings.
You can't afford that.
He's quite a talker.
But that's just bad judgment.
ANNCR: Experience. Leadership. McCain.
JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

"By the way, I love this weather because it reminds me of home," Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Palin saying as she spoke in Fredericksburg where a drizzle turned to a steady down pour: "As the rain came down harder, some in the crowd ducked under trees and others covered their heads using campaign signs, but Palin didn't even request an umbrella as she stood on stage, calmly reading through her prepared remarks." Someone must have forgot to pass on the whisper campaign being launched against her by the likes of the New York Times.
iraq
the washington postellen knickmeyerernesto londonoborzou daragahijulian e. barnesthe los angeles timesthe new york timeskatherine zoepfpeter hamby
roy gutmanleaila fadeldeborah hayneshussein kadhimmohammed al-dulaimymcclatchy newspapers
alissa j. rubinjames risen
scott conroycbs news

Sarah Palin today picked an issue close to her heart for her first major policy speech -- special needs children.
Palin, whose 6-month-old son Trig has Down syndrome, told a crowd in Pittsburgh that the federal government should do more to help those children and their families, and give parents more choices.
"The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are most vulnerable," said Palin, who has said that, if elected, she would me an emissary for those families in the White House.

that's from foon rhee's 'Palin focuses on special needs kids' (boston globe) and maybe if foon would focus more on actual issues (like special needs) instead of sexist gossip (palin's clothes), rhee wouldn't be typing 'she would me an emissary for those families in the White House'? a major speech and foon can't wait to ditch it (after 3 paragraphs) and start gossiping. never forget, this is your press. if they were on drugs, they'd probably be providing better coverage.

kate snow, imtiyaz delawala and z. byron wolf (abc news) offer this:

Advocates for children with disabilities welcomed the speech.
"For the candidate for the vice president of the United States to give a 30-minute speech -- in a swing state -- 10 days before an election is historically very significant from our perspective," said Andrew Imparato, president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities.
Specifically, Palin proposed that parents of children with disabilities should be able to choose what school their children will attend.
"When our public school system fails to render help and equal opportunity, and even parents are prevented, sometimes, from seeking that help and those choices elsewhere, that to me is unacceptable," Palin said. "Under reforms that I will lead as vice president, the parents and caretakers of children with physical or mental disabilities will be able to send that boy or girl to the school of their choice -- public or private."

and this is juliet eilperin (washington post):

Palin's pledge to fully fund IDEA would direct billions to the program over the next few years, though her proposal would not immediately cover the entire gap in funding that exists now.
Thirty-three years ago, the federal government adopted a system in which it would shoulder 40 percent of the burden of educating disabled children, while states would fund the remaining 60 percent. At the moment, the U.S. government spends just under $11 billion annually on the program, whereas it would have to devote $26 billion a year to live up to its initial commitment.
[...]
In her speech, Palin said the federal government could finance the new investment by taking some of $18 billion it spends each year on earmarks, specific projects that are designated by members of Congress."That's more than the shortfall to fully fund the IDEA," she said. "And where does a lot of that earmark money end up? It goes to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good -- things like fruit fly research in Paris, France, or a public policy center named for the guy who got the earmark. In our administration, we're going to reform and refocus. We're going to get our federal priorities straight, and fulfill our country's commitment to give every child opportunity and hope in life."

and with some reactions, this is mike wereschagin (pittsburgh tribune-review):

Parents with special needs children applauded the speech. Invitations went out through local groups that serve special needs children, including Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and The Children's Institute of Pittsburgh.
"She definitely understands this," said Nhiem Nguyen, 42, of Cranberry. His 7-month-old son, Noah, has Down syndrome. Palin's call to make information more easily available to parents struck at the heart of what Nguyen said is the most difficult part of raising an infant with special needs: "the unknowns of what to expect."
Amy Halter, 36, of Vandergrift said she was moved to tears when, as Palin was shaking hands along the rope line, she stopped to talk about Halter's autistic son, Jacob, 5.
"It just meant so much that somebody was listening," Halter said. They spoke about using flexible spending accounts to pay for new tests and treatments insurance companies normally don't cover, she said. "When we go to a doctor today -- it's just too much. This was just exactly what I wanted to hear."

i've talked about this before but it bears repeating (and some drive-byer will e-mail asking why), in college, i grasped special-needs children and did so because this was a huge issue for c.i. i think i would have been empathetic regardless; however, actually hearing about this issue, actually listening on this topic and seeing c.i. fight for special-needs children really drove home to me how important the issue was (even back then) and how many obstacles there are in the way.

so governor palin, running for the vice presidency, making this speech is a very big deal. it is news and it's not being treated as such. if you doubt me, try using a news search engine and you will find many more 'articles' about palin's wardrobe than you will about her speech. that tells you a great deal about our society and our press and c.i.'s been pointing that out with regards to crap-ass pacifica radio for over a month now.

okay, now that we've covered some very important news, i can do my campaigning for my candidate, ralph nader. he is the independent presidential candidate with matt gonzalez as his running mate. and this is from his campaign:

Pass It On: Obama Brand Democracy
Posted by Ashley Sanders on Friday, October 24, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM
ShareThis
Ralph Nader has consistently warned about the dangers of mixing money and politics. His criticisms are particularly pointed for Obama and McCain, who have accepted millions from corporations and lobbyists alike. But the collusion between politics is more dangerous and more expansive than anyone could have imagined, and this year’s multi-billion dollar election looks more like an auction where politicians are bought and sold than a democracy. Perhaps the most insidious aspect of this financial free-for-all, however, is how much politics, media, and big business stand to gain from each other and how much the average voter stands to lose. As Obama moves to become the world’s biggest brand, brand democracy enters its final phase—what could be rightly called the political-industrial complex, where everyone benefits but the voters.
Onward!
Ashley SandersThe Nader Team

Today’s Pass It On article was written by Amy Goodman and appears on TruthDig.com. You can read the original article here.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081022_change_big_donors_can_believe_in/

so that's it from me. hope every 1 has a great weekend. oh, i was asked about heroes (nbc show). i did catch it monday, we try to catch it now. i did enjoy it. i want more claire and i want to see more women. there are too many male characters on the show.

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

Friday, October 24, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, concerns rise regarding Iraqi Christians, the "Awakening" members forgotten?, and more.

Today Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) observes, "But the violence diminished with the creation of 'Awakening' groups, U.S.-paid patrols of mostly Sunni fighters who broke with insurgents and allied with U.S. forces." 'Awakening' members are Sunni thugs put on the US payroll in order to stop the attacks on the US. It's the "fork over your lunch money" strategy playground 'strategy' as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus made clear in their testimonies to Congress in April. For some US currency, the attacks would stop and the US would step out of the way and let the "Awakening" take over various regions providing 'security' which struck many residents as a reign of terror. October 1st, the puppet government in Iraq was supposed to take over nearly half the "Awakening" members (but even that portion remains on the US payroll). Nouri al-Maliki has never trusted the "Awakenings" and has staffed his ministries with his own Shi'ite thugs. Petraeus has repeatedly praised the "Awakenings" as providing security to Iraq. Where do things stand now? Earlier in the week, Surdarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reported on the issue and noted it "is already touching off new conflicts that could deepen without U.S. military backing for the movement. They have stripped traditional tribal leaders of influence. They have carved up Sunni areas into fiefdoms, imposing their views on law and society and weakening the authority of the Shiite-led central government. Divisions are emerging among the new breed of tribal leaders, even as they are challenging established Sunni religious parties for political dominance." The "Awakening" presence was felt last year after repeated kick start attempts (always hailed as a 'turned corner' by the press) going back to 2005. The pay-offs were one aspect of the counter-insurgency strategies being deployed against Iraqis. Barack Obama, Democratic presidential nominee, supports counter-insurgency and has the bulk of those responsible for the assault on Iraqis on his advisory board (Sarah Sewell, Samantha Power, et al). So it's no surprise that Time quotes him insisting, "The Sunni awakening changed the dynamic in Iraq fundamentally. It could not have occured unless there were some contacts and intermediaries to peel off those who are tribal leaders, regional leaders, Sunni nationalists, from a more radical messianic brand of insurgency." [Note: Time is down for "scheduled maintenance session" -- that web address was given to me over the phone. If it does not work, Google the quote and you will find it.]

Tim King (Salem-News) observes: "At least half of them are being cut loose and Iraq is expected to take over the payments for a little more than half the program. Most members of this group believe they will not see any payments from their now country. Cutting off the payments to the Sons of Iraq is a colossal mistake. The checkpoints operated by the Sons of Iraq are exactly what has brought the peace to Iraq. Ending them is foolish, but we are doing it. These are mostly Sunni Muslims and they had a place in the Shiite government with the Sons of Iraq, but we are allowing one of the war's few success stories to end, and likely have not even begun to see the repercussions that are sure to come." The "Awakening" members fear they will be arrested or worse and on the issue of arrests,
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Monday, "Police arrested three Sahwa members in Mustafa neighborhood in Baquba, according to arrest warrants." (Sahwa and Sons Of Iraq are other names for "Awakening" members.)

Meanwhile the crisis continues for Iraqi Christians. Mark MacKinnon (Globe and Mail) speaks with Father Sabri al-Maqdessy who explains, "Christians have always been targeted by different groups in the Middle East because we are the only people without a tirbal system to protect us or that political power to give us security. The church is weak. The Vatican does not have tanks. . . . Everyone is leaving. If the situation continues the way it is for another 10 years, 20 at most, you won't see any Christians left here." Mission News Network via Crosswalk.com quotes Open Doors USA's president Carl Moeller, "I'm afraid it's actually getting worse. The Christian community continues to be terrorized by extremists and basically are being forced out of homes at gunpoint, children and elderly people being murdered. This is a real crisis. Not just a Christian crisis, but a real humanitarian crisis for the country of Iraq." UN High Comissioner for Refugees spokesperson Ron Redmond addressed the topic in Geneva today:

UNHCR is helping thousands of Iraqi Christians who have fled the northern city of Mosul over the past fortnight, most of them to villages elsewhere in Ninewa province but also about 400 who have crossed into Syria. It is still not clear who is behind the intimidation that caused them to flee. More than 2,200 families, or some 13,000 people, are estimated to have left Mosul by mid-week, mostly to safe areas to the north and east of the city. That is more than half of Mosul's Christian population. They have also fled to the neighboring governorates of Dahuk, Erbil and Kirkuk. Most have been taken in by other Christian families. The displacement now appears to be slowing, according to UNHCR staff in the region. UNHCR Iraq and its partners have delivered aid to at least 1,725 of the displaced families in about 20 ares of northern Iraq. In Syria, meanwhile, UNHCR Representative Laurens Jolles reports that many Christians from Mosul have been systematically targeted and no longer feel safe there. UNHCR will provide support for those Iraqis who seek refuge in neighborhing countries and we very much appreciate that Syria countinues to welcome refugees. Syria already hosts at least 1.2 million Iraqis.

This as Assyrian International News Agency reports that Yonadam Kanna ("leader of the Assyrian Democratic Movement and member of Iraq's parliament") has called for the troops in Mosul to be pulled and new ones to be sent in, "We call for an exchange of the troops who failed to protect the Christians in their areas with new troops who are able to bring security to these areas." And in a new development, AINA reports, "The auxiliary bishop of the Chaldean Church of Babylon in Iraq, His eminence Shlemon Warduni, expressed support on Friday for the establishment of an administrative area for the minorities living in the Nineveh Plain. Speaking to the reporter of the webzine ankawa.com, the high ranking church leader made it clear his church has changed its stand on the administrative unit issue. . . . The Iraqi constitution allows for the establishment of local rule for minorities in areas where they have considerable numbers. The Assyrian Democratic Movement, the political party supported by an overwhelming majority of Assyrians from all church denominations during the last national elections, announced during a 2003 conference in Baghdad it endorses the idea of making the minority dense Nineveh Plain area into an administrative unit according to the Iraqi constitution. Since then, an increasing number of Assyrian representatives from the political and religious sphere have supported the plan."

In some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Kut mortar attack that claimed the lives of 3 children (two more wounded). AndReuters notes 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead outside Tuz Khurmato and wounded two others.


Stopping for the public airwaves (and all listed can be streamed), in public radio news, WBAI Monday features Judy Collins. Collins and Kenny White appear on Janet Coleman and David Dozer's Cat Radio Cafe along with playwright Shem Bitterman. The program airs Monday at 2:00 p.m. EST. Public television? NOW on PBS offers a report on the nursing crisis: "According to a government study, by the year 2020, there could be a nationwide shoratge of up to one million nurses, which could result in substandard treatment for hundreds of thousands of patients. Just as alarming, fewer nurses are choosing to teach the next generation of professionals, resulting in tens of thousands of applicants being turned away from the nation's nursing schools." NOW on PBS begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (check local listings) as does Washington Week which finds Gwen joined by journalists Shailagh Murray (Washington Post), Michael Viqueira (NBC) and David Shribman (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) and, for the child-at-heart, Gwen also provides two circus clowns on the panel.

Turning to the US race for president. Barack Obama is not a Socialist or a Communist (or a socialist or a communist). He is a Corporate War Hawk. But the confusion is understandable considering all the efforst to prop Baby Barry up throughout the Democratic Party primary by non-Democrats. It's the general election and Barack's just received his latest endorsement from a Socialist or a Communist: Howard Zinn. (Zinn is a Socialist.) Watch him make an ass out of himself via the so-called "Real" News. Mickey Z (Dissident Voice) provides the takedown for that pathetic sort of cowardice: "This strategy of choosing an alleged 'lesser evil' because he/she might be influenced by some mythical 'popular movement' would be naive if put forth by a high school student. Professors [Noam] Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it's incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: 'Because Nader or McKinney can't win.' Of course they can't win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You're wanted down the ______ rabbit hole." And on the subject of Noam Chomsky, let's drop back to 2007 when Panhandle Media was far less concerned with propping up Weather Underground. This is Michael Alpert of ZNet (ZMag) speaking to Amy Goodman in April of 2007:

Michael Albert: One example was, Weatherman was a group that was engaged in activity at the time. It was part of SDS, not a part I was belonged to, but they wanted to recruit me. At a particular moment, I went into Noam's office, and I asked him about it, this recruitment effort by them and whether -- you know, how I should relate. Noam was loath to give people advice about what to do in their life or about strategy.

Amy Goodman: And explain what the Weathermen were.

Michael Albert: The Weathermen were a very -- they were the most militant, most violent wing of SDS. Their analysis was a bit peculiar. I don't think we need to go into details. But in any case, so I asked him about that, and he was very loath to do that, but in this particular case -- we were already pretty close, and he -- you know, he didn't want me to make an error, so he did make a suggestion. And he sort of said very quickly, he said, "They're wonderful people. They're great people. They're moved well. I mean, their motives are good. Some of them are going to die. Some of them are going to hurt others. They're going to have very little effect on the well-being of people around the world because of what they're doing." And in a phrase, right, he captured what was there, and his advice was important. I don't think it was a difinitive in my choice not to join, but it certainly would have been a big factor.

And there's actually a lot more to the above anecdote. (I know Michael, I've heard the anecdote repeately over the years in expanded form.) But Chomsky is warning Albert against the Weathermen. The Weathermen, Chomsky is arguing, is too dangerous. The Weathermen is the group that breaks off from SDS and will become Weather Underground. The Weathermen do the Days of Rage in Chicago (1969).

And let's do a book plug. Paul Street's Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics came out last month and Street's one of the few on the left who has not embarrassed himself in 2008. And here's Street mentioning his book at ZNet: "It shows Obama and his marketers working effectively to create a false left impression among certain targeted voters. As I demonstrate, Obama posed as a left-leaning antiwar and social justice progressive, donning deceptive rebel's clothing in numerous speeches, town hall meetings, and television commericals through much of the primary campaign. He claimed falsely to be a dedicated opponent of American emprie, war and inequality, even going to the sickening point of telling Iowa voters that they could 'join the movement to stop the [Iraq] war' by Caucusing for him. For all his claims to be a nobel reformer 'above the fray' of America's plutocracy and 'ideological' politics, the real Obama excavated in my study is no special exception to -- and is in many ways an epitome of -- what the still-left Christopher Hitchens called (in his 1999 study of the Bill and Hillary Clinton phenomenon) 'the essence of American politics. This essence, when distilled,' Hitchens explained, 'consists of the manipulation of populism by elitism'." If you use the link to the article, you should check out the comments as well (Street's contributing to the comments). But to clarify something for this site: As repeatedly stated here, Barack is not a Socialist. However, as Ava and I noted -- addressing Leela's brave piece of writing:

First, thank you to Dee Dee for finding that post and e-mailing to ask that it be highlighted. Second, read what Leela's saying. We don't agree with her view of Democrats. We do, however, know where's she's coming from on that view. Her view is the sort of thing that can start a conversation. It may never bring feminists into one political party's tent (we don't think that should be a goal of the feminist movement short of a feminist party being started), but conversations can illuminate and increase our understandings.Leela is obviously upset (first hint, her title), so even though we disagree with her view of the Democratic Party (re: Socialism), we would have first registered that she was upset and then attempted to engage. That didn't really happen on the thread and we'll assume that was due to the anger/ill will her view caused others.But here's the reality: some people do see the Democratic Party as a Socialist Party. Some people see the Republican Party as an Evangelical Party. Neither belief is accurate but to understand each other, we need to understand where we are all coming from."

