Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Kamikaze Sammy"
That's Isaiah's latest comic and I think he's captured Samantha Power perfectly. If you're lost, it's not your fault. You can read "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia" but there's not much else you can count on because Panhandle Media -- always in the tank for Bambi -- is working overtime to 'protect' the voters from the truth that Barack Obama's senior foreign policy advisor Power (she was that then, she hadn't resigned) told the BBC that Obama's promise in commercials and speeches that he would pull out all US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of being voted into the White House was just sop tossed out to the masses and Obama would decide what he'd do about Iraq only after he got into the White House.
Yes, he can! Because Panhandle Media allows him too. For an amazingly well written look at how Panhandle Media works it for Bambi, see Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Goodman and Rose 'honoring' bad TV past" and let me also praise "'Baby Jessica' Valenti (Dona)" which is a solo piece (epic!) by Dona.
While I'm praising, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Jack's not snoozing" went up yesterday and I love it. I laughed so hard at the first two sentences (I'm mentioned in the first one). Jack Johnson's new CD is entitled Sleep Through The Static and it is really amazing. I would like to write about it at some point this week. Just FYI, this is the CD Kat thought about reviewing in February but was afraid that there might not be anything that grabbed her attention in March.
Returning to the topic of Bambi lying.
"MEMO: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words" (HillaryClinton.com):
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: March 8, 2008
RE: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words
Once again, it looks like Senator Obama is telling voters one thing while his campaign says those words should not to be mistaken for serious action.
After months of speeches from Senator Obama promising a hard end date to the Iraq war, his top foreign policy adviser that counseled his campaign during that period is on the record saying that Senator Obama will "not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."
Voters already have serious questions about whether Senator Obama is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Now there are questions about whether he's serious about the Iraq plan he's discussed for the last year on the campaign trail.
Senator Obama has made hard end dates about Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign and has repeatedly attacked Senator Clinton for not being clear about her intentions with regard to troop withdrawal.
It turns out those attacks and speeches were just words. And if you can't trust Senator Obama's words, what's left?
This latest incident is part of a larger pattern where Senator Obama doesn't deliver on the promises he makes on the campaign trail -- whether it's his 2004 Senate race or his 2008 White House campaign.
In 2003, Senator Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American. He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it. He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.
In 2008, Senator Obama rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning." He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time. He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.
With a short record to run on, Senator Obama's entire campaign is based on the speeches he makes on the campaign trail. So when he and his advisers dismiss the plans he touts on the stump, it undermines his entire candidacy.
Americans have heard plenty of speeches. It's time they got serious solutions and that's what Hillary is going to deliver when she is President.
I realize that it must be shocking for some. When Bambi was running for the US Senate, I was there as well. When I was dragging C.I. along to that fundraiser, we were both excited and had completely bought the press that Bambi was "anti-war" and we were so excited and so eager to write checks for his campaign. He gave a so-so, weak-ass speech and then he mingled. He was being treated with kid gloves and fawned over. He was not fawned over by C.I. One of us asked him (maybe both at the same time) about withdrawal. He wasn't for it. I was stunned and C.I. took up the questioning to make sure we were understanding. So I do know that for those who believed in Bambi, it must be shocking to learn that he has his public face and what he shows the inner circle. But that is reality and you do get over the shock. I did.
I'm surprised there was a snapshot today because C.I. is sick as a dog. (Though Ava swears C.I. looks "gorgeous." I'm sure that's true. The only person I ever knew who could pull off sick. Brings out the cheekbones even more on C.I.) (It's a stomach bug or the flu.) They and Kat are on the road speaking and I bring all that up because what I'm about to write should be considered being from C.I. and myself. It's a topic we've been talking about for about eight or nine days now. C.I. was going to try to write something tonight and I said, "You're sick, don't bother. I'll grab it at my site."
Hillary Clinton is this decade's Anita Hill. For those who saw the hideous Clarence Thomas confirmed to the Supreme Court, that's not surprising. Similar tactics are being used again.
Anita Hill was sexually harassed by Thomas. When he was nominated to the bench (by the current Bully Boy's father), Hill was among the women willing to come forward. She testified to the Senate and they didn't call any of the other witnesses.
The reason was partly the right-wing attack machine and the media in general; however, it was more than just that. It was also that our men in 'power' just didn't give a damn.
