Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Inauguration realities

'Inauguration report' (Free Speech Radio News, January 19, 2009):
Tanya Snyder: Washington, DC officials are working to clear the downtown area of homeless people for the festivities.

Brian Anders: We don't want people to know that there are poor people living in the nation's capitol living on the streets. That would be insane.

Tanya Snyder: Brian Anders is a homeless advocate who works with
Empower DC a grassroots group that organizes low-income Washingtonians. He says many of the people who sleep on the streets downtown are being moved far outside the city and they have a lot of concerns about this upheaval?

Brian Anders: Are they going to be allowed to come back downtown? Are they going to be put somewhere else where it's too far for them to get back downtown? Are they going to be able to get their property back? Especially if they don't have identification? What about those folks who are on medications? What about those folks who have substance abuse issues? I mean we're not dealing with the bigger questions -- I mean, it's conveniant to move them out because you don't want to see them obviously. But the reality, these are human beings.

Tanya Snyder: City shelters are opening up for inauguration day too, serving hot drinks and showing TV coverage of the festivities downtown. But DC's mayor closed the downtown Franklin Shelter last fall removing 300 emergency beds for homeless men. Some domestic violence survivors are also losing their emergency shelter for the days surrounding the inauguration. Advocate Baylis Beard-Hunting says that the people whose homes are unsafe can normally get subsidized hotel rooms

Baylis Beard-Hunting: Of the two places that they currently have available, one of those hotels is kicking out the clients from Crime Victims Compensation for the period during inauguration because they say they've been booked for many years back. So clients check out on Friday, check back in on Wednesday.

Tanya Snyder: Washington only has fifty beds in the whole city dedicated to domestic violence victims so the hotels often become an essential resource for people needing to escape a violent situation at home.

Baylis Beard-Hunting: I know clients who are bartering food cards, any resource they have available, babysitting other people's children for a space on the couch, a space on the floor, you know whatever they can find.

I did not want to blog yesterday. More so than usual because I had a series of e-mails come in complaining about Danny Schechter's inauguration nonsense. A lot of you were also e-mailing C.I. and she addressed it today. It needed addressing.

We were rightly outraged in the US when China started evicting people and trying to spit polish away their slums with a little paint as they prepared to host the Olympics. Guess what? It's no different than what the US did for Barack's inauguration. (The above is from C.I.'s transcript of the report broadcast Monday.) I have not been able to go to DC since the early 80s and not see a large number of homeless people.

The answer is not hiding them every four years, the answer is addressing the problem. Instead, Barack got his million dollar extravaganzas and the homeless (and victims of domestic violence) were displaced.

The money spent on the inauguration is outrageous. Danny Schechter linked to a stupid Media Matters 'report.' If Media Matters intends to be a laughable apologist for the next four years, they'll be about as credible to me as Danny Schechter is.

Barack's spent more money on the inauguration. Do not try to say, "Well it's security!" Bully Boy was one of the most hated people in the country and barely squeaked out a win over John Kerry. Bully Boy was also scared of his shadow. If Barack's spending more on security than Bully Boy did it goes to too many balls and too much vanity.

Public Citizen offered the following ahead of the inauguration:

Obama's Inauguration, Sponsored by the Few, the Wealthy
A Public Citizen analysis shows that nearly 80 percent of the $35.3 million raised to date by the Presidential Inaugural Committee has come from just 211 individual "bundlers," who collect checks from colleagues or other associates. Many of these fundraisers are Wall Street executives, who, no doubt, are hoping their generosity is appreciated by the new administration.
READ the news release.
LEARN more at

That's the sort of reality Danny Schechter cannot handle. These are my statements, by the way, not C.I.'s. Let me further add, don't write me and expect it to be private. If that isn't clear to one person, I am not Ruth. Don't whine to me or try to charm me to demonstrate that you are not a sexist. You are a sexist and it comes through loud and clear. So that is the one and only warning ____ will ever receive.

Back to inauguration babble. So Mr. Schechter appears to believe he birthed Barack and possibly breast fed him as well. That was yesterday's post that had people questioning his vanity as he yammered on about the Chicago Eight and how they and 'we' are a part of it and blah, blah, blah.

Someone inform Mr. Schechter that he is no John Lennon. I knew John Lennon and I know Yoko and Danny Schechter can dream; however, he can never and will never be John Lennon.