That is the reality of perceptions. (And of course alleged brainiac Rachel Maddow doesn't grasp that there is a difference between Socialism and Communism.) For this site, we are a left site and see no Socialism in Barack. But the right insisting Barack's a Socialist are not necessarily lying or even wrong. The terms are largely undefined in discussions today (again, allegedly educated Maddow -- from the center -- expressed on her bad MSNBC show this week that Socialism and Communism were the same thing). Leela is among the women blogging at Citizen Girl, by the way. And the US has a Socialist in Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders. But -- as is usually the case -- 'helpers' and the 'shocked' obscure reality by referring to him as 'independent.' He is a Socialist openly and the refusal to apply that label goes a long way towards explaining how screwed up US politics are. Another sign of the sickness in the US is this country's Socialist Worker and crap like Ashley Smith's "Fighting for what we want" that wants to argue there's no difference on the wars between the McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden ticket (there isn't) but uses pejoratives for McCain-Palin ("moronic," "knuckle dragging") but not for Obama-Biden. It's not even-handed and it does imply -- by insulting only one side -- that one ticket is 'better.' There is no difference on the Iraq War between the tickets for the two major parties. One would assume an allegedly Socialist periodical would have no reason to take sides between two Corporatist candidates. There's a lot more honesty -- from their political perspective (right-wing) -- in Stanley Kurtz' most recent National Review piece: "In short, the New Party was a mid-1990s effort to build a 'progressive' coalition to the left of the Democratic party, uniting left-leaning baby boomers with minorities, relatively militant unionists, and 'idealistic' young people."

Moving over to political lies, Mark Hosenball (Newsweek) underscores a big lie that passed with little attention, "'All the public reports suggested,' Obama said, that people shouted 'things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him'.' Making a death threat against a presidential candidate can be a crime. But even before Obama cited "reports" of the threats at the debate, the U.S. Secret Service had told media outlets, including NEWSWEEK, that it was unable to corroborate accounts of the 'kill him' remarks--and according to a law-enforcement official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a political matter, the Obama campaign knew as much. Now some officials are disgruntled that Obama gave added credence to the threat by mentioning it in front of 60 million viewers. At this point in the campaign, said one, candidates will 'say anything to make a particular point.'" [For more on that topic, see this snapshot from last week.]

On the subject of political lies, yes, people in the US do have the right not to vote. That is their decision and it can be a perfectly acceptable one despite the harping from certain quarters that insist "YOU MUST VOTE!". Linda Averill (FSN via Information Clearing House) explains that position and also provides some history:

Outrageous rules, media censorship, private financing of campaigns, and sheer thuggery have marginalized political parties that compete with labor's fake friend, the Democratic Party. This includes even parties like the Greens, who simply want to reform capitalism.It's not people who vote socialist or Green who throw away their votes. The system does it! U.S. elections are "winner take all." If a socialist gets 20 percent of the vote, a Green gets 15 percent, and a Democrat gets 51 percent -- all votes go to the Democrat.Things weren't always so sewn up. At the start of the 20th century, socialists ran on explicitly pro-labor, anti-capitalist platforms. And they won seats -- more than 1,200 offices nationwide.To eliminate the threat this posed, the Democrats and Republicans launched a political witch-hunt. Socialist party offices were raided, pro-labor representatives were denied their seats, radicals were tossed in jail, and restrictive ballot laws were passed.

Averill closes by quoting Mother Jones: "I have never had a vote, and I have raised hell all over this country. You don't need a vote to raise hell! You need convictions and a voice!"

Those who wish to vote will have many choices to chose from (except for the state of Oklahoma whose restrictive laws allow voters to only pick the Democratic or Republican presidential ticket). Ther is the Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney who will appear Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday. Cynthia's running mate is Rosa Clemente and Cynthia will be in Seattle:
The Washington State Power To The People Campaign has announced that Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will be visiting Seattle on Sunday, October 26th and Monday, October 27th. Scheduled activities include:Sunday, October 26, 2008* 3pm - 7pm"Vote...Then What?From The Day After The Election Onward: Strategies for Community Organizing, Greening & Reconstruction"Umojafest Peace Center24th Ave & E Spring St, SeattleThe public is invited to attend.Cynthia McKinney will be speaking in support of grassroots and institutional solutions to violence and other issues plaguing urban communities nationwide. This event is hosted by the Umojafest Peace Center and the McKinney/Clemente 2008 Power To The People Campaign. The program will include hip-hop and spoken word performances, speakers from youth and community based organizations, and a showing of the award-winning film, American Blackout.Monday, October 27, 2008* 11am - 12:30pm"The Power of Student Movements: How to Use Your Campus as a Tool to Change the World!"Broadway Performance HallBroadway at Pine Street, SeattleThe public is invited.Ms. McKinney will address the growing concerns of students, the need for student leadership, and how students can organize on campus to engage in and impact social justice struggles and make meaningful contributions to communities outside school. This event will be hosted by the Black Student Union of Seattle Central Community College.

The Republican presidential candidate is John McCain, Sarah Palin is his running mate.
McCain - Palin '08 notes:

"And as governor, I've succeeded in securing additional funding and assistance for students with special needs. By 2011, I will have tripled the funding available to these students." -- Governor Sarah Palin, 10/24/08
Governor Palin Has A Proven Record Of Commitment To Special Needs Children: Governor Palin Has Increased Funding For Special Needs Education. Overall funding for Special Needs students has increased every year since Sarah Palin entered office, from $219 million in 2007 to a projected $276 million in 2009. Breakdown below:
FY07: $219,358,041
FY08: $220,420,268
FY09: $275,827,909
On March 28, 2008, Governor Palin Signed Legislation That Will Nearly Triple
Per-Pupil Funding Over Three Years For Special Needs Students With High-
Cost Requirements. Per-pupil breakdown below:
FY08: $26,900
FY09: $49,320
FY10: $61,380
FY11: $73,840
Governor Palin Has Directed State Funds To Other Special Needs Programs.
This funding includes $500,000 for diagnostic services for autistic children and $250,000 for training in early autism intervention in her FY2009 budget. The Executive Director Of The Association Of Alaska School Boards Called
The New Funding Palin Fought For A "Historic Event." "Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a 'historic event,'
and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets."
("Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding," Education Week, 4/30/08) Families Of Special Needs Children "Have Been Flocking To Palin Rallies ...
They Say, Because Her Story Is Theirs, Too." But in the sea of faces, nearly everywhere she goes, she encounters people who aren't really there for the politics. ... Families of children with Down syndrome have been flocking to
Palin rallies. They come to shake her hand, grab a hug or snap a picture,
drawn there, they say, because her story is theirs, too." (Savannah Guthrie,
NBC "Nightly News," 10/14/08)

Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports, "The Alaska governor, whose infant son Trig has Down syndrome, said that a McCain/Palin administration would allow more flexibility for parents to choose their children's schools, committed to fully fund the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, and promised to reform and refocus special needs services." This was a major speech and text of it (and video) is up at McCain-Palin:

Too often, even in our own day, children with special needs have been set apart and excluded. Too often, state and federal laws add to their challenges, instead of removing barriers and opening new paths of opportunity. Too often, they are made to feel that there is no place for them in the life of our country, that they don't count or have nothing to contribute. This attitude is a grave disservice to these beautiful children, to their families, and to our country -- and I will
work to change it.One of the most wonderful experiences in this campaign has been to see all the families of children with special needs who come out to rallies and events just
like this. We have a bond there. We know that children with special needs
inspire a special love. You bring your sons and daughters with you, because
you are proud of them, as I am of my son.My little fella sleeps during most of these rallies, even when they get pretty rowdy. He would be amazed to know how many folks come out to see him instead of me. When I learned that Trig would have special needs, honestly, I had to prepare my
heart. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding.

I did a lot of praying for that understanding, and strength, and to see purpose. And what's been confirmed in me is every child has something to contribute to the
world, if we give them that chance. You know that there are the world's standards of perfection, and then there are God's, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake. And the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are most vulnerable. As for our baby boy, Trig, for Todd and me he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does
from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don't feel scared anymore. We feel blessed. Of course, many other families are much further along a similar path -- including my best friend who happens to be my sister, Heather, and her 13-year old son Karcher, who has autism. Heather and I have worked on this for over a decade. Heather is an advocate for children with autism in Alaska. And as governor, I've succeeded in securing additional funding and assistance for students with special needs. By 2011, I will have tripled the funding available to these students. Heather and I have been blessed with a large, strong family network. Our family helps make sure that Trig and Karcher have what they need. But not everyone is lucky enough to have that strong network of support. And the experiences of those millions of Americans point the way to better policy in the care of children with special needs. One of the most common experiences is the struggle of parents to find the best and earliest care for their children. The law requires our public schools to serve children with special needs, but often the results fall far short of the service they need. Even worse, parents are left with no other options, except for the few families that can afford private instruction or therapy. Many of you parents here have been through the drill: You sit down with teachers and counselors to work out the IEP -- an individual education plan for your child. The school may be trying its best, but they're overstretched. They may keep
telling you that your child is "progressing well," and no extra services are required. They keep telling you that -- but you know better. You know that your children are not getting all of the help they need, at a time when they need it most. The parents of children with special needs ask themselves every day if they are doing enough, if they are doing right by their sons and daughters. And when our public school system fails to render help and equal opportunity -- and even prevents parents from seeking it elsewhere that is unacceptable. In a McCain-Palin administration, we will put the educational choices for special needs children in the right hands their parents'. Under reforms that I will lead as vice president, the parents and caretakers of children with physical or mental disabilities will be able to send that boy or girl to the school of their choice -- public or private.

And McCain picks up another endorsement today, South Carolina's The State which asserts that "we prefer Sen. McCain. First and foremost, he is far better prepared not only to be commander in chief, but to lead the nation as it deals with a complex array of global challenges, from Iran to North Korea, from Russia to Venezuela. Consider two widely different areas of foreign policy, Iraq and Colombia. Sen. McCain has often led the charge against the Bush administration when it was wrong on national security, from the 9/11 Commission (working with Joe Biden to make that happen) to the use of torture. But the most dramatic case regards Iraq. For years, he insisted we needed to send more troops. When Mr. Bush finally agreed to the "surge," Sen. McCain was Gen. David Petraeus' most conspicuous supporter. The surge worked. Sen. McCain was for it, and Sen. Obama was against. That's no accident. Sen. McCain's support arose from his superior understanding of the situation and how to approach it."

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. The campaign has toured all fifty states and this Saturday? "Nader to Attempt Guinness World Record on Saturday: Massachusetts Marathon, Most Speeches in 24-Hours:"This Saturday, Ralph Nader will hold campaign events in 21 cities across Massachusetts in an attempt to set a sanctioned Guinness World Record
to give the most speeches in a 24-hour time period. The minimum threshold
he must meet is 15. He is scheduled to deliver over 315 minutes of speeches
and drive over 365 miles. Each speech will last at least 10 minutes and will
tackle a separate issue.Nader/Gonzalez campaign events are scheduled to be held in the
following cities:Boston, Cambridge, Belmont, Somerville, Medford, Arlington, Lexington,
Concord, Waltham, Watertown, Newton, Worcester, Auburn, Springfield, Chicopee, Holyoke, Northampton, West Springfield, Westfield, Stockbridge
and Sheffield.There is an additional van for intrepid journalists who want to chronicle the adventure from start to finish.For a full itinerary or other related inquires, please contact Ryan Mehta at
408-348-0681, or Rob Socket at 202-471-5833.

And events are lined out throughout the final days of the race. One just announced will take place November 2nd:
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RALPH NADER TO SPEAK IN ALLENTOWNWHO: Ralph NaderWHAT: Campaign rally/speech on the Wall Street bailout and other current
issuesWHEN: Sunday November 2 at 7:30pmWHERE: Scottish Rite Cathedral, 1533 Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA 18102On Sunday, November 2 at 7:30pm, consumer advocate and Presidential candidate
Ralph Nader will hold a press conference followed by a rally in Scottish Rite Cathedral.
He will speak about the Wall St. Bailout, single-payer health care, the Iraq
War, the environment, and the state of the Presidential debates from which
he was excluded.Ralph Nader is the only Presidential candidate who recommends jail time,
not bail time for Wall Street fat cats (and the only one who has been pointing
out the risks of deregulation for the last 20 years). He is the number three contender for the Presidency, America's number one consumer advocate,
and he has real solutions to our economic woes.


iraqmark mackinnonayan mittra
the new york timeskatherine zoepfthe washington postmary beth sheridan
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhimsudarsan raghavanwbaicat radio cafejanet colemanjudy collinsdavid dozernow on pbsshailagh murraywashington weekpbs
scott conroycbs news

Ralph Nader, independent candidate for president, is seeking recognition from the Guinness Book of World Records for his planned day of speechifying on Saturday. He's going for the record for "most speeches in different municipal jurisdictions in one day by a presidential candidate in a general election."

the above is from jesse a. hamilton's 'Nader Goes for World Record in Stumping' (hartford courant). i think it says a great deal that ralph nader has campaigned in all 50 states. that includes oklahoma which is the only state that residents can't vote for him. ralph is ready to represent all the american people. i wanted to note something from c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot' yesterday where c.i. provided a transcript of an interview ron allen did with ralph for a report on
NBC Nighly News with Brian Williams:

Ron Allen: Let's take them individually. Senator McCain, Governor Palin, what's wrong with them?

Ralph Nader: Well they're corporate candidates. Except for Governor Palin -- she did stand up to the oil companies. But if you look at Senator McCain's positions he is for restricting the rights to have their full day in court of wrongly injured people. That's tort reform, for example. He has consistently supported a bigger military budget. He is very militaristic towards certain countries in the world. He wants the idea of a hundred military bases around the world. He has a cockamamie health insurance plan that's not going to give sufficient health care to all the people in this country. And Governor Palin has fallen in line.

Ron Allen: What do you think of her?

Ralph Nader: Well I think that she has been mistreated. But I think that it was the fault of the Republicans because they introduced her to the American people not as a governor of a state, they introduced her as a soccer mom, they introduced her as having five children, NRA member, a hunter, a fisherman, and once you have that folksy image it's easy to prick the balloon and give the impression she's empty.

Ron Allen: Do you think she's qualified?

Ralph Nader: She's as qualified as any other presidential and vice presidential candidate. What do you have to be to be a member of the two parties and run for president? All you have to do is know how to read and write, get advisers and follow corporate orders.

now ralph gave his opinion of palin and somehow that doesn't matter. the media wants to focus on what colin powell said - the man mccain passed over to choose palin as elaine pointed out last night. and who the hell gives a damn what colin powell has to say anyway. tonight john mccain and sarah palin were on nightly news (2nd of 2 nights in a row) and mccain was asked about colin and replied, 'if general powell had wanted to meet gov. palin, we could have arranged that easily - number 1. but number 2 is then, obviously, general powell does not know gov. palin's record.'

mccain argued her qualifications and said he was 'overjoyed to have a person who's a real reformer.'

no surprise that ralph nader had more class than colin powell. i'd be shocked if it was the other way around but i thought it was worth mentioning.

when you read the snapshot, please pay attention to c.i.'s comments regarding cynthia mckinney's appearance on talk of the nation (npr). i listened to that and was furious with the way cynthia was treated. i thought the host and ken rudin were disrespectful, were rude and were mocking.

they showed no interest in engaging her or discussing any issue she brought up.

npr never looked so white or so male as they did during that segment.

and how do you ignore the death penalty when cynthia's not just bringing it up in the abstract, she's tying it into a case of troy davis - in georgia on death row and 7 of the 9 witnesses against him in the trial have now changed their testimony.

but white boys weren't interested in troy davis. they weren't interested in discussing the death penalty.

they just wanted to have their ha-has and move on.

cynthia ignored them and used the national airtime well. but, goodness, the things she's had to put up with in her run for president.

