Joe Wilson, Vast Left

"Battle-tested: Hillary Clinton fought the Republican attack machine, and emerged stronger" (Joseph C. Wilson IV, Baltimore Sun):
Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.

Anyone remember "Uninvited"? The Alanis Morissette song? The last one that rocked? Well "Uninvited" should be the theme song for Joe Wilson, Paul Krugman, Joe Connason and assorted others. Why? They came out for Hillary Clinton and the same 'left' that booked them on their programs non-stop in 2004, 2005 and 2006 wants no part of them. They've been 'disappeared.' They've been kicked to the curb.

Amy Goodman loves to spend the hour with Larry Flynt, but apparently a pornographer grosses her out far less than a Hillary supporter. (Flynt didn't gross her out at all, in fact, which is why she was publishing in Hustler. Wonder if she showed that issue to her grandmother while she was still around? "Look, Grammie, I'm published in Hustler!") It really is interesting the way the 2008 primaries are playing out. People who were trusted voices are kicked to the curb by a Little Media intent on selling you Bambi.

I'm not in the mood to blog tonight to begin with. But if you go to The Third Estate Sunday Review, you'll find many articles on this topic that we wrote this weekend. But let me stress that C.I. called this nonsense out at The Common Ills and at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I had an e-mail from community member Lynda and she asked me if I could note that because she wrote a lengthy one that C.I. replied to and the reply was, "The community deserves the credit." Like Lynda, I believe the reality is that it would have been very, very easy for C.I. to stay silent. Many have. Many continue too. The same Little Media that wants to call out others but can't stand it when they're also held to standards has gotten on board with a candidate who can't be called out either. They've worked overtime to ensure that was the case. They are disgusting. C.I. called it out and I'm with Lynda on this: Credit where it's due. Lynda wrote before the snapshot went up (reposted at the end), so I'm sure she feels even stronger about this. I feel very strongly as well.

Today, Sunny was talking about how pathetic Little Media was and what a huge letdown. How there wasn't a magazine from Little Media she'd even waste a quarter on used at the public library (in the recycle bins) and how there was no show she'd bother to listen to. Her husband is the same way. They had a friend over this weekend who is from out of state and he attended their wedding last year but hadn't stayed with them for a visit since before that, about this time last year in fact. So it was Saturday night and they went to see a movie (I forget which one) only to find all the tickets were sold. They thought about waiting around for another sr showing but ended up grabbing some food, beer and heading back to Sunny's place. (Her husband's place as well but I do not have permission to put his name in. I only name people I know who've given me permission.) Sunny's a big board game player (it's one of the first things she and her husband realized that they had in common). So the plan was to just relax, play games and eat. But when they get back, the friend asks, "Aren't you going to turn on Laura Flanders?"

This time last year, Flanders did a show worth listening to. It was six hours of live radio, Saturday and Sunday night. Sunny explained that Flanders was no longer on Saturday nights. Her husband added, "We wouldn't listen to her anyway because a lesbian who won't call out homophobia is either an idiot or a fraud."

Doesn't that really sum it?

How much self-loathing do you have (I'm not trying to diagnois) in order to root for a candidate who will put homophobes on stage?

So there's no more Laura Flanders.

There's really not anyone. I'm hearing that Air America Radio is just awful and I know Pacifica's not worth listening to. (Nor worth giving your money to.)

Magazine? Find one worth reading even half-way through.

Lesbians were kicked to the curb, women were kicked to the curb, multi- and bi-racials persons were kicked to the curb, the working class was kicked to the curb, the elderly were kicked to the curb . . .

All for Bambi.

Bambi Obama.

Look at Amy Goodman. Does that woman ever stop begging? She begs in the fundraisers for Pacifica, yes. But she begs for computers, she begs for this and she begs for that. Beg-beg-beg.

Always with the pitch that she's in it for the people. But when the working class selects a candidate, her response isn't to be fair to that candidate (let alone to explore why they identify), her response is to slant her bad show even more to Bambi.
"We know best!" has been the cry of Little Media as the Democratic Party base has largely rejected Bambi Mania.

They've blown their credibility. On the plus side, if anyone brings up my longheld belief not to give them your money in e-mails these days, it's to say, "I agree now." It's a hard lesson to learn. But this happened with Little Media before. After Watergate. Jimmy Carter (who makes a better former president than he did a president) was not the best choice in 1976. He was the choice that the 'alternative' media seized upon. He was sold by them the same way Obama's sold today. Not because of policies but because of idiotic things like, "Cool! He quotes Bob Dylan!" It was very embarrassing to watch that. To be clear, I do not dislike Jimmy Carter and like his post-presidency career a lot. I'm speaking of the way the 'simple peanut farmer' was sold by the left then. There were other choices and there were choices with actual plans.

One thing that encourages me the most about today is how strong the support for candidates other than Bambi has been. Whether it was Edwards when he was in the race or Hillary throughout. I do not remember that happening in real time. I do remember some of the same tired voices still around today schilling for Carter the way they do today for Bambi. In the primaries. I'm not speaking of when he was the candidate for president.

There really was a feeling, then, of you couldn't buck it. Few even called it out. So I do agree with Lynda, C.I. deserves credit. C.I.'s also not the only one. A visitor sent me the following by Vast Left.

"I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than an Obama in front of me" (Vast Left, Corrente):
Before I go join Dick Nixon in the Mighty Corrente Building’s Room for People You Can’t Kick Around Anymore, I’ll summarize my objections to Obama’s approach and reiterate what I’d suggest he do about them — if he deigned to run a less noxious campaign:

His campaign elevates a modestly accomplished first-term senator into peer status with the martyrs of the 60s (even as he belittles the accomplishments of everyman/everywoman activists from that era)
It shamelessly panders to religion and unabashedly paints its candidate as the Second Coming
It gleefully embraces hoary rightwing smears of fellow Democrats
It trumps up charges of racism, just for the audacity of expediency
It surreally paints a glib centrist with a bottomless bag of GOP talking points as a progressive champion
It is built on vague chants about "change" and "transformation" without anyone being able to tell us what he's going to change and transform and how
It has also brought out the lowest quality of discourse I have ever seen among Democrats, with more and more bloggers despairing over the wrath of unquestioning low-information voters. I don’t intend to characterize all Obama voters that way, because it isn't true. But I will say that those who merely made a reasoned decision to prefer Obama (and who accept that he and his campaign may be less-than-perfect) are largely in denial of the unyielding joinerism that increasingly surrounds his campaign.

That's just an excerpt. Vast Left writes that if March's primaries do not go favorably for Hillary, s/he is stepping back. I saw a few try to fight the media snowball that was Jimmy Carter back then and most of them just got tired of it. So I can understand the frustration. I can even relate to it. It is insane that someone who offers nothing but platitudes is being pushed so hard by the 'left' and that's before you even get into his attacks on the left.

But there is no 'independent' media. There is just people who will take your money and disrespect you.

I love the snapshot today but that really had me thinking about the way this has worked out. As C.I. says, nothing wrong with holding Hillary accountable however you want to in your own voice. But there is something wrong about a standard she's held to when there's no standard for Bambi. C.I. does a good job of demonstrating that with two quotes from 'journalists' who, when confronted with ugly realities, invent excuses for Obama.

That's what they've done all along. Challenge what he said and you'll be greeted with, "What he really meant was . . ." Challenge what he did and you'll be met with, "Yes, but it was only because he is so pure of heart." Saint Bambi.

