|
|
 |
|
|
Nov 18, 2008
this was just too priceless. the goon, the sethy? he wrote me back again. to gripe at me and, get this, to say even if wanted to reply to him not to bother because he was blocking me. what a little priss. let me have the last word! that's really what sethy is saying. don't like 'sethy'? mike's name is mike, asshole. get his name right before you criticize any 1 else. so most of us got the crazy nuts kiss off e-mails. hi, lurker, i know you're reading me. priss pants. what an idiot. what a loser. well he's gone. thank goodness. he's written nasty e-mails to most of us (we've all shared them) and it's bye-bye-bye. speaking of idiots. albert brooks. few can ever be provided as many chances to fail as albert has been. but he failed over and over because he's stupid. he proves that at aging socialite's cat litter box where he whined about 'poor' barry having to apologize to nancy reagan. the woman had just gotten out of the hospital (broken hip?) and has to hear barack chuckling over seances she held at the white house when she never held any. he was wrong. he damn sure should have apologized. even if he'd been right, he should have shut his damn mouth. the woman's a widow and has been in the hospital. does he really think making jokes about her is the way to send her warm wishes? he's a punk and albert brooks is a stooge. go make another film no 1 sees, albert. mel brooks is the only person who made that last name famous or ever scored at the box office. and speaking of fruit cakes, jim hightower. does that bastard get my mailing address from every magazine i'm signed up for. let me set you wise, there's jim pay money for my private subcription list hightower who calls out barack obama and there's the yellow coward that writes for the progressive and cheerleads barack so loudly he nearly spills barack's piss out of his mouth. hold that pee pee, jim, you swore you'd swill it in your mouth. it takes a lot of hypocrisy to send out the mailings he does and then take to the progressive and praise bambi like crazy. what idiots the people who believe him in either outlet. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:' Tuesday, November 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty dance continues, Iraq corruption continues and look who is firing the auditors, and more.
Starting with the treaty masquearding as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Chris Floyd (Baltimore Chronicle) steps up to talk realities:
The American media is by and large swallowing the propaganda line that the Iraqi cabinet's acquiescense to a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) with the U.S. occupation force means that the Iraq War will be over in in 2011. This will further cement the conventional wisdom that the suppurating war crime in Iraq is now behind us, and the topic will be moved even further off the radar of public scrutiny.
But as usual, there is a wide, yawning abyss between the packaged, freeze-dried pabulum for public consumption and thhe gritty, blood-flecked truth on the ground. As Jason Ditz reports at Antiwar.com, the so-called "deadline" in 2011 for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces remains, as ever, an "aspiration," not an iron-clad guarantee. The pace and size of the bruited "withdrawal" will remain, as ever, "conditions-based," says Pentagon and White House officials -- a position long echoed by the "anti-war" president-elect. And as we all know, "conditions" in a war zone are always subject to radical, unexpected change.
And Campbell Robertson and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) deserve credit for this bit of reporting today on the treaty, "The concessions included establishing deadlines for withdrawing combat forces from Iraqi cities by naext June and from the county by the end of 2011, though officials said the text of the agreement included language that made those dates less rigid deadlines." While they note US Rep Bill Delahunt, they fail to note the most important detail from the press release his office issued last week:
Next week's hearing will examine the possibility that any bilateral agreement reached between the Bush Administration and the government of Iraq may effectively tie the hands of the next Administration as a result of a clause in Article 31 in a draft of the accord that would prohibit the United States from cancelling it for one year.
The hearing is tomorrow and starts at ten a.m. The most important part is "a clause in Article 31 in a draft of the accord that would prohibit the United States from cancelling it [the "bilateral agreement"] for one year." So the treaty's not all that binding. Binding contracts do not allow either party to cancel in one year, 'binding contracts' trumpeted for what they will 'do' three years from now (2011) do not allow either party the option to cancel out starting in 2009. Reuters reports that Ali Larijani, Iran's Speaker of Parliament, is decrying the treaty for "strengthening comprehensive U.S. hegemony in Iraq" while Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani released a statement today which includes: "The representatives of the Iraqi people in parliament must take on a big responsibility in this case and each must be up to this historic responsibility before God and the people."
The Washington Post asserts a 'change' in Barack Obama's stance on the treaty. First let's review the public stance this year.
During the election, the Obama-Biden campaign website revealed their stance on the so-called SOFA in "Plan for Ending the War in Iraq:"The Status-of-Forces-AgreementObama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval--yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
Post election, Change.gov was set up as the official website for the Barack-Biden transition and if you pull up "The Obama-Biden Plan," you will find:The Status-of-Forces AgreementObama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home.
That has been the official position, that Congressional approval was required and Congressional review. However, Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) reports, "And the Obama transition team is signling that it wants Congress to review the pact, though not necessarily approve it." That would be a huge shift from where Barack once stood. It would also make Joe Biden look like a flat-out liar. Or are we all supposed to forget the April 10th Senate Foreign Reltations committee he chaired where he told the State Dept's David Satterfield and the Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long that regarding their claim that the so-called SOFA didn't need Senator approval, "I respectfully suggest that you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on." And are we supposed to forget Senator Russ Feingold informing Satterfield, "I would suggest your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution." Or that Senators Norm Coleman and Johnny Isakson also called out the so-called SOFA (both senators are Republicans -- there was bi-partisan objection to the Senate's Constitutional role of approving any treaty being circumvented). Back on the Democratic side, Senator Robert Menendez pointed out this bi-partisan objection, "Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe that such an agreement needs to come before Congress." Senator Jim Webb made his position clear, "I would argue it's a document that needs Senate consent."
On both sides of the aisle, senators stood up for the Constitution (and let's not forget that they stood up in the House as well including US House Rep Susan Davis) and now this is going to be tossed aside or Barack Obama thinks it is? That's what the Post reported this morning. (Friends on the transition team told me this morning and this afternoon that the position has not changed and Senate approval remains the stance. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.)
Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke in Ireland yesterday where he strung together the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, "2001" and "extremism." When the current administration leaves office will they take the direct and indirect fale-linkage of Iraq to 9-11 with him? You'd think so but you'd also have thought that all that lip flapping in April meant something, that a Constituional scholar like Barack wouldn't be eager to spit on the Constitution before he's even sworn in; however, the Post feels their information on this is solid and Team Barack will not fight for or advocate Senate approval. If true, he'll go into office a damn liar and never overcome it while Democrats in the Senate will be damned in the same manner. (Russ Feingold being Russ would most likely speak out to some degree if the Senate was circumvented. Would the rest?) For eight years, Democrats and their media surrogates have tossed around phrases like "rule of law" and if they think they can drop them just because "their guy" got into the White House they better expect to see huge losses in both houses of Congress come November 2010. And you can pair this potential move by Barack with Tom Burghardt's "Obama's Intelligence Agenda: More of the Same from the 'Change Administration'" (Dissident Voice):While expectations may be high that the incoming Obama administration will reverse many of the worst features of the Bush regime–from warrantless wiretapping, illegal detention, torture, "targeted assassinations" and preemptive war–now that the cheering has stopped, expect more of the same. According to The Wall Street Journal, "President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party." With hyperbolic "change" rhetoric in the air, Obama is relying on a gaggle of former intelligence insiders, warmed-over Clinton administration officials and "moderate" Republicans, many of whom helped Bush craft his administration's illegal policies. With U.S. street cred at an all-time low, due in no small measure to Washington's hubristic fantasies that it really is an empire and not a rapidly decaying failed state, ruling elites have literally banked on Obama to deliver the goods. During his run for the White House, the Illinois senator may have mildly criticized some of the administration's so-called "counterterrorism" policies including the Bushist penchant for secrecy, the disappearance of "terrorist" suspects, driftnet surveillance of American citizens and legal residents, CIA "black site" gulags and the crushing of domestic dissent. But in the few scant days since the November 4 general election, the contours of what Democratic party corporatist grifters will roll-out come January 20 are taking shape. Citing Obama's carefully-crafted public relations blitz on the campaign trail opposing illegal spying, the Journal reports: Yet he ... voted for a White House-backed law to expand eavesdropping powers for the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said he opposed providing legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided warrantless surveillance, but ultimately voted for the bill, which included an immunity provision. The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight. (Siobhan Gorman, "Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact," The Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2008) The "current government official" cited by the Journal fails to specify precisely what it means to "keep the road open" when it comes to torturing prisoners of war in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Turning to England, Peter Goldsmith is in the news. Lord Goldsmith resigned as Attorney General of England and Wales June 27, 2007. His advice to then-Prime Minister Ton Blair has been questioned for some time (PDF format warning, click here for the advice). Yesterday Lord Thomas Bingham, speaking to The British Institute of International and Comparative Law raised Goldsmith's advice. BBC reports he called the war "a serious violation of international law" and said Bingham provided Blaid with "no hard evidence" making a case for the war. Joshua Rozenberg (Telegraph of London) explains, "It is thought to be the first time that Lord Bingham has expressed his views about the legal advice given to Tony Blair by the former Attorney General. The issue never came before Lord Bingham while he was sitting as a judge." Rozenberg quotes Bingham on why the decision was doubtful:
"First, it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had: Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months.
"Secondly, it passes belief that a determination whether Iraq had failed to avail itself of its final opportunity was intended to be taken otherwise than collectively by the Security Council."
Frances Gibb (Times of London) quotes Bingham stating, "Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration." The First Post emphasizes the illegal nature of the war based on Bingham's judgement.
From illegal to corruption, September 22nd in the US, the the Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on corruption that was noted in the Sept. 23rd snapshot:
Senator Byron Dorgan: In March, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing at my request, in which we heard from a very courageous Iraqi judge who headed Iraq's Commission of Public Integrity. This agency was established by the Coalition Provisional Authority after the US invasion of Iraq, and charged with rooting out corruption in the new government. Judge al-Radhi estimated that corruption in Iraq's government had resulted in the loss of $18 billion in government funds, and most of those funds had been US tax payer dollars. Judge Radhi said that instead of supporting his efforts to fight corruption, the top levels of the Iraqi government had ultimately suppressed his investigations. [. . . ] Judge Radhi also testified that since the establishment of the Commission of Public Integrity, more than 31 employees have been assassinated as well as at least an additional 12 family members. One would have expected that our own government would have been doing everything it could to support Judge Radhi's anti-corruption efforts. But in hearing of this committee back in May, we heard from two State Dept officials who said that our own government was not interested in ensuring accountability of U.S. funds in Iraq or in rooting out corruption. In fact, one of the officials, retired judge Arthur Brenna, said that some of the stolen funds were steered to the Iraqi insurgency. Yet the administration was generally indifferent to the problem. This indifference has had deadly consequences. We will hear from witnesses today -- one of whom was Judge Radhi's chief investigator in Iraq -- about how stolen US funds have gone to al Qaeda in Iraq. Our earlier hearing with Judge Brennan showed us that the State Dept turns a blind eye when it comes to corruption. Today's hearing will show us what the State Dept turned a blind eye to -- and what the consequences have been.
Today James Glanz and Riyadh Mohammed (New York Times) report that Nouri al-Maliki continues to fire those tasked with oversight and the reporters note, "Mr. Maliki's stance on oversight was most vividly illustrated by his long-running feud with Judge Rathi al-Rathi, the former head of the Commission onf Public Integrity, an oversight agency created by the Coalition Provisional Authority. After Mr. Rathi's corruption investigations repeatedly embarrassed the Maliki government, the prime minister's office supported corruption charges against Mr. Rathi himself." Matt Kelley (USA Today) reports that being suspended by the government doesn't mean that you can't still get contracts as Lee Dynamics International (suspended for bribery) proves, "Contracting officers gave Lee Dynamics International a new contract in July 2007 despite warnings from military lawyers, according to a report issued by Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (SIGIR). The Joint Contracting Command-Iraq did not return calls on why Lee Dynamics was awarded the new contract." Matt Kelley also notes, "The Pentagon spent about $600 million on more than 1,200 Iraq reconstruction contracts that were eventually canceled, nearly half of them for the mismanagemnt or shoddy construciton, government inspectors say." Reuters notes Iraq ranks number three on the most corrupt nation-state list by Transparency International Index and that the head of Iraq's Integrity Commission, Rahim al-Ugaili, was sent out to dance for reporters today .and declare, "In 2008 we referred 337 cases to the court. This year has seen the biggest achievement." No word apparently on whether more corruption cases would allegedly be referred or not had al-Maliki not fired at will. Glanz and Mohammed note:
At least two of the officials who were forced out were Christian women, Hana Shakuri of the Culture Ministry and Samia Youssef Sha'ia of the Christian Endowment. But most are simply senior Sunni and Shiite technocrats who have been at their posts for years and in several cases were orginally appointed in 2004 by L. Paul Bremer III, the top administrator for the Coaliton Provisional Authority.
We'll use the women's religion to grab Liz Sly's (Chicago Tribune) report on Sunday about Iraq's Mandeans who predate Christianity and Islam ("and even perhaps Judaism") but are now "on the brink of extinction" having dropped from 30,000 in 2002 to between 3,500 and 5,000 currently:
Scattered around the world in tiny communities, the chances that the religion will survive more than a few generations are slim, experts say. Mandaeism does not accept converts, and the children of Mandaeans who marry non-Mandaeans do not belong to the sect. There are only 35 priests left in the world familiar with the elaborate ceremonies of a people who claim to be directly descended from Adam and who regard John the Baptist as their most important prophet."It has been a catastrophe for us," said Sattar Jabar Helou, who heads the Mandaean sect worldwide. "This is one of the world's oldest religions, and it is going to die."Mandaeans, known as Sabis in Arabic, are just one of several minorities who have historically given Iraq its distinct identity as a cradle of religious diversity. All have suffered disproportionately from the spread of anarchy and extremism in the wake of the U.S. invasion.Iraq's once-substantial Christian community has seen its numbers dwindle from about 800,000 to 500,000. Yazidis, a lettuce-shunning minority that venerates the forces of good and evil, have been targeted for attacks in their enclaves along the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Shabbaks, a Muslim sect that permits alcohol and is neither Sunni nor Shiite, have been persecuted in their ancestral lands near the northern city of Mosul.
Turning to today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing inside the home "of Sadi Mahdi, a general inspector in the ministry of electriticy" which left "Sadi's son Mustafa and his wife" wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one person, another Baghdad roadside bombing and this one left two people wounded and a Mosul car bombing that claimed 1 life and ten other people injured. Reuters notes a Sinjar bombing that claimed 1 life and left thirteen people injured,
Shootings?
Reuters notes 5 'suspects' were shot dead in Samarra and three more wounded.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses discovered in Baghdad
Meanwhile Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) continues to explore service members deaths in Iraq from non-combat, "Here is today's horror story, involving Sgt. Mason Lewis of Virginia. A year ago, the military told his mom he had died in a fall. By implication: his fault. Yesterday a local TV outlet reported that the official probe has belatedly revealed: 'Army investigators discovered a poorly maintained bucket loader with no brakes and sluggish hydraulics, operated by an inexperienced crew, led to Mason's death'."
Mickey Z (at CounterCurrents) points out the little confidence game so many on the left are playing at present regarding a hopey-changey Corporatist War Hawk:And let's say Howard Zinn wrote an article that talked about what this man should do, what he hoped he'd do. For example: "announce the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan" and "renounce the Bush doctrine of preventive war as well as the Carter doctrine of military action to control Midest oil." Also: "radically change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, declare that the U.S. is a peace loving country which will not intervene militarily in other parts of the world, and start dismantling the military bases we have in over a hundred countries. Also he must begin meeting with Medvedev, the Russian leader, to reach agreement on the dismantling of the nuclear arsenals, in keeping with the Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Treaty." Then raise taxes on the rich and combine that windfall with the hundreds of billions of dollars freed from the military budget to "give free health care to everyone (and) put millions of people to work" and thus "transform" the United States and "make it a good neighbor to the world."
Well, Howard Zinn has written such an article ("Obama's Historic Victory," Nov. 12, 2208) but is anyone calling him delusional and ridiculing him for even suggesting such insane expectations? The tens of thousands of readers who look to Zinn as a trusted voice of wisdom and reason are being dangerously misled by an article that omits the reality that every indication points to Barack Obama doing the exact opposite of what Zinn writes. Zinn knows as well as anyone that not an iota of evidence exists that Obama would do anything approaching what is described above. For a man of Zinn's stature on the Left to even hint of such a possibility is a shockingly irresponsible act and one that only contributes to the misguided perception that Obama's election is somehow a victory for the progressive Left.
iraqchris floydthe washington postmichael abramowitzthe new york timescampbell robertsonsteven lee myersjames glanzriyadh mohammedtom burghardtmatt kelleyliz slymcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudigreg mitchellmickey z
Posted at 08:20 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Nov 17, 2008
 above is isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts " Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present" and don't you love it. it's monday and you know what that means. heroes? if you go to the website there are many things you'll find including but not limited to streaming videos. nathan?  some of you do not watch heroes. i was asked who i would sleep with if i was on the show and i said nathan and peter. i couldn't choose just 1. i'll do a photo of peter in a moment. but i was also asked who my favorite character was and i said claire. claire?  that's claire. now for the other 1 i'd sleep with if i was a character on the show, peter.  that's the t.v. show and now it's quiz time. identify the man in the next 2 photos.    that's santiago (robert urbina). his power is some sort of time-space power. and he's the hero the audience picked. where can you see him? heroes' destiny is where you can watch the video. the 2nd installment is supposed to go up tonight or tomorrow but in the 1st 1 (free to watch online), he's just learning that he has powers, going to church with his mother, seeing a young woman he's interested in and then going off to play soccer at which point the young woman speaks to some blonde woman about how they are going to use him. heroes tonight was a huge improvement and that's probably because claire was on and so was peter, nathan and elle. they really made the show. and it was finally moving forward. in this 1 angela (peter, nathan & sylar's mother) was finally released from the 'coma' her husband placed her in and now the 2 groups are getting ready to do battle. i was dealing with the baby at the end so i didn't see if nathan's girlfriend was on a side. i think she was on the bad side. i saw her walking but missed which group she ended up with. but it was probably the best episode of this season. now we're talking about whining ass seth. 1st, marcia's written about the prick in ' Regarding Seth.' i'm going to write about him here and, for the record, i did e-mail him and he sent me a little huffy e-mail. after that prissy e-mail, i figure i'll write whatever i want. 1st, he's not and has never been a community member. he is some 1 who has long been jealous of c.i. (this predates the online world.) and he begs for favors and this and that. i told c.i. to blow the asshole off long ago. i was right there. he's a pathetic excuse for a human being with a pathetic life. and all he's doing is trying to make a name for himself online (life didn't work out too well for him) and figures the way to do that is to go after c.i. it's really pathetic that the little bitch has to write about c.i. (and lie!) to get attention but that's how pathetic the little bitch is and has always been. i'm being kind and not going into details. i can do that if i'm pushed. i know about that pathetic bitch. i know all about him from elaine and c.i. going back to the 90s. he's a known liar who fancies himself a novelist (never worked out) and will create any lie in the world. that's what i warned c.i. about back in 2006 when he first started trying his s**t. i said, 'you know what a liar this guy is. you need to make it clear that he's not a part of this community or at some point he's going to be lying about you and people will think, 'well they are friends'.' they are not friends. 'seth' is a user. he has always been a user and he will always be a user. his life story really is stella dallas, if you know the movie. and then he decided to try to be a human leech. i can write for hours about that jerk and, if need be, i damn will well. i've made it clear to him that i'm not in the mood for his garbage and if he continues it, i know all about him and i can fight his lies with truth and will do so. he's some 1 who needs help (and has gotten in the past - briefly!). so he goes weeks and weeks (and months?) without blogging and he's probably off his crazy meds and so it's time for him to plan his lash out to get attention. he's paranoid on top of every thing else, by the way. i know where he lives, i know about his home life, i know about everything. i know about his love life. let me know if i need to pull out the big guns because the above doesn't even qualify for a b.b. gun. he's not a member and he needs to stop telling his lies. if he does that, he can go back to his obscurity. if he doesn't, screw you 'seth.' no 1 sets out to hurt my friend and i know that's what seth was planning. if he wants to go through with it, have at it, tiny dick. but know that i will talk about everything. i know everything. and the lies 'seth' always uses won't work for him this time because i truly do know everything about 'seth.' let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:' Monday, November 17, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, 17 Iraqis are reported dead and forty-six wounded, the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement continues to ease on down the road, Peaches O'Day didn't have anything on the US, and more.
Starting with news of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. At the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino declared, "As we've been saying since July, when we said that we would work with the Iraqis to establish a date that we would aspire to -- we just keep getting success after success on the security front in Iraq. And when you work with a partner on a negotiation, you have to concede some points. One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates. We're only able to do this because of the progress that's been made by the great work of our forces, and by the Iraqi security forces as well. They, every day, gain in number, confidence and competence. And we are going to continue to work with the Iraqis, because while we did have a good step with the council of ministers approving the agreement, and then our ambassador and their foreign ministers signing it today, there are still seveal steps left to go." Indeed and anyone paying attention should have noticed something very important in Perino's wording.
Saturday Nidaa Bakhsh (Bloomberg News) cited press chatter that Sunday's cabinet vote would support the treaty. Katherine Zoepf and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) reported that a preliminary meeting was held Monday to test the waters in Parliament but the Islamic Council of Iraq skipped the meeting which "ended without any clear public resolution." Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet did approve the treaty on Sunday. Adam Ashton and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explained nine members of the cabinet were not present and that all but one of the 28 members present voted in favor of it leading Gordon Johndroe, White House flack, to crow, "While the process is not yet complete, we remain hopeful and confident we'll soon have an agreement that serves both the people of Iraq and the United States well and sends a signal to the region and the world that both our governments are committed to a stable, secure and democratic Iraq." And what ensued was a contest among the press to determine who could make a bigger fool out of themselves.
Top contenders included Anne Penketh (Independent of London), Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times). Penketh declared, "The Iraqi cabinet has finally approved a hard-fought security pact with the US under which all American troops are to withdraw from Iraq in three years, putting an end to the US-led occupation of Iraq that has defined America's relations with the rest of the world since the 2003 invasion." Susman insisted, "Iraq's Cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly accepted a plan to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq by the end of 2011 and sent it on to parliament for approval, where it faces a fight from lawmakers who consider it a sellout to the Americans." Robertson and Farrell maintained, "Iraq's cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces fromt he country by the end of 2011." Only the Washington Post was functioning today. Mary Beth Sheridan reported -- actually reported, did what reporters are supposed to do and who knew it was that difficult but look at the other outlets -- that "the Iraqi cabinet on Sunday approved a bilateral agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain in this country for three more years." We'll come back to Sheridan's article but just absorb that because she appears to be not just the only one reporting but the only one with a grasp of facts. The UN mandate (covering the occupation) expires December 31st. A new agreement is needed or the mandate needs to be renewed by the UN Security Council for US troops to remain in Iraq (if it's a treaty with the US; renewing the UN mandate would actually cover all foreign troops). Somehow everyone in the press thinks the treaty is about withdrawal. It was never about withdrawal, it was about creating a legal context and framework to allow US troops to remain in Iraq. But apparently it was bring your inner-child to work day today and they were allowed to run free. Sheridan covers the basics:
The accord still needs approval from Iraq's parliament, but the cabinet vote indicated that most major Iraqi parties supported it. The Iraqi government spokesman portrayed the pact as closing the book on the occupation that began with the U.S.-led invasion in 2003."The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground," the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord.American officials have pointed out that there is nothing stopping the next Iraqi government from asking some U.S. troops to stay. The Iraqi military is years away from being able to defend the country from external attack, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.
Yes, the spokespeople did run with spin. Why so many in the press elected to adopt it is a mystery. Some Iraqis do believe the spin (others bought off and intimdated by the State Dept don't give a damn) but then they thought the original version gave them 'rights' over US service members who committed crimes, now didn't they? The US really isn't that good at wars but the government has always excelled in treaties that lulled the other party into believing they were getting a good deal. It never works out that way, now does it? Not for the Native Americans, not for Panama, go down the list. But an updated treaty (only recently translated out of English) is wonderful, it's marvelous, it's . . . George W. Bush is not about to end the Iraq War. Get real.
It takes a lot of stupid to set aside US history and assume this treaty with an occupied nation is (for the first time ever) a fair and beneficial (to the Iraqis) treaty. But didn't the press do that? It's hard to figure out whether the Iraqis or the press are the NYC immigrants to the White House's Peaches O'Day, determined to sell and re-sell the Brooklyn Bridge over and over. In Every Day's a Holiday, Mae West tosses out lines that the US government could never hope to pull off (like, "I may crack a law, but I ain't never broke one") and a few that would be completely believable coming from the current administration ("Larceny nothin', you'll send 'em a check in the morning."). Though it's not surprising to see the puppet government in Iraq play the role of Fritz Krausmeyer, it's shocking to also see the press so eager to play the sap.
The propsed treaty would give US forces legal protection to remain in Iraq. It is not about withdrawal. And for those still not grasping that fact, let's return to what Dana Perino told the press today and zoom in on this: "One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates." Aspirational dates? Not concrete ones. A withdrawal treaty would cover withdrawal. This treaty focuses on keeping US troops in Iraq through 2011 at which point the treaty runs out. Does that mean anything? Yes, it means that a new treaty would then be ironed out. It might or might not call for withdrawal. It might or might not do something else. But the treaty before the Iraqis right now has "aspirational dates" and is about the US remaining in Iraq through the end of 2011.
For those still confused, Phil Sands (The National) walks you through:
The troop withdrawal dates are targets, not set in stone. They are designed to appease the widely held sentiment among Iraqis that US forces must not be allowed to stay indefinitely; that they are a tolerated, necessary nuisance rather than welcomed guests. In reality, as of today there seems scant prospect that every US soldier will have left Iraq within the next three years, and all 400 or so US bases closed. But the suggestion this is going to happen makes the Sofa more palatable to a sceptical Iraqi public. It is an unremarkable and understandable political survival tactic to make a promise that will get broken, if that is what it takes to gets out of a tight spot and buy some time.