The charge against Hill was how dare she stand in the way of a Black man! It's the charge that gets floated against Hillary and, in fact, Barack's speech in Mississippi today was pretty much saying that. It wouldn't matter if Hillary was African-American or White. Anita Hill is African-American and the response was never, "What about the African-American woman." It was just what Thomas, as a man, was supposedly entitled to. He's gone on to wrong every race -- including his own -- on the bench so that should have put to the rest the race card.
But it hasn't. C.I. missed Tom Hayden's insane column endorsing Bambi other than the opening. When C.I. finally got around to reading it in full, we discussed it and thought it was cute that Tom wants 'cred' for some work with Latinos but he rendered women invisible in that piece except to piss on White women (Gloria Steinem in particular) and to applaud the "Black women" (he didn't use African-American) who were for Bambi. Apparently, all the other women -- including African-American women not for Bambi -- can piss off.
Tom's one of those guys who really wanted to be Black in the sixties, thought it would make him authentic but all he needed to do to be authentic was be authentic. That was too much work for him so fantasies were better for our 'activist.'
So we were talking about that crap in Tom's column and started talking about the response from our left and 'left' males when Clarence Thomas was headed to the bench. An arch conservative, nominated by a Bush, with sexual harassment charges in the air. You might think the left mounted a huge challenge to Thomas?
They didn't. They took the attitude that Thomas was entitled to sit on the bench because he'd been historically wronged. Again, no such thinking went into their attitudes towards Anita Hill.
That really doesn't get noted much today. When it does get noted that it wasn't just the right-wing echo chamber, the blames usually pushed off upon generic African-American men -- as a group. That's not reality. While some African-American males did shut out Hill and support Thomas, so did a lot of the White males and many were in Panhandle Media then and still are.
They were either silent or they stated outright that Thomas had to be seated on the bench. Some would argue that if Thomas wasn't seated, then the slot for an African-American (male) would be lost. Marshall was a real judge with an amazing mind and, yes, African-American but it's rather insulting to imply that his race was all he had to offer and that a mental midget like Thomas could fill or even hold the space. That certainly hasn't been what's happened since Thomas made it onto the bench.
But the crap that Tom throws out in that lousy column and that the hideous Jessica Valenti tosses out, we've heard it all before. We heard it during Hill-Thomas.
Who is this woman to stand in the historic way of a Black man!
That was the cry then and it's the cry now. But the same loons (hey, Bobby Scheer) weren't interested in women then, were they. In Hill's case, she was African-African but it didn't matter. What this is really about it that none of those men -- and include Tom Hayden in this -- value women. They never have.
As they've claimed Hillary played the gender card, they've rushed to insist (lie) that Barack hasn't been playing the race card all along.
Some of that insisting is honestly because they refuse to see the race card. When Barack plays it, they want to be down, they want to shoot hoops and have a posse! Anything that they can pin off as "gender," they will. They loathe women. They like to pretend otherwise, but look at them and their lives.
Robert Parry has no woman at his site. Robert Scheer's got a male posse going on. He reposts columns by women, but the original stuff is all by men. He doesn't like women. Tom, of course, has nevr valued women. (Except individual women who've walked out on him.)
So when Hillary on the campaign trail is speaking and her eyes moisten, they're screaming, "Gender!" Search their writing -- such as it is -- for anything on Duncan Hunter's public tears or any moment when the Bully Boy teared up. They didn't write about it. They either felt sorry for the man or they didn't notice the moments. But when a woman's eyes go moist, suddenly they're screaming their heads off.
Maybe it's guilt? Maybe they're remembering all the trashy ways they've treated women over the years. (The left male 'voices' have more than earned their own little You'll Never Make Love In This Town Again tell-all about the way they've treated women over the last decades.)
With Hillary, we're seeing the same side choosing by those men that we did during the Thomas-Hill hearings. "Lynched," "bamboozeld," etc. All those terms showed up then as well. It's amazing that so many White men on the left are so sensitive to the historical oppression of African-American males but never recognize the oppression of any woman (regardless of race). Probably recognizing would mean owning it up to it.
Maybe you're a sleeze who used to taunt your wife that she wasn't sexy enough, that her breasts weren't large enough? Maybe she used to binge on peanut butter to try to compensate for all the times you'd tell her Jessica Lange had a better body?
Maybe you didn't just verbally attack and undermine her, maybe you also physically abused her. Sorry to break it to anyone, but a number of lefty males have been guilty of domestic abuse. Again, the left males have more than earned their own You'll Never Make Love In This Town Again.