If I go further and start thinking about how Obama's campaign set people out, sent out, to destroy others -- Gloria Steinem being the best case of someone they attempted to destroy -- I grasp there is no difference between Bambi and the current occupant of the White House.

Those liars calling Gloria Steinem a racist, inventing some faux offense and taking to blogs and to Amy Goodman's trashy show to scream and yell "racist!" It's not that different from Bully Boy setting people out on the Dixie Chicks. He could have stopped that at any time. (As C.I. can tell you, Karen Hughes actually encouraged him to say something to stop it.) He didn't want to. Bambi took the same attitude with Gloria Steinem. He didn't care about the attacks on her. He just cared about himself. He suffers from an extreme sense of entitlement and that should have been obvious when he felt the need to write his first autobiography before he was 35.

If you've forgotten, it was a non-stop wave of attacks. First up, you had the Roberts -- Parry and Dumb Ass of Truth Dig -- and when that didn't work, it was time to hide behind women who posed as 'feminists.' The most ridiculous moment was when a blog featured an 'explanation' on Gloria. The 'explanation' was that Gloria ran from lesbians. The writer didn't know anything. Gloria fought for lesbians to be included in the feminist movement. Red Betty (The Ego Of Us All) was the one who attacked lesbians and called for purges. But that's how the Bambi minions behaved and, if you think about it, it's not that different from the Bully Boy and his once sizeable following. They tarred and feathered others for things done by the Bully Boy. Gloria Steinem is not a homophobe. Gloria doesn't tolerate homophobia. Who does? Who put them on stage in South Carolina? Barack Obama.

So it was hilarious and revealing to read a Bambi supporter try to smear Gloria with lies and misinformation including homophobia which is what Bambi traffics in.

Anyway.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, February 12, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraqi Parliament may split up, one journalist turns up dead the two from CBS News remain missing, and more.

Starting with war resisters. Linchpin's "US AWOL's in Canada -- Let them stay" (Anarkismo) provides the background on war resisters in Canada:

Hear any of the Toronto based war resisters speak at a public meeting and patterns become clear in their experiences. Kim Rivera, a red head in her early twenties, served in an Artillery unit in Baghdad, that shipped out first in August 2006. Tales of gore, IED's and guts quickly changed her mind about the mission. The dehumanisation of Iraqi workers forced to etch out employment inside forward operation bases added to it.Another of the Toronto based war resisters is Phil McDowell. He joined straight after the September 11th attacks during his senior year majoring in IT. He was discharged in June 2006, some months later while traveling, he got notice he was being stop lossed back to Fort Hood, Texas for yet another deployment to Iraq.The Stop Loss policy is designed to offset the ebb and flow of recruiting patterns. It allows the military to forcibly re-enlist soldiers or involuntarily extend their tour of duty in a war zone -- it's a virulent source of antagonism for soldiers.

Canada's Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status and the country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters may 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 (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (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.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, 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 is organizing a March 2008 DC action:

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 & Afghanistan

March 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'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers.

As Steve Lannon (McClatchy Newspapers) explains today, "Violence is increasing In Iraq . . . Car bombs in Baghdad on Monday killed at least 11 people and injured a prominent leader of one of the country's most influential American-allied tribal militias. The Ministry of Electricity announced that power to much of the nations, already anemic, is likely to lag in coming days because insurgents had blown up transmission facilities and natural gas pipelines that fuel generators." And on the 12th day of the month, there have been 16 US service members announced dead thus far this month. The stated purpose of the escalation, stated by the White House, was to allow 'breathing space' for the puppet government in Baghdad to reach benchmarks -- those would be benchmarks that they failed to reach in 2007, White House defined benchmarks. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who earlier was seen as in a battle with other members of the cabinet over his insistence that the drawdown start and proceed smoothly so that the approximately 30,000 US troops sent over to Iraq as part of the escaltion return as they were supposed to, has now declared that a 'pause' can be taken in the drawdown -- indicating that he either had a mysterious change of heart or he is not calling the shots for the department he heads. Thom Shanker (New York Times) observes that Gates' turnabout "was something of a surprise," that he was once "seen as a potential counterpoint to General Petraeus's calls for caution about withdrawing troops" and notes Gates previous public statements about the drawdown (which he then favored). Anna Mulrine (US News and World Reports) opines, "Gates's statement yesterday make it clear that the pause will likely last for some months and become the operative word in Iraq -- and it may become as overused as the now-familiar term surge." This as Richard Cowan (Reuters) reveals Gordon England, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense, informed the Senate Budget Committee today that in addition to the $70 billion planned for funding the illegal war in 2009, the White House will be asking "Congress for more money".

AFP addresses the realities of what's been accomplished during the escalation (nothing): "The reconciliation program was supposed to hang on three main pieces of legislation: a relaxation of the law to bar former Baathists from public office, a provincial election law and a law to distribute oil revenue. Of the three, only one has been passed." That would be the de-de-Baathification program. At the start of the month, Amit R. Paley and Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) reported on the passage/approval of that law while Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported on the criticism coming from CIA asset and Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi that the result of passage would be "all former Baathists now serving in the security services would lose their jobs, a total of 7,000 people" and, of the Iraqi Parliament, "People should pay attention to what they are discussing and voting on." One of three and the one is a nightmare (as all will no doubt be -- illegal occupations do not make for pleasant dreams). Working from agency reports, The Daily Star reports Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the Iraqi Parliament's Speaker of the House, revealed that the country's treasury had thrown away $3 million by still not approving the 2008 budget and "threatened Tuesday to disband the legislature" which is permitted by the Constitution provided the move has the support of at least a third of the Parliamentay members (which he says it does) and this action "would further undermine Premier Nuri al-Maliki's shaky government, which is currently limping along with nearly half of the 40 government departments without ministers." Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) maintains that an "absolute majority" of Parliament must favor dissolution for the body to be dissolved and quotes a member of Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc, Bahaa al-Araji, stating, "The crisis of conficence in parliament has grown. I think we should admit the failure of the (political process), dissolve parliament and hold new elections."

Today, Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, the corpse of Husham Mijoud was discovered. AFP explains, "Underscoring the perils, the Young Journalists League said the body of an Iraqi journalist was found in Baghdad on Tuesday, two days after he disappeared after heading out shopping. According to League president Haider Hassoon, the body of Hisham Mijwit Hamdane, a 27-year-old married father of two, was found by police in the Bab al-Sheikh neighborhood of central Baghdad." The discovery comes as two CBS News employees remain missing (and unnamed). Deborah Haynes (Times of London) notes an ongoing hunt "for a British journalist and his Iraqi interpreter who were kidnapped at gunpoint from a hotel in Basra at the weekend. The two men, who were working for the American network CBS, were seized in the early hours of Sunday morning from the Qasr al-Sultan Hotel in the centre of the city by a gang of five to ten men." AFP explains, "Police on Tuesday threw a cordon around the Palace Sultan hotel in Basra, searching for clues and restricting movement in and out of the premises". Michael Howard (Guardian of London) takes the history route, noting, "If the accounts of the latest kidnapping in Basra are confirmed, it would be the first abduction of a western reporter in Iraq since Jill Carroll of the Christian Sciene Monitor was seized and her driver killed in western Baghdad in Janurary 2006. She was released two months later."