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

Wednesday, October 22, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Ehren Watada gets some legal news, the treaty still waits, and more.

Starting with Ehren Watada, the first officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq. Lt Watada refused to deploy in the summer of 2006 (June 22nd). An Article 32 hearing took place in August 2006. In February 2007, a court-martial began but Judget Toilet (John Head) -- sensing the prosecution was losing -- ignored objections from the defense team and ruled a mistrial. Head announced that a new court-martial would begin the next month. It never did. In November 2007, federal Judge Benjamin Settle ruled in Watada's favor stating that the issues needed to be resolved. Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) reports today that Judge Settle has ruled that "Watada cannot face a second court-martial on three of five counts" which "leaves open the possibility of a second prosecution on two other counts involving conduct unbecoming an officer." As UPI explains, "A federal judge in Tacoma ruled an Army officer cannot be tried a second time for refusing orders to deploy to Iraq. In a ruling on the technicalities of Lt. Ehren Watada's first trial, U.S. District Judge Ben Settle said prosecuting Watada again would amount to double jeopardy." The Honolulu Advertiser adds, "Settle barred the military from retrying Watada on charges of missing his deployment to Iraq, taking part in a news conference and participating in a Veterans for Peace national convention." And they quote Ehren's father Bob Watada stating, "It's obviously good news. It's very good news." While that aspect is good news, as Bob Watada notes, the Pentagon has a lot of money and may attempt to appeal the decision or to try Ehren on the other two charges. Yet again, Ehren's life is in limbo. His service contract expired in December of 2006. He has been kept in the military all this time so that the military could pursue charges against him. As always, he continues to report for duty at his base.

Turning to Iraq and the treaty. Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) explains yesterday's events, "After a 4 and 1/2 hour meeting little was accomplished in a cabinet meeting to discuss the 'final' draft of a long-term security agreement between the United States and Iraq that would replace a United Nations mandate that currently governs the U.S. presence here. Following the meeting it was no longer final, Shiite ministers once again raised objections to the wording of the draft. The Foreign Minister of Iraq, Hoshyar Zebari, conceded that it was unlikely the agreement would be finalized before the U.S. elections on Nov. 4, he told Reuters. The clock is ticking; the United Nations mandate expires on Dec. 31." AFP reports, "Iraq warned on Wednesday it would not be bullied into signing a security pact with the United States despite US leaders warning of potentially dire consequences if it failed to approve the deal" and quotes Ali al-Dabbagh, Iraq spokesperson, declaring, "It is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way." al-Dabbagh was referring specifically to the chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen. China's Xinhua quotes al-Dabbagh stating, "Deeply concerned, the Iraqi government received the comments of Admiral Michael Mullen. These comments are not welcomed by Iraq. All Iraqis and their political parties are aware of their responsibilities and they know how important to sign or not to sign the deal in a way that it is suitable to them." As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Mullen and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were using bullying tactics with Gates tossing out, "I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed" and "Clearly, the clock is ticking"; while Mullen was threateinging "significant consequence" if the treaty -- masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement -- wasn't pushed through. Alissa J. Rubin and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) term Mullen's remarks "a stark warning to the Iraqis to think hard before rejecting the agreement." The International Herald Tribune editorializes about the road block the treaty has encountered "The most obvious motive is located at the intersection of patriotism and politics. With provincial elections coming up early next year and public opinion surveys indicating that more than 70 percent of Iraqis want an end to the U.S. occupation, Iraqi ministers are striving to align themselves with public opinion."

The reality is more complex and has a great deal to do with Iraqis questioning tricky wording in a contract being shoved before them. Rubin and Zoepf note that the 'aspiration' of withdrawal in 2011 wording has been noticed, by the Iraqis, to allow for the US to decide. Similarly, Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) points out issue of off duty US troops being tried in Iraqi courts for crimes also includes the US determining when the soldiers are off-duty. In other words, the decision on both issues remains US decisions.

At the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino stated of the treaty, "Well, the text was negotiated by both sides and it's now before the Iraqi government, as you say, Secretary Gates put it well yesterday, which is that the door wasn't slammed shut but it's pretty much closed, in our opinion. So the -- I'll leave it to our negotiators to look at any suggestions that the Iraqis have, but I think that any changes would -- it would be a very high bar for them to clear. . . . We are working towards it. As we said -- and I said the door is closing fast, the expiration date for the UN mandate is December 31st and there will be no legal basis for us to continue operating there without that." At the State Dept today, deputy spokesperson Robert Wood was asked to expand upon Perino's comments and replied, "Well, look, as we said yesterday, this text is in front of the Iraqi government right now. And as we've said previously, we believe this is a good text. It's a text that promotes Iraqi sovereignty as well as allows a legal basis for our troops to operate in Iraq. And we think the Iraqis need to take a decision on this now. And I don't have anything really to add from -- to what Dana said this morning. But you know, it's -- the Iraqis need to make a decision. The door is not slammed shut, but it's closing."

"Recent attacks and threats against Christians have caused alarm from Baghdad to the Vatican to the United Nations," Missy Ryan (Reuters) summarizes. On the plight of Iraqi Christians, Bradley S. Klapper (AP) explains that the estimated 10,000 Christians who have fled Mosul since the most recent outbreak of violence are not returning thus far (despite being offered the US equivalent of $865 to return) and that Amr Moussa, Arab League chief, issued a statement noting, "We can't remain silent as brutal crimes are being committed against the Christian Iraqis." Meghan Walsh (Arizona Republic) notes a Phoenix demonstration in support of the victims where an estimated 100 people gathered to show their support. Jennifer O'Neill (WBBM780) reports on Michighan's demonstration in Dearborn which had an estimated turnout of 1,000 and notes: "Steve Oshana is Policy Director of the Assyrian American National Coalition. He says the groups are asking Illinois congressmen for support on Assyrian proposals that are currently on the table in Washington D.C." Philip Pullella (Reuters) explains that Reverend Federico Lombardi, spokesperson for Pope Benedict, states the Vatican is troubled, "We are extremely worried about what we are hearing from Iraq. The situation in Mosul is dramatic. The victims are Christians and many thousands of people are fleeing precisely because they are subjected not only to the fear of periodic sttacks but a systematic campaign of threats. This is extremely worrying and we ask ourselves if these people are sufficiently protected by the authorities or if the authorities are not able to protect them or if there is insufficient willingness to protect them." Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports that al-Maliki again met with Iraqi Christians leaders "and again promised protection" but that protection doesn't appear to be coming, now does it? Ryan notes al-Maliki's vague statements about culprits, the US military's insisting that it's "Sunni Islamist militants" and whispers that it's the Kurds who are responsible for the attacks. The Kurdish Globe notes the Kurdish region's president Massoud Barzani today was "vociferously denying fringe allegations that Kurds in Mosul are behind the attacks on Christians that have recently drove many from the city. President Barzani classified such ridiculous insinuation as baseless, extremely malacisious, and a distraction from the real issue at hand: aiding the Christian families that have been forced to leave their homes out of fear for their personal safety." The president "classified"? Looks like the Kurdish Globe "classified" as well with the choice of "ridiculous".

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

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 Baghdad sticky bombs that claimed 3 lives and left seven people wounded, a Mosul car bombing that claimed 4 lives and left four more wounded, and a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer.

Shootings?

Reuters notes a Mosul shooting that wounded an Iraqi soldier.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad, the head of a man kidnapped last month was discovered in Tuz Khurmatu and 34 corpses were discovered in Anbar Province. Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul.

Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney was a guest on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. There seemed to be confusion or outright hostility aimed at her from Ken Rudin and host Neal Conan. A perfect example is when Cynthia was asked how her run was different from independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's run. Either the two men were extremely dense or they were hoping to create some slug-fest.

"Well first of all," she began, "I'm running as part of the Green Party" which has over 200 elected officials in the US . . . But it was lost on the two men. She then attempted to explain that November 5th the Green Party would still be in place. For some reason, this was confusing and very hard for the two men to understand. Cynthia is not the independent presidential candidate, she is the nominee of a party. That is one way in which her run and Ralph's run are different. Somehow that was either confusing to the men or they were just hoping that Cynthia would launch a slug-fest.

What she did have to speak about they weren't interested in. That included the death penalty and who would have guessed that was a 'fringe' issue to NPR? Repeatedly pressed as to how much difference she saw between the Republican and the Democratic Parties, she offered as an example the issues that get addressed and discussed and the ones that do not. Cynthia pointed out that the death penalty has been ignored by the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain.

There wasn't any interest in exploring the death penalty issue even after Cynthia pointed out that it hadn't been included in the debates. There was no interest in exploring anything. Asked about her run at the start, she began, "Well basically, le me sort of bring you up to speed on when all of this started and how all of this started." She then briefly recounted how she found herself, last year, standing in front of the Pentagon and delivering a speech about how the shift to a Democratically controlled Congress (following the November 2006 mid-term elections) had not resulted in any movement, how the Democratic leadership had become complicit on issues they supposedly opposed such as the Patriot Act and the illegal war in Iraq. The boys weren't interested in that. They weren't interested in her tying her departure from the Democratic Party to "the footsteps of people who a hundred years ago declared their independence" -- referring to the suffragette movement and the "260 women and 40 men gathered in a room and they also declared their independence" was about all she got to before the boys wanted to cut her off.

It wasn't a conversation, it wasn't a discussion. It wasn't pleasant to listen to. At one point Cynthia McKinney was attempting to discuss the issues she and her running mate Rosa Clemente supported such as college education and how the government will "spend $720 million" for violence and war but not to put America's youth through college. "People need the opportunity to hear a different set of issues discussed," she would explain. But college education didn't matter to the boys.

Repeatedly, Cynthia would present a topic and either be cut off or allowed to make her remark only to have the topic immediately switched by the boys. It was not a professional interview, it was not a joy to listen to.

Cynthia wisely chose to take the Sarah Palin path. (Palin in the Democratic and Republican vice-presidential debate: "And I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let 'em know my track record also.") Since Neil and Ken weren't interested in a discussion or anything even approximating a follow-up question, Cynthia was correct to talk beyond and over them noting that she and Rosa were "broadening the political discourse and we're representing those people and their values who've been locked out of the two party paradigm." She explained she and Rosa were on the ballot in 32 states and that people in 17 other states could write the McKinney-Clemente ticket in. A caller named Daneil phoned from North Carolina to explain that, "In our state, North Carolina, we can't really write in a candidate" because there's a space but he doesn't believe a write-in vote will be tabulated. Cynthia discussed the hurdles involved involved in just becoming a write-in candidate in North Carolina and, had the boys paid attention, they could have explored this issue in depth. Instated, they came to the interview with a set of questions they were going to work through regardless of any reply or topic raised. Facts also weren't important which is why Cynthia had to correct Neil when he wrongly characterized her as not having campaigned in the north. (Also true is her running mate Rosa has done multiple events in the north.)

What may have been most shocking considering the boring trivia the boys started the hour with -- first African-American woman to head a political party ticket (answer, Charlene Mitchell the 1968 Communist Party presidential nominee). The fumble, stumble, eat up time with bad guesses would have only been worthwhile had the overgrown boys ever taken a moment to ask Cynthia about her own historic run. Needless to say, two tired boys are rarely interested in discussing progress for women. Cynthia next appears Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday.

October 18th, Cynthia spoke in Georgia at a renuion for the Black Panther Party:

Your experience with the Counter-Intelligence Program of yesterday is instructive today now that the Patriot Acts, the Secret Evidence Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Funding for the War on Terror Act are all carved into the law. Kathleen and Natsu and, of course, King Downing, and others can describe how vastly the legal landscape has changed. But there is one aspect of the operation to neutralize your good works and your good name that has not changed. And that's what I want to talk about today.
How many times has the corporate press used the word "spoiler" in reference to the 2000 Presidential election and every Presidential election since then and how many times have they reported accurately the number of black votes cast and not counted or the way in which black voters were disfranchised?
How many times did the corporate press use the word "conspiracy," not in conjunction with the September 11th tragedy, but in conjunction with those who want to know the truth about what happened on that day?
How many times did the corporate media lie to the people of this country and the world in the lead-up to the war against Iraq?
In the wake of accounts of torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, how many times were prisoner abuse and torture inside this country mentioned? How many times was Attica, the Angola 3, Chicago's Area 2, or the San Francisco 8 mentioned?
In this, an election year, how many times have stories on election integrity been written that inform and warn potential voters of the problems they might face at the polling place and what their rights are if they encounter them?

Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) believes Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama will be swept into office and notes how 'calming' his signals to conservatives are: "He makes it clear he will address black people directly only when chastisement is on the agenda. If anyone has doubts, the sight of Obama campaign commercials featuring one or two black faces, Obama's included, seal the deal for the two Christophers and their friends. What will Progressives for Obama have to say about the conservative pitching and wooing for their candidate? If past history is any indication, they and other progressives will say nothing at all. They made a decision to collude with the Obama agenda that progressives ought to oppose. The praises of Buckley and Hitchens will have no effect on them any more than the pledges to keep troops in Iraq or to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Obama will make history in more ways than one. He won't just be the first black president. He will be the first president in modern history that convinced millions of people not to believe the words that came out of his own mouth. 'Change' is the campaign slogan, but his policy agenda tells us we will see anything but that. Hitchens and Buckley are certainly convinced that there won't be any changes that aren't to their liking."

Senator John McCain is the Republican presidential nominee and Governor Sarah Palin is his running mate. Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports on "Sweat Equity," the new ad from McCain-Palin '08 that takes issue with Barack's "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe Wurzelbacher. Jake Tapper, Matt Jaffee and Imtiyaz Delawala (ABC News, Political Punch) echo CBS News' Scott Conroy from earlier in the week noting of Palin, "In the last two weeks, Palin has fielded questions twice from the Palin traveling press corps on board the campaign plane, and on Sunday night, Palin took impromptu questions from reporters on the airport tarmac in Colorado Springs, Colo., on issues ranging from her thoughts on Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama to the role of robocalls in the election. An hour later, she took questions again from the press pool during an unscheduled stop for ice cream before returning to her hotel for the night. Palin has also become increasingly accessible to local and national media."