Supposedly, their admiration for Barack was that he would end the illegal war and they'd say, "He's promised to pull out all combat troops within 16 months of taking office!" We find out that's a lie and they all go silent, don't they?
There's a reason for that. It was never about Iraq. It was about their hatred of women (and their fear is beneath the hatred).
Many of your lefty male voices over 40 have been domestic abusers, womanizers and shown no respect to women their entire lives. It must be very frightening for them that Hillary Clinton is so close to becoming president. If they were involved with her, they could just destroy her (or try to) the way they've spent so much of their own lives destroying the women around them.
It really was exposed, this hatred of women, with Anita Hill. It wasn't about race. Hill is African-American. It was about hatred of women. They're very lucky that so many who trust them today don't know about their behavior during Hill-Thomas, let alone in their own personal lives.
Their non-stop attacks on Hillary are just another example of the way they've treated women all along. Telling them that their lives weren't "real" (often while living of their spouse's money) or that their lives before didn't matter, were meaningless. (Even when their lives before provided the money that allows the lazy ass men of the left to pursue their own dreams.)
When I think of all the young men today, children of 'left' male voices, many who grew up with their mothers, I wonder what it would be like if they found out the truths about their 'noble' fathers?
Most of their ex-wives have gone out of the way to be kind and not go through what happened during the marriage. Not when the children were young and not now that they are adults.
The children are like a lot of their audience today, kidding themselves that the attacks on Hillary are about Iraq. They aren't. If they were about Iraq, all those 'voices' would have been tearing Barack about today. They don't do that. They just batter and abuse women.
It's a real shame that women were nice about what happened. It's a real shame that Ms. has gotten so nice. Ms. magazine needs to return to its roots of holding all men accountable. But we've seen a reluctance to do that for about three decades now. It's why The Nation magazine got away with publishing 491 men in 2007 and only 149 women without being called out.
By the way, the examples I picked didn't just pop into my head. They are examples of what some of our 'trusted' male 'voices' did, all of it. The belitting a woman and telling her Jessica Lange had a better body, telling his own wife that and doing so just to prove what a price he was, just to try to destroy her self-confidence. If left male 'voices' of a certain age were to read this, they'd shudder. If you're a left male 'voice' and are reading this and wondering, "Does she know?" The answer is, yes, I do. Women talk to each other. Even when we draw the veil to the world at large about the s**t you did to us, we still talk to each other about it.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, March 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama's 'pledge' wasn't a pledge but watch Panhandle Media play dumb, the US military announces the deaths of US service members today, reconstruction and more.
Starting with war resistance. "The most common hostility that I faced was the ostracism of many of my peers: the young soldiers of the same rank as I," Aidan Delgado explained to Dewey Hammond last August in an interview timed for the release of his book d The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib: Notes From A Conscientious Objector In Iraq. As the book title notes, Delgado is a CO and Hammond asks him, "At what pointfor you did it become clear that being a soldier could not coexist with being Buddhist?"
Aidan Delgado: After enlistment, during Basic and Advanced training, I began to study and became far more serious about Buddhism but I still felt that there was some way to allow the ideals of being a soldier and the ideals of being a Buddhist to coexist. When I deployed to Iraq and had all the abstractions peeled away, saw what it truly meant to be a soldier, was when I finally decided that Buddhism and militarism were incompatible. That is not to imply that it was a sudden "revelation" on my part; to the contrary, it was the final stage of a long process of questioning and maturation on my part. I didn't suddenly decide that war was wrong when I deployed to Iraq, I knew it already intellectually, but it took the direct experience of war to make it real for me and give me the courage to oppose it.
All war resisters show courage by resisting and war resisters in Canada could use some people backing them up. They were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?Tofirstname.lastname@example.org -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).Meanwhile IVAW has a DC action this month:In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & AfghanistanMarch 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it." The hearings will be broadcast throughout at the Iraq Veterans Against the War home page an on KPFA March 14th and 16th with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz hosting and the KPFA live stream will also be available at Glantz' War Comes Home.
