"Why Won't Obama Go for the Knockout?" (Lance Selfa, Dissident Voice):
What about the main foreign policy difference between McCain and Obama -- the issue that has been the subject of the hopes of millions over the last two years -- namely their attitude toward the war in Iraq?
Obama's best barbs against McCain were the series of "you were wrong" charges Obama flung at McCain's predictions that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction," that the U.S. occupation would be welcomed and so on.
But that's about the past. Regarding the future, Obama noted that "in 16 months, we should be able to reduce our combat troops."
Perhaps lost on most listeners, Obama’s choice of the word "reduce" rather than "withdraw" may be a tip of the hand. Formerly, Obama had pledged to withdrawal "combat troops" from Iraq, which would have still left thousands of support troops and mercenaries deployed in Iraq. On September 26, he pledged only to lower the number of combat troops in Iraq.
We'll see if this was merely a rhetorical misstep in the heat of a debate. But if it isn't, Obama may be laying the ground for backing off even his original promise to withdraw combat troops within 16 months once he is president.
At that point, opponents of the Iraq war who voted for Obama may ask themselves just why they voted for him.
Barack Obama is not about ending the illegal war and a real press would have long ago noted that. Instead Big and Small Media sells the lie that Barack's going to end the Iraq War. It is not happening.
A reader e-mailed a piece by Ray McGovern and asked me what I thought of it?
As a general rule, I don't applaud spooks, sorry.
He's a Hillary Hater but I've not seen him call out Barack. I don't trust Ray McGovern, I never have. Again, I don't rush to applaud the spooks.
Nor do I rush to applaud friends or supporters of sexual predators. I have no plans to highlight Ray McGovern.
Which was the reader's point, by the way.
As a general rule, never trust a spook. They are trained to deceive. You'll never know if they're making a genuine case or if they're just spinning you.
My only exception to that rule would be Larry Johnson. With Johnson, he and I usually come down on different sides of the issue but he writes with conviction and no attempt to hide. Reading McGovern, it makes no sense at all. I don't believe he's come out and endorsed the idea that 9-11 was an inside job but he's come close to doing so. So why would he believe that and believe that Barack, with much the same backers, was any different? It makes no sense. When a spook makes no sense, generally it's because they're attempting to manipulate you.
Johnson's a little too law and order to play that game. I do not mean that as an insult. I think he would have been happier in the FBI which is more nuts and bolts. The CIA works on the theoretical and plays chess games with the world.
There are spooks in the peace movement, obviously, and they may be part of the reason that it has accomplished nothing. All this time later. I am not very 'jazzed' on the peace movement. They, like Ray McGovern, are working for Barack. That's not a peace movement. During Vietnam, we didn't play cheerleaders or apologists. Tom Hayden, of course, tried to but that's among the reasons he was drummed out of the peace movement.
This may come off a little flippant and, if so, sorry. But as one of the many spied on during Vietnam, I don't have a lot of respect for a number of people. When C.I. and I went over our files (via Freedom of Information) all that time ago, the first thing we noticed was how there was no point in blacking out anything. We were able to narrow down every first-hand informant. There were a ton of spies in the peace movement and a number were 'names.' So the thing to take away if you're in the peace movement today is look for action, not words. Look to see who is working on ending the illegal war and who folds tent from time to time.
Back then, I trusted many. I don't today.
I also do not care for ____ who started the rumor in my government file that I had an abortion on the day I was in fact having dental surgery. No one's ever going to write a book about me (which is fine) but I thought about how the files on others could be used as 'facts' to future biographers and the really appalling thing is how very inaccurate they are. I'll gladly cop to anything I did, but don't pin something on me that never happened. I wasn't into violence so we're not talking about crimes here but my file was rife with inaccuracies that actually spoke more of the ways they see women and the ways they smear than it did about me. When C.I. and I were helping a war resister across the border, a man (we know who, only one showed up at that hotel) reported back that we were having a three way and that we were "perverts" (that word is in my file) because the man was African-American.
Now we didn't have sex with the war resister. We didn't even know him. We were asked by friends to help him which we gladly did. But the story tells you about where some minds go. Put two women and one man together and it must be sex!