At the McCain-Palin '08 blog, Matt Lira posts the following:


I wanted to take a moment and post, with her permission, an email we recieved from a supporter after a McCain event in Missouri. Thank you Melanie for your support, it is because of the support and activism of people like you that keeps this country great. Thank you for fighting for a better America. If you'd like to join Melanie and stand up for what's right for America, click here to take action today. Additionally, if you want to share your story from the campaign trail, please send them along to mccainstories@johnmccain.com.
I had the honor to be seated right beside Senator John McCain today for an informal lunch in Columbia, Missouri. I can tell you that he is the real deal. We had an opportunity to ask him questions, share a few laughs and provide him with insight from fellow Americans. He listened, he provided us with real answers and I truly believe he not only has the experience and the right plan but also a big heart for America. The media was present when he first entered the room and then were asked to leave as we had lunch with him. He wasn't interested in pandering to the media. He instead wanted to spend time with the people. If you want to know his answers to questions regarding the economy, support of small businesses, job creation, national security, education funding, etc. let me know. I got the answers I needed. John McCain is the right choice.
I have voted on both sides of the fence in the past, Democrat and Republican. I know what it's like to only have $30 to my name. I know what it's like to work hard to get a job. It took me 3 years to get the job I wanted as a teacher. I know what it's like to start a business from absolutely nothing. And I know what it's like to pay student loans for 15 years. Why? Because I believe in opportunity. I didn't ask for a hand-out. I just wanted the opportunity to use my skills, to help others and to provide for my family. Sound familiar to the rest of you? I bet we all have similar stories. America is a country of endless opportunities. We are not a country of hand-outs. We are a country of leg-ups. People...get the word out...we need a leader that has had more than 144 days of experience in the U.S. Senate. You are as good as your word. But actions speak louder than words. Honor, Honesty, Hard Work should matter... must matter.
Melanie Columbia, Missouri

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Nader notes:

The three so-called presidential debates--really parallel interviews by reporters chosen by the Obama and McCain campaigns--are over and they are remarkable for two characteristics--convergence and avoidance.A remarkable similarity between McCain and Obama on foreign and military policy kept enlarging as Obama seemed to enter into a clinch with McCain each time McCain questioned his inexperience or softness or using military force.If anyone can detect a difference between the two candidates regarding belligerence toward Iran and Russia, more U.S. soldiers into the quagmire of Afghanistan (next to Pakistan), kneejerk support of the Israeli military oppression, brutalization and colonization of the Palestinians and their shrinking lands, keeping soldiers and bases in Iraq, despite Obama's use of the word "withdrawal," and their desire to enlarge an already bloated, wasteful military budget which already consumes half of the federal government's operating expenses, please illuminate the crevices between them.This past spring, the foreign affairs reporters, not columnists, for the New York Times and the Washington Post concluded that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are advancing foreign and military policies similar to those adopted by George W. Bush in his second term.Where then is the "hope" and "change" from the junior Senator from Illinois?Moreover, both Obama and McCain want more nuclear power plants, more coal production, and more offshore oil drilling. Our national priority should be energy efficient consumer technologies (motor vehicles, heating, air conditioning and electric systems) and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.Both support the gigantic taxpayer funded Wall Street bailout, without expressed amendments. Both support the notorious Patriot Act, the revised FISA act which opened the door to spy on Americans without judicial approval, and Obama agrees with McCain in vigorously opposing the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.What about avoidance? Did you see them speak about a comprehensive enforcement program to prosecute corporate crooks in the midst of the greatest corporate crime wave in our history? Did you see them allude to doing anything about consumer protection (credit card gouging, price of medicines, the awful exploitation and deprivation of the people in the inner city) and the ripoffs of buyers in ever more obscure and inescapable ways?Wasn't it remarkable how they never mentioned the poor, and only use the middle class when they refer to "regular people?" There are one hundred million poor people and children in this nation and no one in Washington, D.C. associates Senator Obama, much less John McCain, with any worthy program to treat the abundant poverty-related injustices.What about labor issues? Worker health and safety, pensions looted and drained, growing permanent unemployment and underemployment, and outsourcing more and more jobs to fascists and communist dictatorships are not even on the peripheries of the topics covered in the debates.When I was asked my opinion about who won the debates, I say they were not debates. But I know what won and what lost. The winners were big business, bailouts for Wall Street, an expansionary NATO, a boondoggle missile defense program, nuclear power, the military-industrial complex and its insatiable thirst for trillions of taxpayer dollars, for starters.What lost was peace advocacy, international law, the Israeli-Palestinian peace movement, taxpayers, consumers, Africa and We the People.The language of avoidance to address and challenge corporate power is spoken by both McCain and Obama, though interestingly enough, McCain occasionally uses words like "corporate greed" to describe his taking on the giant Boeing tanker contract with the Pentagon.Funded by beer, tobacco, auto and telecommunications companies over the years, the corporation known as the Commission on Presidential Debates features only two corporate-funded candidates, excludes all others and closes off a major forum for smaller candidates, who are on a majority of the states, to reach tens of millions of voters.In the future, this theatre of the absurd can be replaced with a grand coalition of national and local citizen groups who, starting in March, 2012 lay out many debates from Boston to San Diego, rural, suburban and urban, summon the presidential candidates to public auditoriums to react to the peoples' agendas.Can the Democratic and Republican nominees reject this combination of labor, neighborhood, farmer, cooperative, veteran's, religious, student, consumer and good government with tens of millions of members? It will be interesting to see what happens if they do or if they do not.

iraq
ehren watada
hal bernton
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
margaret kimberley
the washington postmary beth sheridanthe new york timesalissa j. rubinkatherine zoepfmegan walshjennifer o'neill
brian montopoli
jake tapper

okay, let's start with nutso joe biden. this is delilah boyd explaining biden's most recent 'senior' moment':


Some of the scariest parts:
"And he's gonna need help."
"And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him."
"Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Right about what, Joe?
Reinstating the draft?
Some kind of Israel v Iran/ Iran v Israel bloodbath?
Another 9/11 type attack on US soil? (Like, in my neighborhood?)
Using limited nukes against Pakistan?
Creating a new alliance with Chavez & Friends and replacing the dollar with Ameros?
Raising taxes a zillion percent?
What gives, Biden?
Spit it out, Joe!
Here's the weirdest part:
"I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," he joked.
He joked?
This crap is funny, Joe?
Is this whole "Be Afraid, But Trust Us" speech just another Biden/ Emily Litella "Never Mind" moment?
Or is Joe Biden, himself, The October Surprise?

delilah's right, that nonsense is scary as hell and since biden wants our votes, he should damn well be willing to explain what the hell he thought he was talking about.

i think when biden's talking about some sort of attack on america and saying that barack's going to deal with it in a way that america won't like, i think we damn well have a right to know what the f**k senator crazy ass is talking about.


here's governor sarah palin speaking on cnn:

"It's going to be government reform because that, that is what I've been able to do as a mayor and as a governor, you, you take on the special interests and the self-dealings. Yep, you ruffle feathers and you have the scars to prove it," Palin said Tuesday in an interview with CNN's Drew Griffin.
"You have to take that on to give the American people that faith back in their own government. This is their government and we've got to put it back on their side," she said.
Palin said she and McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, discussed the possibility of her working on the issue of energy independence if she becomes vice president.

biggest laugh of the day comes from the so-called fair which sends out the following action alert on october 21st:

While the major-party race for the White House has been the subject of broad media attention for more than a year, the corporate media have mostly ignored at least four substantial third-party and independent candidates for the presidency.Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr are both former congressmembers from the state of Georgia. Their presence in the White House race, along with independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, would seem to present an interesting counterpoint to the major-party race between Barack Obama and John McCain. While the corporate press has apparently decided that the differences between Obama and McCain are more or less the only political opinions worth exploring this election season, the third-party and independent candidates take positions on issues like drug war policy, Israel-Palestine, civil liberties and military intervention that differ markedly from the views of either major-party candidate.

way to get in there and make a difference ... when it counted. (that is sarcasm.)

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

Tuesday, October 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Vatican has concerns, Ralph Nader gets broadcast-network attention, the treaty hits a bump, and more.

Starting with the US race for president, NBC Nighly News with Brian Williams featured a report on the independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader yesterday. Tonight Nightly News begins the first of two-nights inteviewing the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Ron Allen interviewed Nader at length for the report and the interview is available online at Nightly News. Below is a transcript.

Ron Allen: I think the first question everybody has is why do you keep doing this because it would seem you really don't have a chance of winning? So why do you keep pursuing this?

Ralph Nader: You have to keep justice on the front burner. The forces of injustice never take a vacation and the forces of justice can never take a vacation. So as long as I can go around the country putting the progressive agenda on the front table for people, giving voters a choice, I feel I have to do it.

Ron Allen: So what is winning? Is there a specific policy, a specific change of the process that in your mind, makes this worth it?

Ralph Nader: There are a lot of different definitions of winning. One of them is building for a future third political force that can really win an election. The second is bringing lots of people into local, state and national elections as candidates -- especially young people in the future. The third is to push the two parties -- a tugboat candidacy to either make them less worse or a little better which is a historic function of third parties.

Ron Allen: And do you think -- do you think -- is there a way to really measure what you've accomplished, do you think?

Ralph Nader: Oh we'll see. We're pressing for example for single payer health insurance. They're 93 members of the House who've signed on John Conyers HR 676 so let's say we get a good vote and we're trade marked by this agenda -- more people sign on, we think we've played a part.

Ron Allen: This time your signature issues seems to be the rescue package, the bail-out, your opposition to it. It's a consumer-ish issue which is in your wheelhouse. Do you think however -- the administration, the Congress seemed to insist that this was absolutely necessary to avert wider catastrophe -- do you think your message is getting through though?

Ralph Nader: Yes, because I think it was the wrong kind of bail-out. They shouldn't have bailed out first the speculators and the high-risk paper, you should have helped the prudent institutions and the prudent savers that developed a wall to protect them from the ruinous fall-out from Wall St. Second, I think that there should have been re-regulation because de-regulation opened the doors to this excessive speculation and most important the Congress should have made the speculators pay for their bail-out with a tiny tax, 1/10 of 1 percent of the security transactions that are traded every year. That would produce $500 million.

Ron Allen: Part of the rescue package -- without getting too much -- contains some of that, some of the broader principles that Obama and McCain and others argued for, seemed to contain some of that. That tax payers would be investors, that there would be a return on this. Is that not enough?

Ralph Nader: It wasn't thorough enough, it's too easily evaded in terms of the tax payer equity. For example, they weren't given any representation on the boards of directors and there was a cut-off below which they wouldn't have any equity and it was very complex and not really very enforceable. I think when it came to the $700 billion bail-out of Wall St., Washington had Wall St. over a barrel. They could have gotten anything in that bill because Wall St. wanted that $700 billion and, instead, Wall St. pushed Washington in the barrel and rolled it to a blank check. That's why I think Congress has got to revisit this issue.

Ron Allen: Now there's an issue where there was a lot of support for that point of view in the country as there have been for other ideas you have pushed. I hear both candidates, for example, talking about public works projects which you were talking about only a moment ago. Do you think that, having run for the office so long and been out there for so long and not increased your margin significantly, do you think that perhaps you're not the best messenger for your own cause now?

Ralph Nader: No, I think I am the best manager because it's very hard to be nationally known for any candidate unless you're a multi-billionaire. And I am nationally known, I have a track record, I have constituencies around the country which I have helped over the years so I thank I am the candidate for those positions.

Ron Allen: But some people would argue it's the ideas, it's the positions, it's not you. And I think that Obama and others have suggested that in their assessment of you, it's too much about you and it's not about the ideas. I think he said something to the effect that his sense was that if you don't agree with everything Nader stands for, he thinks less of you, he thinks you're not substantive. I think was the word he used.

Ralph Nader: Well let's put it this way. Take all our speeches -- my speeches, Senator Obama's, Senator McCain's -- and count the number of times they say "I" compared to the number of times I say "I" and I think that's your answer. I'm the least egotistical candidate probably in presidential history.

Ron Allen: Let's take them individually. Senator McCain, Governor Palin, what's wrong with them?

Ralph Nader: Well they're corporate candidates. Except for Governor Palin -- she did stand up to the oil companies. But if you look at Senator McCain's positions he is for restricting the rights to have their full day in court of wrongly injured people. That's tort reform, for example. He has consistently supported a bigger military budget. He is very militaristic towards certain countries in the world. He wants the idea of a hundred military bases around the world. He has a cockamamie health insurance plan that's not going to give sufficient health care to all the people in this country. And Governor Palin has fallen in line.

Ron Allen: What do you think of her?

Ralph Nader: Well I think that she has been mistreated. But I think that it was the fault of the Republicans because they introduced her to the American people not as a governor of a state, they introduced her as a soccer mom, they introduced her as having five children, NRA member, a hunter, a fisherman, and once you have that folksy image it's easy to prick the balloon and give the impression she's empty.

Ron Allen: Do you think she's qualified?

Ralph Nader: She's as qualified as any other presidential and vice presidential candidate. What do you have to be to be a member of the two parties and run for president? All you have to do is know how to read and write, get advisers and follow corporate orders.

Ron Allen: When you were talking about -- when you were talking about Senator Obama, you said prepare to be disappointed if he wins. What did you mean by that?

Ralph Nader: Because I think he is very receptive to corporate power and that's why he doesn't have a full Medicare plan for the American people, that's why he doesn't press for a real living wage, just to keep up with inflation on the minimum wage it would be $10 an hour instead it's $6.55 an hour. He doesn't have a platform to crack down on the corporate crime wave that the mainstream press keeps reporting. He doesn't have a program for the bottom 100 million poor Americans and that's just the beginning of what we're going to see of Senator Obama if he wins.

Ron Allen: And you were also in there railing against the mainstream media, us. Why do you think it is that you think you don't get a lot of coverage? Why is it that you don't get any coverage? I think the editors would say, as I think they've told you, you're not that relevant you're not going to win why should we spend the time devoting scarce resources at what you're doing?Ralph Nader: Because I think the media should be interested in a competitive democracy. I think they believe there should be a competitive economy. I think that without a competitive democracy, voter choices are narrowed and the voters that are their audience and one would think they would give more voices and choices in their own reporting other than the same routine daily, redundant, five-minute speeches by Senator Obama and Senator McCain. Reporters keep telling me how bored they are covering the presidential campaigns. Well, we can give them some excitement.

Ron Allen: And also listening to you, it sounds like, it sounds like for you it's not about, you don't seem to -- you're not telling your audiences 'we're going to win, we're going to go to the White House' Winning is a much different goal. You talked about some thirty-odd states where it's not going to be a contest, you can vote your conscience in other places. Have you gotten much more realistic about this?

Ralph Nader: Well I'm always realistic but I know that if you don't allow seeds to sprout, you'll never get plants or trees and if business doesn't allow entrepreneurs a chance, you're never going to rejuvenate the business community but somehow the press has bought into this two-party duopoly which is very exclusionary on presidential debates, on ballot access and this two party duopoly can't be regenerated unless small political starts have a chance to be heard by the American people and that means the mass media.

Ron Allen: And in terms of the two parties, there are still some people out there who -- you may never live this down -- as you know, there are many people who, there are people out there who still blame you for Al Gore's loss in Florida and in 2000 and therefore for the last eight years.

Ralph Nader: Well Al Gore doesn't blame the Green Party to his credit. He thinks he won the election -- which he did in the popular vote but the electoral college threw it into Florida and he can give you chapter and verse on how it was taken from him illicitly from Tallahassee all the way to the five Republican politicians on the Supreme Court who selected George W. Bush as president. But it's interesting that you raise this because I don't think the mass media can have it both ways. On the one hand they say, Nader-Gonzalez doesn't have a chance to win therefore don't cover them. On the other hand, they say well Nader-Gonzalez may be 'spoilers,' that bigoted political word, and tip the election by tipping some of the close states. Well, which is it?

Ron Allen: I think that was the case back in 2000. I don't think people think that's the case now.

Ralph Nader: Well because of recent polls but they thought that back in July.

Ron Allen: Do you think you're going to influence some of these battlegrounds? I've heard you suggest that Colorado, Nevada, places where you think you could in fact effect the outcome.

Ralph Nader: Well we want to get as many votes as we can so we're traveling and getting votes in all fifty states but if we are going to be able to be heard more by going into the close states and effecting the margins, we'll be very pleased to do it because our interests are the health, safety and economics well being of the American people not the plight of one party over another.

Ron Allen: But do you actually think, is there a state where you think that you are really going to have an impact at this point, just a few weeks -- couple of weeks -- before the election?

Ralph Nader: Well it could be Ohio but it's trending towards an Obama landslide so Ohio I suppose is close maybe Florida is still close. What else would there be?

Ron Allen: But again in states where you seem to be running the strongest, Colorado, Nevada,

Ralph Nader: Yes, in Colorado --

Ron Allen: Even if you don't effect the overall outcome, do you really think you're going to have an impact? Where do you think you're going to have the greatest impact?

Ralph Nader: Well I think the greatest impact will be where ever the media covers us the most and they'll probably cover us the most when we go into the small states. Assuming there isn't a landslide by then.

Ron Allen: Do you think -- how do you think the election is going to turn out?

Ralph Nader: Right now? If nothing happens in the next two weeks, I think it will be a big Democratic landslide for the Congress and probably 330 electoral votes for Barack Obama.

Ron Allen: And what's wrong with that?

Ralph Nader: Well one thing that is not wrong is that the Democrats will control the White House and the Congress with large minorities and they'll have no more excuses How many times have I gone up on Capitol Hill and said, "Why don't you strengthen the consumer protection laws and why don't you end these corporate subsidies? And why don't you get full health insurance and living wage?" And they always say well we can't get it through because Republicans will stop us. No more excuses. If there's a Democratic landslide we're going to put so much heat on Congress and the White House that they're going to have to move for the American people and stop succumbing to the demands of their corporate pay masters.

Ron Allen: And if there was one idea or one thing you would like to accomplish, of if there was one part of a platform or a policy proposal that McCain or Obama or the Democrats or Republicans were willing to adopt that would say, that would make Ralph Nader say "Okay, I'll stop running for president I'll join you" what would it be? What would have to happen for you not to do this?

Ralph Nader: Well that they take the populist positions that we have on our website VoteNader.org and --

Ron Allen: The whole thing?

Ralph Nader: They're very long overdue. Western Europe has most of them, out of the rubble of WWII full health insurance, living wage, decent pensions, four weeks paid vacation, university free tuition at public universities. The kind of elementary civilized benefits like paid maternity leave, paid family sick leave, decent day care, they've had these for years and we're the richest country in the world. Barack Obama and John McCain will not come out for these straight and clear.

Ron Allen: That sounds like a very socialistic position.

Ralph Nader: Well it's called a Social-Democratic position in Europe and basically to me it's just elementary humanity because if we really love our country we will have to love the people in our country and people who are poor or disabled or otherwise disadvantaged but work hard and want to play a role in our society and raise their children why can't we give them a lending hand?