Add to it Ken Fireman (Bloomberg News) reporting that the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, is making remarks at odd with today's spin such as (on withdrawal), "To remove the entire force would be two to three years, as opposed to something we could do in a very short period of time." (Actually, all US troops could be withdrawn in the first 100 days of the new administration.) Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) observes, "Mullen emphasized that he still believes any U.S. troop reductions should be based on the levels of violence in Iraq - a position that runs counter to the official Iraqi stance." Bryan Bender (Boston Globe) explains the 'binding' contract really isn't, "Once approved by the Iraqi Parliament, which began debate on the measure today, it cannot be changed by either side for at least a year, according to Article 31 of the draft." At least a year? So in December 2009, this Troops-Home-In-2011! spin might spin right out the window? Yes.
The treaty will be the topic of a hearing this week in the US. US House Rep Bill Delahunt's office issued a press release Thursday:
U.S. Rep. Bill Delahunt, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight will hold his eighth hearing on the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement on Wednesday, November 19th at 10am.
Next week's hearing will examin the possibilty that any bilateral agreement, reached between the Bush Administration and teh government of Iraq may effectivly tie the hands of the next Administration as a result of a clause in Article 31 in a draft of the accord that would prohibit the United States from cancelling it for one year.
At the end of October, Delahunt joined with Congresswman Rosa DeLauro in writing to President Bush asking for a temporary extension of the UN mandate for Iraq which expires on December 31, and is the sold instrument providing U.S. troops with the legal authorization to engage in combat opeartions in Iraq.
US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro penned also penned July 8th's "The Wrong Partnership for Iraq" (Washington Post).
Reaction to the news of the council signing off on the treaty was mixed. AP quotes Mohsen Bilal, Syrian Information Minister, stating the treaty is an "award to the occupiers." However, Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall Street Journal) notes that Iran's Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi hails the council's move as a "victory" and Chon also notes, "When asked about the change in tone from Iran, a senior U.S. official said today there was absolutely no softening in Iran's position. He added that Iran's opposition was not just about getting the U.S. out of Iraq, but also ultimately winning the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Another U.S. official characterized the recent comments from Iran as an adjustment in strategy to try to take credit for the approval of the security pact from the Iraqi cabinet." Reactions within Iraq are many but we'll focus on this unnamed Iraq quoted by Sami Moubayed (Asia Times), "I never trusted Nuri al-Maliki. I would count my fingers after shaking his hands. Although we have no proof at this stage, it is clear that plenty of money was handsomely distributed last week in Baghdad, to make sure that the entire cabinet -- with no exceptions -- ratified the agreement draft with the United States. One day this will come out in the classified archives of the US, perhaps 30 years form now. . . . We now realize why no serious effort was made at getting the resigned ministers from the Sunni bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front or the Shi'ite bloc of Muqtada al-Sadr to rejoin the Maliki cabinet. Malaki knew that if they were in office, they surely would have drowned the agreemtn within the cabinet of ministers." Archbishop Jean Benjamin Sleiman tells AP that the treay "may not be enough to lure back Christians who have fled Baghdad."
AFP reports al-Sadr's bloc in Parliament insisted that the "draft law on treaties and conventions" be reviewed instead of the treaty between the White House and al-Maliki and the speaker compromised by allowing them both to be read. Xinhau reports that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed the treaty today. In DC, spokesperson Sean McCormack handled today's press briefing and repeatedly side-stepped the issue of dates even when asked if they could be discussed. McCormack did note that after Parliament, "then I think it has to be ratified by the Presidency Council as a final step."
While the Parliament debates the treaty, there are other issues. IRIN notes the issue of the prisoners currently held by the US:
Local NGOs are concerned about the rights of detainees in US military custody due to be transferred to the Iraqi authorities in 2009 in line with a draft US-Iraqi security pact. "There are fears among human rights activists, NGOs and parliamentarians about what the situation of these detainees will look like when they are transferred to the Iraqi authorities," Iraqi activist Basil al-Azawi said. "As parliament represents the Iraqi people, it should act in line with the interests of Iraqis... Absolute justice must be achieved and Iraqi and international laws must be implemented when dealing with those detainees in Iraqi prisons," he told IRIN.
Meanwhile Gareth Porter (IPS) reports that despite non-stop claims and spin that Iran was steady-supplying weapons in Iraq the reality is that "only 17 percent of the weapons found in caches" could be traced to Iran and "The extremely small proportion of Iranian arms in Shi'a milita weapons caches further suggests that Shi'a militia fighters in Iraq have been getting weapons from local and international arms markets rather than from an official Iranian-sponsored smuggling network."
Tuesday's snapshot included: "Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports Syria refused to allow a World Food Program ship to unload rice 'at the country's main port' due to 'the percentage of cracked rice in the cargo' (according to a Syiran official). The rice was intended for some of the estimated 194,000 refugees from Iraq currently living in Syria." IRIN reports that the World Food Programme states today, "We are very hopeful for a positive outcome from the negotiations."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a magnetic Baghdad bombing left five wounded, another resulted in two people being wounded, another resulted in three wounded, an Amarah car bombing that wounded eighteen people and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left six people wounded. Xinhau notes an al-Mussyyab mortar attack that landed on a home and claimed the life of 1 person. Reuters notes a Sulaimaniya bombing that left three people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two people, a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more wounded, a Mussayab roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives and left three people wounded and another Mussayab roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left one more individual injured.
Shootings?
Xinhau notes 1 "Awakening" Council member shot dead in Iskandariyah. Reuters notes 2 'suspects' shot dead in Mosul, and 5 'suspects' shot dead in Baghdad.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse (female) discovered in Kirkuk and 1 in Iskandariy that was a male "Awakening" member.
Saturday Reuters reported that the US military states the helicopter hit "overhead cables" and that caused what they are terming a "hard landing." Later in the day the US military announced, "MOSUL -- Two Coalition forces Soldiers were killed after an aircraft accident in East Mosul in Ninewah province Nov. 15. The incident appears to be combat-unrelated and there was no enemy contact in the area." The announcement brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4201 -- the 4200 mark has been passed.
Opening non-Iraq related. Third's "Editorial: It's about equality" covers Saturday's demonstrations around the country on behalf of equality. For California, the issue was Proposition 8 which passed and outlawed and overturned same-sex marriage. A boycott list (called a "blacklist" at some sites such as antigayblacklist) has led Chris Lee to whine to UPI, "This sort of blacklist should only appear in communist countriest, should not be found in the United States." The information on those lists is public information and if you don't want to be included in it, you don't donate. If you donated it should have been to something you believed in. Apparently, you were more comfortable stroking your homophobia in the dark and a little sunlight frightens the hell out of you. Too bad. I know I wouldn't want any children to see 'therapist' Sarah Pack in San Jose, not knowing that she donated $2000 to defeat equality and I would assume a gay couple -- two men or two women -- especially wouldn't want to use her as a family therapist or for their child. Same with 'psychotherapist' Susan B. Jones of Yuba City. People using Citrus Heights' Todd Johnson's denistry work have every right to reconsider doing so. And anyone considering going to Utah should know that Bruce Andrus of Huntington Hotels in Park City, Utah gave $20,000 to destroy equality. And if you're considering getting married in Utah and you do not support discrimination, you should avoid Lisa Myler of American Fork, UT (Myler Weddings) who gave $10,000 to destroy equality. And who wants to go to Disneyland? With "scheduler" Paula Barnes tossing in $3,000 why not just go to Magic Mountain instead?
I'm sorry that some people are so stupid that they fail to grasp campaign donations are public record. But that's reality. Reality also includes that when you fund a campaign of hate, people have every right to avoid funding you by engaging you for tasks. A right to avoid funding you and, many would argue, a duty to.iraqbloomberg newsthe new york timeskatherine zoepfleila fadelmcclatchy newspapershussein kadhimanne penkeththe washington postmary beth sheridanann scott tysonthe new york timescampbell robertsonstephen farrellthe los angeles timestina susmangina chonthe wall street journalgareth porterbill delahuntrosa delauro
Posted at 08:32 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Nov 16, 2008
so did you see the new york times this morning?
i'm referring to donald g. mcneil jr.'s 'Rare Treatment Is Reported to Cure AIDS Patient' which deals with a berlin case where a man with aids was treated and no longer has it. from the article:
The patient, a 42-year-old American resident in Germany, also has leukemia, which justified the high risk of a stem-cell transplant. Such transplants require wiping out a patient's immune system, including bone marrow, with radiation and drugs; 10 to 30 percent of those getting them die.
and note this section as well:
That mutation, discovered in a few gay men in the 1990s and known as Delta 32, must be inherited from both parents. With it, the white blood cells produced in the marrow lack the surface receptors that allow H.I.V. to invade the immune system.
i found the reaction from u.s. scienties underwhelming and had to wonder if this was an issue of professional jealousy.
this is from australia's abc:
Doctors in the German capital Berlin were surprised to discover that a bone marrow transplant they used for the patient with leukaemia also cured him of the HIV virus.
But other scientists have warned that the cure only worked because the donor was both compatible and carrying an extremely rare double HIV resistant mutation in his genes.
Two million people die of AIDS every year and the virus has infected 33 million people worldwide.
So far all efforts to find a cure have been unsuccessful but the German discovery has raised hopes in some quarters.
and for a little background on the disease, this is from dorthy h. crawford's 'how scientists tracked down the orgin of aids' (the scotsman):
HIV is very prone to mutation, meaning that it evolves rapidly – up to a million times faster than animal DNA. This allows the virus to foil attempts by the body's immune system to eliminate it. It also allows the virus to develop drug resistance, and has so far prevented us making an effective vaccine. But the mutations are useful for tracking the virus back to its roots. By following the trail of genetic changes HIV has accumulated over time, molecular detectives traced it to west-central Africa, pinning down its launch pad to Kinshasa (previously Léopoldville), capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they found viruses with the greatest genetic diversity. Just one of these HIVs, carried by a single individual, jumped from Kinshasa to Haiti, and from there to the United States, thus spawning the pandemic in the US and Europe.
But where did the ancestral virus originally come from? For several years scientists searched for HIV-like viruses among captive African primates without success, but then a team headed by Beatrice Hahn at Alabama University found a chimpanzee (called Marilyn and trained for space flight by the US air force) of one particular subspecies, Pan troglodytes, the common chimpanzee, which carried a virus similar to HIV. They suggested that HIV jumped from chimps to humans in Africa, perhaps during the bloody process of killing and butchering chimps for bush meat. To prove this they needed to isolate viruses from wild chimps, but these animals are reclusive, endangered and live in remote jungle areas, so taking blood samples was out of the question. Instead, scientists resorted to collecting chimp faeces from the forest floor at ten sites in south-east Cameroon known to be chimpanzee territory. After air-lifting some 600 samples to the US and analysing them for chimp subspecies as well as viruses, they pointed the finger unequivocally at chimpanzees in Cameroon as the origin of HIV.
Another part of HIV's complex history fell into place last month when a group of US scientists compared the genetic material of two HIVs rescued from human samples taken in Léopoldville and stored since 1959.
The differences between them showed that even 50 years ago, HIV had been around long enough to accumulate a substantial number of mutations, and dated HIV's transfer to humans to the beginning of the 20th century. so there's some science news and it's about aids which we still have no cure for. the berlin case is something that seems promising to me and i would assume that even if it is considered too costly to perform in large numbers, if it worked it would provide researches with additional inspiration aswell as avenues to pursue. and that's really going to be it for me tonight because i do think adis is important and i do think what happened in berlin matters. a cure could be a few years away and that really excites me. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:' Friday, November 14, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty gets vocal supporters and foes, Blackwater finds out the life of a mercenary isn't all fun and games, and more.
Earlier this week, Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "The State Department is preparing to slap a multi-million dollar fine on private military contractor Blackwater USA for shipping hundreds of automatic weapons to Iraq without the necessary permits. Some of the weapons are believed to have ended up on the country's black market, department officials told McCarthy, but no criminal charges have been filed in the case." Today Brian Ross and Jason Ryan (ABC News) add, "A federal grand jury in North Carolina is investigating allegations the controversial private security firm Blackwater illegally shipped assault weapons and silencers to Iraq, hidden in large sacks of dog food, ABCNews.com has learned" and ABC's consultant John Kiriakou (formerly CIA) states, "The only reason you need a silencer is if you want to assassinate someone." Tod Robberson (Dallas Morning News) wonders why Blackwater continues to get tax payer money, "I guess it wasn't enough that Blackwater gunmen slaughtered Iraqi civilians on the streets of Baghdad and helped undermine the U.S. war effort in Iraq. . . . And ye, its current $1.2 billion in federal contracts curiously seem unaffected. If the American public only knew how cozy the relationship is between State Department personnel and its biggest contractors, they'd be appalled." Though there have been many slaughters, September 17, 2007 was the one which recieved the most attention AP reports today that that slaughter of 17 resulted in prosecutors drafting an indictment against six employees of Blackwater Worldwide". Today Robert Brodsky (GovernmentExecutive) notes New America Foundation's October report calling for the utilization of the State Dept's Bureau of Diplomatic Secuirty and not mercenaries/private contractors "to protect U.S. assets and personnel" and he also points out "An August Congressional Budget Office study found that roughly $1 out of every $5 the U.S. government has spent in Iraq has gone to contractors. The budget analysts said there is roughly one contractor on the ground in Iraq for every member of the military, although most are not American and only a fraction are private security contractors."
At the US State Dept, spokesperson Robert Wood declared of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement, "We certainly hope to get that deal. We think it's a good agreement and the Iraqis will have to take it through their political process. And we'll see what goes -- you know, see where it goes from there." Where it goes next is an expected Sunday vote. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that Jawad al-Bolani, Minister of the Interiror, is endorsing the treaty and quotes him stating, "The security agreement is important for Iraq to ban and stop foreign influence and interference. The Iraqi people need this security agreement." BBC noted in June 2006 that al-Bolani declared (upon being voted into his post), "The interior ministry will preserve Iraqi blood." A laughable claim since the thugs of the Interior Ministry are infamous for spilling blood (and for expelling Iraqis from their legal homes).
al-Bolani is one of the Iraqi officials targeted by the US State Dept and it appears to have paid off. (Rumors are he sees himself as the next al-Maliki.) Supposedly, there is one more Iraqi official among those currently pressured that the State Dept thinks they can publicly flip before the Sunday meeting. al-Bolani by himself has very little impact (Kurds have never taken to him and Sunnis don't believe he's done much of anything to tackle the Ministry's assaults on Sunnis while most Shi'ites in the government see him as too sectarian) so the hope is that one or more flipping publicly ahead of Sunday's meeting could create a wave leading into the meeting that would put pressure on others to support the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.
UPI reports that KRG president Massoud Barzani has declared, "If the pact is not signed, the situation in the country may deteriorate to the point of a civil war." In a live Washington Post online chat yesterday, Dana Priest declared of the treaty, "Still a stand-off with the clock ticking." In the most recent update, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki declared today "that he now supports a security agreement with the United States, a Shiite Muslim legislator [Sami al Askari] who's close to the premier said Friday. . . This would represent an about-face for the Shiite prime minister, who was a hard-line holdout throughout the negotiations and had publicly criticized early drafts of the agreement."
Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) states Moqtada al-Sadr "threw down the gauntlet: he threatened to resume attacks against U.S. troops if they don't leave Iraq 'without retaining bases or signing agreements" al-Sadr is quoted declaring, "I repeat my demand that the occupier leave the land of our beloved Iraq unconditionally, without retaining bases or signing agreements. If they remain, I will support the resistance . . . as long as their weapons are directed exclusively against the occupier." Iran's Press TV adds, "Moqtada al-Sadr has called on supporters to gather next week for weekly Friday prayers in a central Baghdad square to voice their protest to the pact." Robert Craig (Indianapolis Star) notes that the White House wants to "maintain more than 58 military bases indefinitely" and wonders, "So why would Iraq renew SOFA if it is apparently anxious to rid itself of occupation? Is this because the U.S. is holding $50 billion of oil money hostage in the New York Federal Reserve Bank? Why not simply release this money to help rebuild Iraq and futher its independence and national integrity?" Moqtada al-Sadr wasn't the only cleric issuing a call not to sign the treaty. Hamza Hendawi (AP) reports Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has "vowed to intervene if he concludes that a proposed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces infringes on national security." At Real News Network (video), Paul Jay addresses the obstacles to the treaty and other dimensions.
While the White House attempts to extend the US engagement in the illegal war, AP reports that Bulgaria is leaving (155 soldiers) and quotes their prime minister, Sergei Stanishev, declaring yesterday the departure was necessary because "the presence of the Bulgarian military contingent on a humanitarian mission in Iraq ends on Dec. 31." And they aren't the only ones leaving. Russia's Novosti reports Azerbaijan's parliament voted today to pull their "150 peacekeepers" out of Iraq by an 86 to one vote ("The troops are currently protecting a hydroelectric power station in the town of Al-Hadida, which supplies Baghdad with half of its electricity.") David Williams (The Daily Mail) cites Iraq's National Security Adviser Muwafaq al-Rubaie as the source for the assertion that the UK will pull all troops out of Iraq "by the end of next year" (4,000 "mostly based near the southern city of Basra"). Deborah Haynes (Times of London) expands on the story by quoting al-Rubaie's statements to their paper, "By the end of next year there will be no British troops in Iraq."
Meanwhile, Iraq has set January 31st as the date for provincial elecitons. (Unless they're delayed again.) Today Staffan de Mistura, UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Iraq, informed the UN Security Council, "The Government of Iraq should be commended for the progress so far achieved. It will now be called upon to deliver services, security guarantees, conditions for free and fair elections, credible and independent institutions and to resolve tensions among its various communities." de Mistura continued, "The forthcoming elections are rightly viewed as an opportunity to establish a more inclusive sectarian balance and shape a new political landscape and are the most significant political event in the coming months. It is therefore all the more important to ensure that they be perceived as free and fair and that the Iraqis, with the support of the United Nations and the international community, be able to ensure respect of operational timelines, with an IHEC free of political pressure." The UN notes on provincial elections, "According to the report, the passage of the provincial election law on 24 September was a milestone, as it instituted an open-list system and ensured female representation on governorate councils. In addition, the Independent High Electoral Commission demonstrates the ability to mobilize a nationwide voter registration update without serious security or logistical problems. However, there is still potential for election-related violence and instability, as witnessed recently in Mosul. It is, therefore, essential to organize the elections in a secure environment and in a transparent manner." In addition, they also point out, "He and several other speakers also expressed concern about the recent incursion into Syria which had resulted in civilian deaths. That incursion was a violation of the United Nations Charter."
Violence? The wire services are silent. China's Xinhau notes, "Two American soldiers died in separate non-combat related incidents in Iraq, the U.S. military said on Friday." Both are noted here: The US military announces, "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 3:50 a.m. Nov. 13 in Baghdad." And the US miliary announces: "A Coalition force Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 11:52 a.m Nov. 13 in western Iraq." But we'll note them again because the announcement were made late. The two deaths bring the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4197.
In US presidential news, Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) begins the first of a multi-part series on holding the incoming administration accountable:
It is not an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama's career since 2004 has been all about soaring promises to capture ardent voters followed by lowering standards to please his biggest financial contributors. An early foe of the Iraq war and Patriot Act during his US Senate
campaign, Obama voted to continue one and pass the other once in office. Obama's pledge to withdraw from Iraq has more loopholes by now than swiss cheese. His promise to filibuster warrantless eavesdropping and immunity for telecom lawbreakers morphed into
a vote for both, and his campaign trail promise to pursue Dr. King's unfinished quest for economic justice flipped into lobbying the
congress in support of the multi-trillion dollar no-strings-attached
Wall Street bailout.
The first appointments of the new regime are truly disturbing. Illinois
congressman Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff is a
certifiable Democratic neocon who helped strongarm NAFTA, welfare reform
and the Telecom Act of 1996 though congress for Bill Clinton. He served on the board of Freddie Mac while it was busy inflating the housing bubble, and was
an early and unrepentant advocate of invading Iraq and bombing Iran. As head
of the DCCC, responsible for recruiting and funding 2006 Democratic c
ongressional candidates, Emanuel used corporate contributions to try to
knock more than a twenty antiwar Democrats out of primary races in favor of
pro-war Democrats. Confronted with choices between pro-war Democrats and
pro-war Republicans, voters rejected most of Emanuel's picks, costing
Democrats as many as ten Congressional seats.
Larry Summers, early front-runner to succeed Bush Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, was happy to be Enron's eyes and ears at Treasury, according to a handwritten note to his pal Ken Lay you can find at OpenLeft.com. Summers famously remarked that third world countries were "underpolluted". His
solution to this "problem" is encouraging them to sell their share of "rights" to poison the planet's oceans and air to wealthy western corporations through a system like the present futures and commodities exchanges. Both the outgoing Bush and the incoming Obama administrations are enthusiastic advocates of
this "market-based" approach. So much for a Change We Can Breathe In.
On the same topic, Media Lens' "Obama: Wiping the Slate Clean -- Appearance And Reality In The Relaunch Of Brand America" (Dissident Voice):
It was a dawn of the dead - Blair left behind him the almost unimaginable horror of Iraq and Afghanistan.
A rare poll conducted by Ipsos last January of 754 Iraqi refugees in Syria found that "every single person interviewed by Ipsos reported experiencing at least one traumatic event in Iraq prior to their arrival in Syria."
UNHCR estimated that one in five of those registered with the agency in Syria
over the previous year were classified as "victims of torture and/or violence."
The survey showed that fully 89 per cent of those interviewed suffered depression and 82 per cent anxiety. This was linked to terrors endured before they fled
Iraq – 77 per cent of those interviewed reported being affected by air bombardments, shelling or rocket attacks. Eighty per cent had witnessed a shooting... and so on.
John Pilger was a lonely voice in 1997 warning that Blair was a dangerous fraud, a neocon in sheep's clothing. As Pilger later pointed out, the media could hardly plead ignorance:
Blair's Vichy-like devotion to Washington was known: read his speeches about a new order led by America. His devotion to Rupert Murdoch, who flew him and Cherie Booth around the world first class, was known. His devotion to an extreme neoliberal Thatcherite economics was known…
Over the past two weeks -- one decade and three wars later -- the same media have been insisting, as one, that US president-elect Barrack Obama is another "new dawn". A Guardian leader observed:
They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world…
Today is for celebration, for happiness and for reflected human glory. Savour those words: President Barack Obama, America's hope and, in no small way, ours too.
In the Guardian's news section, Oliver Burkeman described the victory as "historic, epochal, path breaking". But there was more:
"Just being alive at a time when it's so evident that history is being made was elating and exhausting."
In 2003, the Guardian's foreign editor, Ed Pilkington, told us:
"We are not in the business of editorialising our news reports."
Someone forgot to tell Burkeman, indeed the entire Guardian news team. At times like these, the media's claims to balanced coverage seem to belong to a different universe. Over the last two weeks, the public has been subjected to a one-way delusional deluge by the media. The propaganda is such that comments made by independent US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, appear simply shocking:
What we're seeing is the highest level of resignation and apathy and powerlessness I've ever seen. We're not talking about hoopla. We're not talking about 'hope'. We're not talking about rhetoric. We're not talking about 'rock star Obama'. We're talking about the question that is asked everywhere I go: 'What is left for the American people to decide other than their own personal lives under more restrictive circumstances year after year?' And the answer is: almost nothing.
Nader says of Obama: "This is show business what you're seeing." The crucial point: "Obama doesn't like to take on power."
MediaChannel has opened MEDIA STORE for the holidays: "The Economy may be crashing, but we as a culture still believe in a season of giving. That's why MediaChannel and GlobalVision are opening an online store, as others close theirs, to share books and films we believe offer food for the mind and make for valuable gifts. Buying through us helps support MediaChannel. Your support in this season means alot to us. Our last fundraising drive has helped keep us alive! Your continuing help will keep us online and on the issues we all care about."
Public broadcasting notes. NOW on PBS explores green collar jobs:Can something as common as building materials represent an opportunity to create jobs, help the needy, and save the planet? This week, NOW looks at two "green" projects keeping furniture, paint, cabinets, and other building supplies out of landfills and getting them into the hands of those who need them most. Will they be devastated by the economic meltdown, or do they signal a possible way out?Based in the Bronx, New York, Greenworker Co-operatives aims to set up worker-owned green businesses. The first of these is Rebuilders Source, a store that sells recycled and donated building materials at affordable prices--items that would otherwise have ended up in a landfill."My vision now is a completely green South Bronx," says Bronx-born entrepreneur Omar Freilla, the founder of Greenworker Co-operatives, "with businesses throughout the area that are owned and run by people living in the area together."On the other side of the country, in Southern California, Materials Matter matches donations of furniture and high quality building materials with individuals, organizations, and homeless shelters that use the materials to literally rebuild lives. But the faltering economy has had an impact."We have to decide whether the value of that donation will be worth the cost of transportation," says Materials Matter co-founder Alison Riback on her blog. "[The economic downturn] put a huge dent in our 'always say yes to a donation' philosophy."This show is part of Enterprising Ideas, NOW's continuing spotlight on social entrepreneurs working to improve the world through self-sustaining innovation.
NOW on PBS begins airing tonight in most PBS markets, check local listings. Washington Week also begins airing on some PBS stations tonight (and later throughout the weekend on others). Gwen's joined by Greg Ip (The Economist), Dan Balz (Washington Post), Janet Hook (Los Angeles Times) and Karen Tumulty (Time magazine) and topics will include the proposed auto bailout, Barack, Bully Boy transitioning to civilian war time (okay, Karen won't really discuss that, but she should) and Congressional races. On Barack, CBS' 60 Minutes gets the first extended television interview with him since the election (Steve Kroft interviews him) and that airs this Sunday.That's public broadcasting TV, public broadcasting radio includes WBAI and we'll note these programs airing Sunday and Monday on WBAI:Sunday, November 16, 11am-noonTHE NEXT HOURFormer WBAI News Director and Dan Rather writer, Paul Fischer's latest newsical in the series "What's the Freqency, Kenneth?" This time, Paul goes one joke over the line...to confess his lifelong addiction to drug songs.Monday, November 17, 2-3pmCat Radio CafeFeminist author Vivian Gornick on her latest book of literary criticism, "The Men In My Life," downtown icon Edgar Oliver on "East 10th Street Self-Portrait," a play by and about him; and playwright Stephen Belber on his newest work, "Geometry of Fire,"about an investment-banker-turned Marine sniper returned from Iraq and a Saudi-American who just wants to get laid. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer." Broadcasting at WBAI/NY 99.5 FMStreaming live at WBAIArchived at Cat Radio Cafe
Turning to utter trash. May 28, 2008, Amy Goodman declared on Democracy Sometimes!:In other campaign news, Senator Obama says he's accepted Senator Hillary Clinton's explanation for controversial comments invoking the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kenney to justify her continued stay in the Democratic presidential race. In an interview in South Dakota Friday, Clinton cited Kennedy's assassination as an example of a contest continuing through June.