Danny Schechter the self-billed News Dissector REFUSED to dissect the rank sexism in the media against Hillary. He didn't do it when CNN decided to 'debate' whether Hillary was a bitch and you know he's too chicken s**t to ever call out MSNBC's thug boys in pantyhose.

So C.I. addressed it and I'm sure that's going to be it for C.I. for as long as possible. If you have a problem with his rantings, e-mail me. I have no problem calling him out. I also think it's hilarious that he's attempting to write a Barack book. Danny Schechter can't write an honest book about Barack Obama and, more to the point, Danny's garbage fluff will be useless by the time he completes a book and it goes to the printers. Translation (to steal from Ava and C.I.), he is wasting his time writing fluff that will only embarrass him when it finally surfaces (when it finally surfaces and no one buys it).

No one will buy it. No one will want fluff or hero worship. A book publisher (not small publisher) phoned this morning and I only had time to return the call during lunch. It's an old friend of mine (and of C.I.'s) and he was discussing what the trends were. He passed on a Barack puff book and did so back in October. Why? These children's books sell best ahead of the election and immediately after. Once someone ends up with an actual record as a president, there's no interest in the puff pieces.

Sunny said an e-mail came in asking why I wasn't in DC like C.I. For a number of reasons. A) I have a practice that I really do not like to walk away from. If I'm not doing the sessions, I like to give plenty of notice ahead of time. B) I know Joe Biden but not like C.I. C.I.'s known Joe forever and would not miss Joe being sworn in as vice-president. I'm happy for Joe. I will call him "Mr. Vice President" the next time our paths cross. But C.I.'s always been closer to Joe than I am and knows just how much Joe has sacrificed for his family (before Jill was part of it and after Jill became part of it). Without some of those sacrifices, which were wonderful ones and go to the type of person Joe is, he probably could have been president by 1984 if not sooner. Joe's one of those people who can make C.I. cry. I don't mean by Joe saying something or doing something but just by being a stand-up person who keeps his word. People like that, who do have honor, always touch C.I. I skipped the convention as well this summer but I knew before Rebecca told me that C.I. was crying her eyes out when Beau spoke. C.I. doesn't cry at romantic love stories. But when someone really sacrifices for another person -- a friend, a child, etc. -- that will make the tears run.

Let me just stay with that for a moment. What I'm saying is nothing new or revealing. (I may be the first to talk about the tears during Beau Biden's speech, but I don't think I am.) But you go through those snapshots and you find one in the leadup to the election where C.I. fluffed for Biden. You won't find one. Unlike Danny Schechter, C.I. kept a distance. C.I. also called out Biden two times after the convention and before the general election and Ava and C.I. were forced (and they grappled with whether or not they could avoid the topic) to explore why Biden was crying. C.I. played the election as fairly as possible. Did the same during the crowded Democratic Party primary as well. C.I. knew everyone in the race except Barack (whom we met together during his run for the US Senate and had mutual friends). C.I. didn't (and does not) like Dennis Kucinich. But no one knew that from the snapshots which covered Dennis and defended him when he was being attacked. (That only stopped when Dennis revealed he wasn't a real candidate by giving away his supporters in Iowa.) C.I. does not like John Edwards at all. C.I. is friends with John Kerry (and Teresa) and does not appreciate any of the crap and 'creative' stories Edwards told about John Kerry after the 2004 election. But you didn't know that until months after John Edwards dropped out of the primaries. C.I.'s known Bill Richardson since the Clinton era and C.I. has never said a word publicly or privately against Bill for his decision to endorse Barack. Of course, C.I. knew Hillary. C.I. knew Mike Gravel. I was about to ask who am I forgetting and then remembered who it was: Chris Dodd. C.I. does not like Dodd for reasons that are long standing. If Chris Dodd made a good point, C.I. backed him up. If Dodd was attacked unfairly, C.I. defended him.

Mr. Big Former Journalist Danny Schechter had no problem playing favorites (Barack) throughout. It's the difference being raised with journalism ethics (as C.I. was) and adopting them briefly because you're trying to make a living.