Ron Allen: And lastly, why -- why is someone not wasting their vote if they vote for you?

Ralph Nader: Because they'll be voting for their conscience. They'll be voting for what a middle-aged man told me in Syracuse recently when he came up to me and he said, "I'm voting for myself, therefore I'm voting for Ralph Nader."

Ron Allen: Meaning?

Ralph Nader: Meaning -- meaning that for forty years I've demonstrated that I will not succumb to corporate power, I will not be tempted by corporate accouterments. I will stand for the people of this country from A to Z, I will stand for their just treatment by the powers that be whether they be in Wall Street or whether they be in Washington.

Ron Allen: And again what is -- when you look back on this campaign months from now what will -- what will have made it a success? What does it take to make this a success for you?

Ralph Nader: Well we're turning a corner on the violations of candidates' civil liberties by winning cases to break down the ballot access barriers in many states that deny voters a choice. These are Jim Crow type laws to keep candidates off the ballot and without candidate rights, voter rights aren't worth as much because voters won't have a choice. That's a clear trend that we are advancing. Number two, we keep alive a future progressive enlightenment in our country. All of the things that are so overdue that the American people need and deserve and are being denied because of the concentration of power and wealth in so few hands. Number three and the most gratifying for me is the young people who are volunteering, who are going to be the political leaders of the future, who are learning the skills of clean political activity.

Ron Allen: And do you still think that you can be an effective messenger for that cause, again, given the last number of years that you've run unsuccessfully, the criticism that you've endured, the fact that a significant number of people don't take you seriously you still think you can be an effective messenger?

Ralph Nader: Well I take the American people seriously and that's enough for me. But I remember the famous progressive writer I.F. Stone who once said that every social justice in this country started by people who lost and who lost and who lost but in the process of losing built more and more support for the breakthrough that made this a better country. So I am not afraid to keep losing and losing as long as we are expanding awareness and galvanizing energies of the American people for a better future.

Nightly News has the video of the report from last night as well as the interview Allen conducted with Nader (the latter is a "web only" feature). Warning, the clip will quickly feature the gutter trash of MSNBC including IDIOT Rachel Maddow -- the War Hawk Elaine caused to meltdown back in 2005. So Rachel The Dog Face Anchor likes to brag about her alleged big brain and yet the IDIOT has no idea that there's a difference between Socialism and Communism. (People, she's a dumb ass.) Ralph Nader has been blocked out by many outlets -- including the alleged public airwaves of PBS -- so when NBC Nightly News does a report on him, we will open the snapshot with it. It is big news.

Today US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. David Morgan (Reuters) reports that Gates declared, "I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed." Meaning no more discussing the 'text' with those silly people who think they should have a say -- what do they think Iraq is, their own country? That really is the attitude and how much of that is genuine and how much of that is for-show (to attempt to make the Iraqis think it's a take-it-or-leave-it offer) no one knows but he used one of the oldest ploys, "Clearly, the clock is ticking." What has Gates so touchy? Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) explains, "The Iraqi cabinet Tuesday called for reopening negotiations over a draft agreement to keep U.S. forces in this country beyond 2008, in the most serious sign yet that the accord is in trouble." Sheridan notes that Michael Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "We are clearly running out of time." It's a mantra. Expect Condi Rice to next declare, "Tick-tick-tick." For the US administration, it all fell apart today with reports that Iraqis were not going to be easily bullied. Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) explained that, "in a sign that opposition is growing to a prolonged American presence, the largest political faction issued a statement demanding additonal revisions" in the treaty. And AFP reported that the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, is attempting to bully Iraq into approving the treaty and that "Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also charged that Iran was working hard to scuttle passage of the so-called Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA." Mullen's bluster betrays the calm the US State Dept attempted to project at yesterday's press briefing where deputy spokesperson Robert Wood attempted to act as if everything was fine and dandy and kept stressing the democratic process, refused to speculate on going to the United Nations to talk of possibly extending the mandate which expires December 31st and is the only legal framework that allows foreign forces on Iraqi soil. BBC notes Gates' foot stomping and that he "has warned of 'dramatic consequences'." Despite the threats, so far, Iraq isn't immediately buckling. CNN reports, "The Iraqi government has unanimously agreed that a security pact with the United States lacks "some necessary amendments," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Tuesday." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) puts it a little more bluntly, "The Iraqi Cabinet dealt a blow today to a draft agreement to allow US forces to stay in Iraq beyond the end of the year, demanding changes to the document to make it more acceptable. The nature of the amendments were not specified, but Iraqi MPs said there are concerns about the lack of a guaranteed date for US forces to withdraw. Another worry is whether Iraqi courts would in practice be able to try US soldiers who commit serious crimes. There are even gripes about differing interpretations in parts of the US and the Arabic versions of the draft accord." At the White House, spokesperson Dana Perino declared of the process, "Well, we knew it was going to take a little while to get this done. I think we feel pretty comfortable with the strategic framework agreement. That is a broader document; it talks about our relationship moving forward on the political and economic issues. The strategic -- I'm sorry, the status of forces agreement is a little bit more complicated. We knew that the Iraqis would have several steps to go through. I saw reports that they want to -- today, and the Council of Ministers have suggested that they want to see some changes. I don't think we have seen those yet. And I'll let the negotiators in Baghdad talk about that when they get them." At the US State Department today, spokesperson Sean McCormack stated he had not used the term "final draft" and he hasn't, he's called it "a text" nearly throughout. He also stated, "We believe that this is a good text. We wouldn't have had the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense making phone calls about this text if we didn't think it was a good text. So we'll see what the Iraqi comments are." And what of the puppet of the occupation? CBS and AP report Nouri "Al-Maliki wants his coalition Cabinet to sign off before sending it to parliament. Al-Maliki fears he could end up politically isolated if he pushes forward with the agreement without solid national backing."

In other US and Iraqi relations, on the topic of Iraqi Christians, Niraj Warikoo (Detroit Free Press) covers today's rally in support of Iraqi Christians "held by the Network of Iraqi-American Organizations and the Michigan Christians of Mosul Relief Committee. After the rally, some are to travel to Washington D.C. to express their concerns to U.S. government officials, members of Congress, and the Iraqi embassy." Assyrian International News Agency explains this evening's rally will be "at the Mother of God Chaldean Church Hall, 25585 Berg Road, Southfield, MI 48033. The rally will start at 5:30 PM." Philip Pullella (Reuters) reports, "The Vatican on Tuesday called on the Iraqi government and human rights groups to do more to protect Christians in Mosul, where half of the minority community has fled after attacks and threats.Pope Benedict's spokesman, the Reverend Federico Lombardi, told Reuters that the Vatican was asking itself if there was 'insufficient willingness' on the part of Iraqi authorities to protect Christians. 'We are extremely worried about what we are hearing from Iraq,' Lombardi said."

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

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded four people and a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded five people.

Shootings?

CNN reports Mowaffak Merhi ("department director for Iraq's largest oil refinery") was shot dead in Shirqat today.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul and, dropping back to yesterday, 9 discovered in Latifiya.

In the US a vote on Iraq flares up like a club and lands on John Kerry's face. The US Senator was more than happy to back Barack Obama and to rip Hillary Clinton to shreds for voting for the 2002 authorization and now it's come back to bite him in the ass. Mike Underwood (Boston Herald) reports Kerry's Republican challenger Jeff Beatty declared in last night's debate that Kerry had "blood on his hands" and "You knew. You knew when you voted for that war that we didn't have what we needed for the war . . . and you didn't care because it was always about getting elected president. You have got blood on your hands." Kerry denied it but Underwood leaves out whether or not he did so before first checking his own hands.


In US presidential race news, Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney will appear Wednesday October 22nd on NPR's Talk of the Nation and Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday.

The Republican presidential nominee is John McCain and Sarah Palin is his running mate.
Matt Lira posts this to the McCain-Palin campaign blog:ICYMI: Chicago Superintendent Gives Obama An F The former head of the Chicago education system has spoken out against Barack Obama. The education foundation headed by Barack Obama "failed to monitor projects and funded school 'reform' groups that campaigned against boosting academic standards."Paul Vallas, who was the superintendent of the Chicago school system when Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Foundation, said "There was a total lack of accountability. If you went back and asked, you'd be hard-pressed to find out how the money was spent."Click here to read the full article.

McCain-Palin also note that Govenor Tim Pawlentry believes John McCain is ready to be president on day one, "John McCain is respected around the world because of his national security, military, and foreign affairs experience. The country is struggingly economically and in many other ways and we don't need the added pressure of some sort of invitation or tempation by others to see that kind of weakness. This is not coming from me or from somebody on our side, this is coming from his own vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, who repeatedly has suggested Barack Obama's not ready." Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) has the run down on Biden's statements (the sort called out in 2004 when Republicans made them during a presidential election).

And Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez released the following "Brief Statement on War, Education:"

The United States, through its various agencies and aid programs, touts itself as a leader in global humanitarian and educational assistance. A glance through USAID's FY 2008 Budget Appropriations report indeed reveals an extensive list of programs broken down by country to which our government is donating. But while the list may run long and cover a wide range of programs, the amount of cash this country sends overseas in assistance nowhere near matches the amount it spends to fight Bush's costly, illegal wars.At a rate of $14 million per hour, 24 hours per day, the US spends roughly the same amount of money occupying and destroying Iraq in one hour as it does annually to fund the three American universities in the Middle East (The American University of Beirut, The American University in Cairo, and The Lebanese American University).This demonstrates the folly of a foreign policy based on militarist interventionism as opposed to a foreign policy driven by true humanitarian principles. A humanitarian foreign policy is much less costly and much more effective in both the short and longterm, especially if more democracy is the goal at home and abroad.One can only imagine how much support and goodwill we would find around the world if we spent a significant fraction more overseas promoting education and knowledge rather than wasting hundreds of billions devastating and destabilizing entire countries, regions, and their peoples.To truly gain credibility and earn trust as a humanitarian superpower, the US must reverse its current foreign policy by immediately ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and ending all military aid and supplies to Israel used to brutalize its Arab neighbors. Instead, we need to use some of those funds to invest in education and help rebuild the nations we destroyed and the much larger amounts to rebuild the public works and infrastructure inside the United States. Good jobs are created in both places.

iraqthe telegraph of londondamien mcelroynbc nightly news
niraj warikoonbc nightly news

above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack's Wipings" and on things that are true and funny, check out cedric's 'Alan Greenspan, stand by the phone' and wally's 'THIS JUST IN! BARACK WANTS BUSHAPALOOZA!' which is hilarious.

wait, wait, take a deep breath, there are more laughs on the way! this is something posted by matt lira at the mccain-palin '08 blog:

ICYMI: Chicago Superintendent Gives Obama An F
The former head of the Chicago education system has spoken out against Barack Obama. The education foundation headed by Barack Obama "failed to monitor projects and funded school 'reform' groups that campaigned against boosting academic standards." Paul Vallas, who was the superintendent of the Chicago school system when Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Foundation, said "There was a total lack of accountability. If you went back and asked, you'd be hard-pressed to find out how the money was spent." Click here to read the full article.

1st clue to barack failure: when he doesn't brag about something.

remember he brags about ... college. he can talk about college. he can't talk about transcripts because they haven't been released. but mr. no experience avoided and avoided the issue of education work so you always knew he was hiding something.

poor little barack. always the failure.

meanwhile this is the month to raise awareness of breast cancer and lady foot locker issued a press release with some things we can all do:


The signature pink ribbon has become an identifiable symbol of saving lives. We see it on products and at walks and events, all dedicated to raising awareness, sending one unified message...let's put an end to Breast Cancer.
So how can you join the cause? It's as simple as becoming active -- whether by physically becoming more active, or by showing your support.
Be active. Take a walk or a jog, shoot hoops with your kids, and just get moving -- by doing so, you may be saving your own life. According to the American Cancer Society, adults who engage in moderate to vigorous activity for at least 30 minutes on five or more days per week can actually help reduce their risk of breast cancer.
Fitness Expert Cathy Lang understands this may seem overwhelming. "If 30 minutes of exercise is too big a change to make, consider finding ten minutes three-times each day -- three bursts of activity -- one before a healthy breakfast, one when that afternoon energy slump hits and one after dinner. Nothing fancy required, just some sit-ups & push-ups or a brisk walk will help you reach this goal."
Take action. Get involved in local efforts to support breast cancer awareness such as the Making Strides Against Breast Cancer walk in communities across the country. Not only does Making Strides promote a healthy and active lifestyle, it unites communities to celebrate breast cancer survivors, educate women about the importance of prevention and early detection, and raise funds to further the fight against the disease. You can learn more about how you can get involved by visiting cancer.org/breastcancer, or link directly to the Making Strides Web site through www.ladyfootlocker.com.
Act on behalf of others. Another way to show your support is to proudly wear pink on your sleeve to help raise awareness. This October, Lady Foot Locker will offer customized pink ribbon apparel, in addition to a reusable recycled tote bag in support of the American Cancer Society's breast cancer efforts. A limited edition Pink Ribbon gift card will also be available in which 10% of the card value goes directly to the Society.
SOURCE Lady Foot Locker http://www.cancer.org/breastcancer

and cancer is scary and it can be terminal but there are cases where it can be treated as well. this is from mary lou aguirre's 'Woman's cancer battle inspires' (fresno bee):

Lorrie Centeno of Madera never thought she would have to battle breast cancer not once, but three times in her 42 years. But she's learned to deal and she's learned to fight.
"When you get knocked down, you just have to get back up," she says.
Lorrie will be among the cancer survivors -- men as well as women -- who will attend the 10th Annual Komen Central Valley Race for the Cure on Saturday at California State University, Fresno.
Up to 75% of the race's net proceeds will remain in Fresno County. The money will pay for breast health education, breast cancer screening and treatment for poor women, according to komencentralvalley.org.
"Isn't my wife beautiful?" asked Arnold Centeno as I shook Lorrie's hand. Other words he used to describe Lorrie are "disciplined," "self-assured," confident" and "inspirational."
Definitely inspirational.
It's hard to believe that Lorrie is recovering from a Sept. 18 double mastectomy. Dressed in jeans, a pink blouse and shoes decorated with the signature pink ribbons, Lorrie has a perfect smile. Slim, nails manicured and with long blond hair, Lorrie has a youthful look.
"If you looked at me, you might think, 'She has it all,' " says Lorrie, who attends Woodward Park Church of Christ in Fresno and has two children, Sommer, 18, and Joshua, 21. "But you never know what people are going through."

early detection makes a difference. this isn't a topic that's easy for me to cover (for obvious reasons) but i've pretty much ignored it (for obvious reasons) my entire blogging career so it's past time i note it. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, October 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the treaty hits a snag, Ralph Nader goes on NBC Nightly News this evening, and more.

The targeting of Iraqi Christians continues and today the Los Angeles Times becomes the first major daily to strongly call it out noting that over 1300 Iraqi Christians have been displaced from Mosul as a result of the attacks: "But that is only the latest exodus of Christians from Mosul, which served as a refuge for those driven out of Baghdad, and from Iraq as a whole. A Chaldean Catholic archbishop has warned that Christians in his country face 'liquidation.' In opposing the invasion of Iraq, the late Pope John Paul II was motivated primarily by a concern about the carnage on all sides that a war would produce; but he also had reason to worry about the fate of Iraqi Christians once Saddam Hussein was deposed. Despite his crimes, Hussein offered protection for Christians against militant Muslims. The religious cleansing of Christians in Iraq is part of a larger pattern in which a faith with origins in the Middle East is being driven out of its native region." NPR's Corey Flintoff (Weekend Edition) reported on "the climate fear" for the refugees who've been displaced and among the refugees she interviewed was a woman with a young child who explained, "Mosul is a very dangerous city. I can hardly describe the condition there. . . . He [her son] is always afriad, even when he goes to school, he is very afraid." Missy Ryan (Reuters) reported yesterday on how the US commanders continue to insist the Iraqi Christians are being targeted by al Qaeda in Iraq while "other U.S. officials are less certain whom to blame, and describe a host of potentially destabilizing forces at play in a tense region ruled by a weak, minority provincial government." Ryan speaks with a man who fled with his wife and two daughters and told her, "The explosions continue. There is no safety." At this point, no one knows who is responsible and the central government in Baghdad has publicly scoffed at the idea that it is al Qaeda in Iraq. Today IRIN explores some of the possibilities and spoke with a priest who offered, "We have been targeted since 2003 by extremists but I can't explain the latest events which I believe are politically-motivated." IRIN reminds, "Parliament recently abolished the quota system in future local council elections in six of Iraq's 18 provinces, meaning that these local bodies will not be able to have specially reserved seats for ethnic and religious minorities. The reason for the decision was the lack of census data on the numbers of Christians, Yazidis and followers of other religions in specific areas." That's referring to Article 50 which guaranteed religious minorities representation but was removed when the Iraqi Parliament passed their bill for provincial elections.