Hillary: My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it.
Goody then stated: "Clinton explained she was trying to cite a historical precedent for a June presidential contest." Trying to? She was asked that as Goody well knew (but Goody is the trash who chose to publish in LARRY FL**T's H**TLER MAGAZINE). As Jake Tapper noted May 23 (five days earlier than Goody) the editorial board (South Dakota's Argus Leader) asked her "about calls for her to drop out." And Hillary responded "This is part of an ongoing effort to end this before it's over. I sure don't think it's over." A comment Goody CHOSE to leave out because SHE"S A LIAR. After "I don't understand it," Hillary says "And there's a lot of speculation about why it is." Why she's being pushed to drop out. But to include that wouldn't have fit GOODY LIAR's non-stop attempts to sell Barack.
There's a reason Bernardine Dohrn's always been the partner in charge of that marriage. Bill Ayers is the Barbara Bush of that pair and only more so with each passing year. Liar Goody brought them on Democracy Now and she never asked about Prarie Fire.
In May, Goody wanted to distort Hillary's remarks and make it appear she was trampling on the memory of RFK. Today, Goody brought on Bill and Bernardine and never asked them about the dedication in their book Prarie Fire to Sirhan Sirhan (RFK assassin).
Bill Ayers is on a publicity blitz that included Good Morning America today. I know Bill and Bernardine and we're not going to let lies stand. First off Bernardine, you know not to speak without knowing the facts. So let's start with your error:
I think my favorite -- our favorite moment of this whole election campaign -- and there were certainly, really, many unprecedented and moving movements of the last year and a half -- was when, at the height of the primary campaign, Senator -- then-Senator Obama was asked, "Who would Martin Luther King support? Would you support you or Senator Clinton?" And without his frequent pauses in thinking, he said, "He wouldn't support either of us. He's be out in the street building an independent social justice movement."
No, no, Bernardine. No, Barack's not MLK ("Would you support you or Senator Clinton?"). No, Barack didn't say what you said he did. No, it wasn't Hillary and Barack alone on stage. CNN debate, Wolf Blitzer the moderator. He started with John Edwards, "And, Senator Edwards, let me start with you. If Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, unfortunately, he's not, but if he were alive today, why do you think he would or why should he endorse you?" Edwards replied than Wolf's full question to Barack was, "Senator?" Barack didn't say "either of us," he said MLK wouldn't "endorse any of us" and Barack did not say "He's be out in the street building an independent social justice movement." in that debate. You may wish he had and certainly it would help your friends if he had; however, he DID NOT SAY THAT. You know facts matter. That was embarrassing. It was all the more sto for Democracy Now! which didn't catch your multiple mistakes.
Hillary: Well, there is no doubt that change comes from the extraordinary efforts of the American people. I've seen it in my life. I'm sitting here as a result of that change. It is also true -- and Dr. King understood this. He campaigned for political leaders. He lobbied them. He pushed them. He cajoled. He did everything he could to get them over the line so that they would be part of the movement that he gave his life for. There are people sitting in this audience right now, John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, they were part of those kinds of efforts, going so far as they could to make it clear that we had to live up to our values and our ideals. And then there was a meeting of morality and politics. And the political leaders finally responded.
That's the closet anyone came to making the remark Bernardine wrongly attributes to Barack ("He's be out in the street building an independent social justice movement.").
Bill declared, "We were asked by our state senator if we would hold a coffee for him some, I don't know, twelve or fifteen years ago, and we did . . ." Bill, you're lying. You're lying because Alice Palmer has already stated she did no such thing and you're lying because I know you and I know who talked Barack up to me back when he was running for the US Senate. It wasn't Alice Palmer (whom I've never met), care to get honest Bill? (Those late to the party on this tale shared here and at Elaine's site since 2005 -- Elaine and I went to the private, big money fundraiser for the 'anti-war' candidate with the intention of writing checks for the maximum donation only to discover an 'anti-war' candidate who did not believe in withdrawal because 'the troops were there'. Once Elaine and I clarified that point, we immediately left without donating a cent.)
Here's Bill rambling on about Weather Underground (Bernardine was the leader, not Bill, of WU and that's something the right refused to get correct because they were blinded by their own sexism):
But on the other hand, I don't expect somebody to today endorse what we did forty years ago or even to understand it. To me, nothing that he said is either, you know, false or wrong or terrible. The other thing I guess I would say about it is, we would disagree on our evaluation of what went on forty years ago, but we disagree on many things, so it's not surprising.
Bill, many of us disagreed with you in real time. And, no, you were not of the peace movement. I fully understand what Weather did and I have no need to condemn you, Bernardine or anyone else for it. But I also have no reason to lie about it.
You chose the road of violence. I've often said, "Weather was a violent response to a criminal government that used violence." But Weather was a violent response. The US government behaved in a criminal manner. I don't deny it. But, no, Bill, the peace movement was not Weather and many disagreed with you and some, like Toad Gitlan, have insisted Weather's violence destroyed the left. (I disagree with that and have always disagreed with that.) What Weather did was not about ending the illegal war and let's not pretend it was. It was an attempt to bring revolution into the streets (which is why you lived in working class neighborhoods despite your own financial circumstances) and it was an armed revolution. But they wanted to set the stage for the armed revolution and that wasn't about Vietnam so stop lying. When Bernardine made her ridiculous statement about Sharon Tate's murder, that wasn't about Vietnam either. So stop the lies.
Well, you know, I would say calling those acts despicable forty years ago, I guess I would disagree with. But more to the point is that it's an irrelevant--it's an irrelevant issue in this campaign.
No, it's not irrelevant. Domestic terrorism is what Weather engaged in. There's no need to deny that and you've certainly never denied it one-on-one.
Bill then needs to lie hard and starts talking about the sixties. Weather's actions were in the chronological seventies. Bill's attempting to couch his argument on grounds he can't stand on and he knows it.
On the other hand, I think that it's a sad thing that we've never really had a truth and reconciliation process about the war in Vietnam, about the black freedom movement and what happened. And that means, among other things, that we haven't learned the lessons of invasion and occupation. We haven't learned the lessons of what happens when people get involved in direction action and struggle, and both the advances that can be made and also the limits of those struggles. We haven't learned the lessons that might make for a more peaceful, more just future. I think that's the problem.
Well if you believe that, maybe you should have worked for such a process. But you didn't. You were underground and active in Weather at that time, remember? And long after US troops left Vietnam, you were still hiding out. If you think people need to get honest, well go for it, sport. Start cataloguing your own actions. Nixon's dead. Henry Kissinger should only have a few more years left. But if you want 'honesty,' then start offering some.
Repeating, Weather was a violent response to a violent and criminal government. It's not surprising, it's not shocking. But it's not the peace movement and shouldn't be passed off as such. Toad Gitlin and The Nation magazine disgraced themselves during 2008. Both had long called out Bill and Bernardine's actions in Weather and suddenly they wanted to act like they never had. I don't find the actions shocking. I can make a political defense for them. I cannot and do not confuse Weather's actions with the peace movement. I don't think they destroyed the left or the peace movement. But I don't lie about what Weather did. And consider how often (and how loudly) Bill laughed a few decades back at the couple mocked as "The Mork & Mindy of the Left" (we'll be kind and not name the couple), it's a sad moment to see him do just what he accused "Mork" of -- minimize his actions for respectability.iraqthe washington posternesto londonodana priestmcclatchy newspaperswarren p. strobelleila fadelmedia lensjohn pilgerbruce dixonBrian Rossdeborah haynesdan balzjanet hookwbaicat radio cafejanet colemandavid dozervivian gornick60 minutescbs newskaren tumultywashington weeknow on pbspbsthe real news networknprall things considered
Posted at 08:27 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Nov 13, 2008
john pilger, heroes, and more
My first visit to Texas was in 1968, on the fifth anniversary of the assassination of president John F Kennedy in Dallas. I drove south, following the line of telegraph poles to the small town of Midlothian, where I met Penn Jones Jr., editor of the Midlothian Mirror. Except for his drawl and fine boots, everything about Penn was the antithesis of the Texas stereotype. Having exposed the racists of the John Birch Society, his printing press had been repeatedly firebombed. Week after week, he painstakingly assembled evidence that all but demolished the official version of Kennedy's murder.
This was journalism as it had been before corporate journalism was invented, before the first schools of journalism were set up and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around those whose "professionalism" and "objectivity" carried an unspoken obligation to ensure that news and opinion were in tune with an establishment consensus, regardless of the truth. Journalists such as Penn Jones, independent of vested power, indefatigable and principled, often reflect ordinary American attitudes, which have seldom conformed to the stereotypes promoted by the corporate media on both sides of the Atlantic. Read American Dreams: Lost and Found by the masterly Studs Terkel, who died the other day, or scan the surveys that unerringly attribute enlightened views to a majority who believe that "government should care for those who cannot care for themselves" and are prepared to pay higher taxes for universal health care, who support nuclear disarmament and want their troops out of other people's countries.
Returning to Texas, I am struck again by those so unlike the redneck stereotype, in spite of the burden of a form of brainwashing placed on most Americans from a tender age: that theirs is the most superior society in the history of the world, and all means are justified, including the spilling of copious blood, in maintaining that superiority.
That is the subtext of Barack Obama's "oratory". He says he wants to build up US military power; and he threatens to ignite a new war in Pakistan, killing yet more brown-skinned people. That will bring tears, too. Unlike those on election night, these other tears will be unseen in Chicago and London. This is not to doubt the sincerity of much of the response to Obama’s election, which happened not because of the unction that has passed for news reporting from America since November 4 (e.g. “liberal Americans smiled and the world smiled with them”) but for the same reasons that millions of angry emails were sent to the White House and Congress when the "bailout" of Wall Street was revealed, and because most Americans are fed up with war.that is from john pilger's ' Beware The Obama Hype' ( dissident voice). it was worth noting period but i wanted to note it because i do know where midlothian is. we went there when we did the week speaking in texas. midlothian is in ellis county and it is by waxahachi and cedar hill. it's too the south of dalls. their high school team is the panthers. so that's another reason to note it. there's no transcript to a story i want to share yet but it can streamed online and it's pbs' newshour: Some scientists and environmentalists believe that more than 5 million square miles of the Pacific Ocean has become a soup of plastic confetti -- the remnants of plastic trash that travels on ocean currents from the world's shorelines. Now, researchers are trying to quantify the extent of the problem, and learn more about how plastic pollution affects fish, marine mammals and birds. NewsHour correspondent Spencer Michels reports.that's the summary so check out the link to stream and there will be a transcript within 24 hours at the link. okay now moving over to the topic of the tv show heroes. i said i'd answer the other e-mails as i had time to think about it. big question was who would i do? and some writing (males and females) narrowed it down to peter and nathan which is what i would narrow down to as well. i don't know that i could pick 1. on some days i'd say nathan, on others i'd say peter. nathan's a full-bodied wine you want to enjoy. peter's a beer you want to down. they're both wonderful. next question was if i was a character on the show, who would i kill? claire's father. if i were good or evil, i'd killed him. i don't trust him and thnk he's a full on liar. so we've done love & death. biggest problems with the show? no more flashbacks. not in episodes, not for episodes. when 1 of the negative criticisms of you is that you are moving to slowly, you ditch flashbacks. you move forward each and every episode to get the audience to stop saying, 'it's so slow!' there's 1 more question but i need another day to think, sorry. do i like the show? i've grown to love it. and that's a gift from readers. and as i suspected, fly boy cannot get our baby down for the night. she's fussy tonight and just wants mommy. so i'm passing off to flyboy to copy and paste in the snapshot. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:' Thursday, November 13, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, a plane crashes in Iraq, Military Families Speak Out calls out VA Secretary James Peake, and more.
Earlier this week the US Secretary of Veterans Affairs appeared on PBS' NewsHour and Military Families Speak Out has issued a press release rebuttal:
Nationwide -- Members of Military Families Speak Out are condemning comments by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs suggesting that the dramatic increase in the suicide rate among young veterans is not connected to the war in Iraq. The suicide rate among male veterans under the age of 29 is now twice that of the general population.
In an interview aired Monday November 10th on PBS's NewsHour, Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake said that Veterans' suicides are the result of:
"the same kinds of issues that have to do with suicide in the general population. It is issues of failed relationships, senses of hopelessness, transitions in life, that are at the root cause . . . we're not making a direct correlationw ith combat."
Specialist Scott Eiswert committed suicide in May after being told by a friend that his unit of the Tennessee National Guard would be returning to Iraq. His widow, Tracy Eiswert, a member of Military Families Speak Out, expressed outrage at Secretary Peake's comments:
"I am not a statistic. We are a military family. We are real people with real experiences as a result of my husband's PTSD and his suicide. He wasn't that way before he went to Iraq, he came back changed."
After returning from a tour of duty in Iraq, Spc. Eiswert had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by civilian doctors, but the Veterans Administration denied that his condition was the result of his experiences in Iraq. The Veterans Administration reversed that ruling in August. Tracy Eiswert said: "It took him having to put a gun in his mouth for the military to admit that the changes in my husband were a result of the war. If they had admit that the changes in my husband were a result of the war. If they had admitted that earlier he might still be alive."
Kevin and Joyce Lucey are members of Military Families Speak Out and the parents of Corporal Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine Corps Reservist who suffered severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of his service in Iraq in 2003. Shortly after being turned away from a Veterans Administration hospital, Corporal Lucey killed himself on June 22, 2004. Kevin Lucey said:
"Secretary Peake's words are the kind of self serving comments that this nation does not need to hear from the Veterans Administration and its leadership. This is why many regard this VA administration to be steeped in disgrace and dishonor when it comes to our loved ones. They feel that they need to explain away, rationalize, justify or minimize -- instead of committing their resources, time and efforts to create the best healthcare system on God's earth."
Joyce Lucey also had strong words for Secretary Peake:
"This is dishonorable, disgraceful and shameful behaivor from someone who is charged with giving the best of care to our warriors. With this type of message and thinking, is it any wonder that many of our troops and veterans don't seek help from those who are so callous and uncaring?"
Specialist Joe Hafley, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Military Families Speak Out who has had to fight to get treatment for his own Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, agreed. Hafley served in Iraq with the U.S. Army Reserves from 2004 - 2005, and his brother, a Major with the U.S. Army Reserves is scheduled to deploy to Iraq early next year.
When Hafley returned from Iraq, the Veterans Administration diagnosed him with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder, and severe depression -- but ruled that none of those conditions were the result of his service in Iraq. He said:
"My treatment at the VA was belittling and frustrating. To have them diagnose me with PTSD and not attribute it to my service in Iraq is a slap in the face. To have them tell me the problems could be the result of a failed relationship rather than the result of my experiences in combat makes me feel that as a veteran I have no place at the VA.
"The thing that is most baffling to me is that this 800 pound gorilla in the room, not being addressed. Why are we feeling hopeless? Why do we have failed relationships? The common denominator is we all served in Iraq. Maybe my feeling of hopelessness is that I served my country with honor and I am still trying to figure out for what reason? For what just cause?
"Secretary Peake, it doesn't matter how many additional mental health workers you hire if you as the person at the top still feel we are just losers that failed to adjust or that we entered our military service unit. No amount of false support will help us."
For The NewsHour report (link has text and video), Tracy Eiswert explained of her husband to Betty Ann Bowser, "He said he felt belittled because they didn't take what he was saying seriously. 'This is what it happened to me over there.' You know, and they wanted to talk about, 'Well, how's your marriage? Or how was your childhood? How was your dad with you?' And he's like, 'Well, what's this got to do with why I'm here today?'" Meanwhile Aaron Glantz (OneWorld) reports that Vietnam Veterans of America and Veterans of Modern Warfare "filed a class action lawsuit this week to help ensure bureaucratic delays no longer keep disabled U.S. veterans from getting the financial help they need, when they need it most" and they are asking "a federal court to order interim benefits to be paid to a veteran if an initial claim for disability compensation takes longer than 90 days to be processed or an appeal of a denied claim takes longer than six months."
Reuters reports a civilian plane, Falcon Aviation Group Ltd, with FedEx cargo has crashed in Iraq "killing all seven people on board".
Moving to yesterday's Mosul shooting. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that eight US soldiers were shot yesterday with two of them being shot to death and alleged shooter Barzan Mohammed reportedly used an AK-47 submachine gun in "the shooting spree". Sam Dagher (New York Times) explains what Iraqi officials and eye witnesses are saying: Mosul police's Brig Gen Abdul-Karim al-Jubouri, "a senior official in the Ministry of Defense and an officer of the Nineveh Operations Command" all say there was "a quarrel between an American and Iraqi soldier" at the onset; 2 Iraqi soldiers and one Iraqi Army officer (all witnesses) described the US patrol arriving at the Iraqi post and "[a] heated arugment" taking place "between one of the American soldiers and an Iraqi soldier identified as Barzan Mohammed Abdullah, prompting the American to curse at the Iraqi, spit in his face and slap him, the Iraqis said. The Iraqi soldier then opened fire on the American, they said, and other American soldiers responded with a barrage of gunfire at the Iraqi." Ernesto Londono and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note that US Maj. Gen. Mark P. "Hertling dismissed reports by Iraqi officials who suggested that an altercation between Iraqi and American soldiers preceded the gunfire in Mosul, but he said he had no information on the shooter's motive. He said U.S. and Iraqi officials are jointly investigating the incident."
The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued the following statement:
The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG) Staffan de Mistura expressed his shock and outrage at the continued targeting and killing of religious minorities, following the murder of two Christian sisters in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, which has recently seen thousands of its inhabitants flee their homes after a campaign of threats and attacks.
The SRSG noted that this cowardly attack came hours after the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported that some recently displaced Christian families are beginning to return to Mosul as the security situation in the city shows signs of improvement.
He said Mosul has historically been and must remain the cradle of religious and ethnic diversity, reiterating the United Nations' position that respecting and guaranteeing the rights of minorities in Iraq is "absolutely fundamental to a stable and democratic future for our country."
Mr. de Mistura called on the Iraqi Government authorities to do everything in their power to safeguard the human rights and protection of Christian, Yezidis, Shabak and other minorities -- all of whome have been the victims of terrible attacks -- and to ensure that those responsible for these attacks are swiftly brought to justice. The SRSG also urged local authorities, as well as the Kurdistan Regional Government, to assist in protecting the rights of minorities and their religious identity, as well as in ending impunity for these criminal attacks.
That's in reference to the Mosul attack that left 2 women dead and a third wounded. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "On Wednesday, two Christian sisters were gunned down in Mosul and their mother was wounded. When police responded, unknown assailants detonated a roadside bomb, wounding three officers. The shooting underscores Christian fears in the city. Ten thousand or more Christians fled the city last month after a spate of about 15 killings of Christians in just two weeks." Sam Dagher (New York Times) explains that the older sister was Lamia Subaih Daoud, who worked for the municpal government and was the mother of three small children, was murdered first while waiting outside the family home on a bus and the assailants then stormed the house and shot dead the woman's twenty-three-year-old sister and wounded the women's mother. Dagher notes that Lamia's three children were asleep in the home "and survived the attack." The Melbourne Herald Sun supplies the name of the younger sister, "The intruders killed Lamia and Walaa Sabih and wounded their mother before booby-trapping the house. When police arrived a bomb went off, wounding two of them, an officer said on condition of anonymity." Asia News explains while both sisters were shot, the mother was attacked with a knife, that both sisters worked for the Office of the Treasurer of the Municipality of Wala, that their names were Lamia Sobhy Salloha and Walaa Sobhy Salloha and, "According to eyewitnesses the attack was carried out by a gang of 16-to-18 year olds who after attacking the residents of the house placed a bomb at the entrance and detonated it when a group of police agents came to the scene, killing two and wounding others." Aid to the Church in Need's John Pontifex (at Australia's Christian Today) observes, "Christians and other minorities are saying that the incident casts doubt on the Iraqi government's bid to improve security with a massively increased police presence in the city. . . . Speaking from northern Iraq in an interview with ACN, Fr Bashar Warda, who has overseen the charity's emergency relief programmes for people fleeing Mosul, said today's incident was having a 'dramatic' effect on the faithful, who now fear another wave of attacks against them. Fr Warda said: 'It is clear that many would think of leaving Mosul again. The government is trying to say the city is now safe and then suddenly you have incidents like this'." UPI notes: "Iraqi Christians began issuing accounts of targeted attacks against their community in July when parishioners claimed an Islamic group called "The Battalion of Just Punishment, Jihad Base in Mesopotamia" sent threatening letters to several churches." ZENIT quotes an Iraqi "Catholic leader" stating, "The government is trying to deceive the outside world, making them believe that they are acting correctly and that Christians are safe. In reality the situation is still very challenging."
Raheem Salman, Usama Redha and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) offer an overview of violence in Iraq:
Since Monday, according to police statistics, roadside bombs, car bombs and suicide bombers wearing explosive belts have killed 58 people in the capital. Deaths elsewhere included two Christian women who police said were killed by unidentified gunmen in the northern city of Mosul, where Christians say they have been caught in the middle of a war for power between Kurds and Arabs.Several Iraqis who witnessed the violence noted the heavy presence of Iraqi security checkpoints near Saadoun Street, in the eastern part of the capital, and elsewhere and said it showed that nobody could be trusted to keep them safe. Some also said it was a sign that Iraqi forces were not ready to protect the city if U.S. troops withdrew. U.S. military officials said that this week's violence, coming after a steady downward trend in attacks, does not mean insurgents are staging a comeback, and they disputed the casualty figures provided by Iraqi sources. Baghdad and its environs continue to experience an average of four attacks a day on security forces and civilians, compared with more than 20 a day about a year ago, Army Brig. Gen. William Grimsley, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said Monday after bombers killed 31 people in northeast Baghdad's Kasra district.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 1 life and left seven injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing that left six injured, a Mosul car bombing that claimed 1 life and left sixteen injured and a Mosul roadside bombing that left 2 people dead.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Diyala Province.
In diplomatic news, Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes the department's minister Hoshyar Zebari and his Syrian counterpart Walid Moallem held a press conference yesterday in Damascus where they "discussed ways to develop and activate bilateral relations between the two countries," Zebari alluded to Iraq sending an ambassador to Damascus and he "explained the positive results of his visit and his meetings with President Bashar al-Assad, and delivered the letter of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to president Asaad regarding the Iraqi government's stance on the US-Iraqi security agreement and stages of negotiation. Foreign Minister Zebari also stressed the Iraqi government's refusal to use Iraqi territory as a platform to launch military operations against Syria or any of the neighboring countries and expressed sympathy and solidartiy with the Syrian people."
Tuesday's snapshot noted on IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh's court appearance for being the victim of police state actions carried out Oct. 15th in Hempstead, NY on himself and thirteen other IVAW members who were trying to deliver debate questions for Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) provides an update, "I attended court today in the stands for Adam Kokesh. Adam was there with his attorney, and some other supporters. More to follow, and possibly a few photos of Adam and his attorney. The main outcome: Adam Kokesh will have his trial on Thursday, December 11th. Sounds like the trial would happen sometime after 10am. In addition, Wednesday, December 10th and Thurs. Dec. 11th are appearance dates for some of the other Hempstead 15. So, we will standby for which dates the IVAW folks would prefer the community come out in full force for." Adam (Adam Kokesh - Revolutionary Patriot) explains, "In requesting that I be released on my own recognizance (or ROR as everyone else had been) so I could get my bail money returned, my attorney was told by the prosecutor that he would like to have my bail raised! The judge declined, but that would have put me in jail again until I could get bail posted at the raised amount. The judge also declined Mr. Moore's motion to dismiss, or take an ACD, adjourn in contemplation of dismissal. The prosecutor conferred with the police officer who would be testifying, and came up with a date to schedule the trial. So trial is now scheduled for 9:30 AM on December 11th. For reasons I can't discuss, we are very excited about this going to trial." IVAW has just published Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupation in book form.
Turning to the 2008 presidential election, On The Wilder Side notes that Green Party of Connecticut officials have registered an objection that "'REGISTERED' WRITE IN votes were not counted in all towns across the state, as required by state law". Rebecca addressed the topics of write-ins Friday and noted that Cynthia McKinney (Green Party presidential candidate) received only 53 votes in Connecticut and Rebecca focused on Texas where the Ralph Nader - Matt Gonzalez ticket allegedly received 3,053. It appears many states have areas that were 'selective' in their counting. [That is not questioning the outcome or saying "The election was stolen!" That is noting write-in votes appear not to have been counted.] Joel S. Hirschhorn (Dissident Voice) reviews the election numbers:
This year, among the four most significant third-party presidential candidates, Ralph Nader without a national party did the best with 685,426 votes or 0.54 percent of the grand total (a little better than in 2004 with 0.4 percent but much worse than in 2000 running as a Green Party candidate with 2.7 percent). He was followed by Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate with 503,981 votes or 0.4 percent of the total (typical of all Libertarian candidates in recent elections, including Ron Paul in 1988), followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with just 181,266 votes or 0.1 percent, and then Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with only 148,546 votes or 0.1 percent.
Showing the problem of ballot access, engineered by the two major parties, is that there were only 15 states where all four were on the ballot. In all but one, Nader received more votes than the other three third-party candidates. In four states only one of the four candidates was on the ballot; in one state none of them were ( Oklahoma ).