We already know that peace groups have been spied upon (and the big concern there is the spying going on by military intelligence but no one wants to explore that, have you noticed?). So if you're part of the peace movement, just be aware.
Monty McFate's sister was only able to infiltrate because the people who trusted her were stupid. She dropped in and out and no one ever thought that was strange? That's generally your first clue.
C.I. has a great memory but C.I. also kept a journal for many, many years. If you're curious about your life as it happens and as it's recorded by the government, I would encourage you to do the same. Whenever we couldn't pinpoint something in our files, C.I. would pull out the journals and say, "Okay, the only person we spoke to that day was ___." We were able to identify every 'informat' and 'asset' blacked out as a result. Even if we'd been at a rally that day and spoken to many people. (C.I. generally wrote five to six page entries at the end of each night. They were very detailed and in code because you couldn't go through an airport without having snoops go through your things.)
I'm not trying to scare anyway away from activism. I am recommending you be wary of certain types and I am suggesting you keep a record of some form because it will allow you the luxury of dumping people when you see your file. (You will see your file if you want because the spying going on today has been reported on and is not hidden. It may be five years, it may be ten, but there will be Congressional outrage.)
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, October 1, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq falls off the news radar, the big 'handover' takes place, and more.
Today was 'handover' for the "Awakeing" Council (also known as Sawha and "Sons of Iraq"). The Sunni 'movement' began in Al Anbar Province in 2005 when the US military put Sunni thugs on the US tax dollar payroll. Puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki, who staffed his ministries with Shi'ite thugs, has long seen the "Awakening" Councils as a threat to his supremacy in the puppet government. The late Lt Gen William E. Odom testifed before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee April 2nd and noted of the "Awakening" Council members:
Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break their lease at any moment.
The US has armed, trained and paid both sides in the conflict. Some might point out that to be 'needed' in the region, it helps to play both sides. During the same hearing, War Hawk Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations got the attention of Senator Barbara Boxer:
Barbara Boxer: Did you just say that Maliki uses the Iraqi security forces as his militia? Did you say that?Biddle: Yes.Barbara Boxer: If that's true and Maliki uses his military as a force to bring about peace -- that's scandalous and that we would have paid $20 million to train [it] and someone that we consider an expert says it's a militia, that's shocking.
Now the two extremist groups (neither of whom represent the bulk of Sunni and Shia Iraqis) are being 'partnered' and at a time when distrust runs high. Last month Charles Levinson (USA Today) reported on some of the suspicions of "Awakening" Council members and quoted Mullah Shihab al-Safi stating of the al-Maliki government sudden rush to arrest "Awakening" Council members, "Our government is after us. We sacrificed hundreds of our sons to drive al-Qaeda out. Now the government says we are no different than terrorists." And this tension was well known long before today. Dropping back to the September 11 snapshot:
Meanwhile the "Awakening" Council is back in the news. These are the Sunni thugs on the US payroll ($300 a month for males, $280 for females) because, as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told Congress repeatedly in April, paying them off means they don't attack US equipment or soldiers. That's a lot of lunch money to fork over each money to be safe on the 'playground.' Puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, has long been vocally opposed to the "Awakening" Councils. That's because he staffed with Shi'ite thugs. The two most extreme segments of Iraq are at war with one another. al-Maliki has made it very clear he has little use for the "Awakening" Councils and his staff has echoed that repeatedly. With US Senators and House Reps loudly objecting to the tax payer monies being spent on this program (one Petraeus hails) last April, there's been a push to have the puppet government (sitting on billions) pay the "Awakening" Council itself. (Senator Barbara Boxer was especially vocal in April asking why the puppet government wasn't paying them.) The new talk is that al-Maliki will begin paying them but distrust remains on both sides.