Sunday Naharnet Newsdesk reported that Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Saniora expressed over the phone to Iraqi President Jalal Talabania, "The Lebanese people back all efforts exerted by the Iraqi government to safeguard the social fabric of the state of Iraq. Christians in Iraq, as in any other Arab state, are an integral component of the national fabric." Also yesterday, AP noted a demonstration in support of Iraqi Christians in Kirkuk today that had a turnout of at least 200 demonstrators (carrying banners such as the one that read "Stop the genocide against Christians") and "was organized by Kurdish groups". AP puts the number of Iraqi Christians who have fled Mosul in the last two weeks at 10,000. Today Naharnet Newsdesk explained that the Lebanese Forces Party "pleaded with Iraqi officials to adopt speedy measures capable of halting crimes committed against Christians".

On the SOFA masquerading as a treaty, Friday's snapshot included, " Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reminds that what's being talked about now is a draft and explains the process for Iraq: "presented today to Iraq's political and national security council, which is made up of top government officials and the leaders of major political groups. If it survives challenges there and among other government ministers, it will move to the Council of Representatives, or parliament, where Maliki has pledged to put it to an up-or-down vote. Far less controversial matters have taken months to move through the Iraqi legislative provess, if they moved at all." DeYoung also noted that the 2011 'withdrawal' of US forces is "aspirational." Would that all who followed over the weekend could have grasped and mastered the facts as well. But of course, some could not. Moving to the more reliable reporting, "No, No, to America! No, No, to the devil!" Al Jazeera reports protestors chanted in Baghdad Saturday in a demonstration against the proposed treaty between the White House and puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki. The protesters were followers of Moqtada al-Sadr and they want the US out of their country now and they want the treaty rejected. A message from al-Sadr read to the crowd also called for the treaty to be rejected. Iraqi analyst Abudllhay Yahya Zalloum explained that there was also Christian and Sunni opposition to the "so-called security pact" with a declartion from Sunnis "that it is against Islam to have any security pact with the United States" and "We have to realise that, firstly, the United States came uninvited and, secondly, this so-called draft has been negotiated while 150,000 American troops plus contractors, 50,000 of them at least, are still in Iraq. Thirdly, it is a government that was actually chosen by the Americans, therefore when you have a country under occupation with pseudo-indepence, you don't expect that the terms would be to the best interests of Iraq." Hussein Kadhim and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) quoted chants of "No, no to the occupier" at the demonstration and quoted Shi'ite Jabar Kareem stating, "We want the occupier to leave without conditions. All Iraqi people reject this treaty."

The public demonstrations weren't the only objections. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) explained Sunday that, "Quietly, some parliamentary leaders suggested that they, too, were not comfortable with the agreement even though some of them had been involved in negotiating it. At a Friday night meeting with the leaders of the political blocs in Parliament, there were no clear statements of support except from the Kurds, who strongly backed the pact." Peter Graff and Mariam Karouny (Reuters) reported that the first attempt at consolidated support on Sunday failed with only support from the Kurdish faction. When that happened, though it's not pointed out in the bulk of the coverage, that meant even al-Maliki's own Shi'ite backers were not supporting the treaty. One of the sticky points was over US immunity which the Shi'ites raised. How serious was the upset? Gemma Daley (Bloomberg News) reported Nouri al-Maliki's planned and announced trip to Australia Tuesday has now been placed on hold. Alissa J. Rubin and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) explain today that Nouri al-Maliki's adviser Sami al-Askeri "said that two provisions particularly worried the Iraqis. The first is an option that would allow the Iraqi government to extend the American presence beyond 2011 if the government decided it wanted the soldiers to stay. The Iraqis woory that the Americans might press a new Iraqi government to extend the American presence. The second is a provision setting up a committee that would review suspected crimes of soldiers and determine if they should be referred to Iraqi courts." Because the Post got it right last week about the 'withdrawal date' being "aspirational," they don't have to play catch up today and instead Mary Beth Sheridan and Ernesto Londono explain, "The change sought by the influential United Iraqi Alliance would harden the withdrawal date for U.S. troops. A draft bilateral agreement completed this week would require American forces to leave by December 2011 but would allow for an extension by mutual agreement." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) do their best to track the 'process' (the process is meandering away from what it's supposed to be), "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had emphasized that the agreement should be debated by the Political Council for National Security before being sent to the Cabinet for approval. The council met Sunday night, but the meeting ended with neither the main Shiite Muslim nor Sunni Arab factions endorsing the pact. Nonetheless, it was decided that discussions would begin Tuesday before the country's Cabinet, the final stop before a vote in parliament. Further muddying the waters, one senior official, Nasser Ani, the chief of staff of Iraq's presidency council, said the council would continue to review the text." As for the immunity clause, CNN interprets it: "U.S. troops or contractors who commit "major and premeditated murders" in Iraq while off-duty and outside U.S. facilities would fall under Iraqi jurisdiction, according to a copy of a draft U.S.-Iraq agreement obtained by CNN. All other crimes -- including murders committed inside U.S. facilities or by on-duty forces -- would fall under American jurisdiction, according to the draft, which would govern U.S. troops' presence in Iraq."

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

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left seven wounded while two others wounded six people, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded six family members.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 civilian shot dead by Iraqi police in Diyala Province, 3 "gunmen" shot dead by police in Diyala, 2 suspected members of al Qaeda shot dead in Diyala, 1 "member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party" shot dead in Mosul and 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse discovered in Diyala Province.

Aws Qusay (Reuters) notes, "A U.S. marine died in a non-combat related incident at the al Asad base in the western province of Anbar, the military said in a statement without giving further details on the incident." The announcement brings to 4186 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.


Turning to the US race for president. Barck Obama is the Democratic presidential candidate. Sarah Palin is the Republican presidential candidate. Mark Mooney (ABC News) belongs to the Eternal Clueless (he's not lying, he just doesn't know better): "The ABC News/Washington Post poll found that the constant barrage of attacks is hurting McCain, particularly when he targeted Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a founder of the 1960s radical anti-war group the Weather Underground." No, that's not what the poll is showing. The William Ayers issue? Mooney doesn't even grasp it. "Anti-war"? Thai Jones, A Radical Line: From the Labor Movement to the Weather Underground, One Family's Century of Conscience, pp. 215:

He had an explicit political goal, and a congressional report described it accurately when it referred to Weatherman's "intention to build a small, tough, paramilitary organization designed to carry out urban guerilla warfare to bring about the revolution."

Thai Jones (who wrote an amazing book) is not attacking Weather (he is not anti-Weather), he's noting reality -- in the book he's telling his family story -- his parents are Weather members Eleanor Stein and Jeff Jones. In 2005, he told Shaina Fineberg (The Brooklyn Rail), "But the Weather Underground are despised by the right and the liberal left. They were seen as a slap in the face to the mainstream left. They were the far left group on the spectrum. They were openly dismissive of people whose commitment level was not the same as theirs. They felt that if you're not going to die for the cause, you're just wasiting your time. They were very combative: Going to peace marches and pulling anti-war signs from grandmother's hands. But it is important to remember that the Weather Underground is just one of thousands of groups. Their PR maching was better -- so people remember them still." But their goal was not ending the illegal war. That had been a goal in SDS and in the early days of Weatherman. Weather Underground saw itself as bringing about and leading an armed class struggle in the United States which would result in many deaths and this is where Bernardine Dorhn (leader of Weather) first begins referring to herself with the phrase "oven Jew." The 'left' today is so eager to elect to Barack (enshrine?) that they allow Weather to be distorted yet again. Sadly, we have no left historians -- despite various pretenders to the role -- who will step up and correct the falsehoods. Michael Falcone (New York Times) notes the Christian Broadcasting Network's interview with Palin to air on the 700 Club tomorrow. We'll note this section (CBN link has text and video) which is Palin responding to David Brody's question of whether she'd hesitate to use "palling around with terrorists" again to describe Barack and Bill Ayers: "No I would say it again, I would say it again because again it, it, according to the information that we have, the association that he's had with Bill Ayers wasn't just one or two time sitting on a board together where, No, there's been quite a few associations and events and meetings and discussion and emails and calls and to not disavow that too, I think is troubling." As for McCain being 'hurt' by any of this -- what is this load of crap? Every other day Barack's King, God and Lord Supreme. If McCain's hurting himself as badly as the press keeps insisting, why is the race still a dead-heat? Why can't the Christ-child pull it out in this alleged year for any Democrat? Whether it's Ayers or Palin, it hasn't hurt McCain in the least and has provided very real excitement for his campaign. And it's why Catty Barack can't stop sniping at Sarah Palin such as here: "And you know, you really have to work hard to violate Governor Palin's standards on negative campaigning. You gotta work hard." Palin does know about working hard. Barack? It's hard work to keep those nails so spiffy. Say Anything Barack is caught by Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller (ABC News Political Punch) in Tampa telling the Rays he's backing them ("I was going to cut my hair in a Mohawk in solidarity, but my political advisors said they weren't sure how that was going to play with swing voters.") while "earlier this month in Philadelphia -- in another battleground state, Pennsylvania -- he said that since 'my White Sox are gone . . . I'll go ahead and root for the Phillies now'."

While Barack roots for anyone who will vote for him, Colin "The Blot" Powell always sets his own end up so be very scared when the man who lied to sell the illegal war endorses Barack Obama's run for the presidency. No word on whether or not other War Criminals, past or present, will come forward to make endorsements. But Powell made his endorsement on NBC's Meet The Press yesterday -- link has video. For transcript of the segment, you have to go to CNN ("Reporter" in the CNN transcript is Tom Brokaw). Collie Powell declared of his Iraq War Crimes, "I'm well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war." Huh? Let's go back to 20/20 on ABC Sept. 9, 2005 where Barbara Walters reminded Collie, "However, you gave the world false, groundless reasons for going to war. You've said, and I quote, 'I will forever be known as the one who made the case for war.' Do you think this blot on your record will stay with you for the rest of your life?"

Powell: Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the world. And it will always be uh, part of my, uh, my record. Walters: How painful is it? Powell: (shrugs) It was -- it was painful. (shifts, shrugs) It's painful now.

Apparently it was a temporary pain because he's all over it and back to lying again. He claimed on NBC yesterday that his rol in the Iraq War was "very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war." LIAR. Damn and damnable LIAR. Collie wanted to get a little sympathy three years ago and try to save his image so he pretended he was haunted by his lies to the UN (if nothing else). Yesterday, he's back to singing his own praises and 'goodness.' It was a sort of 24-hour-viral, mini-mea-culpa. Joe Mowrey (Dissident Voice) provides more 'great' moments in Collie Powell history:

Powell is the guy who, as a bright young 31 year old Army Major, did his level best to keep information about the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam from becoming public. Specifically, he was charged with investigating a letter from a whistle-blowing soldier giving detailed accounts of many of the atrocities committed by U.S. military personnel in Vietnam under the auspices of the Phoenix Program. That program was a lovely little package of war crimes intended to "identify and neutralize (via infiltration, capture, or murder) the civilian infrastructure supporting the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (the Viet Cong)." In other words, it was a U.S. and South Vietnamese death squad operation which rampaged through the country side slaughtering civilians and burning down entire villages. You know, capturing the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. Powell summed up his investigation of the whistle-blower's accusations by saying, "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."
Well that's enough for me. If Powell endorsed the rousing success of the Phoenix Program, what more do we need to know? Queried about his participation in the attempted white wash of My Lai, some 40 years later Powell said, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again..." Personally, I think he sounds really sorry. And he's seems to be bashing Republicans these days, so I like him a lot.
[. . .]
And while we're at it, let's catalog of few of Barack Obama's progressive qualifications to be next President of the United States of Imperialism. Well first, there's his adamant condemnation of the war in Iraq. Why, he was against it from the very start. Of course, that hasn't prevented him from voting continually to fund the Occupation. But hey, he has to get elected before he can implement all his wonderful changey policies, right? You know, like maintaining a presence of 50,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq, along with a dozen or so permanent military bases and the world's largest foreign embassy. Then there is his pledge to escalate the "good war" in Afghanistan. We've only killed about 10,000 or so innocent civilians there in the last few years. I won't feel safe until we can push those numbers much higher. And Pakistan? Sending robot drones out to drop bombs on people is my kind of progressive war. Obama has assured us he'll continue that policy and actually increase the number of illegal violations of that country's sovereignty. Right on.

Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Governor Palin is currently the most accessible to the traveling press, "In the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop. By contrast, Biden hasn't held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn't taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain--who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability--hasn't done one since Sept. 23." Meanwhile Ruben Navarrette Jr. (Pajamas Media) observes of the current climate between the two major parties, "It seems like just yesterday that the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy was talking about income equality and civil rights and worker protections and going to bat for the little guy, the blue collar laborer, the everyday Joe the Plumber. Now, the well-to-do elites who run the Democratic Party -- and their surrogates -- greet these people with brickbats. They insult them, talk down to them, and even try to destroy them. Isn't that the sort of war on the working class that Democrats are always accusing those greedy and heartless Republicans of waging?" Navarette is now with the San Diego Union Tribune and has been with many other papers (including the Dallas Morning News). A friend asked for that link and reminds that Ava and I were supposed to cover a documentary that Navarette appeared in. We haven't forgotten and we'll attempt to do so on Sunday.

Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney will appear Wednesday October 22nd on NPR's Talk of the Nation and Saturday October 25 on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday. The Indigenist Intelligence Review explains of Cynthia:


She sees tribal sovereignty, treaty obligations, and religious and cultural preservation as intertwined. The U.S. government has "selective amnesia" and never intended to honor the treaties, but it is obligated to do so without question, McKinney said, and also to adequately fund programs for the betterment of American Indians and affirm their religious rights. "How can a people survive, let alone thrive, absent their religion, spirituality, culture, language and sense of place? I support and strongly encourage religious and cultural preservation in Indian country and urge protection of sacred sites, whichever side of the map boundary they fall upon." On IHS funding, McKinney said that the Green Party's call for universal single-payer health care would provide medical, mental and dental benefits to everyone within the United States, including Native women and veterans. She also embraces traditional indigenous medicine and healing. "Health care needs to be treated as a human right and removed from the economic gaming field. Until such time as indigenous peoples are covered under such a policy, we Greens support generous IHS funding, including recognition of both Western and non-Western methods of healing. Western medicine deals quite well with trauma, but has much to learn from 'energetic/spiritual' traditional methods recognizing the implicit agreement between seen and unseen aspects of reality." McKinney said that the rampant substance abuse on reservations is part and parcel of a legacy of oppression and dispossession. "It offers the hollow promise of filling the void left by cultural obliteration. The sacred has been replaced by the profane. 'Treaty' dictates have enforced a substantial and abrupt end to traditional lifeways. For all of these reasons, it is incumbent upon the U.S. government to support IHS."

Ralph Nader is in the independent presidential candidate. His running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Team Nader's Toby Heaps explains how much easier it is to book Ralph on British television than on American airwaves:

Nightline vs BBC: No wonder Ted Koppel voted with his feet
Ralph is going to be on BBC's version of Nightline, which now employs Ted Koppel. Ralph said the international media were showing up the US media. So I tried booking him on Nightline again and a senior producer at the show said 'no thanks.'
I asked him if he had covered the main two candidates. He said 'yes.'
I asked why he didn't cover the guy polling in third place. He smugly said: 'We tend to profile the people who have the greatest chance of winning.'
I asked him if he felt there might be a catch-22. He said with a chuckle, 'You think he would win if we put him on the program.'
I can see why Ted Koppel moved over to BBC.