Nader's best state was California with 81,434 votes, as it was for McKinney's with 28,624 votes. Baldwin was not on the ballot there. Alan Keyes received 30,787 votes in California . Barr's best state was Texas with 56,398 votes. None of the other three were on the ballot there. In his home state of Georgia where he had been a Representative Barr received 28,420 votes (and none of the other three were on the ballot). Baldwin's best state was Michigan with 14, 973 votes. Nader was not on the ballot there.
In round numbers, Barack Obama raised $639 million or about $10 per vote, and John McCain raised $360 million or $6 per vote, compared to Ralph Nader with $4 million and $6 per vote, Bob Barr with about $1 million or $2 per vote, and Cynthia McKinney with only about $118,000 or less than $1 per vote. Money matters, but the ability of the two-party duopoly to keep third-party presidential candidates out of nationally televised debates matters more for media attention, money and votes.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sounds warnings (at CounterPunch) today:
To its everlasting credit, the conservative American Bar Association sent to President Bush three reports in 2005-2006 concluding that he has been engaged in continuing serious violations of the Constitution. This is no one-time Watergate obstruction of justice episode ala Nixon that led to his resignation just before his impeachment in the House of Representatives.
Nearly two years ago Senator Obama, contrary to what he knows and believes, vigorously came out against the House commencing impeachment proceedings. It would be too divisive, he said. As one of one hundred Senators who might have had to try the President and Vice President in the Senate were the House to impeach. He should have kept impartial and remained silent on the subject.
As President, he cannot remain silent and do nothing, otherwise he will inherit the war crimes of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and become soon thereafter a war criminal himself. Inaction cannot be an option.
Violating the Constitution and federal laws is now routine. What is routine after awhile becomes institutionalized lawlessness by official outlaws.
Domestic Policy abuses are also rampant. Just what are the limits of the statutory authority of the U.S. Treasury Department or the government within a government funded by bank assessments known as the Federal Reserve?
Don't read the $750 billion bailout law for any answers! The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid just sent a letter to Bush asking whether the White House believes the bailout law could be interpreted to save not just the reckless banks, but also the grossly mismanaged Big Three auto companies in Michigan.
Didn't Congress know what they were or were not authorizing? Or did the stampede started by the demanding Bush result in blanket, or panicked ambiguity by a cowardly Congress?
Last week Raed Jarrar (Raed in the Middle) addressed the election:
1- I didn't find this in the English media, but Arab media (including Al-Jazeera) reported today:Iraqi Presidency Council said in its first reaction to Barak Obama winning the U.S. presidential election: there is only one U.S. policy in Iraq, and the changes that may occur during Obama's time "would be only technical."2- As you've heard already, Obama picked congressman Rahm Emanuel to become the White House's chief of staff. Mr. Emanuel, an Israeli citizen who has served in the Israeli Army (he denies both), was the only one out of Illinois' nine congressmen who voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2002. I know that the confetti has not settled down yet, but I think it's time already to ask the Obama-Biden campaign some questions about their foreign policy plans, especially regarding the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and regarding ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
And winding this up, the GOP ticket was John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin. The Republican governor's conference took place today and Texas Governor Rick Perry explained it was focused on "what's the Republican Party going to look like going forward." He then stated, "It gives me great deal of pleasure to introduce one of our collegues, one of America's great republican governors, Governor Sarah Palin."
Gov Sarah Palin: Thank you [to Rick Perry], thank you so much [to those assembled]. Thank you, Governor Perry. Thank you governors. Thank you very much. Thanks. Honored to be here and to speak with and to my fellow governors. It hasn't been that long since we all gathered. I don't know about you, but I managed to fill up the time. [Laughter] Let's see I had a baby, I did some traveling, I very briefly expanded my wardrobe [Laughter], I made a few speeches, I met a few VIPs including those who really impact society like Tina Fey [Laughter] and aside from that it was pretty much the same-old, same-old since we last gathered. But in the great campaign that has come and gone . . . And it was great. One of the nicer experiences that we had along the campaign trail was seeing so many of my RGA colleagues and I think you guys so much for your assistance with John McCain's good run. Each of you gave your all to the cause and were helpmates and positive additions to Senator McCain's good run. You were there to help when things were looking good and you were there to help when -- once in a while -- things weren't looking so good. And where I'm from in Alaska, life would be pretty lonely if all we had were fair weather friends. And you have been friends in all seasons and for that I will forever be grateful and I know Senator McCain also would be so appreciative.
Palin noted the campaign in her remarks.
Gov Sarah Palin: Along the trail, it was my husband, Todd, who was my right hand. And among his many willing -- winning qualities is the gift that he has of optimism and just thankfulness in all situations that he finds. And going forward, I'm going to count on those qualities a little more even. Because of course there was a disappointment after a loss in a national election like that. You run to win. You run the race to win. It's kind of relying on Todd with that optimism and the thanfkulness in all situations that I'm certainly going to be there with him along those lines. But far from returning to the great state of Alaska with any sense of sorrow or regret, we carried with us the best of memories and joyful experiences that really do not depend at all on political victory. For years to come, I'm going to remember all the young girls who came up to me at rallies to see the first woman having the privilege of carrying our party's VP nomination. And they inspired me. With an extra hurdel or two in front of us and in front of these young girls, I fell that we've got this mutually beneficial relationship now -- me and these young girls -- where we're going to work hareder. We're going to be stronger. We're going to do better. And one day, one of them will be the president because in America there will be no ceilings on achievement -- glass or otherwise. [Applause begins and grows ] And if I can help point the way -- [Pauses for applause to die down.] If I can help point the way for these young women or inspire them to tap into their own gifts and talents and strengths -- to find their own opportunities -- Well, it is a privilege.
iraqmilitary families speak outpbsthe newshouraaron glantzleila fadelmcclatchy newspapersthe los angeles timestina susmanthe los angeles timesusama redharaheem salmanthe new york timessam dagherthe washington posternesto londonoqais mizherkimberly wilderadam kokeshiraq veterans against the warraed jarrar
Posted at 08:39 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
picking through maureen dowd's garbage
i was on the phone with c.i. this morning (early
c.i.'s time, 3 hours later mine) and hearing about how every 1 was
e-mailing to complain about maureen dowd's awful column. c.i. hadn't
read it and was digging through the papers (i could hear the rustle)
for the new york times and for that section. flyboy had read it and
heard my end of the conversation. he comes over with the bad column and
drops the newpaper in my lap. c.i.'s typing up something and i say,
'wait! i will cover it!' 'boxers, briefs or silks?'
is maureen dowd's latest garbage. she has the nerve to insult governor
sarah palin's intelligence and to do so with rumor and smear jobs. so
let me offer that every 1 believes maureen slept with poppy bush (every
1 includes barbara bush). let me further offer that every 1 laughs
about how she fell in love with ___ (male movie star) and how she had
no idea he recorded their sex. and how she has no idea that the video
tape has circulated. if maureen feels that's a false rumor, i would
suggest she explain why she feels the need to hit her hands on the
mattress while having sex (at the end). hit the tops of her hands. it
looks kind of spastic, i'm told. so how's that feel, maureen? how's
it feel when i repeat rumors about your dumb ass. it's what every 1
talks about. people laugh at you in the entertainment industry,
maureen. if that tape exists or not (and modo will know who recorded
it, she got very hung up on this guy), it's what every 1 laughs at
behind her back. there are actual issues that a columnist in the
new york times could try covering but maureen - who can't dress worth
s**t - wants to talk about sarah palin's clothes again. maureen
dowd is nothing but a useless bitch. she got famous for being a bitch
and there was hope that she would be good looking and blossom. she
never did. she's pasty, horse faced and that red hair color is no
longer her own. she also needs to grasp that pantyhose are not supposed
to be bag or bulge. as she gets longer and longer in the tooth, she
really can't go around with thoe ugly hose (she needs to stay away from
white, she's already got glasses and she looks like an old maid in
white hose) not fitting. maureen's really concerned about what
was touching todd palin's crotch (silk?) and that should not be at all
surprising when you grasp how lonely and pathetic her life has turned
out. the joke (i hope it's a joke) these days is that her friends are
going to gift her with a male hooker. poor maureen. no wonder she's
lusting over and coveting sarah palin's husband. todd palin's a fine
looking man. and all the more fine when you are the pathetic modo. it
really comes down to the fact that maureen has a lonely and pathetic
life so she tries to make herself feel better by attacking and
certainly the likes of the worthless robin morgan have declared sarah
palin open game and advocated for any lie or smear to be spread about
palin. and, as c.i. and i were saying on the phone, even more of a problem, it's bad writing. 'calling
tina fey,' modo sounds like a drunken frat boy with that 1 - a drunken
frat boy in 2002. she really is out of it. you sort of picture her
stalking young couples and attempting to listen in on their
conversations so she can get some hip references. they probably notice:
'who's that? oh, it's just that old pathetic woman who gets her jollies
watching other people have sex because no one finds her attractive.'
now to be clear, i could have played much dirtier. i could have talked
about the hilarious story told throughout the entertainment industry
about maureen's bad pot experience (1994, i think, but i may have the
year wrong). she tried to go 'hollywood' - 'dated' name actors
(including married 1s) and really made a fool out of herself. i'm happy to dredge through her garbage as long as she feels she can do so to another woman.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:' Wednesday,
November 12, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, 2 or 4 US soldiers are
dead, Iraqi refugees who make it to Michigan continue to struggle,
truth tellers John Pilger and Paul Street show the play 'left' how it's
done, and more.
Faisal Sidiq and Zoe Magee (ABC News) report
that 4 US soldiers were shot dead in Mosul -- reportedly following "an
argument" with an "Iraqi soldier, Barazen Mohammed, and an American
colleague" which led Mohammed to allegedy shoot dead the 4 and then he
was shot dead. The deaths bring to 4197 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 7 for the month thus far. Gregory Viscusi and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) notes
that "at least two" US soldiers are dead and argue that it wasn't
"clear what prompted the incident and whether the Iraqi soldier killed
himself or was shot by American forces" and they quote US Sgt Chris
Stagner stating, "The situation is fluid and we are investigating." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) cites
US Navy Commander Abram McGull stating the US service members "were
dismounted, going back to their convoy" and that two are dead and six
are wounded. Tim Cocks (Reuters) notes
two US service members dead and adds, "A local morgue said it had
received the body of the Iraqi soldier, riddled with bullets." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds,
"While the deaths of the [2] American soldiers were confirmed by the
United States military, the circumstances surrounding the Mosul
shooting remained in dispute." James Hider (Times of London) offers,
"The Iraqi Interior Ministry said the soldier opened fire after he had
been publicly slapped by an American colleague. Many Iraqi men,
especially in the military, are intensely proud and conscious of any
perceived slight to their honour."
Meanwhile George Frey (AP) reports
that US army Sgt. Michael P. Leahy Jr. will move straight to a
court-martial following his decision to waive his Article 32 hearing
into the deaths of four Iraqis who were shot dead while they were bound
and blindfolded and then their corpses were dumped in a canal. Frey
notes, "Leahy is the fifth of seven soldiers implicated in the incident
to face a judge since August." Last week Seth Robson (Stars and Stripes) provided
an overview of the cases and he noted, "Leahy is also charged with
premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and
obstruction of justice in the deaths of the four detainees in March or
April."
We'll come back to the topics of violence and justice
but this morning, the United Nations World Food Programme issued this
press release entitled "New Report Says Iraq Food Security Better But Situation Still Volatile:"Baghdad,
12 November 2008 -- The number of people without adequate access to
food in Iraq has fallen dramatically, according to the findings of a
joint assessment carried out by the Iraqi Government and the UN World
Food Programme (WFP).The assessment -- which shows a significant
improvement in food security - found some 930,000 people were without
adequate access to food last year, down from around four million in
2005. The Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment
(CFSVA) was carried out in late 2007 in collaboration with the UN
Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
and the World Health Organization (WHO), as a follow-up to the last
food security survey in mid-2005. "We can give a cautious welcome to
these figures," said Edward Kallon, WFP Country Director for Iraq. "I
say cautious, because 930,000 is still far too many for a relatively
wealthy country. Moreover, there are a further 6.4 million people who
would slide into food insecurity if it were not for safety nets, such
as the Public Distribution System (PDS)." Under the Government-run PDS,
every Iraqi is entitled to a monthly food basket to fulfill their
nutritional needs. However, frequent shortfalls and delays in the
distribution of certain commodities have made it difficult for
vulnerable households to manage their monthly food needs. As well as
surveying the food security of 26,000 people across the country, the
CFSVA also examined the nutritional status of 24,000 children under
five. It found an improvement in national acute malnutrition rates and
little change in chronic malnutrition rates. However, in five
districts, stunting rates among children were described as alarming.
"This report gives us crucial insights into the current state of food
security in Iraq," said Dr Mehdi al-Alak, chairman of the Central
Organization of Statistics and Information Technology of the Iraqi
Ministry of Planning. "And that, in turn, is vital for the country's
economic recovery, reconstruction and improvements in basic services."
"For the first time, we have a comprehensive report covering all parts
of the country. This makes it an extremely valuable tool for working
out policies and strategies in the future," said Dr. Jamal Ameen, the
head of Kurdistan Region Statistics Office. WFP is currently providing
food assistance to 750,000 of the most vulnerable among the estimated
1.5 million people displaced inside Iraq since February 2006, who do
not have continuous access to a PDS ration because they are unable to
register in the places where they are currently living. Kallon
attributed the reversal of declining food security to increased
economic activity across the country, stimulated by a marked
improvement in security and the humanitarian efforts of the
international community. "But the situation remains volatile and any
deterioration could undermine the whole process," he said. The report
recommends continued food assistance to the most vulnerable in
collaboration with the Iraqi government's efforts to reform the PDS. It
calls for support to initiatives to improve mother and child nutrition
and caring practices, scaling up micronutrient programmes and providing
food for education in the poorest areas, with a particular emphasis on
girls' school enrolment and attendance.
Related, as noted in yesterday's snapshot, Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reported
Syria refused to allow a World Food Program ship to unload rice "at the
country's main port" due to "the percentage of cracked rice in the
cargo" (according to a Syiran official). The rice was intended for some
of the estimated 194,000 refugees from Iraq currently living in Syria.
Staying with the topic of refugees, Barbara Ferguson (Arab News) reports
on the process for Iraqis who make it to the United States, "Once in
the US, for example, refugees must over time reimburse the US
government for the cost of their plane ticket, usually well in excess
of $1,000. Though some are given small stipends, they lament that they
start life in the US already in debt. In the US, many new arrivals say
life hasn't improved much. Many subsist on food statmps, housing
supplied by refugee services, and get whatever medical care they need
from Medicaid. . . . The immediate resettlment -- finding a house,
giving three months' worth of cash assitance -- is the easy part. The
hard part comes afterward, when the money has run out, the economy is
still bad and affordable is hard to come by." At the White House today,
spokesperson Dana Perino said the Bully boy was "very well aware of"
Michigan's 9% unemployment rate. NPR's Jamie Tarabay (Morning Edition) reported yesterday
on the Iraqi refugees in Michigan and notes that "the economy is so
bleak that the State Department no longer wants to allow Iraqis to
settle in Michigan unless they have immediate relatives already living
there. Iraqi engineer Raed Jabro has been looking for a job in Detroit
for four months now and told Tarabay, "It's not easy to find a job
now." Rawa Bahou is an Iraqi widow living in Detroit with her three
young children and she explains that after leaving Syria (where she and
her family were refugees for three years), she was settled in Atlanta
despite having family in Detroit, "We stayed in an apartment they
rented for us. I didn't go out. I closed the door, rang my in-laws to
come get me." The city's Chaldean federation is headed by Joe Kassab
and he makes clear that the refugees are not putting a strain on any
government system, "Those who aren't working, their families are
supporting them. They are not a burden on the government or the state.
They are a clannish people. They live among each other, and if I lose
money, I have my cousin -- my ungle going to help me." Of all Iraqi
refugees, Marc J. Sirois (Pakistan's Daily Star) notes the US has "been dowright stingy, for instance, about helping to care for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees." Johanna Berrigan (CounterPunch) reports
on the refugees who've sought shelter in Syira and Jordan. Of a 2007
trips, she writes, "Throughout the trip, the works of war came vividly
to life in the stories and sorrowful eyes as each person spoke. They
eagerly and openly shared with us their experiences of the war in Iraq,
the circumstances under which they were forced to flee, the
indignities, uncertainty, and suffering that they continue to endure.
We spent time with individuals and families whose lives have been
utterly devastated by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Iraqi
people are barely eking out an existence in these countries were they
cannot claim residence and don't know when or if they will be resettled
to a third country. One man expressed it rather poetically, yet
tragically, 'we cannot touch the sky, we cannot touch the earth, we are
nowhere, we are in limbo without hope, all we want is peace.' Neither
Jordan nor Syria is a signatory of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees
which guarantees certain minimal rights. Niether government refers to
the Iraqis in their countries as 'refugees,' but rather as 'guests.'
Both countries are concerned that the Iraqi refugess will become a long
term presence."
Hamid Ahmed (AP) reports
a Baghdad car bombing claimed 4 lives today (fifteen more wounded) and
it was "the third consecutive day of morning rush hour blasts in the
Iraqi capital" which also included a roadside bombing that left seven
wounded while, in Mosul, two Iraqi Christians (sisters) were shot dead
outside their home and their mother was left wounded. Louise Ireland (Reuters) notes,
"In Wednesday's incident, gunmen killed one woman outside her home,
then stormed the house, killing her sister and wounding their mother." Sam Dagher (New York Times) identifies
one sister as Lamai Subaih Daoud (and the mother of three young
children) and notes the other was twenty-three years old.As the report
released Monday by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted (this is the link,
click on language of choice -- such as "English" -- and remember it's
PDF format):Starting in August, attempts at intimdation aginst
Christians in Mosul were reported with a dramatic increase in violence
in the first two weeks of October. Over 2,200 families, more than
10,000 individuals, have reportedly fled their homes and most have
sought temporary shelter in the Ninawa plains, leading my Special
Representative to publicly express concern and strongly condemn the
killing of civilians on 12 October. The development comes at a very
sensitive time, and against a backdrop of heightened political tensions
regarding the unresolved issues of minority representation in the
provincial elections and disputed internal boundaries. Didn't puppet of
the occupation Nouri al-Maliki swear the assaults had resulted in
stronger measures to ensure protection? Some of the over 2,000 families
have returned to the area and it appears some may flee for their own
safety again.
In other violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing that left seven wounded, a Baghdad car
bombing claimed 2 lives (ten more wounded), another Baghdad roadside
bombing that wounded two people, another Baghdad car bombing that
claimed 12 lives and left at least sixty more people wounded, a Mosul
car bombing at the home where the 2 sisters were shot dead which
resulted in three police officers being wounded (the bombing followed
the shooting), a Kirkuk sticky bomb that wounded four people, a Mosul
car bombing that wounded one Iraqi soldier and a Mosul roadside bombing
that left one person wounded. Reuters notes the Kirkuk sticky bomb targeted (and wounded) "Christian plitician Ashur Yalda" (and also wounded two of his bodyguards).
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Irouba.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
At
the US State Dept today, deputy spokesperson Robert Wood was asked of
the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agrement and he
responded, "My understanding is that the Iraqis are studying the text,
and we await to hear back from them. We think it's, you know, a good
agreement that serves both countries' interests. China's Xinhua quotes
Ali al-Adeeb speaking to the Iraqi press on the treaty and stating,
"Washington's response over the Iraqi proposed amendments on Status of
Forces Agreement only have some positive points, but it seems not
enough for the Iraqi side"; and they quote Iraq's Minister of Finance
Bayan Jabr Solagh stating, "The cabinet will meet either on Saturday or
on Sunday to review the last version of the SOFA draft and then will
vote." People's Weekly World Newspaper quotes
Iraq's Communist Party secretary of the central committee (and Iraqi
MP) Hamid Mejaeed Mousa stating, "Our party is seeking, with others, to
amend the agreement, because it is unacceptable in Iraqi society in its
current draft. It will also not pass in the Parliament in this format,
and we will be the first to reject it. . . . There has to be an
agreement that ensures the evacuation of the foreign troops . . . their
evacuation cannot take place by total rejection. It must be regulated
by an agreement between the two sides. In all countries, regardless of
the situation where there are foreign troops, their exit does not take
place by only ignoring mutal dialogue and talks, but through an
agreement. What matters, therefore, is the content of such an
agreement, and what the principles and basis were for concluding it.
That is the correct approach." Real News Network files a report on the treaty:
The
Iraqi government has made more demands for more changes to the Status
of Forces Security Agreement with the United States. The government of
Prine Minister Nouri al-Maliki had already demanded changes to the
agreement last month and last week the US sent an amended draft
proposal back for approval. But even with the US acquiescence to Iraqi
demands on Tuesday, Iraqi government spokesman Ali Al-Dabbagh told the
London based newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, "The US reply to the Iraqi
amendments is not satisfactory and there are many points that still
need clarification and amendment." The agreement must be approved by
the Iraqi parliament before the 31 December 2008 deadline of the U.N.
mandate that allows US troops to operate legally within Iraq. Without
an agreement the US would have to go back to the Security Council to
get an extension.
The report includes an analysis by Gareth Porter whose work at IPS we've noted often [such as "Witnesses Describe Ballot Fraud in Nineveh" (IPS) from November 2005.] Real News Network is always video and usually text as well.
While the treaty remains iffy, one thing was approved today. The Saudi Gazetter reports
al-Maliki's cabinet signed off on the $67 billion 2009 budget and that
it now goes to the Parliament (which will ratify or turn thumbs down).
At
the State Dept today Wood also noted that Tayyip Recep Erdogan,
Turkey's Prime Minister, was in the US for an economic meet up with the
White House and that Secretary of State Condi Rice will be meeting with
him during the visit. Turkey and northern Iraq are in continous
conflict and it is a rare day when the Turkish military's airplanes are
not bombing northern Iraq. Whether that topic will figure into any
talks or not is not being dicussed. Another Iraqi neighbor is in the
need. Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports
that despite the US assault on Syria October 26, the Syrian government
has decided it will go through with a planned conference on November
22nd. The conference has invited Iraq, its neighbors, the US, the UK
and others.
On the change of emperors in the US, Paul Street (Black Agenda Report) weighs in with a must read and we'll excerpt this from it:
An
old friend used to be a very smart Marxist and was an early member of
SDS -- a real New Leftist. She refused to be given -- yes, refused to
be given -- a copy of of my very careful and respectful book on the
Obama phenomenon. "I can't read that," she said. Some of the names on
the back of the book (Adolph Reed Jr., Noam Chomsky, and John Pilger)
are former icons of hers (she introduced me to the writings of Adolph
Reed, Jr. in the mid-1990s.) but now she's in love with Obama. "It's
the best thing that could happen," she says about his election. She's
repudiated her radical past and agrees with centrist American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) "scholar" Norman Ornstein's recent ravings
on how "the left" must not press Obama for very much right now
(Ornstein's AEI-funded admonitions have recently been broadcast again
and again across America's wonderful "public" broadcasting stations
("N" PR and "P" BS) because of, you know, "the economy" and all.
Paul
Krugman in the New York Times (a left-liberal Obama critic during the
primary campaign) says there's "something wrong with you" if you
weren't "teary-eyed" about Obama's election. Yes, numerous other
radicals and I need to be put under psychiatric care because we didn't
cry over the militantly bourgeois and openly imperialist Obama's
presidential selection.
We have the increasingly unglued white
anti-racist Tim Wise screaming "Screw You" to Obama's harshes radical
critics -- this after recklessly charging racism against working-class
whites and Hillary Clinton supporters who had any issues with (the
racially conciliatory) Obama.
[. . .]
The local bookstore, run by
progressives (left-liberal Edwards supporters during the Iowa Caucus),
is willing to sell my book but "too scared" to have an author event.
Few
if any of these people have bothered to read a single solitary word of
Obama's blatantly imperial, nationalist, and militarist foreign policy
speeches and writings. And my sense is they never will. They do not
care about such primary sources in the ongoing history of the Obama
phenomenon.
For the last two years talking to many liberals and
avowed "progressives" I know about Obama -- who I picked to be the next
president in the fall of 2006 (I thought he was too simultaneously
irresistible to both the power elite and the liberal base not to
prevail) -- has been like talking to Republicans about George W. Bush
and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 2004; no room for messy and
inconvenient facts.
I am hearing people of color identify with the
occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq in ways that would be unimaginable
without Obama. This may be the worst thing of all.
Paul Street's book is Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics [Link takes you to Amazon.com.] Independent journalist John Pilger (at Dissident Voice) continues his truth telling:
No
serious scrutiny of this is permitted within the histrionics of
Obama-mania, just as no serious scrutiny of the betrayal of the
majority of black South Africans was permitted within the "Mandela
moment." This is especially marked in Britain, where America's divine
right to "lead" is important to elite British interests. The once
respected Observer newspaper, which supported Bush's war in Iraq,
echoing his fabricated evidence, now announces, without evidence, that
"America has restored the world's faith in its ideals." These "ideals",
which Obama will swear to uphold, have overseen, since 1945, the
destruction of 50 governments, including democracies, and 30 popular
liberation movements, causing the deaths of countless men, women and
children.
None of this was uttered during the election campaign. Had
it been allowed, there might even have been recognition that liberalism
as a narrow, supremely arrogant, war-making ideology is destroying
liberalism as a reality. Prior to Blair's criminal war-making, ideology
was denied by him and his media mystics. "Blair can be a beacon to the
world," declared the Guardian in 1997. "[He is] turning leadership into
an art form."
Today, merely insert "Obama". As for historic moments,
there is another that has gone unreported but is well under way --
liberal democracy's shift towards a corporate dictatorship, managed by
people regardless of ethnicity, with the media as its clichéd façade.
"True democracy," wrote Penn Jones Jr., the Texas truth-teller, "is
constant vigilance: not thinking the way you're meant to think and
keeping your eyes wide open at all times."iraqthe washington posternesto londonojohn pilgerhussein kadhimmcclatchy newspapersthe new york timessam daghernprmorning editionjames hidergareth porter
Posted at 06:50 am by politicsscree
Permalink
Nov 11, 2008
palin, survivor corps, heroes and more
John McCain said Tuesday that Sarah Palin did not damage his presidential bid, and he dismissed as typical campaign sniping anonymous criticism aimed at her following their crushing defeat.