Over the weekend, Michael McGuire (The Evening Sun) reports, that IVAW's Daniel Black "spoke about his military experiences to a small group in the community room at the Guernsey Memorial Library in Norwich. Thursday, he gave a talk to students at Hartwick College sponsored by the Iraq-Iran Group of the Coalition for Democracy of Central New York." Mason Kerns (Des Moines Register) reports that IVAW was among those protesting Karl Rove at the Univeristy of Iowa (Rove gave a speech there over the weekend) while April West (The Lawrentian) reports that IVAW's John Knox spoke on the Lawrence University campus at the invitation of the Multicultural Affairs Committee and he "discussed the demographics of those in the Army as well as recruiters' tactics. The bulk of new army recruits' parents make a combined $30,000 - 50,000 a year and are from Texas, he said. Knox described an exponential correlation in which the more money a family makes the less likely they are to have children in the Army." Justin Hughes (Golden Gate [X]Press) reports that IVAW's Michael Blake joined with Iraqi journalist Salam Talib to speak at San Francisco State University with Blake explaining, "We are using Iraq to project power throughout the Middle East. . . . These guys are getting filthy stinking rich off this war while everyone else is suffering. From their perspective, the war is going very well."
From whose perspective is it okay to tell the voters a known lie?
Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?
Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.
We noted the above on Friday. The then foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Samantha Power, speaking to the BCC. Most haven't noted the story (the list includes The Nation, Common Dreams, The Progressive among others, see The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia" ). AP noted it. Gideon Rachman (Financial Times of London) lies but notes not only did Power say it on the BBC, Power also stated similar things to Rachman last week. Rachman's lie is that Samantha Power was against the illegal war before it started. As John R. MacArthur (Common Deams) noted in 2005 -- before so many War Hawks started going in for Extreme Makeovers -- the "humanists such as [George] Packer, [Samantha] Power, and Michael Ignatieff signed on with the neo-conservative crowd for a 'democracy-building' project in Iraq". David Corn (Mother Jones) embarrasses himself (but give him credit, like Rachman, for not pretending the BBC interview never took place -- many others pretended it didn't take place). Corn excuses Power's remarks but they don't need any excuse. She spoke the truth, it's Corn who's spinning claiming that all it means is "a campaign proposal is just that: a proposal." Since Corny's among the crowd 'jazzed' by the 'youth' for Bambi, Corny should be aware that what his 'seasoned' and non-reasoned (remember his attacks on Gary Webb?) 'insider' status allows him to 'know' is not a known to people turning out at Obama's rallies and hearing him pledge to pull all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months. What it is, and Corn knows this, is a lie -- a big fat lie. Samantha Power revealed it as such in her interview with the BBC and Corn quotes from it selectively. He really needs to be ashamed of himself. It's the sort of crap that makes Mother Jones just another whore in Panhandle Media and they really ought to be ashamed because more than any other outlet, they used to march to their own drum. Now they've got their hands out begging like every other cheap hustler. Barack Obama has declared in ads and speeches that he will withdraw troops 16 months from being sworn in.
Kristen Senz (The Union Leader) reported that in November, "If elected, Obama vowed to end the war in Iraq within 16 months". Does David Corn think Senz misunderstood? Use the link, it goes to Barack Obama's site which reposted that article under the heading "Change We Can Believe In." "Believe in me" says Bambi. He's got no record to run on, so he's run on personality and told everyone he has 'judgement' and can be 'trusted.' But he's lying. Need more from "Change We Can Believe In"? Barack's campaign has posted Peter Hecht (Sacramento Bee) reporting Bambi declared, "As president I will end the war in Iraq. I will bring the troops home. They will be home in 16 months. . . . America, San Francisco. Our moment is now. You can't wait any longer. Our moment to bring about change is now." Sounds like a promise because that's what he wants people to hear it as. On October 2nd (again, link goes to Bambi's campaign site) his campaign posted his speech that day which included Barack declaring, "The first thing we ahve to do is end this war. . . . I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months." That's pretty damn clear unless your name is David Corn. December 18th, campaigning in Iowa, he declared that if he was "the Democratic nominee, I will offer a clear choice. My opponent won't be able to say that I ever supported the war in Iraq, or that I don't support a clear timetable to bring out troops home." He also stated in that speech, "So when you consider who to caucus for, I ask you to consider myjudgement and vision for new American leadership. Leadership that brings our combat brigades out of Iraq in 16 months, renews American diplomacy, finishes . . ." Get the point?