But Ralph will be on NBC Nightly News this evening:

Ralph Nader is at 5 percent in The Show Me State -- Missouri.
And he's moving on up.
That's according to the most recent CNN/Time Missouri poll.
The poll shows Nader at 5 percent last week, up from 3 percent at the end of September.
We believe that this shows that with just a little bit of visibility -- we have an active Nader/Gonzalez group in Missouri -- Ralph will move up in the polls.
That's why we're encouraging all of our supporters in Missouri and around the country to buy and wear -- during the last days of the campaign -- our hot selling heavy duty 100 percent cotton Nader '08 Buffalo T-Shirts (men's or women's).
(Pictured here -- Nader/Gonzalez road warrior Matt Zawisky and the Obama Girl, both wearing Nader 08 Buffalo T-Shirts in front of our favorite mascot in downtown DC last month.)
We sold out of our first stash of 600 in less than 24 hours this weekend.
So we ordered another 1,000.
And in less than 12 hours, we've sold over 250.
There are only 750 left.
At our current sale rate, we'll be sold out by Thursday night.
So if you don't have one yet, buy one now (men's or women's), before it's too late.
And wear it with pride.
At $30 a shirt (men's or women's), it's a deal.
If you have one already, buy one for a friend, relative or colleague (man or woman).
In case you haven't heard yet, Ralph will be profiled on the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams tonight.
Hope you get a chance to watch.
And just for fun, check out our spooky Nader/Gonzalez Halloween video.
We're firing on all cylinders.
Mainstream media.
On the ground get out the vote drive.
Nader/Gonzalez videos.
And Nader Buffalo T-Shirt drive.
It's a sprint to the finish line.
Onward to November.


iraqthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsuadad al-salhythe washington postmary beth sheridanernesto londonothe los angeles timesned parkersaif hameed
scott conroycbs news
nprweekend editioncorey flintoffsahar issamcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
corinne reilly
karen deyoung

joe at cannonfire has the story and pictures on a woman beat up by one of barack's male thugs/supporters for advocating people vote mccain. that's the reality of america today.

i blame barack who has made hatred of women so common place. call it the thuggery of barack.

the barack thug, grabs a mccain sign and rips it up, then he does the same with the other 1, breaks the stick and begins hitting the woman in the face with it. that's the 'movement' patricia williams, norman solomon, laura flanders and tom hayden (among others) have applauded. each and every 1 of them needs to denounce the behavior publicly or they are supporting it.

they've certainly supported the candidate who fostered it.

and, hey, laura flanders - you self-loathing lesbian - you could be attacked for 2 fronts - being a woman and being gay. so you better find your backbone real damn quick.

myiq2xu's 'Pesky Facts vs. Preferred Narratives' (the confluence) covers a topic we're all familiar with because c.i. was covering it last week and with ava on sunday and yesterday in the snapshot:

For over a week we have been hearing how McPalin rallies resemble lynch mobs screaming for the blood of Teh Precious. Even His Excellency Paul Krugman said it:

Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage.

There’s one small problem with this media narrative: IT’S NOT TRUE:

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

Our friend gqmartinez put up a post at Corrente pointing out that these allegations are unfounded, and the reaction of the resident Obama supporters there is both revealing and disturbing:

Younger people, such as you, know of the JFK and MLK and RFK assassinations in the abstract, as things out of history, events that happened in another time and place of which you have only anecdotal knowledge and no visceral sense of context. Some of us writing here, including Sarah and myself, are old enough to have actually lived through them. We know, not just have heard about it but actually know, what those time sounded like and how it felt, the hatred and the fear and the violence and the sorrow.

Condescend much? By the way, Robert Kennedy was killed by a Middle-Eastern immigrant who was angry over Kennedy’s support for Israel, not by a conservative Republican upset about the economy.

The point I’m trying to make is the SS found “no evidence” regarding the Scranton incident, only. That single data point got strewn all over the media echo chamber as refutation for ALL the incidents, and I find that suspect.

Except that “single data point” was the basis for all the original stories. As Lambert quite rightly points out, the number of stories means nothing if they are all derived from the same source.

just f.y.i., c.i. and ava were calling it single sourced. not 'same source.' it's a journalistic issue. as for paul krugman, he always falls in line. there are people who were ignored or kicked to the curb (journalists) for refusing to join in the 'hillary is evil' m.o. many of them maintain their sense of self-respect.

barack is not qualified to be president. he lacks the experience, the knowledge. he needs to go live a life and accomplish something 1st. in 2000, the republicans ran an unqualified candidate and look at how the country suffered. in 2008, it's the democrats.

sherry e-mailed about tennesse guerilla woman. i don't bother to go there since the woman ripped c.i. off and, when busted, still refused to cop to it. c.i. mislinked to a writer (at a friend's request) and it was a post that was weeks old. the next day, there was tgw claiming she'd just found it. but she hadn't. the woman moved her site. c.i. mislinked and only did so due to googling for the 1st sentence.

but it's not a surprise that she's on board with barky and issuing her idiotic hisses at mccain. she was always a weakling and a fool. for a feminist, she sure posts a lot of 'comedy' skits that are sexist. and not with a 'i think this is sexist'. she posts with a 'this is so funny!' label. she's taylor marsh only more so.

i have no respect for the ones who wrote they'd never support barack but now do. they are either liars or weaklings unable to stand up.

i understand sherry's dismay but, pay attention, in the home stretch, a lot of people who swore they'd never ride have hopped onboard the obama bus. integrity isn't something you buy on the installment plan - you either have it or you don't.

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

Friday, October 17, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, talk of the treaty between the White House and the puppet government continues, the UNHCR notes the Mosul crisis and more.

Starting with the treaty attempting to masquerade as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reminds that what's being talked about now is a draft and explains the process for Iraq: "presented today to Iraq's political and national security council, which is made up of top government officials and the leaders of major political groups. If it survives challenges there and among other government ministers, it will move to the Council of Representatives, or parliament, where Maliki has pledged to put it to an up-or-down vote. Far less controversial matters have taken months to move through the Iraqi legislative provess, if they moved at all." BBC's Jim Muir reports: "Rejection of any agreement with the Americans is spearheaded by the group led by the militant Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, who has strong grassroots support and also 30 seats in parliament. The Sadrists have called for a mass demonstration in Baghdad on Saturday to denounce the accord. At least one other big Shia faction is believed to have reservations about the agreement, and some Sunnis have also voiced dissent." Also noting the anticipated Shi'ite split is the Minneapolis Star Tribune which adds, "Although passage would require only a majority of the 275-member parliament, Al-Maliki will submit the draft only if he is convinced it will receive two-thirds support. To reach two-thirds, the draft would need the 30 votes from the Supreme Council." US Senator Carl Levin has issued the following statement:

"I have not yet seen the proposed Strategic Framework Agreement nor the Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq. The Administration committed to provide the text of these agreements to Congress before they are finalized, and I look forward to reviewing the text. I am skeptical of any agreement that would subject U.S. servicemen and women to the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts in the middle of a chaotic war and in the absence of a judicial system that has been proven to be fair and protective of the rights of individuals."

Germany's DPA reports an increase in opposition to the treaty today "among Iraqi religious leaders," quoted Imam Sadr Eddin al-Qabani telling a large gatherin in Najaf ("crowd of hundreds"), "The Shiite clergy is very worried about this security agreement with the USA" and noted the protest by Moqtada al-Sadr supporters scheduled for tomorrow in Baghdad has already resulted in many people beginning "to arrive in Baghdad to participate in the demonstration". Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) explores the treaty's meaning beyond the US and Iraq:

The US has extended its influence throughout the world with treaties and agreements, thereby securing its status as a major military and political power. And irrespective of the wording of the treaties or accords, the US has categorised its partners into two groups -- friends, ans subordinates.
Basically, treaties and accords are partnership contracts signed between two countries or more, to mutually safeguard the interests and security of all the parties to the agreement.
In most treaties, there is one powerful partner. There is also provisions for such agreements to include financial, scientific and cultural aid, which is usually availed by the weaker partner in the pact.
The security treaty between the US and Iraq has become a popular political topic for discussion in Iraq and the Middle East, as its signing is round the corner.

Dr. Mohammad Akef Jamal goes on to explore the region and notes Iran's opposition to the treaty. We'll come back to that later in the snapshot. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Congress is not in session. In fact, let's quote White House spokesperson Dana Perino on that: "So Congress isn't even going to be back here until about November 17th." That's the situation that worried many included Senator Jim Webb who introduced legislation September 12, 2008 about this very possibility. Speaking on the floor (link has text and video) of the US Senate, Webb explained:

We are at an odd situation in the business of government at the moment in that the international authority for the United States to be operating in Iraq will expire at the end of this year. The UN Mandate through the UN Security Council will expire at that time.
Since last November, the Administration has been negotiating what they call a "strategic framework agreement," that is intended to replace the international authority of the UN Mandate. There have been two questions that have come up with respect to what the Administration is doing. The first is the timeline. The Iraqi government negotiators have some serious questions that weren't anticipated before. But the larger question, really, is what entity of the federal government has the authority to enter the United States into a long-term relationship with another government?
These are serious issues. I would submit that the conditions under which we will continue to operate in Iraq -- military, diplomatically, economically, and even culturally -- are not the sole business of any adminsitration. We have questions about the legal justifications under domestic and international law for the United States to operate militarily and quasi-militarily, by the way, given the hundreds of thousands of independent contractors that now are performing essentially military functions in that country.
There are questions about the process by which the United States government decides upon and enters into long-term relationships with another nation -- any nation. And in that regard we have serious questions here about the very workings of our constitutional system of government.
This Administration has claimed repeatedly since last November that it has the right to negotiate and enter into an agreement that will set the future course of our relations with Iraq without the agreement or even the ratification of the United States Congress. The Administration claims that the justification for this authority is the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq and as a fallback position, the President's inherent authority from the perspective of this Administration as Commander in Chief.
Both of these justifications are patnetly wrong. The 2002 congressional authorization to use force in Iraq has nothing to do with negotiation with a government that replaced the Saddam Hussein government as to the future relations -- culturally, economically, diplomatically, and militarily -- between our two countries.
On the other hand, we are now faced with the reality that the United Nations mandate will expire at the end of this year and that expiration will terminate the authority under international law for the United States to be operating in Iraq at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground in that country. And I and other colleagues have been warning of this serious disconnect for ten months.
Many of us were trying to say last November that the intention of this Administration was to proceed purely with an executive agreement, to drag this out until the Congress was going to go out of session, as we are about to do; then to present essentially a fait accompli in the sense that with the expiration of the international mandate from the UN at the end of the year, something would have to be done and that something would be an executive agreement that to this point the United States Congress has not even been allowed to examine. We haven't been able to see one word of this agreement.
We've tried to energize the congress about this. We've met with all the appropriate administration officials. There have been hearings. There have been assurances from the administration that they will "consult" at the appropriate time. But we haven't seen anything. So we're faced with a situation that is something of a constitutional coup d'etat by this Adminstration. At risk is a further expansion of the powers of the presidency, the results of this is to affirm in many minds that the president -- any president -- no longer needs approval of congress to enter into long-term relations with another country.
In effect, that is committing us to obligations that involve our national security, our economic well-being, our diplomatic posture around the world, without the direct involvement of the United States Congress. This is not what the Constitution intended. It's not in the best interests of the country.
This amendment which I introduce today is designed to prevent this sort of an imbalance from occuring at the same time that it recognizes the realities of the timelines that are now involved with respect to the loss of international authority for our presence in Iraq at the end of this year.
This amendment is a sense of the congress. On the one hand, it states that it is a sense of the Congress that we work with the UN to extend the United Nations mandate for up to an additional year, giving us some addition international authority for being in Iraq, taking away the pressure of this timeline that could be used to justify an agreement that the Congress has not had the ability to examine. It also says that an extension of the United Nations mandate would end at such time as a strategic framework agreement and a status of forces agreement between the United States and Iraq are mutually agreed upon.
The amendment also makes the point that the strategic framework agreement now being negotiated between the United States and Iraq poses significant long-term national security implications for this country. We need a sense of the Congress. We need to be saying that. The Iraqis need to hear it. The amendment also puts the Congress on record, and the Administration on record, to the reality that the Bush Administration has fully agreed to consult with the Congress regarding all the details of the strategic framework agreement and the status of forces agreement and that there will be copies of the full text of these agreements provided to the chiarman and ranking minority members of the approriate committees in the house and senate prior to the entry into either of those agreements.
Importantly, it also says that any strategic framework agreement that has been mutally agreed upon by negotiators from our executive branch and the Iraqi government officials will cease to have effect unless it is approved by the Congress within 180 days of the entry into force of that agreement.
So, Mr. President, on the one hand this amendment recognizes the realities of where we are in terms of time lines. But, on the other, it protects the constituational process by which we are entering into long-term relationships with other countries, whether it is Iraq or Cameroon or Burudni, pick a country. We need to preserve the process. And it does it in a way that would not disrupt our operations in Iraq. I would urge my colleagues to join me on this amendment and protect the prerogatives under the Constitution of the United States Congress. With that, I yield the floor.

The White House continues its attempt to circumvent the Constitution while pretending that (a) it's not a treaty and (b) they share, they really, really share with Congress. Which explains Sean McCormack's song and dance before the press today at the US State Dept which included saying that Secretary of State Condi Rice is reaching out to various Senators and Reps and so is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Asked what she told them, McCormak responded, "Talked about the text of the agreement and -- [asked if "agreement" was Rice's word] -- I don't know if she used that word. That's my word." He decided to stick with text and not agreement: "I'm sticking with text. I like the word text. And she also talked about the process, where we stand in the process. The process is ongoing. The Iraqis are considering the text. We are talking to the Iraqis. No news to announce in that regard. The process continues." By her phone calls, McCormack stated, we can surmise Rice supports the text. She wouldn't make phone calls if she didn't support it! Pressed on that, McCormack finally said, "Sure, sure. She supports the text, yes."

McCormack, in the same press confrence, made a badly worded statement when asked about Governor Sarah Palin, GOP vice presidential nominee, not being briefed when Senators Barack Obama, Joe Bide and John McCain have: "She -- if you hadn't noticed, she's a governor, not a sentor or congressman." I don't see how Palin could ever be a Congressman. She could be a Congress woman. She could be a member of Congress. She could be a US House Rep. But there was so much in that press conference. McCormack was asked didn't the Senate have approval and he responded, "Well, my understanding -- and you can check with the White House on this -- is this is not, it's not a treaty, so it doesn't require Congressional approval. And I think if you look back on the history of SOFA agreements, they are not traditionally things that have required Congressional approval. Of course, since this is a, you know, foreign policy, national security issues are issues of concern to all branches of government. And importantly, in this case, to the Legislative and the Executive Branches, there is a briefing process that's going on." After declaring that, he was asked six questions -- and answered none -- about complaints from members of Congress which led him to state, "I've -- you know, again, I've said what I'm going to say on the matter." At the White House, Dana Perino addressed the press and took questions and maintained that Congress is being briefed. Over and over, she maintained that. That's not advise and consent. As Karen DeYoung noted, "None of the actuald raft wording has yet been made public or unveiled to Congress".


From the Constitutional crisis to the Mosul crisis. Christians have been forced to flee from the Iraqi city as a result of attacks on them. Ed West (UK's Catholic Herald via Catholic Online) explains, "The refugees now face a bleak winter without any food or shelter in what aid workers are calling a 'desperate' situation." The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued the following this morning, attributed to spokesperson Ron Redmond:UNHCR is concerned about the displacement of Christian Iraqis from Mosul which started last week. We have received information from the Ministry of Displacement and Migration (MoDM) in Mosul that approximately 1,560 families (some 9,360 people) have been displaced so far, although UNHCR cannot confirm this number. The displaced population would represent about half of the Christians in the Mosul area. In recent days, we have sent at least 10 field assessment missions to areas surrounding Mosul, including Telesquf, Batnaya, Bartilla, Baashiqa, Akre, Shekhan. We've also had UNHCR teams in areas of Dahuk and Erbil, where Christians have sought refuge. According to initial reports, most Christian Iraqis decided to leave Mosul following direct as well as indirect threats and intimidation. One of those interviewed witnessed the killing of a Christian Iraqi on the street, while several of the displaced told us they had received printed threats at the university campus, in their homes and through text messages on their mobiles. Several others told our teams that they left when they heard news of 11 reported killings of Christians in Mosul. Others were warned by family members, friends and neighbours of potential threats and decided to leave before it was too late. Most of the families who fled are staying with extended family members, friends within the host community or in collective community buildings, including church facilities. There is an urgent need for food, clothes, non-food items (such as blankets, mattresses, and stoves), health facilities, hygiene kits, clean water and access to school. Over the past week, UNHCR and our partner, International Medical Corps (IMC), have distributed non-food items to a total of 802 families (about 4,800 people). We expect to have reached over 1,500 families by early next week, both new arrivals as well as those displaced people we have not been able to reach yet. Food and kerosene and additional assistance have been distributed by other UN agencies, non-governmental organisations and local authorities. A decision was also taken on Wednesday by the Ministers of Displacement and Migration and Defence to make available an immediate cash grant of 300,000 -- 500,000 Iraqi dinars ( $250-$425 ) to the displaced families, and another 1.5 million dinars ($1,250) to those who decide to return. For now, most of the displaced we spoke to do not envisage return to their homes as an immediate option, as they fear for their lives. A few told us that they will only return if and when their safety and security can be assured by the local authorities. UNHCR's led protection and assistant centres in Kirkuk and Mosul will continue to closely monitor the situation on the ground.