"I'm so proud of her and I'm very grateful she agreed to run with me. She inspired people, she still does," McCain told Jay Leno during an "Tonight Show" interview taped for broadcast Tuesday night. "I couldn't be happier with Sarah Palin."that's from the associated press. well john mccain certainly took his sweet time defending palin, didn't he? she has been savaged and it's come from his aides. he should have called this nonsense out sooner. that said, he probably hasn't been eager to talk to the press. i'm sure appearing on leno tonight wasn't easy. remember, when john kerry lost, he high tailed it out of the country. went on a little trip abroad. so i will cut him slack - even though i don't care for mccain - on that. but he should have spoken up sooner. c.i. asked me if i could note something. she included it in the snapshot but she slid the e-mail on it over to me as well. this is from survivor corps: Today is Veteran's Day, and our troops need our help now. Which is why I'm asking you to honor their service by blogging about Survivor Corps' program for U.S. veterans and service members, Operation Survivor. I've put together this informational microsite which explains everything:http://survivorcorps.org/returningtroopsThe traumatic effects of war, left unaddressed, will have far-reaching negative consequences for service members, their families, and their communities. Based on our ten years of global experience helping survivors of conflict overcome trauma and give back to their communities, Survivor Corps founded Operation Survivor to provide the same kind of life-changing support to American veterans and service members.If you could share this with your readers on The Common Ills, or even post one of our donation banners, it would help many American soldiers and returning troops. Please let me know if you are able to help and send me the link to your post. Let me know either way. Thanks so much.i'm going to highlight something and before i do, the guy is a libertarian. he is not a lefty. i do not agree with him on most things because i am of the left. but this is from justin raimondo's ' Forget the Honeymoon' ( antiwar.com): When the House Democratic majority passed a military appropriations bill slated for Iraq, a clause that would have prohibited an attack on Iran without a vote in Congress was deleted at the instigation of Emanuel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When Rep. John Murtha presaged the popular rebellion against the Iraq war by coming out against it in no uncertain terms, Emanuel urged Pelosi to refrain from endorsing his call for withdrawal, arguing that it would hurt the Democrats politically.
With the smiling face of Don Obama serving as a front for the knife-wielding Emanuel and his "legendary intensity" – as Rolling Stone writer Joshua Green puts it – one has to wonder: what (or who) else does the Prez-elect have in store for us?
The answer is: Jane Harman – as head of the CIA! (If she doesn't get it, not to worry: she's also up for head of Homeland Security – and if she doesn't get that, she's on the short list for National Intelligence czarina).
Will somebody go see if Glenn Greenwald is okay? I fear he may have done something drastic, especially after all that gushing he's done over the Dear Leader.
Harman has always taken the side of the Bushies when it comes to eavesdropping: during Gen Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings for CIA director, she was against making government eavesdropping an issue. When the New York Times revealed the illegal eavesdropping program authorized by Bush, she was outraged – at the Times, which she strongly hinted ought to be prosecuted. She was pro-war, and did her part in spreading the "bad intel" she now claims to have been fooled by – declaring not only that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but also purveying the rather far-out notion that al-Qaeda had taken up residence there prior to the US invasion. and to note something in the 1st paragraph i quote, steny hoyer's the 1 who strong-armed nancy re: iraq and murphy. i don't like rahm emanuel so i'm not sticking up for him, i'm just correcting the record to how it is as a i know it. and this comes from camp pelosi. a lot of you e-mailed regarding last night's post ' heroes' and i'll answer 1 without any thought because i don't need it. about 12 asked who my favorite hero was on the show? claire. the cheerleader. i was a cheerleader so that may be why but i also really enjoy the character. after her it would either be hiro or nathan-peter (i lump them together on my like scale). if they made elle a character, it could be her. but what they really need to do is start putting claire on every episode. did any 1 else notice she wasn't on last night? she remains the most relatable character for younger audiences and if they don't have her on every episode they really have no reason to turn around and whine about the ratings not being as high as they were before. i'll need to think about the other questions. i will try to answer them and probably here to have something to write. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:' Tuesday, November 11. 2008. Chaos and violence continue, attempted land-grabs continue, the treaty is still in a holding pattern, and Katrina vanden Heuvel preps her comedy act.
Today Iraq's cabinet met for six hours during which they were to address the issue of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. However, AFP reports that they dispensed with the treaty quickly and quotes the Minister of Science and Techonology Raid Jahid Fahmi explaining, "The council of ministers will wait until we have a complete translation in Arabic of the American proposal and have consulted legal advisors before making a final decision." Despite this, the US remains publicly upbeat. AP quotes an e-mail from a US Embassy official (unnamed) which informs them, "We understand the Iraqi government is continuing to study the agreement text. We believe that an agreement can be reached that meets the needs of both parties." While Iraq decides to wait and the US tries to appear optimistic, Baghdad attempts to reassure its neighbors. Sana Abdallah (Middle East Times) reports, "Iraq's National Security Minister Shirwan al-Waeli, who delivered a message to the Arab League from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki outlining the security pact with the United States, said the accord contains 'basic content that no violations are undertaken from Iraqi soil against any neibhoring, Arab or friendly country, and it does not undermine Iraqi sovereignty'." That was already a fear on the part of some neighbors before October 26th. Following that day's US attack on Syria, it's only become more of a fear. Sara Flounders (Workers World) explains of that attack which killed 8 Syrians, "It is a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and U.S. law, specifically the War Powers Act." Brooke Anderson (San Francisco Chronicle) observes, "Syria has demanded that Washington apologize for the strike and has threatened to cut off cooperation on Iraqi border security. The government has also ordered all foreign staff of the American Language Center and American Cultural Center in Damascus to leave the country, and postponed a Nov. 12 meeting of a joint Syrian-Iraqi committee in Baghdad to improve troubled relations." Xinhua notes that Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, has "paid a surprise visit to Syria" today "as tension between the two neighbors rose after a U.S. cross-border raid killed eight Syrians last month." While there, he again repeated the claim that Iraq will not allow itself to be used as a base for attacks on its neighbors.
Today Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports Syria refused to allow a World Food Program ship to unload rice "at the country's main port" due to "the percentage of cracked rice in the cargo" (according to a Syiran official). The rice was intended for some of the estimated 194,000 refugees from Iraq currently living in Syria.
Iran is another neighbor and Fars News Agency reports Iraq's Ambassador to Iran Mohammed Majeed al-Sheikh met with Iranian MP Heshmatollah Falahatpishe who told the ambassador that "Iraq must not turn to the strategic territory of the United States and what the agreement must be geared to is paving the way for stabilizing an independent Iraqi state."
Today is Veterans Day and Survivor Corps has started Operation Survivor: "The traumatic effects of war, left unaddressed, will have far-reaching negative consequences for service members, their families, and their communities. Based on our ten years of global experience helping survivors of conflict overcome trauma and give back to their communities, Survivor Corps founded Operation Survivor to provide the same kind of life-changing support to American veterans and service members."
And IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will also be noted here. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is noting the following:Tomorrow, Wednesday, Nov 12th is the first date, when one of the demonstrators, an IVAW member from D.C., Adam Kokesh, will have his day in court. It is Adams' trial. If you are off work, please, please come. It will be difficult to get enough people out here in Long Island on short notice. These veterans and demonstrators are worthy of support. And, it will be important, but difficult, to get a crowd out for all 15 of them, on 15 different days.Please spread the word:Subject: Please come to court in Nassau County on Wed, Nov 12th at 8am to support the Hempstead 15 from the Hofstra DemoSubject: Hempstead 15 plead not guilty while cops defend brutalizing veteransIt was a sad day for Nassau County, but a proud one for veterans and activists nation-wide when the Hempstead 15 plead not guilty Nov. 10 in the Nassau County District Courthouse to charges of disorderly conduct while a crowd of nearly 100 supporters cheered them from in and outside the building.Video of the court support demo is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGTnxWJFW8
Returning to tensions in Iraq, Ed Johnson and Bill Varner (Bloomberg News) report the United Nations has warned the provincial elections scheduled for January 31st "may trigger more attacks" and the reporters note UN Secretary-General delivering a report to the UN Security Council Monday in which he termed "the security gains 'fragile'."
Michele Montas handled Monday's UN briefing in NYC and she stated that Iraqi ministries no longer provide the United Nations with fatality information. She also noted Ban Ki-moon released a report and that he states the provincial elections " represent the most significant events in the coming months, as they can advance political dialogue, establish representative provincial councils and empower community leaders to meet the needs of local citizens in cooperation with the Government of Iraq. At the same time, he warns, there is potential for election-related violence and instability." Take "he warns" out of the previous quote and that's page 14 of the Secretary General's report (item 55). The United Nations report is entitled [PDF format warning] "Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1830 (2008)." The report covers a wide range of topics involving gains and things still needed. Regarding elections, it notes:
Following intense negotiations, the Council of Representatives adopted the provincial election law on 24 September and the Presidency Council ratified the measure on 7 October. The law was amended on 3 November to include provisions for minority representation in Baghdad, Basra and Ninawa. Provincial council elections are now scheduled to take place in early 2009 in 14 of the 18 governorates in Iraq. Starting in August, attempts at intimdation aginst Christians in Mosul were reported with a dramatic increase in violence in the first two weeks of October. Over 2,200 families, more than 10,000 individuals, have reportedly fled their homes and most have sought temporary shelter in the Ninawa plains, leading my Special Representative to publicly express concern and strongly condemn the killing of civilians on 12 October. The development comes at a very sensitive time, and against a backdrop of heightened political tensions regarding the unresolved issues of minority representation in the provincial elections and disputed internal boundaries. [. . .] On 26 October, United States forces from Iraq launched an attack on a house in the village of Sukkariyah in the Syrian Arab Republic. I expressed my deep regret over the loss of civilian lives and I called for regional cooperation to solve issues of common concern, including border security. The situation in the region is fragile and we therefore must stay focused on initial positive steps towards regional dialogue. And regarding Kirkuk and minorities, we'll note this from the report:During the reporting period my Special Representative and his political and electoral teams faciliated the negotiations on the provincial election law between the major political party blocs, the Presidency Council, members of the Council of Representatives and the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Following the passage of the election law, engagement with the parties continued with a view to their reconsidering the issue of minority representation in the provincial councils. An amendment addressing this issue was passed on 3 November. My Special Representative met with key leaders from the Christian, Yezidi, Shebek and Sabean Mandean communities to reassure them of the continued engagement of the United Nations on the issue of minority representation. The provincial election stipulates special arrangements for Kirkuk Governorate, whereby a committee comprised of seven representatives (two Members of Parliament each from Kirkuk's Arab, Turkmen and Kurdish components and one Christian representative) is to submit a consense report to the Council of Representatives by 31 March 2009 on (a) mechanisms for sharing administrative and security powers and civil service positions in Kirkuk; (b) a review of violations against public and private property within the Governorate of Kirkuk before and after 9 April 2003, with the Government of Iraq guaranteeing the correction of those violations in accordance with the laws applied in Iraq; and (c) an examination of all data and records related to the demographic situation including the voter registry. The committee's findings will be binding recommendations for implementation by the Independent High Electoral Commission. The committee's mandate concerns the issues that lie at the epicentre of what has so far been irreconcilable Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen and Christian claims on the future administrative status of Kirku. UNAMI is ready, should it be invited, to provide advice and assistance to the committee.
Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that "world attention has focused on the battle to control oil-rick Kirkuk"; however, "the strip of small villages connecting Sinjar to Khanaqeen has turned into a powder keg as Kurdish and Arab parties compete for the loyalties of the minorities. Both sides are using economic incentives, intimidation, detention and in some cases murder." Fadel focuses on Yazidi Murad Kashtu who has been taken into custody by Kurdish forces three times (twice he was beaten while in their custody) while threatening him over his work "with an Arab party in territory that the Kruds covet."
Asi tells Fadel, "Any man who is not with them (the Kurds) -- and especially not with the party (the Kurdistan Democratic Party) -- cannot live in the area because he will suffer, and for this reason I think all of us will leave the area."
Staying with violence but dropping back to yesterday's Baghdad bombings, Anwar J. Ali and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) report the "synchronized triple-bombing" claimed 28 lives according to the Ministry of the Interior and that is and the "suicide attack in Baquba on Monday, seem to be part of a rise in violence after a relatively quiet few weeks here. . . . The Associated Press counted at least 19 bombings in Baghdad this month as of Sunday, compared with 28 for all of October and 22 in September." Mary Beth Sheridan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) describe the scene: "Walls define much of this historic city -- slabs of concrete erected by U.S. soldiers or residents that have turned neighborhoods into mazes aimed at frustrating attackers. Only recently, as security improved, did someone wedge open the barriers by Karim's Abu Wael restaurant. No one noticed when someone drove a white Volkswagen Passat through the opening and parked. At about 8 a.m. Monday, explosives in the Passat's trunk detonated, just as a minibus packed with 20 people passed by on the busy road on the other side of the barriers, witnesses and U.S. officials said." Hussein Kadhim and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explain that there is some confusion as to whether there were three or four bombings: "Witnesses said they saw two car bombs followed by two roadise bombs, while police blamed a suicide bomber and two roadside bombs for the fatalities." AP's Robert H. Reid and Qassim Abdul-Zahra raise the death toll to 31 and they add, "Witnesses said the suicide bomber mingled among rescuers and bystanders, then detonated an explosives belt, which probably accounted for most of the casualties."
Baghdad was again the scene of coordinated bombings this morning. BBC reports a double-bombing "during the morning rush hour. The target appeared to be a newspaper distribution; the first blast hit a delivery lorry and the second a row of vendors waiting to collect newspapers." AFP adds, "Three day labourers were killed and another 14 wounded when a bomb went off in an empty lot where they were waiting for work near Palestine street, one of the main thoroughfares of Baghdad." McClatchy's Sahar Issa notes 2 dead from the two bombings and seventeen wounded.
Other bombings today?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that left six people wounded a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded six people, another Baghdad roadside bombing also injured six ("including three policemen"), a Nineveh car bombing that wounded fifteen people and the Turkish military bombed Dohuk last night and this morning.
Reflecting on the US election last week, former US House Rep and Senator James G. Abourezk (CounterPunch) observes:
Of course, we all understood that Nader would not win the election, but the movement of Arab Americans away from him regrettably deprives him of the political influence he might have gained to press his positions, including his strong criticism of Israel's illegal occupation. His voice is considerably weakened because of the movement of Arab American voters to other candidates, which is unfortunate for those Palestinians who live in desperation on a daily basis. The same is true for the people of Lebanon and Syria who are in constant fear of being bombed by U.S. warplanes flown by Israeli pilots.
In this election, a great many Arab American joined Obama's winning coalition, despite Obama's clear indication that he wanted nothing to do with Arabs, either Christian or Muslim. We saw, during his campaign, that his staff prevented Muslim women with head scarves from sitting behind him in view of the television cameras during his campaign rallies. He visited Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues, but he refused to visit even one Mosque during the campaign. And, finally, joining John McCain, he made the obligatory bow and scrape to the Israeli Lobby -- AIPAC -- during that group's 2008 convention. He made no attempt to hide any of these clearly pro-Israeli actions from Arab Americans. Had he done the same toward any other ethnic group, we would expect that the group would find another electoral home for their support and their votes. But that, apparently, is not what happened this year. Arab Americans voted overwhelming in support of Obama, rushing right past Ralph Nader, who has articulated the community's feelings about the Israeli occupation.
This is a continuation of the self-destructive attitude held by people of Arab descent. We see it in the Arab world, and we see it among the Arab diaspora. We see the urge to defeat or to overlook one of our own in favor of catering to those we think are certain to hold power.
Team Obama launched, encouraged and fed on some of the most sexist attacks the country's seen in years. In a landscape where feminist 'leaders' rolled over and took it (with a smile!) The New Agenda was among the organizations springing up to promote self-respect and self-worth. Amy Siskind notes that today is the quarter birthdray of New Agenda and recaps the recent history:
The New Agenda is formed on August 11th, and it's no longer just about Hillary
Playing hardball with Matthews on August 14th
Advancing our Platform to the Obama Campaign and the McCain Campaign
Clinton's journey awakens a new feminist movement and welcome to the fourth wave of feminism
We speak out about using the term "shrill" demanding an apology from Sen. Reid and The Wall Street Journal
The New Agenda is the first women's rights group to speak out against the sexism against Gov. Palin, which we do within 48 hours
Chris Matthews remains in our sights
We question NOW's endorsement of the Obama/Biden ticket, but refuse to appear on MSNBC saying "Thanks, but no thanks."
We organize actions to counter the sexism and misogyny aimed at Gov. Palin and we make a difference
We say "NO" to Larry Summers for Treasury Secretary, not once but twice
Oh, and we have one heck of a good time together each Monday night at 10 p.m. EST on Chewing the Fat with Ophelia
On Governor Palin, we noted Sunday at Third, "Palin is seen as a strong voice in the Republican Party's future so naturally the press violates all the rules to spread a whisper campaign. No, The New York Times is not supposed to allow opponents to attack someone without coming forward. Strange that when they acknowledge that policy these days, it's usually when someone in the entertainment industry threatens to sue the paper. The threat of lawsuit will always force the paper to issue one of those, 'Oops, we goofed. It is not our policy to allow character assaults to be launched by unnamed persons.' Maybe Palin should threaten to sue?" As Debra J. Saunders (San Francisco Chronicle) points out today, "It tells you everything that the Palin smear stories come from anonymous staffers. There is no documentation. There is no way to prove the rumors false. Think graffiti in a junior high school girls' room." Saunders goes on to note, "The political press corps doesn't win any awards in this episode, either. Remember when the pack would not jump on National Enquirer stories about John Edwards' relations with Rielle Hunter and child -- because the story had not been nailed down? It seems that there is a different standard for Palin -- to wit, anything goes."
Today the Times continues their efforts to smear Palin and Michael Cooper should be ashamed of himself. He accuses her of "not going quietly into the sunsent" which is strange when you consider no one launched accusations like that at John Edwards who, following the 2004 election, immediately launched his 2008 presidential campaign. He finds it shocking that "she will be given a starring role when the Republican Governors Associations meets in Miami" -- why the hell shouldn't she? She's one of the few exctiing people that party has. It's her or Ahnuld. And she just came off a campaign where she packed in huge crowds.
"She seems determined to remain highly visible," Cooper frets. Was she supposed to die? Was she supposed to hang her head in shame? Exactly what does the New York Times want from Governor Palin and how long is the paper going to allow the double-standard to remain so obvious in print? He then goes on to declare that "Palin remains popular among some Republicans, and she is still mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012." Among some? Jeremy P. Jacobs (PolitickerMA) reports the latest Rasmussen poll finds "64% of 1,000 likely Republican voters would support Palin over Rmoney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Louisian Gov. Bobby Jindal, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist" for the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. Among some? 8% judged Palin unfavorable in the poll (that's "somewhat" and "very") while 91% judged her favorable (that's "somewhat" and "very lumped together). This echoes Rasmussen's earlier poll this month, "Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans say John McCain made the right choice by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Palin has been the subject of largely critical media coverage but has attracted some of the most enthusiastic crowds of either campaign. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say the party picked the right nominee for president." With Republicans, Palin was more popular than was McCain. And that's in spire of non-stop attacks.
As soon as Palin was announced, Barack's operatives set about smearing her with one vile lie after another. Early on, it was noted here (back in August) that we wouldn't repeat that nonsense but if Palin commented on it, we'd quote her. She's commented on one of the big early lies, that Trig was not her son. She did so on Fox's On the Record With Greta which has transcript and video:
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything else that has been raised or said about you in the media, either during the convention -- I mean, during the campaign or since the campaign ended, that you think you need to address that has been, you know, an allegation about you?
PALIN: Well, unfortunately, early on, there are a tremendous number of examples that we can give regarding my record and things that could have, should have been so easily corrected if -- if the media would have taken one step further and -- and investigated a little bit, not just gone on some blogger probably sitting there in their parents' basement, wearing their pajamas, blogging some kind of gossip or -- or a lie regarding, for instance, the -- the discussion about who was Trig's real mom? You know, Was it one of her daughters or was she faking her pregnancy?
And that was in mainstream media, the question that was asked, instead of just coming to me and -- and -- and you know, setting the record straight. And then when we tried to correct that, that, yes, truly, I am Trig's mother, for it to take days for it ever to have been corrected, that -- that kind of right out of the chute was one of the oddities of this campaign and the messaging.
And then, too, things that, again, so easily could have been corrected about my supposed attempts to censor and ban books when I was the mayor of Wasilla. And one of the examples that they gave was that media was just sure that one of the books I tried to ban was Harry Potter. Of course, it hadn't even been written when I was the Mayor of Wasilla.
So just issues like that that just -- you know, it was -- it was mind- boggling to consider what it was that we were going to be up against, when you could see that something was written about, something was stated in the media. I knew the truth and I had the record to prove otherwise, and yet it would either take too long to unring that bell that had just been rung or there was no attempt at all to correct the record.
That was pretty frustrating.
That's Greta Van Sustern. We don't normally link to Fox but it was noted -- back in August -- that if Palin commented on that vile trash, we would note and otherwise we wouldn't. She's commented.
Barry Grey (WSWS) addresses realities and hype in the election:
Virtually without exception, liberal commentators and "left" political tendencies have ignored or downplayed all such indications that Obama intends to pursue a conservative course and reject anything that suggests a more democratic and egalitarian restructuring of American capitalism. This has been facilitated by their interpretation of the election almost entirely in racial terms. The obsession with race, which for 40 years has been the mainstay of liberal politics in America, has, if anything, been accentuated in the aftermath of the election.
This is despite the fact that the election was a powerful refutation of the portrayal of American working people as racist, backward and hopelessly in the thrall of religion and conservative "values"--a political myth that assumed the status of an unassailable truth after the reelection of Bush in 2004.
Typical is the column in the Sunday New York Times by Frank Rich, which begins, "On the morning after a black man won the White House, America's tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy." Rich notes approvingly that the election disproved what "we've been told by those in power… that we are small, bigoted and stupid--easily divided and easily frightened." He then makes the significant admission that "We heard this slander of America so often that we all started to believe it, liberals most certainly included."
It is obvious that Rich, speaking for liberals in general, employs the same superficial impressionism, buttressed by an obsession with race, that led him to buy into the old illusions in order to embrace a new one--that Obama represents a new dawn of democracy and progress in America.
It is legitimate to recognize that the vote for Obama would not have been possible were it not for the fact that social attitudes in America have changed profoundly over the past 50 years--something that was for all practical purposes denied by Rich and his fellow liberals. Nor is there any doubt that the movement to the left of broad sections of the working class overcame any hesitations linked to the lingering influence of racial attitudes.
But there is a disturbing undercurrent in the response of Rich and other liberal and "left" commentators to the election. For them, it is all about race, and not about the social sentiments, policy questions and class issues that actually determined the outcome. They define the election as the victory of a black man, not the result of a wave of popular opposition to Bush and a Republican administration that lifted a candidate into the White House who happens to be black.
On the hype machine, Roger Snyder (Greens for Greens) expresses that he's reached his saturation level:
I sorry to say I'm over it. While I was moved by the first reports of people celebrating in the streets, and can still understand the feeling that many people (many of my neighbors) have, the plethora of bad analysis and false claims has left me not wanting to hear any more.For example:Obama's Historic Victory by Howard Zinn"But, as the first African American in the White House, elected by an enthusiastic citizenry which expects a decisive move towards peace and social justice, he presents a possibility for important change.Obama becomes president in a situation which cries out for such change. The nation has been engaged in two futile and immoral wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American people have turned decisively against those wars."No and no. What people did was vote against Bush. They didn't like him anymore, and took it out on McCain. The McCain tactic of claiming to have years of inside experience backfired when the economic went south and the voters blamed those in power for the collapse. And they couldn't tell or didn't care that Obama was no different than McCain on the economy.And the economy was the issue. Obama was a likely loser before it came along.Not the wars. Not social justice.
Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party's presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente was her running mate. Unlike other presidential tickets, Cynthia regularly raised the issue of the prison-industrial-complex and the death penalty throughout her campaign. Gloria Rubac (Workers World) reports, "Cynthia McKinney made history in Texas Oct. 30. Never has any politician or any candidate for public office been in Huntsville, Texas, on an execution night to join in with those protesting. . . . As [Greg] Wright's stepdaughter stood outside of the death house holding a cell phone in one hand and a framed photo Wright in the other, McKinney approached her and asked about the photo. 'How long has your family been dealing with fighting this execution? Did you ever think that your family would ever have to deal with the issue of the death penalty in such a personal way?' McKinney listened to Misty Smith explain that they had been fighting to prove Wright's innocence for seven or eight years and that never did she think she and her mother would be going through this injustice."
Meanwhile Laura Carlsen (CounterPunch) reports that "Latin American leaders still aren't running to the mountaintop to proclaim the dawn of a new era in U.S. relations. The response can be characterized more as hope seen through the ever-leery eye the contintent keeps on its northern neighbor. The U.S. government has a long way to go to undo the damage done to its relations and its repuations through decades of both Republican and Democratic presidencies. Latin American leaders placed conditions and qualifications on their congratulations. Lula in Brazil and Evo Morales in Bolivia called for an end to the 'unjustifiable' embargo against Cuba. Morales added a demand for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region. Mexico's Felipe Calderon sent a brief congratulatory note, calling for strengthening bilateral relations and emphasizing the role of Mexican-Americans in the elections and the U.S. economy. This was his way of insisting on action toward legalizing the status of Mexican immigrants and creating legal frameworks for future immigration flows."