Last thing, Sunny asked, "Who is the male actor who came on to the high school boy?" That's in the snapshot. I told her it was a film actor. She still couldn't figure it out. I told her think hard. Finally, I told her I was almost positive that C.I. was referring to ____ because of the way it was written and when C.I. returned my call (we were playing phone tag and didn't speak today, we kept missing each other), say ____ (the actor's movie) and then ask, "Is that right?" It was. It's pretty obvious who the actor is. If you'[re in doubt, make a list of famous actors who've played gay and think of minor actors who wish they were famous who've never done so even though a large number of their peers have done so.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 21, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq okays US leaving quickly . . . and it doesn't okay that, provincial elections loom, the inauguration's first fatality was common sense, Liz Smith plays the fool and so much more.

Starting with Iraqi provincial elections which are scheduled to be held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces on January 31st.
Aseel Kami (Reuters) explores the issue of females running for seats (a little over 1/25 of those seeking office are women), "But in a country that was once one of the most progressive for women's rights in the Middle East, and where black candidates plan to run for election for the first time, female candidates say the quota gives them little real clout. The system has been dominated by conservative religious parties since U.S.-led forces ousted Saddam Hussein in 2003." Women are afraid to put up their campaign material with photos, they're afraid to campaign and they have to deal with 'honor' killings, threats and sexism. Meanwhile Alsumaria offers, "In this context, some liberals have accused dominant religious parties of giving quota seats to carefully selected women who would not call for better women's rights. However, many Iraqi men, like Abu Omar, welcome the presence of women in the political establishment." In a separate report, Alsumaria explains that Faraj Al Haydari, head of Iraq's Independent High Electoral Committee, has declared a "curfew will be imposed and airports will close off on the day of elections." NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (Morning Edition -- link has text and audio) offers an overview:Sheik Aifan al-Issawi is a founding member of one of these groups, the Sahwa, or Awakening, movement. In 2006, he and other tribal leaders turned against al-Qaida in Iraq and joined the Americans.Now, Anbar is one of the more stable Iraqi provinces — and these fighters want to become a political force in Iraq.Issawi, head of Fallujah's tribal security force, says he and other tribal fighters have sacrificed more than anyone else. He cites his own personal losses: nine members of his family killed, including his mother and sisters.The Sunni boycott of the polls in 2005 left them with little representation. This time, the sheik says they are going to flex their electoral muscle.There has been a push in Basra to become its own region (similar to the KRG) andBasil Adas (Gulf News) reports that the push has failed after supporters "fell short of the 10 per cent of votes" needed but "further division and quarrelling" is expected to continue. Basra resident Khamis Al Alwan is quoted stating, "The Basra failure is a blow to those who are in favour of the division of Iraq. Iraqis want Iraq to remain one country, and this can be seen through the cooperation of Sunnis and Shiites to prevent its division." CNN explains only 32,448 people signed the petition (out of 135,707 required) and offers this background, "Basra is the only Iraqi province that borders a body of water -- the Shatt al Arab waterway near the Persian Gulf. The province also borders Kuwait and Iran. Cities in the province include Basra city, Umm Qasr and Zubayr."

In some of today's reported violence . . .


Laith Hammoudi and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that targeted "Zeyad al Ani, the President of the Islamic Univiersty" and resulted in 4 deaths, wounded two of his guards, and injured ten other people; and a Kirkuk roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left one wounded. Reuters notes a Dour roadside bombing that claimed 5 lives and left three people wounded.


Laith Hammoudi and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 broker was shot dead in Mosul.


Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Zubair.

Today in DC Gen Peter W. Chiarelli (vice chief of staff in the Amry) met with reporters.
CQ Politics reports that he discussed an ongoing top-to-bottom review that will be completed at the end of next month. David Wood (Baltimore Sun) explains Chiarelli revealed approximately "20,000 soldiers are unable to serve in war zones because they are recuperating from long-term or minor injuries, including an increasing number suffering from stress fractures and other ailments caused by carrying too much weight in combat". Wood notes the general stated that the number continues to increase and that he hopes there would be downtime before any US troops from Iraq were redeployed to Afghanistan (as Barack wants them to be). The general refers to the need for relief. April 1, 2008, the US House Subcommittee on Health held a hearing entitled Post Traumatic Stress Disorter (PTSD) Treament and Research: Moving Ahead Toward Recovery. US Army Director, Divisions of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research's Col Charles W. Hoge testified on the first panel.