He's campaigned on this over and over in speeches and commercials. Tom Hayden has assumed it was a real pledge. He's written column after column praising Bambi. You better believe others have taken Bambi at his word. At the Barack Obama campaign website it reads here that "In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president. Bring Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat briages out of Iraq within 16 months." Will is the verb in the final sentence (written by Bambi's campaign and posted on his website). While David Corn embarrasses himself, NBC' Domenico Montanaro (reporting on the same press call Corn did) explains that "when (now former) top Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told BBC that Obama 'will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator,' the Clinton campaign found something tangible to seize on."
And the Hillary Clinton campaign released "MEMO: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words" which opens with, "Once again, it looks like Senator Obama is telling voters one thing while his campaign says those words should not be mistaken for serious action. After months of speeches from Senator Obama promising a hard end date to the Iraq war, his top foreign policy adviser that counseled his campaign during that period is on the record saying that Senator Obama will 'not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. Voters already have serious questions about whether Senator Obama is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Now there are questions about whether he's seriou about the Iraq plan he's discussed for the last year on the campaign trail. . . . It turns out those attacks and speeched were just words. And if you can't trust Senator Obama's words, what's left?" Nothing. And certainly nothing that indicates the illegal war's ending.
While Bambi tries to figure out what he thinks today, people are dying. In fact, 8 US service members appear to have died today. Nancy A. Youssef and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) report that at a time when most outlets are aware of 5 dead. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports, "Five American soldiers were killed and three wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up in the middle of a foot patrol in Baghdad today, in the deadliest strike against the US military in the city since last June." And that was when it was five (the other three dead are not the three wounded in the bombing we're focusing on right now.) CBS and AP note that an Iraqi interpreter was also injured in the bombing. CNN offers, "The explosion marks the deadliest attack against the US military since five soldiers were killed January 28 in a roadside bombing in Mosul." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "Iraqi police said a man with explosives strapped to his waist walked up to the soldiers during a foot patrol int he upscale Mansour meighborhood and blew him self up. The blast also killed an Iraqi civilian and injured 11 other Iraqis, police and hospital officials said." That brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 3980. But, as noted before, Youssef and Allam write that 8 died today and they report 3 more "died while on a patrol in Diyala province, the official said. He asked not to be identified as he isn't an official spokesman." Now might be a good time to note that Rear Admr. Gregory Smith declared yesterday in his Iraq press conference, "I would not look at the last few weeks as an increase or a trend of an increase."
In other reported violence today . . .
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad truck bombing that claimed the life of 1 person and left five more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded two people, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left four people wounded a Diyala Province bombing that claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left twenty people wounded, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of an Iraqi soldier and wounded two others in the Iraqi military and a bombing targeting the Sulaimaniyah Palace Hotel which claimed the life of 1 guard and left thirty-four people injured. Reuters reports a Diyala Province bombing today credited to "female suicide bomber" which has claimed the life of Thaer Saggban al-Karkhi who had been a US collaborator in an "Awakening" Council (and whom Reuters describes as "a prominent Sunni Arab tribal chief") as well as three people with him. Al Arabiya News Channel notes the dead includes two bodyguards and one of the chief's niece and that another bombing in the same province took place at a police station and resulted in 2 deaths and twenty-two people being injured.
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Salahuddin Province. Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul left 2 dead and two more wounded.
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad while Dr. Khalid Nasir's corpse was discovered in Basra. In the continuing targeting of educators, doctors and officials, Dr. Nasir was kidnapped on Sunday. CBS and AP note, "According to figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry released earlier this year, 618 medical employees, including 132 doctors, as well as medics and other health care workers, have been killed nationwide since 2003."
Yesterday, James Glanz (New York Times) reported that senators Carl Levin and John Warner's plan to use their positions on the Senate Armed Service Committee in order to determine "how Iraq is spending its soaring oil revenue" two months after the 'accountability' office in Iraq "reported that Iraq had spent a meager 4.4 percent of its 2007 reconstruction budget by August of that year, the most recent figures available at the time." CNN adds: "Iraq's ability to spend its $10.1 billion capital projects budget in 2007 was one of the 18 benchmarks used to assess U.S. progress in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq, according to the GAO. The United States has spent more than $47 billion on Iraqi reconstruction efforts since 2003, according to the 2008 quarterly audit by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction."
iraq veterans against the war
aimeee allisondavid solnit
john r. macarthur
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles timesalexandra zavis
the new york timesjames glanz
the third estate sunday review