Dr. Elias Akleh (Information Clearing House) evaluates the realities of the upcoming Obama presidency:
Obama is no different. He will soon be exposed the person he really is; just another wolf in sheep clothing. Obama's promises to protect the middle class are just empty promises. This was obvious after he approved the $700 billion (plus interest) bailout to give more tax money to corrupt bankers, who will use that money to buy weaker banks. The money should have been used to pay portions of the mortgages the middle class owe to the banks, so they could keep their homes. His acclaimed tax cut promise to the middle class means nothing to its unemployed members. The official unemployment rate is 6.5% not counting those, who are not receiving unemployment benefits and are thus not counted. In 2008 alone Americans have lost 1.2 million jobs to outsourcing. Obama's solution to outsourcing is offering corporations tax cuts as incentives to keep the jobs in the US. Such incentive is nothing compared to the huge savings, in the forms of benefits and retirement funds the corporations are saving by employing very cheap labor force unprotected by any labor laws in third world countries lacking any environmental laws. Obama never talked about the poor Americans. For him they don't exist. Obama's real position concerning the unfair NAFTA agreement, that he aggressively criticized and called for its revocation, was exposed later, when it was leaked that his advisor Astan Goolsbee had called Canadian officials asking them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously, but "... should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plan".
Herb the Verb (Corrente) takes on bigot Jasmyne A. Canick who made an ass out of herself on NPR's Talk of the Nation spewing homophobia, "She has a point, after all, since human rights are a limited resource, the more human rights your group gets, the less my group gets. She didn't say whether that also translates to brown people, women, etc., but it isn't a stretch to assume that it does." (Herb the Verb is using sarcasm.) And we'll close out on this topic with Media Matters (which misses the boat in their criticism):
During the November 7 edition of ABC's The View, while discussing the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and effectively overturning the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted that a "priest" in Sweden was "put in jail for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple, so then they put him in jail because the law stated that you could not discriminate based on sexual preference." Later in the discussion, co-host Sherri Shepherd said: "I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed." However, contrary to Hasselbeck and Shepherd's suggestion that as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling -- or without the passage of Proposition 8 -- members of the clergy "could be jailed" for refusing to perform gay marriages, neither the decision by the California Supreme Court, nor Proposition 8 had anything to do with members of the clergy.
The California Supreme Court's ruling applied only to state officials. The ruling directed "state officials [] [to] take all necessary and appropriate steps so that local officials may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples" [emphasis added]. The court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
A) Barbara Walters brought it up. (Media Matters has the transcript.) It's her show. Hold her accountable. There was no reason for her to bring up things that weren't accurate (which was the reason Whoopi's visibly ticked off, video is posted as well). Walters brought it up. B) In the US, churches do not handle marriages or divorces, the government does. You can be married in a church -- it can be a location. You can pick someone of the clergy to preside over the ceremony; but the church itself has nothing to do with marriage or divorce in the US other than locale and ceremony. States issue marriage licenses, states grant divorces. That's how it works. C) Elizabeth's tale of Sweden doesn't need to be addressed because who knows if it's true (it probably isn't) and who gives a damn? This is the United States of America. You don't need to fret over what Sweden did or didn't do. In the US can someone be sued for refusing to marry a couple? No. NO NO NO. If they could, couples would be suing the Catholic Church which is very clear that you have a Catholic annullment (not a civil one) or a dead spouse if you plan to remarry in the Church.
And for pro-Barack talk, you can check out the Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel who will be Mike Schneider's guest tonight on Bloomber TV's Night Talk. Watch Mike try to keep a straight face as alleged lefty Katty-van-van declares, "I could see sending Colin Powell to the middle east or to Iraq to help faciliate an exit out of Iraq or to really move on a Middle East peace process." Yes, Katty-van-van is that silly of a prat-prat. Katty-van-van will go on to hiss, "I'm not ecstatic that there are so many Clinton administration people" but Colin Powell -- the man who lied to the UN and created his own "blot" -- she wants to bring as someone to do 'good' work in the Mid East? Cover-up Collie, covering up for War Crimes since Vietnam? In fairness, if Katty's saying it either her husband or her father told her to. Since it's so outrageous, the talking points came from her father.
Laugh with Katty-van-van tonight at 10:00 PM in Europe, Asia or the US on Bloomberg TV or catch the artifical coo in stereo on Bloomberg Radio (1130 AM in NYC also on XM and Sirius) at the same time. You can also catch Night Talk online at Bloomberg.com and click here for the podcast (or check iTunes Business News).
iraqanwar j. alithe new york timeskatherine zoepfleila fadelmcclatchy newspapershussein kadhimthe washington postmary beth sheridanqais mizherelias aklehroger snydered johnsonbill varner
Posted at 08:24 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
'the common ills' (trina of trina's kitchen)
cedric and i both wanted to use our mirror sites this week to highlight a really great post by trina.
Thursday community member Stan started his own website, Oh Boy It Never Ends. He already has four posts and I recommend them: MoviesGood for NaderStan 411Robin MorganIn January of 2006, I started my site and I'll continue this weekly blog until C.I. decides to shut down The Common Ills. C.I. is at the four-year mark and I thought I would write a little about that. I think my husband first discovered The Common Ills. It may have been our son Mike,
but I would bet it was my husband (you can't ask them, their memory is
worse than mine). I know I would walk into the kitchen in the morning
and my husband would be at the computer reading the day's news and
leaving it running for me with a "Be sure to read The Common Ills" cry
before he was out the door. So I read for over a year before I
ever started a site. Mike had already started his site. So I had a long
time of reading and got a sense of the site and of C.I. It was obvious
that TCI existed for a number of reasons including to speak out against
the illegal war and to speak up for women. That really didn't
take place and if the latter did they were usually ghetto-ized in a
woman's only space. If you think about it, even now, there are very few
women who cover the 'big topics' and also stand up to attacks against
women. There is no bigger topic than Iraq and I think of it as a real
credit for women that the site online whose focus is the illegal war is
also the site run by a woman and where women will not be treated as
extras in life. There's a blogger online whose a woman and she
does 'serious' topics. But you'll notice that she never addresses
gender unless it's time to self-promote. I think of her as Little Miss
Gregory Peck. When it's time to self-promote in interviews this year,
she's taken to repeating tales that we've heard from Ava and C.I. since
2005. Which is another reason to roll your eyes at her. But C.I.
just really created a safe space. Women were not welcome online at
political sites. We still aren't. You'll notice how many will include
comments that equate strength with testes. If women were truly
appreciated online, those comments would not pop up repeatedly. In
2004, it was even worse online. And not only was it worse for women,
Iraq got about as much attention as it gets right now which is nearly
none. Into that mix came C.I. and never doubt her influence. I
get e-mails all the time asking why I don't link to this or that. I
don't link because my attitude is they are dishonorable people. They
steal. They don't credit. Today it is very common to see
someone refer to a website and then refuse to link to it. That comes
from four years of C.I.'s "No links to trash." C.I. started that and
did so because she understood that linking to something was increasing
its popularity and rank. That's only one example. There are many more. So when one of the e-mails comes in asking for me to link to something, it goes into the trash folder. I'm not in the mood. I'm
really not in the mood to link to too much outside of the community. If
you look at my blogroll, you should notice I've purged somethings. Gone
are all Ms. and WMC related websites. I'm done with them. I'm done with
elderly girls who get their tired jollies from attacking other women.
Gloria Steinem's an embarrassment. Maybe when she had the plastic
surgery to suck out the fat from her upper eye lids, it grabbed a
little brain matter? I have no idea. I just know she's embarrassed
herself. She went on Oprah this week to trash Sarah Palin again. How
very pathetic. I've also heard what Christian Bale says about his
one-time (very brief) step-monster and thought, "Hmm. Doesn't sound all
that feminist." Sarah Palin was running for public office and
a woman who destroyed with her lies isn't a feminist. So Gloria
Steinem, you're just an old woman still coloring your straw hair. You
are not a feminist. You gave up that right. You're an embarrassment
like the elderly women were in the 1920s. You need to leave the public
stage and take your little dog Toto (Robin Morgan) with you. What those
two women have done in the last nine weeks especially is shameful and
they are not feminists. They are embarrassments and they may be
suffering from dementia due to their advanced age. Regardless, they
need to transition into private live and off the public stage because
they have nearly destroyed everything they helped build in the last 40
years. Gloria is especially offensive because she's sweet.
Robin Morgan's just a bitch. She's just an ugly bitch who tears apart
Sarah Palin because she (Robin) is so butt ugly that no one thinks
she's cute or pretty and hasn't in many, many decades. The way she goes
after Palin makes it very clear that jealousy is the root of her hatred
of Palin. But Gloria's the sweet one. She's become the idiot.
She's become Rose on Golden Girls. How so? Her actions this year? A
repeat of her behavior in 1972 and maybe this isn't know but Gloria had
a lot of apologizing to do in 1973. And a lot of us were willing to
forgive her stabbing women in the back to wrap her legs around the
patriarchy (the men in the Democratic Party with her ridiculous "I'm
for Shirley is you're in an uncontested state but if the vote's close,
vote for George McGovern!") because it was early in the second wave and
mistakes would be made. But the promise we were given was that Gloria didn't just know she was wrong, she was promising it would never happen again. But it has. This year. And if she's not going to learn from her mistakes, she needs to run from the public stage. Women
have suffered under the backlash and a large cause of the suffering has
been the ineffective 'leadership' in the feminist movement which is
always too quick to fall on its back and spread its legs. We need women that fight. And
if you're someone who read The Common Ills in the early days, you know
what a fighter C.I.'s become. It's really amazing. Then and now, C.I.'s
attitude was 'think what you want.' But she's lost the stomach for 'in
fairness' and for trying to see it from someone else's side if the
someone else repeatedly does harm. I love what she does and wish I could do something similar. Not the same thing because I'm Trina and can't copy someone else. But what I do want is to be a stronger voice when I speak. C.I.
thought The Common Ills would be ending this week. That was the
announced plan in the summer of 2005. It hasn't ended. Yet. But we have
no idea how much longer it will continue and I want to hit hard when I
write here. I'm not interested in the weak. The weak destroyed
the country for eight years and they're gearing up to destroy for four
more. There's not a bit of difference in Barack and Bully Boy or in the
way both are turned into heroes with no basis in reality. It is
very difficult to read Paul Krugman anymore because he is as bad as
Chris Matthews in the lead up to the illegal war. He is writing these
embarrassing pieces that may, in fact, top some of Peggy Noonan's 2000
and 2001 hagiography on the Bully Boy. So many people made themselves useless in 2008. C.I.'s
said you could see it as something to cry about or as a gift. I choose
the latter. We now know how weak the left 'voices' are and how they
sell out everything for a cheap election. There are no ethics, there are no standards and there is no honesty. From
hundreds of 'voices,' we are left with maybe a dozen we can trust on
radio or in mags or newspapers. That's not saying much. But imagine how
much worse it would be if we hadn't awoken to the reality of what our
'leaders' really were? If we didn't realize how weak they were we might
have, wrongly thinking we could depend upon them, found ourselves in a
crisis and realized after the fact that we couldn't count on them. As
the ship sinks, better to know who can't swim before you pass out the
life preservers. And as I rush to wrap up, the real gift has
been watching C.I., during a very difficult and rough year, keep
fighting, keep standing up and never selling out. Finally, let
me say thank you to the woman who never operated under the mistaken
belief that women didn't matter or only mattered half as much as a man.
C.I.'s created a strength that will live on online long after this
community packs it in. This is C.I.'s " Iraq snapshot:" Friday,
November 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military
announces another death, the pathetic voices of the left continue
cooing while stronger voices from the left speak to realities, Talabani
makes an announcement, and more.
Tuesday a presidential election
was held in the US. It could have been about something but that would
have required actual issues. Instead it was stroke, fondle and
feather-kiss Barack by All Things Media Big and Small while real
candidates were shut out of the coverage -- by all outlets and Amy
Goodman a crappy once a month nod to Ralph or Cynthia didn't mean s**t
when every day you swung that tired ass under the street lamp once more
for Barack. In 2004, we heard "never again." Never again would we allow
the movement to end the illegal war to be derailed by a presidential
campaign. That got tossed aside and ripped to shreds, now didn't it?
Let's move over to Loony Tune Stephen Zune who lied in a 2008 article, never corrected it and, before you knew it, all the simple minded were running with (Dahr Jamail, come on down!). No, Hillary did not visit Iraq only once. "Dr." Zunes, correct your lying mouth. He, of course, refused to. And he's back to lie some more at ZNet:
"Obama's honest and prescient understanding of Iraq prior to the
invasion gives hope that as president he will be less inclined to
engage in such acts of reckless militarism." Apparently Zunes is back
on the meds that regulate his intense mood swings (sadly, the meds do
nothing for his delusions). The 2002 speech was an embarrassment and
nothing for the peace movement to praise. There's been some question
about that speech so let's put Zuney to the side for a moment. The
speech did take place. It is recorded. On video. The reaction from the
crowd is the only reason Team Barack had to lie and claim that the
speech didn't exist. The crowd wasn't applauding, they weren't
cheering. It was a meek and embarrassing speech (delivered to a sparse
crowd, it should be noted). When Barack finished there wasn't even
polite applause. But Zuney liked it and, if you're off your meds, you
may as well.
Loony Tunes Zunes goes on to argue that if the War
Hawk Barack isn't a dove, so what, because "he owes his nomination --
and therefore his election -- to those who opposed the invasion of
Iraq". Yeah, try collecting on that, Stephen. Hey, remember Stephen
Zunes' snit-fit at Barack a few months back? When Barack picked Joe
Biden as his running mate? The Joe Biden who supported the illegal war?
But Loony wants you to believe that Barack's indebted to the 'anti-war'
'movement.' (That would be the same Barack who punked Iraq Veterans
Against the War in Denver -- they were protesting and getting
attention, he sent out a Texan known for lying -- one who even lied for
W. -- out to trick them and they fell for it and gave the media a lot
of statements about how groovy Barack was. As soon as the protest ended
so did Barack's 'promise' to them.) Zunes uses phrases like "surely
Barack is aware of this" and what's really hilarious is that someone
who whored his ass for Barack as hard Stephen did has to guess as to
what Barack is and isn't aware of. But a debt is owed, Zunes maintains,
and pressure will be applied! In the real world, Mickey Z points out:
While
the savvy strategist/activists of the Left harbor their delusions of
grandeur about their ability to sway the Prince of Hope, here's a tiny
bit what they--and all of us--have allowed to happen without exerting
our "influence": epidemics of preventable diseases; the poisoning of
our air, water, and food (including mother's breast milk); global
warming, climate change, animal and plant extinctions, disappearing
honeybees, destruction of the rain forest, topsoil depletion, etc.;
one-third of Americans either uninsured or underinsured in terms of
health care; 61% of corporations do not even pay taxes; presidential
lies, electoral fraud, limited debates, etc.; the largest prison
population on the planet; corporate control of public land, airwaves,
and pensions; overt infringement of our civil liberties; bloated
defense budget, unilateral military interventions, war crimes committed
in our name, legalization of torture, blah, blah, blah...
Before
you know it, the US government will start spying on American citizens
and detaining prisoners without charges while allowing corporations to
ravage the earth in pursuit of profit, wiping out entire eco-systems in
the process. Oops . . . sorry: they're already doing all that and the
mighty Left is fighting back by supporting Obama?
Everywhere I
went on Election Day, I was asked by friend and stranger alike: "Did
you vote?" Once the polling booths closed, I could be 100% certain I'd
not be asked another politically motivated question by such people for
another four years. No one would be rushing up to me and demanding to
know if I was planning to do anything about, say, FISA, the death
penalty, the PATRIOT Act, homelessness, or factory farming. The
election is over. Obama has won. For 99% of the Left, that means their
work is done until 2012. It's time to gloat and reap all the rewards,
right?
My prediction: The only pressure that will be consistently
exerted by those on the Left will be the pressure of their soft butts
on their couch cushions as they sit back to smugly watch Jon Stewart,
Keith Olbermann, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher.
Zunes can
never stick to the facts and, having a word count, has to resort
frequently to falsehoods. Which is how you end up with his claim that
the likes of Susan Rice (she works herself into a war frenzy at the
drop of a hat) and Our Modern Day Carrie Nations Samantha Power (Sammy,
get the axe!) are "innovative and enlightened members of the foreign
policy establishment". Keep dreaming and keep lying Zunes. If you told
the truth at this late date, your head might fall out. For reality on
the likes of Sammy Power, see John R. MacArthur's "Pro-War Liberals Frozen in the Headlights" (Common Dreams). Or maybe you want to refer to Howard Zinn
on Power's "myopia":She believes that "there is a moral difference
between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and
killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a
military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a
"moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more
reprehensible than the other? In countless news briefings, Donald
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about
civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional"
or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem.
In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were
justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard
Nixon and various generals.
Or maybe you'd prefer Edward S. Herman (ZNet) explaining
Power's belief system?She believes that "there is a moral difference
between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and
killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a
military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a
"moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more
reprehensible than the other?In countless news briefings, Donald
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about
civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional"
or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem.
In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were
justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard
Nixon and various generals.
No, it doesn't sound very enlightened but then Stephen Zunes is the Minute Rice 'Scholar' of the campus set. Here's Noam Chomsky (via ZNet) explaining
the basics re: Sammy Power, "I don't think, incidentally, that it would
be fair to criticize Power for her extraordinary services to state
violence and terror. I am sure she is a decent and honorable person,
and sincerely believes that she really is condemning the US leadership
and political culture. From a desk at the Carr Center for Human Rights
at the Kennedy School at Harvard, that's doubtless how it looks."
Let's spread the joy and turn to the Pathetic Dave Lindorff who writes (at CounterPunch),
"And don't tell me 'Good, we should have all voted for Ralph Nader.'
The political left in the US is a pathetic joke." Some parts of it are.
Such as Dave Lindorff. Dave Lindorff is a PATHETIC JOKE. He will die
one because he made himself one. In February, Third noted a Barack supporter and his IDIOTIC reasons for supporting Barack:
I
think it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that a black candidate at
this level is fundamentally different from all white candidates who
have come before or who are now competing. the more so a black
candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives
TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya).
The person making a
PATHETIC FOOL of himself? That's Dave Lindorff. Yes, Dave Lindorff
supported Barack because he was "a black candidate who has risked jail
by doing drugs". It doesn't get anymore pathetic than that. Davey-Boy
thought Barack was fighting the brave fight, just, no doubt, as Amy
Winehouse does on the streets of London today. The same 'civil rights'
battle that River Phoenix gave his life for, Dave?
Dave Lindorff is an idiot, he is pathetic and he has proven that In These Times
had good reason to end their relationship with him over his 'curious'
assertions. We stood by Crazy Ass back then. We walked away after he
made a frothy-mouthed fool of himself in February. You can't go home
again, Crazy Ass. This is the world and bed you made, live with it. Pablo Ouziel (Dissident Voice) tracks the continued disengration of left 'voices':
The
new era of voting for the lesser of the two evils has penetrated the
core of America's critical intellectual community, and some of the
biggest voices for change have endorsed Obama. In effect, what has
taken place is the union between those opposed to imperial ideology and
those endorsing it. Although this serious event has gone largely
unnoticed, American intellectuals will need to reflect on its
consequences seriously if they are to contribute to the building of a
stable future for humanity as a whole, and in particular to mending the
tarnished corrupt fabric of American society.
One American
intellectual, James Petras, has been able to identify the direct social
consequences of such a paradigm shift and prior to the elections has
publicly expressed his views in an article titled "The
Elections and the Responsibility of the Intellectual to Speak Truth to
Power: Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney."
As
the title of the article clearly states, Petras voices the reasons why
intellectuals have the responsibility of voting against Obama just like
they should vote against McCain. In regards to those intellectuals who
have endorsed Obama he says:
They are what C. Wright Mills called
'crackpot realists', abdicating their responsibility as critical
intellectuals. In purporting to support the 'lesser evil' they are
promoting the 'greater evil': The continuation of four more years of
deepening recession, colonial wars and popular alienation.
After
listening last night to Obama's first speech after his victory, a
victory he said was of the people, what Petras is saying seems
disturbingly accurate when looked at through the prism of critical
discourse analysis. One can look back now to the presidency of George
W. Bush and listen to his rhetoric. What has been his message
throughout the last 8 years? When Obama's core messages are compared to
Bush's, it becomes apparent that the coming presidential plans are not
too different to current presidential policies.
Even more
disturbing, is the fact that when Bush spoke throughout his presidency
there was always a slight cynical reaction by the majority of the
public, as most of the surveys have shown time and time again. However,
last night the cynicism seemed to have vanished and the hope of a new
American century was reborn with full force, to the clapping thunder
and joyous splendour of the reborn American people. With every word
uttered by Obama one could see how the empire was not gone, Bush almost
killed it, now Obama the symbol of hope, together with all the American
people in unity, are going to reconstruct their country and the world,
restabilising America's faltering hegemony.
All of the above
effects the illegal war. The defocusing on what mattered, the hijacking
of the peace movement result in the illegal war being prolonged. The
decisions Barack will be making (and receiving excuses on from
Panhandle Media) will prolong the Iraq War. All of the appointments
will say something (usually, "Empire! Empire! Empire!"). We'd planned
to be dark after this day so you can see some of the above as raided
from what would have been the year-in-review but it's also true that
some topics we'll ignore. Rahm Emanuel is now Barack's Chief of Staff.
I know Rahm. If he makes a real ass out of himself, we'll call him out
here or have a laugh over it, otherwise we'll ignore him. (You can
think back to the way Joe Biden was covered here after he became the
v.p. nominee.) You can go elsewhere community wide for negative
criticism of Rahm (Rebecca
doesn't like him) and we can highlight that here (or other trusted
voices from outside the community) but unless Rahm makes a real ass out
of himself on a particular day, I'm not going to be weighing in on him
here. (And no compliments or defense unless he's the target of a
pile-on.) Example, Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) offers,
"For starters, Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book
with DLC president Bruce Reed." Tariq Ali (CounterPunch) opines,
"The same day that Spain denied the son of Osama Bin Laden political
asylum, Obama appointed the son of an Irgun terrorist as his Chief of
Staff. Osama's son declared that he did not agree with his father's
actions or opinions. Rahm Israel Emmanuel is an Israel-firster, a
pro-war DLC hack and bully."
Meanwhile the Whig Standard editorializes
today that Barack should use "soft power" and argue Barack "should
start by reaffirming his greatness by demonstrating to the world the
'enduring power of our ideals.' He should start by reaffirming his
campaign pledge to stand is in U.S.-occupied Iraq where Assyrians -- an
ancient Christian people indigenous to northern Iraq -- are the victims
of a jihadist campaign of ethnic cleansing. The U.S. must accept some
blame for this crisis. By deposing Iraiq dictator Saddam Hussein, the
U.S. unwittingly unleashed sectarian forces that are bent on destroying
religious pluralism in Iraq." Meanwhile the National Council of Churches in Australia issues an alert
and calls for their country to take in more Iraqi reufgees and to
provide more funds for external and internal Iraqi refugees. They note:
Violence
and persecution against minority groups in Iraq continues, including
communities of Christians which have been in existence for over 1500
years. The Assyrian Church of the East, as one of the Churches most
affected, has mobilised itself worldwide to call attention to the
crisis, and seek help where help can be found. Other Churches under
extreme duress are the Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Armenian
Apostolic, and Chaldean. Prior to 2003, 4% of Iraq's population was
Christian. Yet 40% of Iraq's 2.2 million refugees are Christian, which
indicates the seriousness and disproportionate degree of violence and
persecution to which Iraqi Christians are being exposed. "No one has
been untouched by grief either by personal loss or to see their country
torn apart by violence," said Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia, Australian head
of the Assyrian Church of the East. According to Church sources this
exodus is the result of a campaign of violence, murder, terrorism,
threats, and intimidation targeted at the Christian minority. Attacks
have escalated since September, when the electoral law was changed to
remove the system of quotas that ensured minority groups representation
on provincial councils. The result of government investigations and the
arrest of about 12 people in relation to the latest wave of attacks are
being awaited. The international Assyrian Christian community is
raising money to help. Local parishes are collecting money to help the
Assyrian Church of the East Relief Organisation (ACERO) provide aid for
people in the city of Mosul, where the recent escalation of attacks has
been most severe. In the long run the hope of those fleeing the country
is for a self-governing administrative region within Iraq.
The Journal of Turkish Weekly reports
that Chaldean-Assryian Council chair Jamil Zito declaring, "Iraq's
Christians were hoping that various political factions would accept the
UN Mission in Iraq proposal". Iraq may hold provincial elections in
January (or not). Article 50 provided for religious minority
representation. Article 50 was stripped out of the bill before
Parliament passed it. A compromise was proposed this week which Iraqi
Christians find insulting. Earlier this week, Sam Dagher and Mohammed al-Obaidi (New York Times) explained that Christians would get one seat each on Baghdad, Basra and Nineveh council
while
Yazidis would get one seat on Nineveh for a total of 4 seats combined
while Article 50 guaranteed the religious minorities 13 seats and the
UN proposed 12 (the United Nations proposal came after Article 50 was
deleted). Today Waleed Ibrahim, Tim Cocks and Philippa Fletcher (Reuters) report
that the office of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement
yesterday about his meet up with Christians, "They expressed worries
about the negative impact of the law passed in parliament, which they
said gives them a small number of seats and does not protect their
rights. They asked the [presidency] council to reject this law. The
president showed full support to Christian and other minorities (and) .
. . promised he will not sign any law that could deprive any Iraqi
group of their rights." If you thought that or the treaty might have
resulted in questions at the White House today you missed Tony Fratto's
and the press' embarrassing performances.
The treaty? Leila Fadel, Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report,
"Many Iraqi officials are now calling the status-of-forces accord, or
SOFA, 'the withdrawal agreement,' possibly as a way of marketing it to
a wary public." Ernesto Londono, Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) quote
government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh, "Iraqis would like to know and
see a fixed date" and that the US has to be prepared for more
negotiatings while the US Embassy maintains (as does the US State Dept)
that what Iraq has been given is the "final text." Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) adds
that Hoshyar Zebari, the country's foreign minister, has stated that
the treaty will be finalized with "the current administration." AFP reports
that al-Sadr follower Sheikh Sattar al-Batat, "Every Iraqi should read
this agreement and decide for himself whether he agrees or disagree
with it. . . . No one in his right mind can accept this agreement, so
how can we?" NYT's Katherine Zoepf (for the paper's other holding, International Herald Tribune) quotes
al-Batat declaring, "We will continue to condemn the Iraqi-American
pact because it will legislate the American presence in Iraq. Sadr City
has lost 4,300 martyrs since the invasion, so how could we accept this
agreement? We say no to the Iraqi government if it wishes to sign
anything." And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes
that Sunnis are also nervous over the treaty and Rubin also notes, "The
Iraqi government, made up of exiles who were able to rise to power only
as a result of the American invasion, has been looking for a way to
support the pact without appearing to be kowtowing to Americans."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing killed Haider Hassoon (an Iraqi refugee
who'd just reclaimed his home) and left six people wounded, a Baghdad
sticky bombing that claimed 2 lives and left seven people injured and a
Diyala Province roadside bombing targeting "Awakening" Council members
-- two were killed, five more wounded.