Hoge declared, "One of the issues with multiple deployments and the dwell time for soldiers when they've come back, we've learned from the research that we've done, [is] that 12 months is not enough time for soldiers to reset and go back for another deployment." Twelve months -- one year -- was not sufficient. US House Rep Shelley Berkley asked him, "Not enough time between tours of duty, did I hear you correctly?" He replied "Yes [pause] What we've found [pause] Yes. That's what I said. [pause] The 12 months is insuf- appears to be insufficient." Now in the United Kingdom, there is a push for British troops to get more time between deployments.
BBC reports General Richard Dannatt is calling for British troops "not to be sent on operations for more than six months out of every 36." Currently, deployments overseas are supposed to have 24 months between them and the plan would push the number of months to thirty. Chris Green (Independent of London) adds that:

. . . the shadow Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, described General Dannatt's comments as "yet more confirmation that overstretch is seriously damaging the Army's ability to do its job" and called for a review of the present strategy. He said: "The surest way to have unhappy service personnel is to have unhappy service families. General Dannatt's suggestions should be taken seriously, as he is at least attempting creative solutions for our overstretch problem.
"Reducing the number of overseas deployments is a start, but the Government must also look at issues of housing, health care and veterans' welfare if it wants to avert a serious crisis in recruitment and retention. Repairing the broken military covenant is long overdue."

Thomas Harding and Jon Swaine (Telegraph of London) quote Dannatt stating, "We have seriously stretched our soldiers -- both their good will and their families." And where is the concern in the US where service members already have less time home between deployments? In the US where Congress has been informed that 12 months is not enough? Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) reports on 250 Marines who have finally returned from Iraq and how Cpl Kylie Vanderwende's family plans to celebrate Christmas in a few days, Edward Dikitanan's son Nalani just wants to go to the zoo with his father, Jason Bergmann was finishing his fourth deployment and the first since he'd gotten married 16 months ago to Karie Bergmann who he last saw twelve months ago, and Andrew Anderson who got to hold his daughter Kezia for the first time. In the United Kingdom, the service members already get more time between deployments and they are now moving to increase that time. It's time the US Congress did what needs to be done. (US House Rep Patrick Murphy has floated legislating deployment time and downtime and it may be time for that if the military cannot do it on their own even after the admission in an open hearing that 12 months is not enough downtime.)

Back to the US press breakfast with the general.
Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times' The Caucus) notes another point Chiarelli discussed. Asked about withdrawal of 'combat' troops within 16 months (popularly presented as Barack's 'pledge') his reply included, "You can pick up and leave anything very quickly, but if you do, you'll leave it in a certain condition that won't be as good if you went through a certain deliberative process of working through those issues. And there's a lot of logistical issues that have to be worked through, and I think everybody has to understand that, that you can do antyhing, but it just depends on how you want to look and what instructions are given for what you bring and what you leave behind and the contition that you leave your operating bases in when you leave." That's nonsense and Barack could safely withdraw all US troops from Iraq in his first 100 days if he wanted. Now follow closely because it's about to get confusing. AP reports that Ali al-Dabbagh, Nouri al-Maliki's mouthpiece to the press, has declared that US service members could leave Iraq "even before the end of 2011." That's what the Status Of Forces Agreement masquerading as a treaty could allow for (departure in 2011) if it was followed and not altered or cancelled (either party can cancel it). Barack's 16-month 'pledge' (only for 'combat' troops) would mean 'combat' troops would be out in April 2010. While al-Maliki's spokesperson stated 'sure, leave early,' others sent a different message. Camilla Hall and Zainab Fattah (Bloomberg News) report Hoshyar Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) disagrees and states, "Nobody can afford in 2009 to contemplate any change in military policy. . . . [We can't] give any impression that there will be draw-downs, reductioins, redeployment because this year Iraq has three elections." So which is it? When pressed, al-Maliki's spokesperson has a long history -- as does the puppet -- of backing down.

We're still on inauguration coverage and here's how it works. If you result in 40 or more e-mails complaining (from community members), you get called out. I'm not in the mood. And I'm not in the mood to try and answer that many e-mails one on one. When that many people are pointing to a problem, it will be called out here.
Danny Schechter. We just rolled our eyes all through 2008 when he pretended repeatedly that he was just calling it like it was and oh, goodness, no favoritism to Barack. Why does the media suck? It sucks because alleged independents refuse to do their jobs. The garbage -- and that's the only word for it -- at Danny's News Dissector today is not journalism and it is not independent. If he can't grasp it, he should substitute "Bush" for "Barack" and he should be appalled by offering up a version of Fox "News."