In other violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one police officer, a Baghdad mortar attack that claimed 2 lives and wounded eight people a Diyala Province bombing that claimed the life of nine-year-old girl

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 girls and 1 boy were shot dead in an attack on a studen bus in Diyala Province with the driver and two boys also wounded while an armed clash in Mosul claimed the life of 1 police officer and seven unknown assailants and 2 police officers were shot down in separate incidents outside Basra. Reuters notes 'Awakening' Council member Ahmeda Mahmoud al-Nattah was targeted with an unsuccessful assassination attempt today outside Ramadi (two of his body guards were wounded).

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 13 in Diyala Province.

As noted yesterday, Rose Gentle and Beverley Clarke are fighting for the truth in England. This is Great Britain's Socialist Worker's "Military Families challenge war in House of Lords:"

Two women whose sons were killed serving in Iraq took their case for a public inquiry into the legality of the war to the House of Lords on Monday of this week.
Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was killed by a roadside bomb in 2004, and Beverley Clarke, whose son David was killed in a 'friendly fire' incident in 2003, are asking the law lords to overturn a court of appeal judgement. This ruled that the government is not obliged to hold an inquiry into the deaths of the two soldiers. Rose and Beverly want an inquiry into government decisions in the run up to the invasion.
In particular they want to know why 13 pages of "equivocal" advice from the attorney general was reduced to one page that stated that the war would be legal.
Lawyers for Rose and Beverley argue that they should be granted an inquiry under Article 2 of the Europen Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life.
The case is being heard by nine law lords and a judgement is expected to take six months.
Just before she attended court on the first day of the hearing, Rose Gentle told Socialist Worker, "We want the right to have a public inquiry -- not just for us and our families, but for everyone. The whole world is watching what happenes.
"We are still not allowed to know the truth about the war. What does the government have to hide?"
Rose has campaigned tirelessly for justice for her son and for other victims of the war -- including the many thousands of Iraqis skilled.
She said, "We need to make sure the government can't get away with doing this again. I will be marching on 15 March to say we want all the troops back home."
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.


Turning to US politics with a qualifier. Politics don't belong in the snapshot unless it has to do with Iraq. We are a feminist community and we will note attacks on women regardless of Iraq-related or not. At the request of the community, we're addressing the sexism one more time since it's being ignored by many in Little Media. On MSNBC, David Shuster raised the 'issue' of Hillary Clinton's daughter in an offensive, insulting and sexist manner. Democracy Now! refuses to report on it. Free Speech Radio News refuses to report. Smut Merchant Matthew Rothschild, so eager to link to the neocon bible The Weekly Standard and to do so with "RECOMMENDED" hasn't said a word. Bob Somerby (The Daily Howler) notes that Tapped (American Prospet) has stayed silent as well. That's not a surprise. They know who writes the pay checks and they know Robert Kuttner was lying hard on Democracy Now! last Friday when he claimed 'evil' Hillary has mandates in her health coverage and, as usual, Amy Goodman let him get away with that nonsense. It took Juan Gonzalez, citing Paul Krugman, to point out that Obama's plan also has mandates. Ooops. Called on, the idiot Kuttner offers a lot of nonsense rushing to this laughable conclusion, "Now, we can split hairs and argue whether Obama is being principled or tactical, but I think his discomvort with the ieda of a mandate is something that I applaud." In that laughable statement you can see how Little Media has repeatedly LIED and repeatedly DISGRACED themselves. Yes, Obama has mandates and Kuttner knew that before tearing into Hillary. Confronted on the reality, what happens? Obama's uncomfortable with them. That's good enough for Kuttner. Yes, Obama has mandates just like Hillary and if forced to acknowledge that, Kuttner will allow they exist but rush in to offer an excuse that attempts to create a difference where there is none. Or take, as Ava and I noted, Allan Nairn's ridiculous response when forced to admit that Obama's taking Big Bucks from Big Business: "He actually doesn't need to finance his campaign, to go to the hedge funds, to go to Wall Street. But he does anyway. And he does, I think, because if he doesn't, they wouldn't trust him [. . .] because he doesn't want to be attacked by those corporations." As Ava and I pointed out, "Nairn is (illogically and with no basis in reality) arguing that, yes, Obama does take big money but he only does so because, if he didn't, big money would attack him. It's a laughable 'theory' and a generous one -- one that's not extended to other candidates." But that's how it goes over and over. Kuttner thinks mandates are awful. Kuttner's forced to admit Obama's plan has them and offers that he feels they make Bambi uncomfortable. Nairn invents an excuse for why Bambi's taking huge monies from Big Business. This is how it plays out over and over.

Take Slate which features Guy Branum. For what reason? Because there are no journalistic standards. Guy Branum's infamous for a number of things. This includes being in the closet when everyone knew reality but that didn't prevent from writing a column on a 'date' with a man who won a contest (and that Branum had expected was a woman) where he made nasty little Crying Game jokes and presented himself as straight. He has issues. He has always had issues. His latest trash (no links to trash) is entitled "It's time for the press to scrutinize Chelsea" and Branum kind-of (not really) explains why he loathes Chelsea Clinton (without ever admitting that he loathes Chelsea). When he was in college (and still in the closet) and a football game was coming p, it was time for him to pen a column asking that his school "show your spirit on Chelsea's bloodied carcass" and that she "must be destroyed." He can offer any excuse he wants but you don't write that about any individual going to another school on the eve of a campus match up. The smart thing to do would be to admit, a decade later, that you were in the wrong. Instead Branum's showing up to distort reality again. He's probably not lying, to make such a fool of yourself probably requires a level of sincerity. He says of his 1997 column today, "The comments made their way to Mrs. Clinton, who asked the Secret Service to search my apartment and quiet me down, according to Chris Van Holt, one of the nice agents who visited. The Clintons later denied any involvement, but I did manage to get the agent's claim otherwise on a tape recorder I had with me." Again, he's not lying, he's just delusional. What he has on tape is a Secret Service agent responding to his whines of "WHY!" and at one point the agent states that his boss told him and his boss said Hillary told him. Setting aside the fact that it sounds like the Secret Service agents are trying to humor a delusional paranoid, if Branum would think about it, all he actually has is a game of telephone. He has: 'We were told by and he was told by and . . .' Apparently journalism didn't sink in while he was in college because he has no source. (At best, he has a lead. A decade later, his lead has gone cold.)

He shows readers just how much he hates women -- should have been clear by the 1997 column on Chelsea -- by calling Elizabeth Edwards' a "primary attack dog." I guess b**tch was off limits because she has cancer? Here's the reality Branum can never face -- his column was out of bounds regardless of which college freshman he was going after. But Big Bad Guy didn't care. Well, no one cares that after you write a column that can be seen as threatening to the daughter of the then-president, the Secret Service came to visit you. That's to be expected when you encourage others to "show your spirit on Chelsea's bloodied caracass" -- and no, Hillary didn't have to make any phone calls for such a visit to take place. (He does realize, right, that the Secret Service was on Chelsea's campus and that the tip-off to the San Jose office most likely came from those agents who would have, in fact, been doing their job.)

It helps Guy to believe that Hillary sicked the Secret Service on him because it allows him to avoid responsibility for his own actions. The same way looking at trannies and putting them down helps him feel like he's just a little gay and not really out there. (He's written of that, I'm not outing him on anything here.) Slate chooses to publish him when the only thing they should have done was encourage him to get help. Guy did something that required an investigation. An investigation by the Secret Service took place. It wasn't the end of the world. Ten year (and three months) later, you'd think the 28-year-old would be able to apologize to the 27-year-old (yes, Chelsea wasn't even an adult when Guy launched his attack on her). Instead he wants to offer up his nutso, watered-down. sort-of-almost Hinckley account and argue that the press is too kind to Chelsea. Crawl back under your rock, your basic cable rock.