Today the US military announced:
"A Coalition force Soldier died in a non-combat related incident Nov. 6
in Kirkuk province. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending
notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense.
The incident is still under investigation." The announcement brings the
number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the
illegal war to 4191.
Public radio note, Monday on WBAI (2:00 pm EST), Cat Radio Cafe features: "Writer/performer Danny Hoch
on Taking Over, his hip-hop infused play about New York gentrification;
and Coney Island documentarian Charles Denson, photographer Claude
Samton, and PS 225/ Shell Bank JHS/Abraham Lincoln HS graduate Sheila
Samton on The Puffin Room's multi-media celebration of Coney Island Maybe. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer." And TV note, Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes Steve Kroft explores president-elect Barack's "brain trust," Scott Pelley explores the final destinations for discarded cell phones, monitors, etc and Morley Safer speaks with pioneer Ted Turner.
Community member Stan started his own site yesterday entitled Oh Boy It Never Ends. He's still playing around with it and has so far offered "Good for Nader" and "Stan 411" and "Robin Morgan". Also posting yesterday, Mike's "Joshua Frank, Murphy, Cocktail Weinie Norman" covers the strong and the pathetic, Marcia's "A lot including my cousin is blogging!" is a grab bag post on a multitude of topics, Ruth's "McKinney results, Doug Ireland" continues Ruth's following of election results, Kat's "Pathetic Green Party" explores the planned uselessness of a political party, Cedric's "And she smells like urine" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! TINA FEY'S A SKANK!" (joint-post) pulls a Jim and assigns Ava and I an article (joking, it falls under the topic we're already covering) and Rebecca's "gail collins is an idiot" covers the embarrassment of Collins. On the Green Party, Kimberly and Ian Wilder (On The Wilder Side)
are advocating for action and not waiting around until Januray 2012 to
start figuring out what to do:What next for the national Green Party?
Let's send Malik Rahim to CongressThe Green Party has a golden
opportunity to elect a Congressperson next month. Let's work together,
in this lull after the election, to focus on a powerful strategy and a
winnable race.It has created such interesting timing, that the election
for Congress, District 2, in Louisiana was changed to December 6, 2008.
And, we have one of our strongest Green Party candidates running in
that race. In the vacuum of the November elections being over, this is
a chance for green throughout the country to focus their energy in one
place, on one candidate, who has the qualifications, resume and
charisma to win.Malik Rahim
has credentials. He was a member of the Black Panther Party. He was a
founder of Common Ground, an organization dedicated to supporting poor
and working class people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Malik's story has been in a variety of national media outlets. And,
Malik's work after Hurrican Katrina is a story in Amy Goodman's book,
"Standing Up To The Madness." Malike gave one of the most compelling
and inspiring speeches at the Green Party National Convention in
Chicago this summer. (Video of his speech is: here.)
iraqhoward zinnnoam chomskyedward hermanjohn r. macarthurtariq alijoshua frankmickey z.the new york timessam daghermohammed al-obaidileila fadelwarren p. strobelmcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssefthe washington postmary beth sheridanernesto londonokaren deyoungbloomberg newsdaniel williamsalissa j. rubinthe new york timeskatherine zoepfwbaicat radio cafejanet colemandavid dozer60 minutescbs newsoh boy it never endskats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzthe third estate sunday reviewkimberly wilder
Links to this post:
Posted at 07:22 am by politicsscree
Permalink
Nov 10, 2008
 that is isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts ' Bitchy Tina Fey' and from that let's go into nbc's heroes. we did watch tonight and it was good but, honestly, the start dragged like crazy. the 1st ten minutes, i was thinking, 'i can turn this off.' the show's too top heavy on cast members that are 'likeable' but not necessary. if that's not clear, once upon a time soaps had monday, wednesday and friday starts. genie francis and tony geary would anchor those days as luke and laura on general hospital and people like laura's parents rick and lesley and rick's mistress monica quartermaine would be the tuesday and thursday stars. you need your heavy hitters and too much time is being given to characters we do not care about intensely. i don't mean angela, for example. she's interesting just because figuring her out allows you to figure out a great deal since she's skylar, peter and hunky's mother. (i'm blanking on pasadar's character's name.) nathan! just remembered. also there are too damn few women on this show. so angela wasn't a problem. but they need to get their mojo going better. elle. is she a regular character or not? if she is, start using her. if she's not, quit wasting time with her. i actually like the character but this episode took place a year ago and the episode before had her turning herself over to some freak show org that allows her to 'lose' her powers (peter & nathan's dad steals them from people at the org). so if she's a regular character, great. they need her and other females. if she's not, quit wasting our time with her stories. and sorry but jack coleman is boring as hell. he was interesting when he was required to protect clair (who never is on enough) but these days he's just so boring.
my thoughts. you can watch heroes online if you've missed it so far this year. you can also see their online only stories/sketches brought to you by sprint.
for more tv, you can check out ava and c.i.'s 'TV: The journalists deliver the belly laughs.' and for film, check out stan's 'Movies' but especially check out marcia's ''Her name is Barbra' about, yes, barbra streisand.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:' Monday, November 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad bombings get some actual press attention, the treaty still waits, Iraq and China ink their billion dollar deal, provincial elections get scheduled and more.
We'll start with Military Families Speak Out's statement:
On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, an armistice ended the slaughter of World War I along the Western Front. A year later, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a national holiday to honor the sacrifice of the U.S. troops who fought in that war. Since then, on November 11th, people across the United States and around the world have historically given thanks for peace, and observed moments of silence to remember those who fought and died during times of war.
Tomorrow will be the sixth Veterans Day that finds U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq, in a war based on lies. Our troops, our Veterans, our families, and the Iraqi people need to know that it will also be the last.
President-Elect Obama, you had the courage and the vision to oppose this war before it started, and you have pledged to end it. As Commander in Chief you will have the power to do that. But leaving U.S. combat troops in Iraq well into 2010, and leaving tens of thousands of additional troops in Iraq indefinitely, is not ending this war -- it is continuing it.
4,193 U.S. troops and over a million Iraqis have already died as a result of this war. Countless others will struggle for the rest of their lives with devastating physical and psychological injurieds. Each day that this war continues, new tragedies occur.
The war in Iraq was wrong from the beginning and it is wrong today. There is no justification for continuing to risk the lives of our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, and the Iraqi people.
President-Elect Obama, please honor the sacrifices of our troops, our Veterans, and our families by committing to the immediate, orderly, and safe return of all U.S. troops from Iraq and assuring that they receive the care they need when they get home.
Wolrd Can't Wait's Debra Sweet reviews the state of empire here. And A.N.S.W.E.R. is geraing up for their March 21st actions.
From reality to the ridiculous, Martin Sieff (UPI) is so excited and he just can't hide it, "The first impact of Obama's historic and decisive election victory last week looks likely to be ensuring the rapid and successful conclusion of the talks to reach an effective Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki." Was that UPI or ICM? This treaty's been discussed so long that it's rare that a State Dept press briefing doesn't result in reporters bringing up the fact that the White House swore the treaty would be concluded by the end of July. But Sieff wants to give credit for whatever happen to an election? So is that alleged "historic and decisive election victory last week" going to be responsible for the daily sunrises as well or might UPI consider asking Sieff to journey back to planet earth? al-Maliki mouthpiece Ali al-Dabbagh is back in the news. AP reports that he's declared of the US response to proposed amendments, "The American answer is not enough for the government to accept it in its current form. There are still some points in which we have not reached a bilateral understanding." Barack -- who will not be sworn in until January -- is no more responsible for al-Dabbagh's comments than he is for what UPI saw as 'success.' This is the White House's dance and he won't occupy it until mid-January. The treaty masquerading as a SOFA would replace the United Nations mandare which expires December 31st. Iran's Press TV reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani "reiterated that he would oppose any agreement which violates Iraq's sovereignty for even an iota and he would clearly announce his stance [on the proposed agreement] in the near future." Yesterday Al Bawaba reported that Bashar Assad, Syrian president, declared today that the treaty the White House wants with the puppet government because "American troops contribute to regional instability and should withdraw from Iraq. Assad told the audience that a recent American raid inside Syria near its border with Iraq is confirmation that the U.S. will use Iraq as a base to attack its neighbors." Staying with the treaty but moving to speculation, Iran's Press TV referenced al-Sabah (Iraq daily newspaper) to state that the White House refused Iraq's "request to change a SOFA provision which would grant US citiziens immunity from legal prosecution in Iraq. . . . The daily added, under the deal, Iraq would supervise US postal services inside the country but would not be permitted to inspect parcels distained for US institutions." Saturday Liz Sly (Chicago Tribune) explained: "The Iraqi government is coming around to the view that it would be better to sign a security deal with the Bush administration than to wait to strike a deal with President-elect Barack Obama, spurred in part by fresh U.S. concessions as well as threats by the U.S. to suspend all operations in Iraq if there is no deal by the end of the year, according to Iraqi officials." Equally true is the US statements (blackmail) that they would pull back (to bases and stop patrolling) if there was not an agreement in place by December 31st when the UN mandate expired.
Moving from the always just-around-the-corner treaty to flashback time, October 1st the US conducted the 'handover' to the puppet government in Baghdad. So the fact that the Awakening Councils are back in the news -- because the puppet government began paying some of them a portion of what the US did -- may strike some as strange. Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) explains, "Today marked the first day that the Iraqi government paid salaries to thousands of informal security group members known as the Sons of Iraq, who have been credited with helping to reduct violence in the country. Between now and Nov. 17, about 40,000 Sons of Iraq members in Baghdad will receive their $300 a month salary from the Iraqi government." Al Jazeera notes, "The new salaries represent a slight pay cut from $300 a month under the US, down to $275 a month on the Iarqi security forces payroll. The move to bring the Awakening groups into the security forces could test Baghdad's fragile calm" and quotes the Royal Institute for Defence and Security Studies Alastair Campbell stating, "Not only is the Iraqi government paying them slightly less . . . but also they're not paying the same amount [of people]. It's thought that about 80,000 were on the books of the Americans and Iraqs -- although they initially agreed to pay 58,000 -- will only pay 54,000. Only 20,000 [of the 54,000] are being reintegrated into the Iraqi security forces at the moment so what will these others do? Will they just hang around being paid not quite as much?" "Awaking" (also known as Sawha and 'Sons of Iraq') numbered approximately 100,000 October 1st [September 22nd Bill McMichael of Military Times used the figure 99,000 during Lt Gen Lloyd Austin's press briefing and Austin did not correct the number]. So October 1st, the puppet government got a little bit of applause and today they are actually supposed to begin doing what they took applause for all that time ago.
Earlier today AP reported two Baghdad bombings which claimed at least 22 lives with forty-two more wounded: "The bombs struck during morning rush hour in the northern part of the city. The first struck a passenger bus. The other blast occurred about 50 yards away as people rushed to help the wounded, authorities said." The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued this statement: "The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG) Staffan de Mistura condemned the double bombing in the Kasra district of Baghdad today killing dozens of innocent civilians and wounding scores more. Mr. de Mistura described these detestable bombings as, 'repugnant crimes aimed at re-instilling fear, distrust and division among the public just as Iraq prepares itself to assume political normalcy with the upcoming provincial elections.' The SRSG extends the United Nations' sincere condolences to the bereaved families and its wishes for a full and speedy recovery for the wounded." Reuters explained it was not a double bombing but a triple bombing and listed the death toll at 28 with the number wounded at sixty-eight. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) cites witnesses counting one car bombing and two roadside bombings. Mary Beth Sheridan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) add that the bombings "destroyed a minibus full of passengers and rained glass and debris on people nearby" and Abu Wael restraurant owner Imad Karim believes the bulk of those hurt (or killed) were on the bus: "We are not feeling safe. There is no security, we only hear about the security from the TV stations." Al Jazeera quotes eye witness Jassim Mohammed who declares, "Innocent and simple people were gathering to have breakfast or shop in the nearby area. A minibus which was driving past was also hit and four or five of its passengers were killed. How can you explain this act? This is not a military unit, not a military barracks. There is nothing there." Andrew North (BBC) offers perspective: "For Iraqis it was a depressing reminded not only of the recent past, but also of the reality that the stability they crave is still far away. . . . This incident is gettin more attention beyond Iraq because there were more deaths than usual. But in the last week alone more than 30 people have been killed in morning rush hour bombings in Baghdad." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explains, "Today's attack is the worst in Baghdad since a car bombing on June 17 killed 51 people and wounded 75 others."
The Baghdad triple-bombing targeting the crowded area was not the only bombing today. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) notes 5 dead in Baquba resulting from 1 "female suicide bomber" with fifteen injured. CNN cites an Interior Ministry official who "said a report from local police quoted hospital officials and witnesses saying that the bomber was only 13 years old." Phillippe Naughton (Times Of London) reports that "the girl blew herself up at a checkpoint manned by members of the Sunni Muslim 'Awakening' councils, which have led the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq." The Melbourne Herald Sun adds, "Police said the attacker activated her explosive belt at a checkpoint in Baquba, capital of Diyala province. . . Dr. Ahmed Fuad of Baquba General Hospital confirmed the number of killed and wounded and said the bomber appeard to be a 13-year-old girl."
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing that left three people injured and four Mosul roadside bombings that left four people wounded.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer wounded in a Mosul shooting.
Corpses?
Huseein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to the issue of provincial elections, BBC reports that January 31st is now the day scheduled for them and that "[t]he vote will be held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces - excluding Kirkuk and three autonomous Kurdish provinces." They've been postponed over and over before and may be again. Sunday Katherine Zoepf and Sam Dagher (New York Times) addressed the decision by the presidency council (Iraq's president and two vice presidents) to sign off on the measure Parliament passed (after Parliament stripped Article 50 out of the provincial elctions bill) and they quote MP Younadim Kanna declaring, "Their sweet speeches to us turned out to be useless. We thought that they would compensate for what was done to us by other major political entitites." Kanna's referring to the song and dance Iraq's religious minorities have gotten for weeks most recently from Jalal Talabani. From Friday's snapshot: "Waleed Ibrahim, Tim Cocks and Philippa Fletcher (Reuters) report that the office of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement yesterday about his meet up with Christians, "They expressed worries about the negative impact of the law passed in parliament, which they said gives them a small number of seats and does not protect their rights. They asked the [presidency] council to reject this law. The president showed full support to Christian and other minorities (and) . . . promised he will not sign any law that could deprive any Iraqi group of their rights." Talabani gives a bunch of pretty speeches and then goes ahead and votes for the measure which gives Iraq's religious community six seats -- when Article 50 guaranteed them 13 and the UN (after Article 50 was struck) proposed 12. Just a bunch of pretty words from Talabani. All it takes is one veto vote from any of the three members of the presidency council to tank a measure. Since this one passed, Talabani obviously voted for it despite his repeated assurances to the religious communities. Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) observes this came following "nationwide protests from minority communities" when Parliament axed Article 50: "Screwing the minorities seems to be the order of the day so that the powerful become more powerful. Arab and Islamic parties banned together to pass the law because they worried that giving minorities would help Kurdish expansion. Arab nationalists fear the expansion of the Kurdish region and the ultimate secession of the Kurdish north. Currently the Kurds control the local government in the mostly northern Sunni Arab province of Nineveh." Meanwhile Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) notes that thee "new difficulty facing the government is the fall in the price of crude oil on which the state is wholly dependent. Iraq has been expecting oil revenue of almost $80bn for 2008, but this will be much lower now the price of oil is down to $64 a barrel. With total government expenditure at some $50bn, this means the government may be short of $10bn to $15bn next year. Earlier this year the government was doubling the salaries of government employees, as if the high price of oil would be permanent." China's Xinhua reports that Iraq's oil deal with China National Peteroleum Corporation was signed today and that the deal is thought to be worth "2.9 billion U.S. dollars".
iraqthe new york timessam dagherkatherine zoepfleila fadelmcclatchy newspapershussein kadhimandrew northpatrick cockburngina chonthe wall street journalliz sly
Posted at 08:27 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Nov 8, 2008
mccain and palin got 4,467,748 votes in texas
barack and biden got 3, 521, 164
barr and root got 56,398 votes
baldwin and castle got 3, 418 votes
hill and baily got 148 votes
allen and sath got 57 votes
keyes and sprouse got 586 votes
nader and gonzalez got 3,053
mckinney and clemente got 415 votes
and moore and alexander got 49 votes.
those are the texas totals for the 2008 vote. are those totals correct? texas community members don't think so. eddie said, 'a few people were nervous and might have decided to vote mccain - palin at the last minute the way ___ did but if they made that decision it seems like they would have talked about it like ___ did.' it does seem that way.
are these the final results above?
if they are i doubt the results. i divided texas up into 9 regions and then called c.i. to find out who was a key member in each area? i think contacted the key member (and any 1 they suggested) and this nader vote is underwhelming compared to what every 1 thinks. maybe they haven't added all the votes? maybe some regions didn't bother to count the write-ins? but our estimating makes it appear that count is less than solid.
i'm not accusing any 1 of fixing the elections.
i am however asking that write-in ballots be treated as real 1s and it doesn't appear that they were in texas. the number for ralph is too small.
i am not contesting the election results for the winner. i do not think ralph won texas. but i do not think that write-in votes were counted in full in texas. maybe i'm wrong. maybe a lot of community members switched to cynthia (doesn't look like it from her numbers) or to barack (doubtful) or to mccain (ditto) and just didn't want to say so?
i don't think so.
in connecticut (pdf format, click here), nader got 19,058 while cynthia got 53. i don't know about cynthia, but ralph was listed on that ballot and wasn't a write-in.
in rhode island, ralph got 4819 and cynthia got 793.
now here's bob somerby from today:
You’ve got to be kidding: Good grief! We scanned his words a second time, to see if we’d read them correctly. We’re fairly sure you know our view: Paul Krugman has been the very best, at the top of the pile, for a very long time now. But golly Ned! Here’s how he started this morning’s column. We had to read it twice:
KRUGMAN (11/7/08): Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.
If those are the rules of the current game, sign us up for “something wrong with you.”
that's going to be it for me tonight. everybody have a great weekend. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:' Friday, November 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the pathetic voices of the left continue cooing while stronger voices from the left speak to realities, Talabani makes an announcement, and more.
Tuesday a presidential election was held in the US. It could have been about something but that would have required actual issues. Instead it was stroke, fondle and feather-kiss Barack by All Things Media Big and Small while real candidates were shut out of the coverage -- by all outlets and Amy Goodman a crappy once a month nod to Ralph or Cynthia didn't mean s**t when every day you swung that tired ass under the street lamp once more for Barack. In 2004, we heard "never again." Never again would we allow the movement to end the illegal war to be derailed by a presidential campaign. That got tossed aside and ripped to shreds, now didn't it?
Let's move over to Loony Tune Stephen Zune who lied in a 2008 article, never corrected it and, before you knew it, all the simple minded were running with (Dahr Jamail, come on down!). No, Hillary did not visit Iraq only once. "Dr." Zunes, correct your lying mouth. He, of course, refused to. And he's back to lie some more at ZNet: "Obama's honest and prescient understanding of Iraq prior to the invasion gives hope that as president he will be less inclined to engage in such acts of reckless militarism." Apparently Zunes is back on the meds that regulate his intense mood swings (sadly, the meds do nothing for his delusions). The 2002 speech was an embarrassment and nothing for the peace movement to praise. There's been some question about that speech so let's put Zuney to the side for a moment. The speech did take place. It is recorded. On video. The reaction from the crowd is the only reason Team Barack had to lie and claim that the speech didn't exist. The crowd wasn't applauding, they weren't cheering. It was a meek and embarrassing speech (delivered to a sparse crowd, it should be noted). When Barack finished there wasn't even polite applause. But Zuney liked it and, if you're off your meds, you may as well.
Loony Tunes Zunes goes on to argue that if the War Hawk Barack isn't a dove, so what, because "he owes his nomination -- and therefore his election -- to those who opposed the invasion of Iraq". Yeah, try collecting on that, Stephen. Hey, remember Stephen Zunes' snit-fit at Barack a few months back? When Barack picked Joe Biden as his running mate? The Joe Biden who supported the illegal war? But Loony wants you to believe that Barack's indebted to the 'anti-war' 'movement.' (That would be the same Barack who punked Iraq Veterans Against the War in Denver -- they were protesting and getting attention, he sent out a Texan known for lying -- one who even lied for W. -- out to trick them and they fell for it and gave the media a lot of statements about how groovy Barack was. As soon as the protest ended so did Barack's 'promise' to them.) Zunes uses phrases like "surely Barack is aware of this" and what's really hilarious is that someone who whored his ass for Barack as hard Stephen did has to guess as to what Barack is and isn't aware of. But a debt is owed, Zunes maintains, and pressure will be applied! In the real world, Mickey Z points out:
While the savvy strategist/activists of the Left harbor their delusions of grandeur about their ability to sway the Prince of Hope, here's a tiny bit what they--and all of us--have allowed to happen without exerting our "influence": epidemics of preventable diseases; the poisoning of our air, water, and food (including mother's breast milk); global warming, climate change, animal and plant extinctions, disappearing honeybees, destruction of the rain forest, topsoil depletion, etc.; one-third of Americans either uninsured or underinsured in terms of health care; 61% of corporations do not even pay taxes; presidential lies, electoral fraud, limited debates, etc.; the largest prison population on the planet; corporate control of public land, airwaves, and pensions; overt infringement of our civil liberties; bloated defense budget, unilateral military interventions, war crimes committed in our name, legalization of torture, blah, blah, blah...
Before you know it, the US government will start spying on American citizens and detaining prisoners without charges while allowing corporations to ravage the earth in pursuit of profit, wiping out entire eco-systems in the process. Oops . . . sorry: they're already doing all that and the mighty Left is fighting back by supporting Obama?
Everywhere I went on Election Day, I was asked by friend and stranger alike: "Did you vote?" Once the polling booths closed, I could be 100% certain I'd not be asked another politically motivated question by such people for another four years. No one would be rushing up to me and demanding to know if I was planning to do anything about, say, FISA, the death penalty, the PATRIOT Act, homelessness, or factory farming. The election is over. Obama has won. For 99% of the Left, that means their work is done until 2012. It's time to gloat and reap all the rewards, right?
My prediction: The only pressure that will be consistently exerted by those on the Left will be the pressure of their soft butts on their couch cushions as they sit back to smugly watch Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher.
Zunes can never stick to the facts and, having a word count, has to resort frequently to falsehoods. Which is how you end up with his claim that the likes of Susan Rice (she works herself into a war frenzy at the drop of a hat) and Our Modern Day Carrie Nations Samantha Power (Sammy, get the axe!) are "innovative and enlightened members of the foreign policy establishment". Keep dreaming and keep lying Zunes. If you told the truth at this late date, your head might fall out. For reality on the likes of Sammy Power, see John R. MacArthur's "Pro-War Liberals Frozen in the Headlights" (Common Dreams). Or maybe you want to refer to Howard Zinn on Power's "myopia":She believes that "there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a "moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more reprehensible than the other? In countless news briefings, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional" or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem. In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and various generals.
Or maybe you'd prefer Edward S. Herman (ZNet) explaining Power's belief system?She believes that "there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a "moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more reprehensible than the other?In countless news briefings, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional" or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem. In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and various generals.
No, it doesn't sound very enlightened but then Stephen Zunes is the Minute Rice 'Scholar' of the campus set. Here's Noam Chomsky (via ZNet) explaining the basics re: Sammy Power, "I don't think, incidentally, that it would be fair to criticize Power for her extraordinary services to state violence and terror. I am sure she is a decent and honorable person, and sincerely believes that she really is condemning the US leadership and political culture. From a desk at the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School at Harvard, that's doubtless how it looks."
Let's spread the joy and turn to the Pathetic Dave Lindorff who writes (at CounterPunch), "And don't tell me 'Good, we should have all voted for Ralph Nader.' The political left in the US is a pathetic joke." Some parts of it are. Such as Dave Lindorff. Dave Lindorff is a PATHETIC JOKE. He will die one because he made himself one. In February, Third noted a Barack supporter and his IDIOTIC reasons for supporting Barack:
I think it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that a black candidate at this level is fundamentally different from all white candidates who have come before or who are now competing. the more so a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya).
The person making a PATHETIC FOOL of himself? That's Dave Lindorff. Yes, Dave Lindorff supported Barack because he was "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs". It doesn't get anymore pathetic than that. Davey-Boy thought Barack was fighting the brave fight, just, no doubt, as Amy Winehouse does on the streets of London today. The same 'civil rights' battle that River Phoenix gave his life for, Dave?
Dave Lindorff is an idiot, he is pathetic and he has proven that In These Times had good reason to end their relationship with him over his 'curious' assertions. We stood by Crazy Ass back then. We walked away after he made a frothy-mouthed fool of himself in February. You can't go home again, Crazy Ass. This is the world and bed you made, live with it. Pablo Ouziel (Dissident Voice) tracks the continued disengration of left 'voices':
The new era of voting for the lesser of the two evils has penetrated the core of America's critical intellectual community, and some of the biggest voices for change have endorsed Obama. In effect, what has taken place is the union between those opposed to imperial ideology and those endorsing it. Although this serious event has gone largely unnoticed, American intellectuals will need to reflect on its consequences seriously if they are to contribute to the building of a stable future for humanity as a whole, and in particular to mending the tarnished corrupt fabric of American society.