For starters, Rev Joseph Lowery is not "one of Dr. King's soldiers." There is NEVER any need to MILITARIZE the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Repeating, NEVER. That is appalling and there's no excuse for it. Not even that Danny's giddy over Barack. The US is in two wars with Barack's advisors already itching for two more. Stop trying to turn our civil society into the military. And on Lowery, again
refer to Kimberly Wilder's post at On The Wilder Side.

Meanwhile, it's always great -- and oh, so rare -- when Danny manages to quote a woman at his blog, but possibly stand-up comics who don't know what the hell they're talking about should be avoided?

Jessi Klein? Doesn't know what she's talking about. And Danny should know that. Long before John Roberts, Chief Justice, screwed up the oath, Barack had already done that. And, big point, I'd be awfully careful making fun of John Roberts. Not out of fear that he or his minions would come after but due to questions about Roberts' health which swirl around DC. Also true is the oath isn't that difficult and the presumably healthy Barack has no excuse for messing it up. Jessi wants to ignore that. She wants to say it's "perfectly symbolic" because of who appointed him. And Danny apparently agrees.

Roberts -- whom this site LOUDLY opposed -- was confirmed by the Senate. Barack's buddy Cass Sunstein (currently married to War Monger and Our Modern Day Carrie Nation Samantha Power) pimped Roberts hard. Barack obviously loves Cass' 'judgment' since he's named Cass to head Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Barack voted against Roberts while also leading the public argument of "WE CAN'T FILIBUSTER!" The Democrats could have kept Roberts off the bench. They did not do so. The Senate confirmed Roberts: 78 voted for Roberts, 22 voted against. Who voted for Roberts among Democrats? Well Robert Byrd among others, Russ Feingold, Kent Conrad, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Ken Salazar (whom Barack nominated to be Sec of Interior and whom the Senate confirmed in the post yesterday), Herb Kohl, Blanche Lincoln -- we can go on and on. Only 22 senators voted against Roberts (all Democrats). The Democrats had a bloc of 45 votes at that time (44 Dems plus independent Jim Jeffords). When half of them voted to confirm him and when the Dems would not filibuster the nomination, Roberts sitting on the Court -- presiding over it -- is as much their fault as the Republicans. That's reality in The Land of Grown Ups.

Barack said what on the Senate floor about his vote? "Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearigns, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the termperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view." Barack continued on and on.

That's a little more complicated than Jessi Klein and Danny Schechter want to make it. But Barack's 2008 campaign ran on that sort of simplification. Danny, it's "Jessi" and writing two episodes (two bad episodes, in fact) of Samantha Who? did not make Jessi a political scholar or, for that matter, informed. But then you knew she wasn't informed when you read her. It failed as political criticism and, like so much of her writing, it failed as comedy. Stick to drooling over David Gergen, Jessi.

It was "stirring" -- gushes Danny of the inauguration -- of the pomp and assholeness of it all. (And that's true of every inauguration.) He confesses Iran's PRESS TV didn't "share my enthusiasm" and that an interviewer for South Africa media "was more focused on what policies, if any, would shift." That should have been the first sign that there's a problem with your reaction.

We could go line by line but we're wrapping up. I will note that I attended the inauguration to see Joe Biden sworn in. I didn't feel the need to go goo-goo-gaa-gaa. I haven't written about it and don't intend to. I'll leave the mash notes to our so-called 'independent' media.

Danny quotes AP (though it's not clear at his website that he's doing that) "Not since the September 2001 terrorist attacks have so many television networks shown such a unity of purpose, this time for a moment of hope." Manufacturing of consent and Danny toiled in the TV industry long enough to grasp that without my pointing it out. Then it's time for him to provide the transcript to the bad poem. It's a really bad poem because it's neither the 19th nor 20th century currently.

For a supposed new day dawning (those words top Danny's site currently), trying writing about today and not nostalgia. What's really sad is Alexander doesn't even grasp that her Norman Rockwell garbage is neither realistic nor poetic. She's got a teacher telling students to "take out your pencils" -- take out your pencils? She apparently thinks it is 1899 and not 2009. She's then off to "dirt roads" and "highways." She apparently even pre-dates the creation of the nation's interstates.