Jesse Sheidlower (Slate) attempts to navigate the history of the term used. What Sheidlower doesn't grasp is that for the 'new' meaning to be used, there would be a workable substitute. "Pimp my ride" or "Pimp my car" can be seen as similar to your ride being "tricked out." Is that what David Shuster was suggesting on MSNBC, that Hillary had given Chelsea a makeover? No, that's not what Shuster was attempting to say. There's also where it was said. As Somerby points out, "As noted, the gentlemen at MSNBC have been piling up quite a track record lately . . . . In less than a year, three of the network's major male screamers have been forced to apologize for rude comments about women; one of the three has been fired, another has now been suspended. But then, Jack Welch's king of cable, Chris Matthews, has been gender-trashing Hillary Clinton for more than a year at this point." That would be the same MSNBC that Joan Walsh (Salon) was characterizing last week (before the remark was made by Shuster), "My frineds at MSNBC were getting ready for a big party Tuesday night when the first results came in, showing Barack Obama winning handily in Georgia. There was genuine news, and very good news in the results: Obama carried more than 40 percent of white Georgia voters . . . But it was really good news at MSNBC. You could see the expectations grow that finally they would be able to finish the dance on Clinton's grave they'd begun on Jan. 8, when she denied them the fun by winning New Hampshire." That is the climate in which Shuster made his comment. Somerby's dealing with what's being beamed across America, Walsh is talking about the behind-the-scenes mood. It does go into it. A comment wasn't just made, it was made on a network with a history and pattern of similar remarks.

Now a lot of older women who should know better write nonsense online (no names, we'll be kind) and fail to convey the importance of how Hillary's campaign is handled by the press. You don't have to be for, you don't have to like her. But you do need to grasp that she is now the template for media coverage. And what's done to her will be done to women who come later. Then the excuse will be, "What's your problem? That's how we covered the first female candidate for president that was seen as viable." So if sexism is okay with you for all women, by all means, go ahead and pile on. If that's how PATHETIC you are, pile on. But the reality is what is accepted from the press right now will be used on all other women with the defense that, "Well that's how we covered Hillary." A lot of damage is being done currently and it makes some fools gleeful (fools and half-wits) because it's Hillary in the cross-hairs. That's not what feminism's about. And think about how Uncle Tom Laura Flanders could call out the press coverage of Condi Rice but doesn't have a thing to say today (other than ga-ga-ga-goo-goo-Bambi). It's pathetic. And we do have a responsibility not to make things worse for those who come after. (We should be responsible for a great deal more than that but hopefully even half-wits like Laura Flanders can agree that we have a responsibility not to make things worse for those come after.) If the coverage of women doesn't matter, why did Flanders waste our time talking about and writing about the way the press responded to Condi Rice? It does matter. And if it's not called out, it makes things worse for every woman that comes after.

Equally true is who is fueling this. It's not the right-wing. They're focused on their own primary. It's the left and 'left' that's fueling it and they've done it over at The Nation, The Progressive, Democracy Now!, etc. There's nothing wrong with holding Hillary accountable. And it doesn't just have to be for her record. People should speak in their own voices with their own type of criticism. But that's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is Hillary is held to standards and Obama's not to held to any. And that's come from the alleged 'independent' media. Sombery often refers back to the damage The Nation, in particular, did to Al Gore. It would probably be helpful for him to show his readers what they're doing to Hillary currently, what they've been doing. Show it as it happens in real time, not after the election's over. For how Amy Goodman skews the race, you can see Rebecca's post from last night. And let me echo what Elaine wrote about the closeted last night. It is amazing to see a Communist or Socialist or Green self-present as a Democratic in their endorsement columns of Bambi. It's amazing and it's a lie. Day after day, they pop up, people who never even could endorse John Kerry during the ABB mood of 2004 but there are a number of behind the scenes deals taking place. And we've got a lot of non-Democratic Party types making endorsements which isn't really a good idea. If you're building your endorsement around "I'm just like you" then you better be honest about who you are or else you're begging for voters to make the connection that frauds and phonies hope on the Bambi train. (You're also begging for someone to go digging in your own backyard.) SusanUnPC (No Quarter) documents what the right-wing is doing with a Che flag hung at an Obama campaign office. You better believe closeted types offering endorsements are creating a future problem for his campaign. (As one political reporter at a daily paper put it yesterday, "Oh look, another Red for Obama.") There is no reason for anyone to hide in this day and age. Grace Lee Boggs is a radical and doesn't hide that. Her endorsement doesn't hurt. But, for instance, when you're a Socialist and you pen a "I'm a feminist for Barack Obama" column, you're not only being laughed at the mainstream media, you're creating a future problem should Obama get the nomination. That's not when this stuff needs to come out. If you're in the closet politically and you favor Obama, you're not doing him any favors by endorsing him publicly. [To be clear, Obama is just another corporate Democrat. He is not in the closet politically. He is not the issue, the issue is supporters creating an embarrassment if you're in the closet politically.] (Again, Grace Lee Boggs is not a problem. She's not in any closet. Others can't say the same.) By the same token, Obama needs to worry less about Hillary's tax returns and a little more about Antoin "Tony" Rezko (and the Landmark commission which will be big news in a general election). Pressed yesterday, Alex Koppelman (Salon) writes, Hillary responded stating if she got the nomination, she'd release them and noting Obama's ties to the nuclear industry as well as, "We still don't have a lot of answers about Senator Obama and his dealings with Mr. Rezko." As Wally, Cedric and Mike noted yesterday, David Roeder (Chicago Sun-Times) reported Sunday that the FBI's "mole" (John Thomas) on the Rezko investigation reportedly "logged frequent visits to Rezko from Gov. Glagojevich and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) . . . Sources said Thomas helped investigators build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru's Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005."

Joe Wilson used to a topic of 'independent' media and it often that the only time Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders, et al could shut about him was if they were speaking with him for their programs. Wilson endorsed Hillary in December. Suddenly the name Joe Wilson appears 'banned' by Little Media. In today's Baltimore Sun, he writes:

Sen. Hillary Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife - outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson - and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. Mrs. Clinton knew from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.
But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you."
Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one known face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

Again, once upon a Little Media couldn't shut up about Joe Wilson. Somerby notes Paul Krugman's blog where he explains, "Folks you've been played like a fiddle by people in the media who just plain hate the Clintons." That says a great deal. For more you can read his Monday New York Times column.

iraq
amy bradley
iraq veterans against the war
steve lannenmcclatchy newspapersthe new york timesthom shanker
alissa j. rubin
tina susmanthe los angeles timesjames glanz
the washington postamit r. paleyjoshua partlow
paul krugman
the socialist worker
like maria said pazsex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes it

The closet

I'm delinking from someone tonight. I'm delinking for a number of reasons. One reason is ___ made promises they didn't keep. Ava explained that to me when I told her about reason number two. She said, "Elaine, go for it because ____ said, 'I'm linking to The Common Ills. Do you know how many weeks ago that was?" Ava knows because she replied to ____. C.I. never wrote ____. Ava heard from _____ a few times. Asking for attention on something. No attention given and Ava explained why at length. Ava suggested ____ start a website of their own. _____ did and wanted to trade links. Ava knows C.I. doesn't trade but also knew C.I. would link to ___. C.I. did. C.I. also linked to piece that ____ wrote. In the snapshot, so we all ended up linking.