One American intellectual, James Petras, has been able to identify the direct social consequences of such a paradigm shift and prior to the elections has publicly expressed his views in an article titled "The Elections and the Responsibility of the Intellectual to Speak Truth to Power: Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney."
As the title of the article clearly states, Petras voices the reasons why intellectuals have the responsibility of voting against Obama just like they should vote against McCain. In regards to those intellectuals who have endorsed Obama he says:
They are what C. Wright Mills called 'crackpot realists', abdicating their responsibility as critical intellectuals. In purporting to support the 'lesser evil' they are promoting the 'greater evil': The continuation of four more years of deepening recession, colonial wars and popular alienation.
After listening last night to Obama's first speech after his victory, a victory he said was of the people, what Petras is saying seems disturbingly accurate when looked at through the prism of critical discourse analysis. One can look back now to the presidency of George W. Bush and listen to his rhetoric. What has been his message throughout the last 8 years? When Obama's core messages are compared to Bush's, it becomes apparent that the coming presidential plans are not too different to current presidential policies.
Even more disturbing, is the fact that when Bush spoke throughout his presidency there was always a slight cynical reaction by the majority of the public, as most of the surveys have shown time and time again. However, last night the cynicism seemed to have vanished and the hope of a new American century was reborn with full force, to the clapping thunder and joyous splendour of the reborn American people. With every word uttered by Obama one could see how the empire was not gone, Bush almost killed it, now Obama the symbol of hope, together with all the American people in unity, are going to reconstruct their country and the world, restabilising America's faltering hegemony.
All of the above effects the illegal war. The defocusing on what mattered, the hijacking of the peace movement result in the illegal war being prolonged. The decisions Barack will be making (and receiving excuses on from Panhandle Media) will prolong the Iraq War. All of the appointments will say something (usually, "Empire! Empire! Empire!"). We'd planned to be dark after this day so you can see some of the above as raided from what would have been the year-in-review but it's also true that some topics we'll ignore. Rahm Emanuel is now Barack's Chief of Staff. I know Rahm. If he makes a real ass out of himself, we'll call him out here or have a laugh over it, otherwise we'll ignore him. (You can think back to the way Joe Biden was covered here after he became the v.p. nominee.) You can go elsewhere community wide for negative criticism of Rahm (Rebecca doesn't like him) and we can highlight that here (or other trusted voices from outside the community) but unless Rahm makes a real ass out of himself on a particular day, I'm not going to be weighing in on him here. (And no compliments or defense unless he's the target of a pile-on.) Example, Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) offers, "For starters, Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book with DLC president Bruce Reed." Tariq Ali (CounterPunch) opines, "The same day that Spain denied the son of Osama Bin Laden political asylum, Obama appointed the son of an Irgun terrorist as his Chief of Staff. Osama's son declared that he did not agree with his father's actions or opinions. Rahm Israel Emmanuel is an Israel-firster, a pro-war DLC hack and bully."
Meanwhile the Whig Standard editorializes today that Barack should use "soft power" and argue Barack "should start by reaffirming his greatness by demonstrating to the world the 'enduring power of our ideals.' He should start by reaffirming his campaign pledge to stand is in U.S.-occupied Iraq where Assyrians -- an ancient Christian people indigenous to northern Iraq -- are the victims of a jihadist campaign of ethnic cleansing. The U.S. must accept some blame for this crisis. By deposing Iraiq dictator Saddam Hussein, the U.S. unwittingly unleashed sectarian forces that are bent on destroying religious pluralism in Iraq." Meanwhile the National Council of Churches in Australia issues an alert and calls for their country to take in more Iraqi reufgees and to provide more funds for external and internal Iraqi refugees. They note:
Violence and persecution against minority groups in Iraq continues, including communities of Christians which have been in existence for over 1500 years. The Assyrian Church of the East, as one of the Churches most affected, has mobilised itself worldwide to call attention to the crisis, and seek help where help can be found. Other Churches under extreme duress are the Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Chaldean. Prior to 2003, 4% of Iraq's population was Christian. Yet 40% of Iraq's 2.2 million refugees are Christian, which indicates the seriousness and disproportionate degree of violence and persecution to which Iraqi Christians are being exposed. "No one has been untouched by grief either by personal loss or to see their country torn apart by violence," said Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia, Australian head of the Assyrian Church of the East. According to Church sources this exodus is the result of a campaign of violence, murder, terrorism, threats, and intimidation targeted at the Christian minority. Attacks have escalated since September, when the electoral law was changed to remove the system of quotas that ensured minority groups representation on provincial councils. The result of government investigations and the arrest of about 12 people in relation to the latest wave of attacks are being awaited. The international Assyrian Christian community is raising money to help. Local parishes are collecting money to help the Assyrian Church of the East Relief Organisation (ACERO) provide aid for people in the city of Mosul, where the recent escalation of attacks has been most severe. In the long run the hope of those fleeing the country is for a self-governing administrative region within Iraq.
The Journal of Turkish Weekly reports that Chaldean-Assryian Council chair Jamil Zito declaring, "Iraq's Christians were hoping that various political factions would accept the UN Mission in Iraq proposal". Iraq may hold provincial elections in January (or not). Article 50 provided for religious minority representation. Article 50 was stripped out of the bill before Parliament passed it. A compromise was proposed this week which Iraqi Christians find insulting. Earlier this week, Sam Dagher and Mohammed al-Obaidi (New York Times) explained that Christians would get one seat each on Baghdad, Basra and Nineveh council
while Yazidis would get one seat on Nineveh for a total of 4 seats combined while Article 50 guaranteed the religious minorities 13 seats and the UN proposed 12 (the United Nations proposal came after Article 50 was deleted). Today Waleed Ibrahim, Tim Cocks and Philippa Fletcher (Reuters) report that the office of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement yesterday about his meet up with Christians, "They expressed worries about the negative impact of the law passed in parliament, which they said gives them a small number of seats and does not protect their rights. They asked the [presidency] council to reject this law. The president showed full support to Christian and other minorities (and) . . . promised he will not sign any law that could deprive any Iraqi group of their rights." If you thought that or the treaty might have resulted in questions at the White House today you missed Tony Fratto's and the press' embarrassing performances.
The treaty? Leila Fadel, Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "Many Iraqi officials are now calling the status-of-forces accord, or SOFA, 'the withdrawal agreement,' possibly as a way of marketing it to a wary public." Ernesto Londono, Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) quote government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh, "Iraqis would like to know and see a fixed date" and that the US has to be prepared for more negotiatings while the US Embassy maintains (as does the US State Dept) that what Iraq has been given is the "final text." Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) adds that Hoshyar Zebari, the country's foreign minister, has stated that the treaty will be finalized with "the current administration." AFP reports that al-Sadr follower Sheikh Sattar al-Batat, "Every Iraqi should read this agreement and decide for himself whether he agrees or disagree with it. . . . No one in his right mind can accept this agreement, so how can we?" NYT's Katherine Zoepf (for the paper's other holding, International Herald Tribune) quotes al-Batat declaring, "We will continue to condemn the Iraqi-American pact because it will legislate the American presence in Iraq. Sadr City has lost 4,300 martyrs since the invasion, so how could we accept this agreement? We say no to the Iraqi government if it wishes to sign anything." And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes that Sunnis are also nervous over the treaty and Rubin also notes, "The Iraqi government, made up of exiles who were able to rise to power only as a result of the American invasion, has been looking for a way to support the pact without appearing to be kowtowing to Americans."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing killed Haider Hassoon (an Iraqi refugee who'd just reclaimed his home) and left six people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing that claimed 2 lives and left seven people injured and a Diyala Province roadside bombing targeting "Awakening" Council members -- two were killed, five more wounded.
Today the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier died in a non-combat related incident Nov. 6 in Kirkuk province. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is still under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4191.
Public radio note, Monday on WBAI (2:00 pm EST), Cat Radio Cafe features: "Writer/performer Danny Hoch on Taking Over, his hip-hop infused play about New York gentrification; and Coney Island documentarian Charles Denson, photographer Claude Samton, and PS 225/ Shell Bank JHS/Abraham Lincoln HS graduate Sheila Samton on The Puffin Room's multi-media celebration of Coney Island Maybe. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer." And TV note, Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes Steve Kroft explores president-elect Barack's "brain trust," Scott Pelley explores the final destinations for discarded cell phones, monitors, etc and Morley Safer speaks with pioneer Ted Turner.
Community member Stan started his own site yesterday entitled Oh Boy It Never Ends. He's still playing around with it and has so far offered "Good for Nader" and "Stan 411" and "Robin Morgan". Also posting yesterday, Mike's "Joshua Frank, Murphy, Cocktail Weinie Norman" covers the strong and the pathetic, Marcia's "A lot including my cousin is blogging!" is a grab bag post on a multitude of topics, Ruth's "McKinney results, Doug Ireland" continues Ruth's following of election results, Kat's "Pathetic Green Party" explores the planned uselessness of a political party, Cedric's "And she smells like urine" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! TINA FEY'S A SKANK!" (joint-post) pulls a Jim and assigns Ava and I an article (joking, it falls under the topic we're already covering) and Rebecca's "gail collins is an idiot" covers the embarrassment of Collins. On the Green Party, Kimberly and Ian Wilder (On The Wilder Side) are advocating for action and not waiting around until Januray 2012 to start figuring out what to do:What next for the national Green Party? Let's send Malik Rahim to CongressThe Green Party has a golden opportunity to elect a Congressperson next month. Let's work together, in this lull after the election, to focus on a powerful strategy and a winnable race.It has created such interesting timing, that the election for Congress, District 2, in Louisiana was changed to December 6, 2008. And, we have one of our strongest Green Party candidates running in that race. In the vacuum of the November elections being over, this is a chance for green throughout the country to focus their energy in one place, on one candidate, who has the qualifications, resume and charisma to win.Malik Rahim has credentials. He was a member of the Black Panther Party. He was a founder of Common Ground, an organization dedicated to supporting poor and working class people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Malik's story has been in a variety of national media outlets. And, Malik's work after Hurrican Katrina is a story in Amy Goodman's book, "Standing Up To The Madness." Malike gave one of the most compelling and inspiring speeches at the Green Party National Convention in Chicago this summer. (Video of his speech is: here.)iraqhoward zinnnoam chomskyedward hermanjohn r. macarthurtariq alijoshua frankmickey z.the new york timessam daghermohammed al-obaidileila fadelwarren p. strobelmcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssefthe washington postmary beth sheridanernesto londonokaren deyoungbloomberg newsdaniel williamsalissa j. rubinthe new york timeskatherine zoepfwbaicat radio cafejanet colemandavid dozer60 minutescbs newsoh boy it never endskats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzthe third estate sunday reviewkimberly wilder
Posted at 12:08 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Nov 6, 2008
gail collins is tragically flat-chested, single and homely. the unibrow doesn't help her. if that seems harsh, too damn bad. i never promised to be nice and the dog-face is lying in print today. gail collins is an idiot.
in her piece of trash column today ('thinking of good vibrations' - sort of picture her spending another lonely night with her vibrator, don't you), gail concludes her bitchy column with this:
finally, on behalf of the baby-boom generation, i would like to hear a little round of applause before we cede the stage to the people who were too young to go to woodstock and would appreciate not having to listen to the stories about it anymore. it looks as though we will be represented in history by only two presidents, one of whom is george w. bush. bummer.
dumb ass gail, barack obama is a baby boomer.
what an idiot you are.
i read that and it stood out immediately because the baby boom is a huge demographic and it was a rare ad campaign that didn't target that demo or some aspect of it. so i know the damn demography, gail collins - the ill-educated, flat-chested, spinister - doesn't.
1946 - 1964. that is the accepted period for any member of the baby boom to be born in. barack obama was born in august of 1961.
now maybe gail's hairy uni-brow blocked her vision and she didn't see what year barack was born in?
or maybe she's just such an idiot and so used to lying that she thinks she can get away with anything?
look at the other spinster aunt, banging around in the attic, maureen dowd. she's been so cowed, she can't even pull it together for 4 opening sentences. click here to read her garbage and note that this sentence does not fit: 'i don't know if w. was inside talking to the portraits on the wall.' ???? what?
she doesn't set that up in the sentences prior and it really requires that in the sentence before or after (or a compound sentence but maureen has trouble with those as well) and instead it just stands out like the eye sore it is. in the next sentence her 'or' is that maybe paintings talk?
no, modo, you idiot, that sentence requries an 'or' for bully boy. 'i don't know if he was inside talking to the portraits on the wall or if he was . . .'
what awful writers the new york times has. and ugly. david brooks, modo, gail collins, bob herbert, we're talking a lot of ugly. since they weren't hired for their looks, how the hell did they get hired because it certainly wasn't due to writing ability.
i mentioned i was tackling this and c.i. suggested i note the difference between modo today online and in print. that really requires me scanning so i'll do it tomorrow or take it over to 3rd for a short entry.
community member stan has started his own site called oh boy it never ends so be sure to check it out. he is marcia's cousin. we just found out (except for c.i.) tonight. stan started his site this morning. check it out. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:' Thursday, November 6, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty maybe moves forward but American citizens cannot have any details, Iraqi Christians feel betrayed by those who promised representation, Joshua Frank explores the War Hawks considered for cabinet positions and more.
At the Vatican today, a conference of Muslim and Christian leaders came to a close today. BBC (text and video) quotes Pope Benedict XVI stating, "Muslims and Christians have different approaches in matters concerning God but must consider themselves members of one family." The Pope completed his remarks with a request (video, not in text), "Let us work with all people, especially the young, to build a common future." AP's Frances D'Emilo notes that Archbishop Louis Sako (from "the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk") was among the religious leaders present. Dr. Seyyed Damdad (Dept of Islamic Studies at The Academy of Sciences in Iran) and Tariq Ramadan were among the Muslim leaders attending. Asia News reproduces the joint declaration those attending agreed to. Last month in Iraq, the exodus of Iraqi Christians from Mosul following attacks and threats garnered some press attention. IRIN reports, "About 400 Christian families, (some 2,400 individuals) have returned to their homes in the northern city of Mosul after a spate of threats and killings led them to flee in early October, according to officials." Today the Kurdish Globe interviews Nechirvan Barzani, the KRG's prime minister (Massoud Barzani is the region's president and also Nechirvan's uncle).
Nechirvan Barzani: There is an unfortunate history of attacks against Christians in Iraq by terrorist groups since the liberation of Iraq in 2003. For example, in August 2004, churches in Baghdad and later in Basra, Mosul, and Kirkuk were targeted by terrorists. Christians were assassinated, abducted, and pressured to convert or pay ransom. Such things continued until nearly 50,000 Christian families had no option but to flee. Of these, 20,000 families fled to the Kurdistan Region and settled in the Duhok and Erbil governorates. Other families settled in the towns around the Nineveh Plain, and the remainder left Iraq for Syria and Jordan. The Kurdistan Regional Government has provided as much assistance as possible to these Christian families. This assistance has included employing them within the Kurdistan Regional Government, reconstructing approximately 100 villages, and helping around 10,000 families with monthly stipends. The KRG has been helping Christian families with assistance through churches and cultural and community centers. When the exodus of Christians became know, the KRG allocated 250,000 ID to each family to help them until the federal government in Baghdad can find a permanent solution. Other KRG institutions, like the Parliament and the governorates of Duhok, Erbil, and Sulaimaniya, have also offered financial and material aid to those in need, through churches and civil society organizations. The KRG Council of Ministers convened to condemn attacks against the Christians. Even before this, many KRG cabinet members, parliamentarians, and governors visited locations where the displaced Christian families have fled.
Barzani goes on to reject the talk that the Kurds were behind the assaults and threats on the Christians stating, "The Kurds would politically lose most from these incidents, since the Arab proportion of the population would rise. Those wishing to lay the blame for these incidents on our doorstep are enemies of democracy, enemies of a federal Iraq. They wish to make blatantly false claims in order to undermine the basic rights of freedom, democracy, and fair representation." That may be but those pointing the fingers at the Kurds were not claiming that the assaults were meant to push Christians out of the area for all time. The assertion was that Kurds wanted to send in the Pershmerga and had created a situation that only they could be the 'heroes' and 'saviors' of. This would, the accusations argued, allow the Kurdish region to get a stronghold in an area that is not widely seen as up in the air as to who has dibs on it. True or false, that was the accusation. (At this point, no group has been found responsible for the attacks and threats.)
Meanwhile Baghdad's Bishop Shlemon Warduni speaks with Asia Times which reports: "The auxiliary bishop of Baghdad had far harsher words for the 'slashed representation' of minorities in the upcoming provincial elections. On Monday 3 November the Parliament approved a resolution, by 106 votes out of 150, to reserve only 6 seats for all minorities: three for Christians (Baghdad, Nineveh and Bassora), one each for Yazidis and Shabaks in Nineveh and the last to the Sabei, in the capital. 'It is pittance -- dencounces Msgr. Warduni - but we don't want it. We want equal rights'. The Chaldean bishop recalls the battle launched by the Church 'for the reinstatement of article 50 of the electoral law', which would have guaranteed 15 seats (out of a total of 440) to minorities, 13 to Christians, one to the Shabaks and the last to the Yazidis. 'We met with Premier al-Maliki, the president and the Muslim religious leaders among them the great Ayatollah al Sistani, the Sheiks and tribal chiefs. All of them promised the article would be reintroduced based upon the principal, enshrined in the constitution that all Iraqis are equal and enjoy equal rights. Evidently they preferred to give us this pittance; but we won't accept it, we want equal rights'." Alaa Majeed (UPI) explains, "Elections are one of those factors of the Iraqi Constitution that rely on transparent principles as a guide for the people. Democratic elections are an achievement in Iraq that will enable the people to decide for their future. The upcoming provincial elections, scheduled tentatively for January, give reason for the people to participate in forming a solid foundation for their country." Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) noted yesterday, "The elections will feature political races heavily influenced by Iraq's complex and sectarian conflicts. They could exacerbate tensions in southern Iraq between U.S.-backed Prime Miniter Nouri Maliki's nationalist Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the two main Shiite Muslim parties in the country. The results of the internal Shiite rivalry are likely to determine whether Iraq is broken up into semiauntonomous regions or retains a strong central government."
But some will not be participating due to a number of reasons. For religious minorities, it's the seat assignment which they find insulting and which is less than Article 50 guaranteed them (before it was stripped) and less than what the United Nations was recommending. Qassim Khidhir (Kurdish Globe) reports that the bill is now before Iraq's presidency council and "Christians, Shabaks, and Yazidis have warned the presidency council not to approve it. Nevertheless, the Iraqi presidency spokesman stated that the Iraqi presidency will still approve the bill despite the warning. Mahma Khalil, a member of Iraqi Parliament from the Kurdistan Alliance list who is a Yazidi, threatened that Yazidis will merge their territories with Kurdistan Region if the bill is approved."
From the elections to the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. This morning AP reported that the US has 'officially' responded to Iraq's requests for amendments and Reuters quoted Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesperson for al-Maliki, stating, "America has responded and the Iraqi side has received the American response. They had some remarks on some of the amendments, which now requires meetings with the Americans to reach a common understanding." At the White House this morning, Dana Perino told the press, "We have gotten back to the Iraqis with a final text. Through this step we've concluded the process on our side, and now it is their court to move forward with their process." Asked about the ticking clock (December 31st the UN mandate expires), Perino responded, "We've been trying to get it done and we recongizne that there's a deadline for when the UN security mandate expires. But we're moving forward. Now they have our response to the request of the changes that they had. So they'll move forward now. I think their parliament is in session for the next two weeks. I don't know all the details in terms of how -- what the next steps are on their end, but we've returned a final text to them." Later this morning, the State Dept's spokesperson briefed the press. Robert Wood declared, "Yeah, we've gotten back to the Iraqis with a final text, and so the process has concluded on our side and we look forward to hearing back from the Iraqis. . . . We believe the process has -- on our side, has been concluded. So it's now the Iraqis' turn for them to move the document through their internal polticial process." He stressed that "the negotiating process has come to an end" but despite the US having 'finished' on their end ("the process has concluded") according to Wood, he refused to provide any details. He was no more specific on when Iraqis were informed of the official response: "Last night or early this morning."
Yesterday Ryan Crocker entertainined Iraqi officials at the fortress US Embassy in the Green Zone and Suadad al-Salhy and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) explain that approximately "250 Iraqi officials, diplomats and dignataries" gather "Wednesday morning" where they were served "green-tinted fruit punch" and a huge sheet cake (which was dry -- not a detail in the paper). Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) notes. "The U.S. embassy used the elections as the reason to have its first official function at the new embassy in Baghdad." Staying with so-called diplomacy, Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) examines possible cabinet members in Barack's administration and we'll focus on The Problem From Hell Samantha Power because that War Hawk is so rarely called out:
Samantha Power, cheerleader for humanitarian intervention, also has Obama's ear and may even entice him to put U.S. forces in Darfur.
"With very few exceptions, the Save Darfur campaign has drawn a single lesson from Rwanda: the problem was the US failure to intervene to stop the genocide. Rwanda is the guilt that America must expiate, and to do so it must be ready to intervene, for good and against evil, even globally. That lesson is inscribed at the heart of Samantha of Power's book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. But it is the wrong lesson," writes author Mahmood Mamdani in the London Review of Books.
As Mamdani continues: "What the humanitarian intervention lobby fails to see is that the US did intervene in Rwanda, through a proxy … Instead of using its resources and influence to bring about a political solution to the civil war, and then strengthen it, the US signalled to one of the parties that it could pursue victory with impunity. This unilateralism was part of what led to the disaster, and that is the real lesson of Rwanda … Applied to Darfur and Sudan, it is sobering. It means recognising that Darfur is not yet another Rwanda. Nurturing hopes of an external military intervention among those in the insurgency who aspire to victory and reinforcing the fears of those in the counter-insurgency who see it as a prelude to defeat are precisely the ways to ensure that it becomes a Rwanda."
Prior to Our Modern Day Carrie Nation visiting England and imploding, Amy Goodman was all over Power and how amazing it was and how she was going to be the next Secretary of State (and as bad as Goody was on DN!, she was far worse on WBAI airwaves as she yammered on about Samantha endlessly in one Friday's pledge drive) and of course Jeremy Scahill was all up in some Samantha Power because the Bloody War Hawk had been acting as one of his unnamed sources. But then Power went to England and imploded. She talked smack about Gordon Brown (which never got publicity here -- apparently the US doesn't give a damn if Power insults a world leader who is one of America's closest's allies), called Hillary Clinton a "monster" (which got all the attention) and told the BBC Barack's 'promise' that US troops would be out of Iraq in 16 months wasn't for real. Samantha Power was not called out for those March remarks. Instead, Tom Hayden showed up July 4th wanting to know why they were ignored. Ask John Nichols (busy lying that Samantha and Hillary were close friends to excuse the "monster" remark), ask David Corn who shot down Samantha's remarks repeatedly in press briefings with the Hillary campaign, ask ALL THE LIARS WHO REFUSED TO CALL THE WAR HAWK OUT. As irritating as Tom-Tom can be and as much as he's sold out in 2008, it does bear noting that in 2007, he was among the few willing to call out Samantha Power or her running buddy and fellow counter-insurgency cheerleader Sarah Sewall. Whatever happened to that Tom Hayden? As Bananarama once sang, "He was really saying something . . . "
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombing targeting "Awakening" Council members that left 2 dead and five wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left five people injured and another Baghdad bobming ("put in a rubbish bin") that resulted in five wounded, and a Mosul roadside bombing that left two Iraqi soldiers injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 person shot dead by US forces in Hawija.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul and 1 outside of Kirkuk.
Yesterday (late) the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier died of non-combat related causes Nov. 5." That brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4191.
Ralph Nader was this year's independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez was his running mate. We'll note this from Team Nader:
Against all odds.
We prevailed.
On $4 million total -- what Obama raised in one day.
Nader/Gonzalez overcame ballot access obstacles.
We put our shift the power agenda on 45 state ballots.
We set the world record for campaigning in 21 towns and cities in 24 hours during our Massachusetts Marathon.
We exposed Obama and Biden for the corporate politicians they are.
(And today, ABC News is reporting that Obama wants the militarist reactionary Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.)
We drew the line.
And together, we chose to make a stand.
You stood with hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Against the corporate militaristic machine.
Our consciences are clear.
Our hands are clean.
We made the moral choice.
History will look back and say -- those Americans back in 2008 who supported Nader/Gonzalez -- they were right.
So, thank you fellow traveler.
Thank you for your donations.
And your hard work.
It has been a joy -- standing with you.
Fighting for justice.
Onward
The Nader Team
And Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) evaluates president-elect Barack:
To which we could add his bellicose saber-rattling at Iran, his promise to roll back "Russian aggression" and extend war-triggering treaty protection to an aggressive Georgian regime (which cluster-bombed its own people, as we learned this week), his advocacy of destabilizing and civilian-shredding military strikes in Pakistan, his opposition to gay marriage (and campaigning with gay-bashing preachers), and his support for extending the death penalty to cover non-fatal offenses, and so on.Any one of these positions would be roundly condemned by "progressives" if they were taken or advocated by George W. Bush -- as in fact many of them have been. Indeed, one of the most remarkable things about this campaign is how Obama has managed to embody the deep and desperate thirst for change among millions of Americans -- hence the genuinely moving scenes of jubilation and revived hope that have greeted his victory -- while his actual positions in many if not most key areas track very closely with Bush's, if they are not actually identical with them.Take Iran, for example. Obama has taken what is regarded as a more nuanced position, holding out the promise of direct negotiations with Iranian leaders. Yet he has repeatedly stated what the outcome of these "negotiations" must be: Iran must "abandon its nuclear program." If it does not, then more and more draconian sanctions will be applied, with the clear threat of military action if these don't bring Tehran to heel. This is, chapter and verse, the precise policy followed by Bush, who has also repeatedly offered to "negotiate" with Iran as long as they agree to surrender on every point before talks begin.iraqthe los angeles timesned parkergina chonthe wall street journalthe new york timeskatherine zoepfsuadad al-salhyjoshua frankchris floyd
Posted at 08:56 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
|
|
|
posted by Marcia @ 11:00 PM
posted by Marcia @ 9:28 AM