Gulf Daily News reports, "Lebanese political figure Amin Gemayel on Friday warned against attacks targeting Christians in Iraq, according to media reports. Gemayel was quoted by media as saying that a campaign targeting Iraqi Christians was 'part of a campaign to displace them, similar to displacing of Palestinians' by Israel'." Lebanon's Naharnet Newsdesk quotes Gemayel calling it "racial cleansing" and stating, "What sparks suspicion is that the campaign of racial cleansing targeting Iraqi Christians is underway as the security situation in Iraq is achieving progress. It is regretful that this campaign is underway while the new Iraqi regime and the American forces are watching." Fatih Abdulsalam (Azzaman) provides a unflinching look at the current state of Iraq which includes asking about the alleged 'strength' of Iraq: "Is it our political stability and security? The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and police as well as 150,00 U.S. Marines cannot stop the persecution of Iraqi Christians in the city of Mosul." Also refusing to blink is Sami Moubayed (Asia Times):

Ever since the occupation of Iraq in 2003, Iraqi Christians have complained that they are being persecuted by Islamic militias. In some cases, many Christians were killed, churches attacked and women raped for walking outdoors without wearing headscarves. Over the past 10 days, 12 Iraqi Christians have been found dead in Iraq, angering the prime minister, who created a senior ministerial delegation to investigate the crimes. The group is composed of the ministers of defense, industry, planning and refugees. The depiction of Maliki's Iraq as a theocracy where freedom of religion is not tolerated is a terrible setback for Maliki, and is tarnishing his image in the United States and Europe. Ordinary Iraqis - mainly Christian - cannot but compare him with Saddam Hussein, who despite all the faults of his dictatorship, upheld religious diversity in Iraq and protected Iraqi Christians from fundamentalist threats.

Prior to the most recent outbreak of violence in Mosul, Iraqi Christians and other minorities were publicly demonstrating against the decision to strip Article 50 out of the legislation for provincial elections. Article 50 provided minority representation. Newsday reports, "The president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, Massoud Barzani, said the omission of a minority quota in a recently passed elections law was a 'big mistake.' Barzani also promised to help the federal government in its 'efforts to provide the equivalent protection for our Christian brothers.' Kurdistan borders Nineveh province, which includes Mosul. More than 1,400 families have fled Mosul to nearby villages and towns, the Iraqi Ministry of Displacement and Migration said." Add Barzani to the long list -- which includes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki and Iraqi president Jalal Talabani -- of people calling the elimination of Article 50 out . . . after the bill was signed into law. Saad Abedine (CNN) reports 4 males have been arrested today under suspicion of taking part in the attacks on Iraqi Christians and quotes Maj Gen Mohammed al-Askari stating, "We know that they are part of a criminal gang that has been committing criminal acts in Mosul and we will do our best to arrest the rest."

Today the United Nations HCR noted a new report: "A UN refugee agency report released on Friday shows that the number of Iraqis seeking asylum in industrialized countries dropped in the first six months of this year, but they were still by far the top nationality seeking asylum in these destinations. According to the asylum trends report, the number of claims made by Iraqis (19,500) during the first six months of 2008, was higher than the combined number of asylum claims submitted by citizens of the Russian Federation (9,400) and China (8,700), the second and third most important source countries. Other important countries of origin of asylum seekers were Somalia (7,400), Pakistan and Afghanistan (6,300 each)." The report [PDF format warning] is entitled "Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries" and it examines the statistics on "asylum claims submitted in Europe and selected non-European countries during the first six months of 2008." The US and Canada rank first for asylum claims (not asylum granted, applications). France and the UK are third and fourth. The report notes that Iraq was the country of origin for most aslyum-seekers as it has been since 2006. For all of 2007, there were 45,000 asylum claims by Iraqis. For the first half of this year, there were 19,500 claims. The report is 25 pages and the bulk of it is tables.

While Iraq remains the number one refugee crisis in the world (and figures above were on external refugees making claims), tension remain between Iraq and it's northern neighbor Turkey. CNN reports that Turkish military planes again bombing northern Iraq today and notes that there are no known/confirmed deaths from the bombing. Reuters adds, "The general staff said on its website that the Turkish jets hit PKK bases in northern Iraq's Qandil mountains on Friday and that all planes had returned to their bases. Military sources, who declined to be named, earlier told Reuters that four PKK guerrillas were killed and several wounded in the bombardment of Qandil mountains."

In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and wounded four people and a Falluja bombing at the home of Sheikh Suleiman Ahmed al-Jumaili claimed the Sheikh's life as well as a man suspected of being the bomber. Reuters reports a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left one person injured, 2 more Mosul roadside bombing that resulted in 1 Iraqi soldier losing his life, four more wounded, two police officers and three civilians being injured and a roadside bombing outside Falluja that left three police officers injured.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Qadir Aziz, a guard in a driver training establishment" was shot dead in Kirkuk.

Corpses?

Reuters notes the corpse of 1 "pregnant woman" was found in Kut ("gunshot wounds").

Turning to the US presidential race. Yesterday's snapshot mentions a debate at Columbia. Maria Recio's "Third-party debate's only confirmed participant: the moderator" (McClatchy Newspapers) informs that it's iffy with Cynthia McKinney saying she's doing another debate, Ralph Nader hedging and apparently no real desire for it. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Today Nader writes "In the Public Interest: Closing the Courthouse Door:"

"Real change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. The genius of the American system has been to let that change flow upward, from neighborhoods to cities to states and then to the federal government." George W. Bush February 26, 2001.
Unfortunately, the difference between words and deeds in Washington is often shocking even to those who think they have seen it all. Alicia Mundy in the October 15, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal reports: "Bush administration officials, in their last weeks in office, are pushing to rewrite a wide array of federal rules with changes or additions that could block product-safety lawsuits by consumers and states."
What President George W. Bush should have said is that he believes in states rights when they are in the interest of Big Business and their lobbyists in Washington. Mr. Bush and his cronies would like to forget about those harmed by dangerous products or reckless conduct. Indeed, Bush & Company seem to regard the civil justice system as a nuisance that threatens to destroy our economy and way of life. In reality, America's civil justice system plays an indispensable role in our democracy. When the rights of injured consumers are vindicated in court, our society benefits in countless ways: compensating victims and their families for shattering losses (with the cost borne by the wrongdoers rather than taxpayers); preventing future injuries by deterring dangerous products and practices and spurring safety innovation; stimulating enforceable safety standards; educating the public to risks associated with certain products and services; and providing society with its moral and ethical fiber by defining appropriate norms of conduct.
The Center for Progressive Reform has in painstaking detail chronicled the attack on the civil Justice system by the Bush Administration. In "The Truth about Torts: Using Agency Preemption to Undercut Consumer Health and Safety" legal scholars William Funk, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck and Karen Sokol write: "In recent years, the Bush administration has launched an unprecedented aggressive campaign to persuade the courts to preempt state tort actions…. Widespread preemption of state tort law would significantly undermine, if not eliminate, the rights of individuals to seek redress for injuries caused by irresponsible and dangerous business practices and to hold manufacturers and others accountable for such socially unreasonable conduct." (See: http://www.progressiveregulation.org)
And, Les Weisbrod, the President of the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) hit the nail on the head when he said: "In effect the Bush administration made the safety of Americans secondary to corporate profits." Mr. Weisbrod added: "Big business lobbyists have been on a crusade to destroy state consumer protection laws, and further stack the deck against American consumers." The American Association for Justice has just published a report titled: "Get Out of Jail Free: A Historical Perspective of How the Bush Administration Helps Corporations Escape Accountability" – this report is available at: www.justice.org/getoutofjailfree.
Tort deform comes in many shapes and sizes – but the common theme is that tort deform severely damages Americans' cherished constitutional right to trial by jury. It ties the hands of jurors, preventing them from doing justice as the case before them requires. Only the judges and juries see, hear, and evaluate the evidence in these cases. But it is the politicians, absent from the courtrooms, who push bills greased by campaign cash that send a perverse message to judge and jury.
Tort law has produced decades of slow but steady progress in state after state respecting the physical integrity of human beings against harm and recognition that even the weak and defenseless deserve justice. Instead of seeing this evolution as a source of national and global pride, a coalition of insurance companies, corporate defendants' lobbies, and craven politicians, led by George W. Bush, want to destroy our civil justice system.
When Georgetown Law School Professor David Vladeck testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, 2007, he noted that the Bush Administration has "seized on regulatory preemption as a way to cut back dramatically on State law remedies for those injured by products and services Americans depend on every day for their health and well-being: medicines, medical devices, motor vehicles, the mattress on which we and our children sleep, and the commuter trains millions of us take to work every day."
Let us hope that Congress and the Supreme Court stop Mr. Bush from once again trampling the Constitutional rights of citizens throughout the land and preventing victims of corporate violence from obtaining justice in a court of law.

Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente is her running mate.

Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney will participate in a webcast forum for presidential candidates on Sunday, October 19, to be aired 7 to 9 pm on BreakTheMatrix.com.
Cynthia McKinney will join other candidates who've been invited to the online
forum, which has been organized by ThirdPartyTicket.com's Trevor Lyman.
Ms. McKinney will not appear at a candidates' forum at Columbia University on
the evening of October 19. The news of Ms. McKinney's participation in the Columbia event was released to the media in error by persons who are unassociated with the McKinney campaign, and who had not confirmed such
an appearance with Ms. McKinney or her staff.
"We invite everyone to go online, tune in to BreakTheMatrix.com, and listen to
Cynthia McKinney and the other candidates debate real issues. We'll hear Ms. McKinney offer ideas that have been censored from the McCain-Obama debates -- ideas that most Americans support, like bringing our troops home now, health care for everyone, and help for working Americans facing financial difficulty instead of a $700 billion bailout package for Wall Street," said John Judge, media secretary for the McKinney/Clemente Power to the People Committee.
Cynthia McKinney and running mate Rosa Clemente were nominated by the Green Party at the Green National Convention in Chicago this past July.
"A vote for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente is an investment in a growing progressive antiwar party that accepts no corporate contributions. No other candidate in the 2008 election offers the hope of a permanent alternative to the Democrats and Republicans and the corporate interests that the two established parties serve. The Green Party isn't an alternative, it's an imperative," said Ms. Clemente.
Greens and other Americans have objected to the format of the McCain-Obama debates, which were sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), and which excluded all candidates except the Democratic and Republican nominee.
The CPD, which sets rules for candidate participation, is owned and run by the Democratic and Republican parties, which have an interest in excluding all candidates except their own. Greens noted that the CPD is funded through contributions from corporations, which have their own interests in limiting the candidates who participate in the debates.

Democracy Now! -- no link to trash -- had Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney on yesterday. Cynthia is the Green Party presidential candidate and wisely refused to take part in defending a White man who instigated more serious acts of violence than have the still persecuted Black Panthers (much to Goody's regret, Cynthia refused to rush to defend Bill Ayers). Ignoring Goody's need to for White privilege, McKinney responded:CYNTHIA McKINNEY: First of all, I think I should say that I believe that the people in this country need a political party and a movement that places our values on the political agenda. Obviously, with that exchange, that's not the case. There's something else that's a bit more troubling. I've also been talking about election integrity as I've gone across this country. But, you know, I really don't like the idea that the face of election fraud, given the past two presidential elections, is now a face of color and one of poor people. In 2000, when people went to the polls, when the voters went to the polls, they were met with confusing ballots, manipulation of the voter lists, electronic voting machines that didn't work, inappropriately or ineffectively or poorly trained officials who weren't familiar with the workings of those machines, and we know what the problems with those machines have been and are. We still have those problems that have been with us since 2000. In 2004, they added to these problems with the electronic poll books, the sleepovers that were discovered, where the machines weren't even secured, even intensifying the failures of the machines with the vote flipping, and usually in only one direction. The battery freezes in the midst of voters actually trying to cast their votes. And now we've got voter ID laws across the country, and we've got voter caging, which is a fancy way of purging people from the voter files. So, now, what kind of election is it when neither of the political parties is addressing the issue, the fundamental issue, of whether or not our votes are even going to be counted? McKinney's running mate is Rosa Clemente. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate. Ralph took the bait so we won't note his exchange on that issue. Instead, we'll note this from him: RALPH NADER: There's no such thing as free trade with dictators and oligarchs in these countries, because the market doesn't determine the costs. There's no free collective bargaining for workers. That's a crime, de facto, in many countries, to try to form an independent trade union. There's no rule of law, bribery. These companies can go there and pollute at will. There's no judicial independence to make these companies accountable, and they abuse workers and consumers and communities, as the oil companies and the timber companies have on many occasions. Second, these-NAFTA and WTO have to be scrapped. Under those treaties, we can withdraw in six months and give notice of withdrawal and renegotiate these agreements for the following purpose: no more trade agreements that subordinate consumer, union, worker and environmental rights. These are pull-down trade agreements that are allowing fascist and corporate dictators to pull down our standards of living, because they know how to keep their workers in their place at fifty cents an hour. So, any new trade agreements should stick to trade. Any other treaty should be labor, environment and consumer on a level playing field. These trade agreements also have to be open, democratic. They cannot undermine our courts, our regulatory agencies and our legislature. That's what we've got to do. And our website, votenader.org, has ample information on this process. If you're in the mood to wade through garbage, you know where to go find the audio and video. Cynthia McKinney has the transcript posted at her campaign website. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. In terms of the 'questions' Goody came up with, Ava and I will address that garbage on Sunday at Third.
Meghan McCain (McCainBlogette.com) offers her evaluation today on the debate Wednesday between her father, GOP presidential candidate John McCain, and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: "My father nothing short of ROCKED Wednesday night's debate and I have never been more proud. He got up and showed this country why he is the right person to lead it into the future, and open the door to reinvention of the Republican Party. I am always proud of my Dad but even more so when he lets his maverick tendencies show so clearly. Eighteen more days to go and this election is nowhere near over!!!" McCain's running mate is Governor Sarah Palin. The McCain-Palin campaign has issued a press release that there's not room for in full. We'll quote from the top and include as much as possible (ues the link to read in full):

OBAMA MEDICARE MALPRACTICE #1: The Very Same Reforms That Barack Obama Calls "Cuts" Under John McCain, He Says Will "Strengthen" Medicare Under His Program
THE MALPRACTICE: While Saying Today That John McCain's Reforms Will "Cut" Medicare Spending, Barack Obama Says He Will "Strengthen" Medicare With His Reforms. OBAMA: "So what would Senator McCain's cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. ... I think every single American has a right to affordable accessible health care. We can strengthen Medicare by eliminating wasteful subsidies to big HMOs in Medicare, and making sure seniors can access home-based care, and letting Medicare negotiate with drug companies for better prices. That's the kind of change we need." (Barack Obama, Remarks As Prepared For Delivery, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08)
THE TRUTH: Just Two Days Ago, Barack Obama Highlighted His Own "Cut" To Medicare Spending. OBAMA: "And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn't -- under the Medicare plan -- it doesn't help seniors get any better. It's not improving our health care system. It's just a giveaway." (CNN, Presidential Candidate Debate, Hempstead, NY, 10/15/08)
THE TRUTH: One Such "Cut" That John McCain Must Support Under Barack Obama's Logic Is A Reform That Today, Barack Obama Said Would "Strengthen" Medicare. MCCAIN: "Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid should lead the way in health care reforms that improve quality and lower costs. Medicare reimbursement now rewards institutions and clinicians who provide more and more complex services. We need to change the way providers are paid to focus their attention more on chronic disease and managing their treatment. This is the most important care for an aging population. There have been a variety of state-based experiments such as Cash and Counseling or The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, called PACE, that are different from the inflexible approaches for delivering care to people in the home setting. Seniors are given a monthly allowance that they can use to hire workers and purchase care- related services and goods. They can get help managing their care by designating representatives, such as relatives or friends, to help make decisions. It also offers counseling and bookkeeping services to assist consumers in handling their programmatic responsibilities. In these approaches, participants were much more likely to have their needs met and be satisfied with their care. Moreover, any concerns about consumers' safety appeared to be misplaced. For every age group in every state, participants were no more likely to suffer care-related health problems." (John McCain, Remarks, Tampa, FL, 4/29/08)

iraq
the washington postkaren deyoungjim muirsami moubayed
ed westasia times
mcclatchy newspapersmaria recio