Here's reason number two. After ___ got what ____ wanted, Ava was blown off. Ava found it rude. That's not surprising. ______ e-mailed Rebecca after blowing off Ava (Rebecca didn't know, none of us did) and asks for advice on blogging. _____ has just started so Rebecca offers a primer of basics. Rebecca showed me the e-mail on Sunday in her sent folder. She was afraid she had said something to hurt ____'s feelings because despite offering all these basic how-tos (weeks ago), ____ never wrote back. Not even to say "thanks" and nothing else. I found that strange.

I read Rebecca's e-mail slowly. It was a very nice e-mail. Rebecca was being encouraging. She was asked how to get attention online? She provided several examples of things to do. She was asked about Google searches. Rebecca explained how that works. Now because ____ may have weak eyes (____ e-mails in LARGE TYPE which Ava said ____ did when e-mailing the public account of The Common Ills as well), Rebecca made her reply very big. It's 55K. It's probably only 25K in normal size. But Rebecca wrote a 25K reply. On a Saturday! The only day we really have off in this community.

____ never wrote back. ____ never e-mailed "thanks" even. Just as with Ava. Rebecca had a p.s. which is what she was afraid was possibly offensive. In it, Rebecca writes that she just noticed ____ writes in large type and so in case that's necessary, Rebecca explains she's enlarged her own font.

That wasn't offensive. Rebecca wrote nothing offensive.

Rebecca slaved away on at least a 25K e-mail. _____ never bothered to reply. Now ____ is a Hillary hater. ____ is also deluded about Obama. ____'s not really a Democrat for Bambi. _____'s not really an 'independent' for Bambi. Blog posts tossing around the term "vanguard" usually come from Communists or Socialists. I have no problem with either and flirted with socialism especially in college. To this day, in local races, I will vote for a socialist candidate. I have a very high opinion of them. But I don't present as one because I'm not. I'm a Democrat.

A friend saw that, a friend from college. She was reading blogs and she'd read mine over the weekend. So when she came back Monday, there was nothing news. She started using my links (she also reads Rebecca and C.I.'s sites on the weekend) wondering what sort of things I linked to because, as she explained, "We all know C.I. is the strongest in terms of defending anyone and we all know C.I. has the biggest heart and gets used constantly." That is true and not meant as an insult to C.I. (whom I love). If someone insulted me, C.I. would rip them apart. If someone insulted C.I., C.I. wouldn't give it a second thought. That's partly because C.I. just doesn't care. The attitude is, "You don't like me? I won't lose any sleep." So the friend didn't want to go through C.I.'s links assuming (to a degree rightly) that C.I. would be charitable to some who did not deserve it. She figured I'd only link to things I supported. (That would be 100% true if I ever had time just to work my blog roll.) She came across ____.

She left a message at work stating it wasn't an emergency. Since I often have only a few minutes between patients, I generally deal with personal calls on lunch. So Sunny and I are eating lunch and have the computer streaming NPR while I'm returning the call. My friend tells me about visiting ____'s site and asks, "How long are we going to let these people pass as 'independent'?" What people? The Communists for Bambi. Yes, I know about them. They've spread rumors for months now that Bambi's really a Socialist or a Communist. As Mike's grandfather says, "No Socialist would spread that rumor." But a closeted Communist would, my friend pointed out on the phone when I repeated that. That's what ____ is. ____ is older than both of us. But she's very political -- my friend -- in NYC and she knows ____. Not 'friends with.' Not close. "She's using terms like 'vanguard,'" my friend explained, "to promote Bambi, she's using that he's 'in the vanguard.'"

We were discussing that and how sick we were of closeted types. Especially elderly ones who have nothing to lose for being honest. I explained what happened with Rebecca and my friend said, "That *****!" That's due to the fact that Rebecca is the sweet one. When we all roomed together in college, Rebecca was the sweet one, not C.I., not me. That wasn't a slap at us, but Rebecca started college before she was 18. She was very innocent and she was (and remains) very sweet.

My friend on the phone said delinking wasn't good enough. She said I needed to note that I'm not interested in helping people stay in the closet. I'm not. I have known many wonderful Communists in my life. After 1970, I've known no wonderful Closeted Communists. I have no problem with Communists or Communism. Many of the guys, the majority, that I slept with in college were Communists (although some later went extremely to the right).

But I never liked trickery or deceit. I never took a liking to closet cases -- regardless of what they were in the closet on.

So I am delinking tonight as planned. But I am also noting that I'm not here to advance your hidden agenda. If someone will be so kind as to e-mail me (likemariasaidpaz@yahoo.com) as to which is the Communist daily (I believe it's Workers World but I could be wrong), I'll gladly put it on my links. In fact, I'll do so tonight. (If that's a socialist paper, let me know the Communist one and I will add it this week.) But that's because they're not ashamed or embarrassed.

By the time your over 60, if you're ashamed or embarrassed about who you are, you have a real problem. You've had too many years to get comfortable with who you are. I do grasp how it works, I know that scene. They're "out" to a select few. That's not really out. (I'm not planning to out ___.) There's nothing wrong or evil about communism. It's a political theory. It has as much right to compete in the marketplace of ideas as anything else. Credit to young people who don't hide it. It wasn't hidden in my day either. But we were post-Red Scare. ____ being older, ____ probably did live through the Red Scare. That was decades ago.

I have no interest in closeted types. My friend reminded me of how awful they were during Vietnam, the older generation of closeted ones. They were awful. They ripped apart the communists who were young (my age at the time) as superficial and the ones who were their own age but out of the closet for a multitude of other reasons. They were damaging. In Naomi Wolf's The End of America, she talks about how people who speak out about the abuses of the Bully Boy need to do a self-inventory, find out if there's anything that could embarrass them potentially and take action to be sure it doesn't. (By informing loved ones of it.)

That is important. I thought so at the time thinking of the way the White House has so frequently attacked people who have tried to tell the truth. But on the phone this afternoon, I thought about how much damage the closet types have done.

If we move the issue to gay or lesbian, it may be more apparent. Maybe not because things have changed. But I've known many people casually who ripped apart gays and lesbians. It was never a surprise to learn that they were also gay or lesbian. When you're in the closet, you go out of your way to appear not like whatever you're hiding. Please note, this isn't a comment on young adults who are gay or lesbian. As I've noted before, I am all for honesty but if someone came to me and said "My parents wouldn't approve and they're paying for college," my advice would be, "Get through college and then tell them." Those younger than college age would get similar advice. Too many children (I'm defining that as under 18) have been kicked out of their homes for coming out. I believe in honesty but I also believe a child needs a roof over their head.

So, to be clear, I'm talking about adults. In ___'s case, we're talking over retirement age. The Red Scare was decades ago. ____ is over sixty. There's no reason to keep hiding. I don't like deceit and I don't support trickery.

I don't support someone imposing an unfair standard on Hillary (unfair in that Barack's not held to the same standard). I especially don't enjoy it when they're trying to pass themselves off as a Democrat. _____ is not a Democrat. All this nonsense about 'we' have to pull together for the good of the 'party' and get behind Bambi is nonsense because readers are led to believe the 'party' is the Democratic Party. ____ is not a Democrat. At ____'s age, most people would have gotten their houses in order. That's not the case.