Nicholas Spangler and Mohammed al-Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) report that despite for-show motions in public on the part of the puppet government, "Awakening" Council leaders remain skepitcal (with one saying after the latest press conference, "I don't trust a word they say") that the puppet government will take charge and pay the 99,000 "Awakening" members or that 20,000 will be absorbed "into the police and army" starting October 1st. Thursday's press conference found Gen Abud Ganbar declaring, "The government has ordered that monthly salaries be paid until we can put (Awakening members) into security forces or ministires. Payments will continue until they find jobs." That leaves "Awakening" leaders skeptical and the reporters quote various voices explaining why including the claim that the puppet government has hired al Qaeda members. Khalid al-Ansary and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) report on the puppet government side where grave doubts are repeatedly raised ("But he also expressed distaste for some members of the predominantly Sunni Arab Awakening movement, an aversion shared by some other officials.") as is the argument that there is need "to weed out" certain members. In other words, Thursday's press conference reassured no one and the tensions remain.
September 23rd, Erica Goode (New York Times) reported on the tensions in Baghdad as the transfer of "Awakening" to the puppet government approaches and notes that "Awakening" Councils in Adhamiya "have posed increasing problems. . . . Some residents complain that the men, not a few of them swaggering street toughs, use their power to intimidate people. Sometimes violence erupts." At the start of last month, Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) was quoting the "Awakening" Council spokesperson Mohammed Mahmood al Natah on his dismay over the 'handover', "We wanted it to be postponed but the decision had already been made by the government and we cannot change it." Despite the very public nature of the tensions and the fears on both sides, things appear to have been rushed through with very little planning.
Near the end of September, Lt Gen Lloyd Austin gave a briefing where he praised the "Awakening" Council and declared, "One of our primary focus areas as we move foward is transitioning the Sons of Iraq program to the Iraqi government. The volunteer movement that started in Anbar and spread across the rest of the country significantly contributed to the security successes that we are now taking advantage of. The Sons of Iraq have paid a heavy price fight al Qaeda and other insurgent groups, and it's important that the government of Iraq responsibly transition them into meaningful employment. Prime Minister Maliki has assured me that the government will help those who help the people of Iraq. And so next week in Baghdad the government will accept responsibility for approximately 54,000 Sons of Iraq, and we will be there to assist in the transfer." And yet for all the words expressed, no planning appeared to have gone into what happened next, a point NPR's JJ Sutherland repeatedly attempted to explore. The exchange ended with this:
JJ Sutherland: Sir, I understand that but I'[m saying, "What happens in October? I understand eventually you want to have them be plumbers or electricians. But in October, there are a lot of checkpoints that have been manned by the Sons of Iraq. Are those checkpoints all going to go away? Are they only going to be staffed by Iraqi police now? That's my question. It's not eventually, it's next month.
Lt Gen Lloyd Austin: Yeah. Next month the Iraqi government will begin to work their way through this. And there's no question that some of them, some of the checkpoints, many of the checkpoints, will be -- will be manned by Iraqi security forces. In some cases, there may be Sons of Iraq that will be taksed to help with that work. But in most cases, I think the Iraqi government will be looking to transition people into different types of jobs.
That was September 22nd and the US military was apparently operating under the notion that things could be figured ("begin to work their way through this") at some point in October. Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reported this morning on the new Pentagon report to Congress which cited the Pentagon's belief in the importance of the "Awakening" Councils and also noted the "[t]ension between the government and Sunni volunteers . . . in Diyala Province, where the Sunni population is fearful that the government is using military opeations ostensibly aimed at al-Qaeda in Iraq as a pretext to 'arrest, intimidate, or kill moderate Sunnis and SOI groups who are otherwise interested in participating the political process'." The Pentagon's report to Congress is [PDF format warning] "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" and it hails the "Awakening" Councils:
The emergence of the SoI remains one of the major developments of the past 18 months; however, the integration and employment of SoI remain a significant challenge. The SoI provide significant security benefits to their local communities by protecting neighborhoods, securing key infrastructure and roads, and identifying malign activity. What began primarily as a Sunni effort has now taken hold in many Shi'a and mixed Sunni-Shi'a communities as well. Today there are over 98,000 SoI contributing to local security.
If the Pentagon believes that one has to wonder how they missed the various "Awakening" Council members speaking to the press repeatedly about either being on strike (while at a checkpoint) because there was an arrest warrant out for an "Awakening" member or telling the press that they'd learned their checkpoint would be shut down after the 'handover'?
Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) sketched out the basics, "Unemployment in Sunni areas remains high, basic services are still poor, distrust of the United States and the Shiite-led Iraqi government is widespread and fears of Shiite militias persist. On Wednesday, al Qaisi and 54,419 other men in Baghdad province will transition to Iraqi government control. That's more than half of the Sons of Iraq (SOI) who're now being paid by the U.S. military to protect neighborhoods -- and in some cases not to shoot at American troops." John Hendren (ABC News) reports: "Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told ABC News Iraq plans to give 20 percent of the nation's 100,000 Sons of Iraq jobs to the police force and army. 'I don't think that the Iraqi government neither the Multi National Forces could achieve such success and security without their participation,' al-Dabbagh told ABC News. But here in the small village of Jambariyah, an al Qaeda stronghold north of Baghdad until early this year, just one of 70 Sons of Iraq has been hired to date, and of the 1,200 in the city of Dujail, none." Despite those (and other) realities, the 'handover' took place today. Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) reports, "The handover of the armed groups was a low-key affair in Baghdad, where government offices are closed for a six-day holiday marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The transition was largely symbolic, since the U.S. military plans to stay involved with the groups for several months as the Iraqi government begins paying their salaries and decides how to employ them." Last month, Erica Goode and Muhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) noted that Brig Gen Tarek Abdul Hameed declare that the puppet government in Baghdad would indeed pick up their payrolls for the "Awakening" Councils -- as did many outlets. However, Tim Albone (Times of London) explains, "Senior US military sources said that America would pay the salaries of any members of the force who did not find alternative employment." UPI cites KUNA to inform that, according to Maj Gen Jeffery Hammond, though the 'handover' took place today al-Maliki's government will not begin paying until November 10th. Meanwhile Nizar Latif (UAE's The National) offers this evaluation, "However, the US military and the Sahwa themselves are concerned that the Iraqi government may simply disband the councils and push the former insurgents back into the role of active insurgents. In essence it would be a repeat of a former devastating mistake, when America disbanded the Iraqi army in 2003, leaving thousands of trained soldiers without jobs and a score to settle against the US military."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded four people .
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Diyala Province that claimed 2 lives and four police officers wounded.
Moving over to the US presidential race. David Hoff (Education Week) explores what the presidential choices mean in terms of the No Child Left Behind Act (also known as "No Learning, Just Crib Notes") since both GOP presidential nominee John McCain and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama support it. Hoff notes three who are for quality education (first step, end NCLB):
Ralph Nader, who is running as an independent, says "federal policy needs to be transformed from one that uses punishments to control schools, to one that supports teachers and students; from one that relies primarily on standardized tests, to one that encourages high-quality assessments. Broader measures of student learning are needed that include reliance of classroom-based assessments along with testing."
Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, writes: "Turning education over to the federal government, as through such legislation as the No Child Left Behind Act has not worked. Trying to fix failing schools with more money and regulations also has failed to do anything other than waste taxpayer money without results." He proposes ending the federal government's role in education and turning decisions back to state and local governments.
The Green Party, which has nominated Cynthia McKinney to be its candidate, writes in its draft platform that "the federal Act titled No Child Left Behind punishes where it should assist and hinders its own declared purpose. It should be repealed or greatly redesigned." The federal government's roles should be limited to ensuring students across states have a "level playing field," the platform says.
Hoff notes that Barr and McKinney did vote for NCLB in 2001 while both were members of the US House of Representatives. Anita Zimmerman (The Chetek Alert) covers many presidential candidates and we'll note this section:
The state's Green party has many of the same challenges. They don't get much media coverage, their candidates are rarely invited to debates, and their resources are too limited for national advertisement. Like the Constitution party, there are "scattered individuals" but no cohesive Barron County organization, says Jeff Peterson, co-founder of the Wisconsin Green Party. Peterson, a 20-year veteran of the party and a Luck resident, believes presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney appeals to urban voters and young people. Peterson's been "politicking from his computer," he adds. On the national level, the Green party's base is split between 20-somethings and 50-somethings, Peterson explains. While the party enjoys support on college campuses, it has never succeeded in garnering the 5-percent vote necessary to "unlock all sorts of resources," especially the monetary kind. Peterson's goal for the election is to "maintain a presence." Voters need third-party options, he believes, and candidates like McKinney, a former congresswoman from Georgia, take stances on issues Republicans and Democrats may not address.