With no sense of irony, Danny then quotes Michael Parenti on, among other things, "conservative forces" who "continue to reject . . . publicly funded campaigns." Who rejected public money? Oh, yeah, War Hawk Corporatist Barack Obama.

To Danny's e-mailer from Denmark, Barack Obama is not your president. I am so sorry that you are so ashamed of your own country which you must think is pathetic and backwards. But that's your problem. This goes for people in Kenya (non-Obama family members), France and elswhere. Barack is a citizen of the United States, elected to be the president of the United States. Denmark and all the rest, don't whine about the US always trying to throw its weight around when your PATHETIC LIVES are so empty that all you can do is obsess over another country's leader.

It really wasn't cute in Breaking Away when Dave was obsessed with a country other than his own, when he need to pretend he's from that country. It was seen as adolescent and embarrassing and it's the main reason the box office for the film was so poor and why it ended up on NBC (broadcast TV) so quickly that it couldn't even go back into theaters after its Oscar win for best screenplay. No one wants that crap. No one wants some whiney ass obsessing about another country. If you loathe Denmark so much, work on improving it. If you're tired of the US throwing its weight around, stop hero worshipping the country.

Is this the same crowd that worships Prince Harry and gets out the scones (even though they're not British or part of the United Kingdom) and tea for their 'wedding parties' anytime HRH has a family member getting married? It's pathetic. Do you not have lives to live? They're the equivalent of rubber neckers passing a traffic accident but with their pinkies lifted.

John Pilger actually is independent and you can find him explain Barack
here and here and here and here and here. And you can find Danny telling the same or similar truths . . . Where?

And now we move on to
Liz Smith. Liz apparently missed the news of the actor who will never play gay (because he is and he's in the closet) who got drunk last night at a ball, mistook a high school junior for a trick and caused an ugly, ugly scene (that only got worse when the parents -- part of official Washington -- ended up involved). Or maybe she's ignoring that scoop to cover for the actor? I have no idea. But I know what she's dishing out today is GARBAGE and needs to be called out. Liz wants everyone to leave Barry alone. He's "historic" and people need to get out of his way, says the tall Texan before explaining:

I'm more worried about the Democrats and their mumbling about taking members of the Bush administration -- perhaps even the ex-president himself -- to legal task for eight years of ineptitude and possibly worse. Please! Nancy Pelosi, buy a clue. When your president talks about turning the page, he doesn't mean to have the country and media embroiled and obsessed with Bush and company for ages ahead. I don't want to see or hear or concern myself with anything Bush from now on. Leave them all to heaven.

Liz, Nancy's not the one who needs to buy a clue. You're the damn fool who's clueless. Now everyone was laughing at you two weeks ago when you were running with Tina Fey's p.r. that she and Sarah Palin were friends. You got punked, Liz. You're not going to get your credibility back by refusing to grasp the seriousness of what the Bully Boy did to this country. You embarrass yourself. You don't come off funny or hilarious. You come off completely unconcerned with the law and more interested in covering up for torture than holding anyone accountable. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, really doesn't need your 'strong' 'editorials.' Why don't you stick to who's sleeping with who and stay away from topics so clearly beyond your limited grasp? For reality on the need to hold the previous administration accountable, see
this by the Center for Constitutional Rights president Michael Ratner who also is a co-host of Law & Disorder along with Dalia Hashad, Heidi Boghosian and Michael Smith. And on Guantanamo, Barack's last public statements were they he would close it but would move the prisoners elsewhere. As Ava and I pointed out, "Believe it or not, the cry to close Guantanamo was not a cry for relocation. It was a cry for freedom. But Barack made clear to The Post that some people held at Guantanamo could not be convicted in a court of law because their 'confessions' resulted from torture." As Barack now indicates that even closing Guantanamo will take a year, the Center for Constitutional Right's Executive Director Vince Warren points out: "It only took days to put these men in Guantanamo, it shouldn't take a year to get them out."

the new york timeselisabeth bumiller
tony perrythe los angeles times
mcclatchy newspapers
camilla hall
thomas harding
aseel kami
basil adasnprmorning editionlourdes garcia-navarro
law and disorder
michael ratner
michael smith
dalia hashad
heidi boghosian