____ wants readers to think, "What a kindly old Democrat." I'm not supporting that lie with a link. I honestly think, and C.I. and I have discussed this, that the press needs to stop using "independent." For instance, a joint-column ran last week billing two people generically. Democrats read that and think, "Democrats!" or "Independents!" The two are not Democrat. A lot of Bambi's public "independent" support, the praise being written, isn't from Democrats and maybe if you publish in a playwright's political journal, you shouldn't be allowed to present yourself another way when you publish for the general 'masses'?

In my own youth, during college, working to end that illegal war, I saw the damage the closet cases do. They would start a whisper campaign on a Communist. It would be an open Communist. They would try to run the man or woman off. They were generally some of the brightest about organizing, the ones out of the closet. They were always willing to go to the wall and then some. But this nonsense would start up against them. If you confronted the closet case, they'd tell you it was bad for the organization if a Communist was in it. They'd be attempting a purge.

This happened over and over. Because the Red Scare was in the past but the not very distant past, C.I. would stay silent on it to me. (Both C.I. and I refused to answer the "Are you a Communist?" question in college. We refused to take part in that division.) But the one night, when I was so upset because this 63-year-old man (which seemed ancient to me at the time) who was the most kindly man I'd ever met was being targeted. I was crying and could not understand why a person would work so hard to purge him from the group. What did it matter if he was a Communist? We were all trying to end the war. C.I. explained it to me. The person attacking him, trying to push him out, was a closeted Communist. Proving how young I was at the time, I replied, "But ___ is always putting down Communists." C.I. asked me, "And why do you think that really is?" We stopped that. C.I. and I went to visit ___ and told him, "We think you're right, we should purge all Communists. That's what you want, right?" He immediately agreed and launched into a long-winded speech about the evils of Communism. When he wound down, C.I. smiled sweetly and said, "You understand that, of course, we'll have to purge you as well."

His face went ashen. Then he tried to deny it. C.I. started reeling off all these things, including meetings, and said, "Don't f**k with me." The man grasped that C.I. did not reality and that if he wanted to stay in the closet, he better lay off the old man because, if he didn't, and this was very much a threat, he could be outed himself. That was the eye-opener for me. After that, I could always spot the closet-cases, who worked overtime to act like they were Ike or Mamie (no longer in office). It was an act they'd polished over the years.

Again, the Red Scare ended long ago. There's no reason for anyone to be in the closet politically today. Young people aren't in the closet. They were out in full force in January 2007 at the DC action. They fit in like everyone else trying to end the illegal war. But we did bump into a 70-plus woman who sneered at them as "Communists!" She was a closet case.

I hope this has been clear. I've tried to be very clear in this regarding my feelings on this. (A) That's partly because I want young people today to realize that just because someone self-presents as something doesn't mean they are. (B) I want to be clear that I do not have a problem with anyone following the political theory of their choice. (Even Libetarians.) Working to end the illegal war requires all of us, I know that from Vietnam. (C) Betty and I do not have a problem. A number of people, reading something at Third, e-mailed to ask if I was mad at Betty? Betty got the same e-mails. We're not mad at each other. We weren't mad at each other. To avoid that type of confusion, I've tried to be very clear. (D) I am so offended that Rebecca wrote at least a 25K e-mail and didn't get a response. (E) An old friend asked me to note why closet cases were a problem. (F) When I spoke to Ava to inform her I was delinking and what had happened to Rebeca, she explained to me her mind was picked as well and there was never any need to offer even a thank you after ___ had the information ___ needed. (G) I have a very low tolerance for bad manners and always have. I'm stealing from Kat, here's who I've mentioned in this that has a site:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
February 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the death toll for US service members in Iraq gets closer to 4,000 since the start of the illegal war, Captains Of War meet but who notices that or the protests, yesterday in Iraq saw so many deaths it's been dubbed "Bloody Sunday," Blue-Light special in Iraq, British mothers push for answers regarding the illegal war and more.

Starting with war resisters. Over the weekend, the Captains Of War met in Germany for the 44th Munich Conference on Security Policy. Among the attending was US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Also 'representing' the US were US Senators Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- who no doubt made a delightful traveling couple -- with Turkey represented by its prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Little Kenny Roth of Human Rights Watch among others. We'll come back to what was stated at the conference. But while Captains Of War gathered to plot continue war, people rose up en mass to protest. Amy Bradley (Indybay IMC) reports that Friday saw "several hundred activits" protesting and the number increased the following day as "several thousand protesters gathered in Marienplatz to continue the protests" including Iraq War veteran and war resister Chris Capps who the Minuch American Peace Committee awarded a peace medal and who is starting an IVAW chapter in Germany. Bradley reports 14 arrests while an estimated "3,700 police monitored the marchers." Bradley provides a number of photos of the two day protests and this one probably depicts the size of the crowd best. Courage to Resist profiles Chris Capps here and a quote we'll note is his stating, "If the politicians refuse to listen to the people, then the people need to take action. If we had resistance throughout the military then we could finally end this war here and now."

Among those who have resisted, the ones in Canada need help. The country's Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status and the country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters may 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 (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (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.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, 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 is organizing a March 2008 DC action:

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 & Afghanistan

March 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'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers.

Returning to the Munich Conference on Security Policy for a number of reasons including that it is news. The protests against it are news and what was stated is news. We'll focus on a few speeches briefly and then move to US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Lindsey Graham was making his tenth trip and apologizing for being "a poor substitute for Senator [John] McCain" and, as if to make clear how poor, he made a non-funny joke about Russia that wasn't well received and his "I'll buy you a beer after" didn't smooth things over. Even with a crowd that didn't boo his white-washing/minimizing Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, he managed to get off on the wrong foot immediately. Graham offered this look-for-the-rainbow praise: "when NATO expands, the war is enriched." Joe Lieberman wants war with Iran very, very badly. It was the focus of his speech and just because there is no "covert work on bomb design" going on, Lieberman's up in arms over the "overt work on enrichment" as Iran established a nuclear power industry. Human Rights Watch's Little Kenny Roth bragged about the "expertise" his organization has allegedly developed. "We do not deal with the nuclear question. But we look at weapons systems that are used," explained Roth. "Cluster munitions caused more civilian casualities," in Iraq, he declared, "than any weapons other than small arms." He spoke of his concern with "the failure rate" of cluster munitions. Yes, that is a serious concern -- those pesky things do not go enough immediately. So he's not opposed to the indiscriminate deaths they cause immediately, just the deaths they cause days, weeks or years later? Someone needs to watch Human Rights Watch. Bobby Gates declared his focus was the Afghanistan War (for his speech -- before the British and Canadian governments protest, it was the focus for his speech only) and that would be the war that started in 2001 and continues today. He offers a revisionary history -- in bulletin points -- on the 'justification' for the war (no, he doesn't mention Osama bin Laden -- which, for anyone with a memory, was why the US began bombing -- after the Tailaban asked for proof of crimes before turning over bin Laden, the US response was to begin bombing). That war celebrated its sixth anniversary last fall so pay attention to this statement by Gates, "As many of you know, a Strategic Vision document is being drafted that will assess NATO's and our parenters' achievements in Afghanistan, and will produce a set of realistic goals and a roadmap to mee them over the next three to five years." Three to five years? The US Secretary of Defense is stating that the Afghanistan War could last through 2013 or even later? He went on to bemoan "bureaucratic hurdles" that "hinder our progress in Afghanistan" and advoacted for the passage of the NATO Commander's Emergency Response Fund which "will, for NATO, require a more flexible approach to budgeting and funding." Considering the millions, billiions and trillions being spent on both the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War presently, it's hard to see what "bureaucratic hurdles" Gates imagines side-stepping unless he means Congress itself? Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports on US House Rep John Murtha's take on the huge financial cost of the illegal war and whose being effected -- Murtha: "You can't put a trillion-dollar war on a credit card and leave the bills for our children to pay. The same Americans suffering in Iraq today will be paying for this borrowed war for the rest of their lives." Pincus reports, "Noting that the administration is spending $343 million every 24 hours on the Iraq war, Murtha said that 11 hours in Iraq 'could restore $156 million cut by the president's Defense Department budget for the Family Advocacy Program'."


Back in Munich, Secretary Gates insisted that "we are applying a comprehensive strategy" in Iraq and then declared the following:

We have leanred that war in the 21st century does not have stark divisions between civilian and military components. It is a continuous scale that slids from combat operations to economic development, governance and reconstruction -- frequently at the same time.
The Alliance must put aside any theology that attempts clearly to divide civilian and military operations. It is unrealistic. We must live in the real world. As we noted as far back as 1991, in the real world, security has economic, political, and social dimensions. And vice versa. In the future, the EU and NATO will have to find ways to work together better, to share certain roles -- neither excluding NATO from civilian-military operations nor barring the EU from purely military missions. In short, I agree entirely with Secretary General [Jaap] de Hoop Scheffer and Minister [Herve] Morin's comments yesterday that there must be a "complimentarity" between the EU and NATO.

We could go on and on regarding that push for war-more-war-always-war. Instead, we'll note that Oliver Rolofs found Gates "ostentatiously concillatory towards Germany during the conference.In his contribution on the future of Aghanistan on the Sunday morning, he said that he had not intended to point a figner at Germany at all, explaining that the request for more commitment in Afghanistan had been issued to all the members of the Alliance." Secretary Gates next jaunted off to Iraq where, Steve Lannen (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "A few hours before he landed in Baghdad, a big suicide car bomb exploded near a local market in Yathrib, north of Baghdad in Salahuddin province, killing at least 23 and injuring 45. . . . Another car bomb exploded near Ramadi, killing three, and further north two car bombs were reported in Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city. Both of them targeted Iraqi soldiers and four were killed in one of the explosions, police said. To the west of Mosul, 21 people were killed in fighting between insurgents and members of the U.S.-funded local awakening council militia." "Awakening" Councils are the US effort at Rent-An-Ally, whereby they toss coins around in an attempt to buy loyalties from those against centeral government in Baghdad, those against the illegal US occupation of Iraq, etc. They're more like Rent-A-Thugs and Ian Fischer (New York Times) explains, "At least 100 Awakening members have been killed in the last few weeks." Fisher goes on to detail the US government's latest attempt to control the news cycle by having the military selectively releasng two documents one allegedly portions of a diary but it's no The Diary of Anais Nin. Maybe they tell something, maybe they don't. Maybe a full release would. But, to be sure, the US government thinks this is the story to inject into the news cycle. Probably a 'happier' thought than letting people focus on the latest problems with the "Awakening" Council. Steve Lannen (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Saturday that the US collaborators in Diyala Province went on strike and that "A leader of the group said that brigade members, most of them Sunni Muslims, wouldnt' resume working with U.S. and Iraqi government forces until the Shiite police feisng or is indicted." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) picked up the story on Sunday noting that the Diyala "walkout" wasn't the only problem, there were problems in Anbar Province as well where the conflict is over the outcome of elections which the Iraqi Islamic Party won and that outcome is not pleasing the 'Awakening' Council or helping with the turfs war. (Both the IIP and members of 'Awakening' are Sunni.) In Diyala, Rubin notes, while the 'Awakening' Council members want the police commander gone (he's Shi'ite and they declare he's a bagman for Moqtada al-Sadr while he stated that the problem is that they are "continuing their past activies of killing and displacing Shiite families."

We're not done with Gates. He announced Lieapalooze 2008 today. CNN reports that Gates has held a press conference this morning in Baghdad and declared it "makes sense" to halt the return of US troops from Iraq and "A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad told CNN recently that Petraeus feels strongly there should be a period of review before he makes any decisions about additional troop withdrawals." BBC notes it as well but notes that Gates himself "favours a 'pause' in troop reductions in Iraq". Demetri Sevastopulo and Steve Negus (Financial Times of London) quotes Gates stating, "I think that the notion of a brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense" and the reporters remind, "Until recently, Mr Gates repeatedly said he hoped the military could continue to pull out troops at the same pace over the second half of 2008, which would have left about 100,000 forces in Iraq when the next US president takes office in January 2009." Yes, he did take that position publicly . . . once. Apparently, despite Gates quoting Alexis de Tocqueville in Munich, he actually packed Jerry Hopkins' trashy No One Here Gets Out Alive? That seems to be US Senator John Ensign's opinion as well. CBS and AP report that the senator "rejected calls Saturday for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of the year".

Meanwhile Alex Spillus (Telegraph of London) reports on Senator John McCain, in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, voicing his regrets that British forces withdrew (somewhat) from the southern part of Iraq -- that's how to appear presidential, whine about the actions of one of the US allies! "Obviously I would like to have seem stay longer and larger," declared McCain who previously stated (video link) that if the US remained in Iraq for 100 years it "would be fine with me." No word yet on whether he's prepping for a role in Broadway bound musical of Dr. Strangelove. Two would disagree with McCain are UK citizens Rose Gentle and Beverley Clarke. Michael Herman (Times of London) reports the two women were in the House of Lords today with their attorneys who "will argue before an enlarged panel of nine law lords that the Government is obligated to hold an independent review of the decision to go to war under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) which protests the 'right to life'. They will argue that the Government is bound by the convention to safeguard soldiers' lives by not sending them to fight in an illegal war. If the mothers win their appeal, it could result in Tony Blair, Lord Goldsmit, QC, the former Attorney-General, and Geoff Hoon, the former defence minister, called upon to give evidence in public." Beverley Clarke's son David Clarke died in Basra in March 2003 while Rose Gentle's son Gordon Gentle died in Basra June 2004 (both men were 19-years-old). The Express & Star notes, "The hearing at the Lords is expected to last three days." Tim Castle (Reuters) states it "will continue for the rest of the week after which judgement will be reserved to be given in writing later, probably in two to three months' time." ITN quotes Rose Gentle stating, "I think Tony Blair sent our boys to war on a lie. He just agreed with George Bush right away. They didn't even give it a second thought" and the father of the late Shaun Brierley, Peter Brierley, stating, "My son always used to say he would defend his country. This was not defending his country. The country was not under any threat of attack." Hasan Suroor (The Hindu) notes concerns that British troops were not also not supplied with adequate equipment (the inquiry into Gordon Gentle's death found he would have lived had the vehicle he was in been up to standard) and quotes Rose Gentle explaining, "It's really important to us to find out why my son was sent there and why he was killed in this right equipment, we believe they should never have been there in the first place." BBC cites attorney Rabinder Singh and notes, "Mr Singh said it had become clear the overwhelming body of legal advice had been the invasion would not be lawful without a second resolution from the UN Security Council, in addition to Resolution 1441 on 8 November, 2002." The UK's Military Families Against The War notes Rose Gentle's speaking at the London College of Communication as part of an action that includes the screening of the documentary Battle for Haditha directed by Nick Broomfield.

CBS and AP term yesterday in Iraq "Bloody Sunday" and adds today, "In all, 70 people were reported killed or found dead by police on Sunday, one of the highest nationwide death tolls in recent months." Today?

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 1 life and left two people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two people, a Baghdad car bombing that wounded three people as well as two police officers, a Mosul mortar attack that left two people wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded "a woman and a child" and what may be a coordinated Baghdad car bombing where one went off not far from a Sheikh's office and, five minutes later, as police were headed there, another car bombing took place at an intersection resulting in at least 11 deaths and thirty more people wounded including Sheik Ali Hatem. Steve Lannen (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that the Sheik is with the US collaborating 'Awakening' Council, that Sheik Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha ("Ali Hatem's predecessor") was assassinated in September (two weeks after meeting with the Bully Boy of the United States) and describes the bombing scene, "In neighborhoods nearby, dark gray smoke could be seen lifting in the air from the site of the bombs. Gunshots from security forces trying to ward off crowds were also heard."

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Diyala Province in which 3 apparent assailants were killed by the Iraqi army, a shooting outside of Mosul that left one person wounded, an armed clash in Mosul where 3 people were killed and an Iraqi soldier was wounded.

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Dr. Ahmad Al Jubouri was kidnapped in Muqdadiyah in Diyala Province and also, "Gunmen kidnapped a foreign journalist and his translator Sunday night. An Iraqi police captain identified the kidnapped to be a journalist who works for CBS news and said the gunment using two civilian cars kidnapped the two men near Qasr Al Sultan hotel in Basra." On the latter, CBS and AP note, "Two journalists working for CBS News in Basra are missing and efforts are underway to find them. A statement released by the network said CBS News had been in touch with the families and asked that their privacy be respected." Reuters notes, "The Committee to Protect Journalists in a recent report called the Iraq war 'the deadliest conflict for journalists in recent history,' with 125 journalists and 49 support workers killed since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion."

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Today, the US military announced: "DIYALA PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi-National Divison -- North Soldier was killed Feb. 10 when the Soldier's vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device. Two MND-N Soldiers were wounded and were evacuated to a Coalition Force medical facility for treatment." So on the 11th day of the month, 16 US service members have thus far been announced dead. And the total since the start of the illegal war is currently 3960 which is 40 from the 4,000 mark.

And as the illegal war drags on, never forget what's being fought for -- Roland Gribben (Telegraph of London) explains, "Foreign investors are being offered joint venture and production-sharing agreements in 400 state-owned factories and plants in Iraq in an effort to break the industrial reconstruction log jame. Forty contracts, described as the 'most productive and lucrative', are being offered in an initial programme that Fawzi Hariri, minister of industry and minerals, hopes will yield $2bn in foreign investment." They paved paradise . . . and held a tag sale. Worked so well in Argentina -- oops, didn't. Selling off the people's property -- a puppet government is selling off the people's property (or at least trying to). The theft of Iraq continues. Roula Khalaf (Financial Times of London) notes, apparently with approval, that "The US has been bypassing the Iraqi government, trying to revitalise economic life at the community level. Charles Ries, the US co-ordinator for economic transistion in Iraq, says the US has given grants of $1,000 to shopkeepers in pacified areas and employed 70,000 in community programmes." Note the salary for 'Awakening' Council members (approximately 60,000 people): $300 a month -- this when unemployment is at over 35% in Iraq.

Turning to US politics -- mainly because 'media critic' Amy Goodman didn't see it as news on Democracy Now! today -- Feminist Wire Daily explains:

MSNBC anchor David Shuster was suspended from the network last week following his offensive comments about Chelsea Clinton's work for her mother's candidacy. While guest hosting on "Tucker," Shuster remarked that Chelsea's efforts to support her mother were unseemly and that it was like she is being "pimped out" by the campaign. Shuster has been suspended from all NBC network appearances other than to issue his apology. He also apologized to the Clinton family. NBC News President Steve Campus said in a statement: "David Shuster . . . made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. . .NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks." "I am a mom first and a candidate second and I found the remarks incredibly offensive," said Senator Clinton said at a news conference over the weekend, reports Reuters. "I have sent a letter to the head of NBC expressing the deep offense that I took." Senator Clinton did not say whether or not she would participate in the debate scheduled for February 26th on MSNBC. Take Action to tell network presidents that sexist comments like Shuster's are not acceptable.

Apparently the treatment of women by the media is of little concern to Amy Goodman? Meanwhile Liliana Segura (via CounterPunch) examines Barack Obama's endorsement from "Habeas Lawyers for Obama" and explains how constitutional lawyer Bambi just doesn't get what's going on at Guanatanamo and Segura notes, "In April of 2007, Obama gave a speech in Chicago at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in which he outlined five ways he would lead if he were elected to the White House. Restoring habeas corpus was not among them. Neither was eradicating torture in the War on Terror. Neither for that matter, was closing Guantanamo. To be fair, this does not mean he wouldn't do these things. But his argument rested on a sort of benevolent militarism and an expansion of U.S. involvement across the world -- as Noam Chomsky called it, 'the military humanism'."

Goodman did make time today to wrongly state that a US army sniper was convicted of "killing" an Iraqi. No, he was convicted of murder. You expect bravery from independent media and they had none. But they didn't even need bravery, they just needed to use the same terms that the US military did in this instance. M-NF's announcement on the verdict:Sgt. Evan Vela was found guilty Feb. 10 on one specification of unpremeditated murder during a general courts martial at Camp Liberty Courthouse.Vela, a Soldier in 1st Battalion, 501st Airborne, was on trial for the murder of an Iraqi man as part of operations May 11 in Jurf as Sakhr.Vela was found guilty under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline -- wrongfully placing an AK-47 on the remains of a deceased person.He was also found guilty under UCMJ Article 107 for making a false official statement.The proceedings are currently in the sentencing phase.From M-NF's announcement of the sentencing:Sgt. Evan Vela was sentenced Feb. 10 in a general court-martial at Camp Liberty Courthouse.Vela was sentenced to 10 years confinement. He was also sentenced to a reduction in rank to E1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge from the Army.Vela, a 24-year-old Soldier in 1st Battalion, 501st Airborne, was on trial for the murder of an Iraqi man during operations May 11, 2007 in Jurf as Sakhr, Iraq.Vela was found guilty on one specification of unpremeditated murder.In addition, Vela was found guilty under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline (wrongfully placing an AK-47 on the remains of a deceased).He was also found guilty under UCMJ Article 107 for making a false official statement.The next step in the process is an automatic appeal. Solomon Moore (New York Times) reports, "Sergeant Vela, of Idaho, slumped in his chair as he heard the verdict, and his wife, Alyssa Carnahan, broke down in tears." Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) report, "Outside the courthouse, the brother of Ghani Naser Janabi, the man killed by Vela, rejoiced at the ruling. 'It is proof that my brother is not guilty. It was the sergeant,' Fadl Janabi said."


iraq
amy bradley
iraq veterans against the war
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
solomon mooreian fisher
steve lannenmcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles timesned parker
walter pincusthe washington post