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Team Nader's Ashley Sanders explains:
Many people tend to see the economic crisis as a problem from nowhere, divorcing it from the deliberate and systematic dismantling of regulation and oversight waged by the corporate sector in its fight for ever-greater profits. Many of these same people view Barack Obama's candidacy in similar but opposite terms, seeing him as the change candidate from nowhere who will save our economic and political our economic and political system--divorcing his hope message from his actual platforms and legislative history. In part two of her February analysis of Obama's campaign, Pam Martens makes the connection between our rootless critiques of the economy and our rootless support of Obama. When the same people causing a crisis are funding the man claiming to solve a crisis, we can expect more of the same.
Governor Sarah Palin is the GOP nominee for vice president and yesterday Katie Couric interviewed the McCain-Palin ticket for The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric (link has text and video and click here for transcript):
"I do," Palin said. "I'm a feminist who, uh, believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway. And I'm very, very thankful that I've been brought up in a family where gender hasn't been an issue. You know, I've been expected to do everything growing up that the boys were doing. We were out chopping wood and you're out hunting and fishing and filling our freezer with good wild Alaskan game to feed our family. So it kinda started with that."
Today the McCain-Palin campaign released the following:
Today, Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Durant (Ret.) issued the following statement on Joe Biden's apparently false accounts of near-misses on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq:
"Senator Biden claimed at a debate last year that he'd been 'shot at' while visiting Iraq. And he has claimed repeatedly, most recently last week, that his helicopter was 'forced down' in Afghanistan -- leaving his audience with the impression that it was fire from the Taliban which had grounded the aircraft. Neither of these stories appears to be true, and Senator Biden has never accounted for the discrepancies.
"I've been on a helicopter that was 'forced down' by enemy fire, and I've been 'shot at.' Neither is easily confused with being caught in a snow storm or awakened by a loud bang in the night. Senator Biden has a responsibility to come clean on what actually happened, and explain why he would ever say such things to the American people. And with the Vice Presidential Debate coming up on Thursday, it is incumbent on the news media to ask Senator Biden the tough questions -- as they have so far failed to do -- and examine his responses closely for inconsistencies of the kind we've witnessed in recent months.
"The American people expect and deserve leaders who tell the truth about their record and their experiences, and a news media that holds all candidates -- no matter their party -- to the same standard."
When it was Hillary, it was BIG NEWS. Was it just because she's a woman? Was it just because the press wants to elect Barack? Tomorrow night Joe Biden and Sarah Palin are scheduled to debate. Prior to the start of the vice presidential debate, (3:45 p.m. local time), Senator McCain will be participating in the Women's Town Hall Meeting in Denver.
iraq
mcclatchy newspapersnicholas spanglermohammed al dulaimy
leila fadel
the new york timeserica goode
mudhafer al-husaini the washington postann scott tysontim albone
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
CBS Evening News and more
Nat Resnikoff allegedly would like an education at NYU so allow me to assist him with the first step. Entitling a piece "Countdown to the VP Debate: Let's Get Retarded in Here" is insulting and offensive. It does not show maturity, it does not show a gift for communication. That NYU didn't grasp the problem goes to how sad things truly are.
Many people in this world have challenges. There are also people who are just mean and hurtful. What plays on South Park is not adult, it demonstrates no thirst for knowledge, no longing for higher learning. NYU should be ashamed that the title went up. It is offensive.
A community member e-mailed me that piece and she didn't find it 'funny.' She is the parent of a child who is mentally challenged. Resnikoff is old enough to know better and NYU should close up shop if they don't. It is rude, it is hurtful and it is phobic. That is not about P.C., that is about the 21st century when the r-word is not a word educated people use anymore than they would use the n-word. In both instances, it is an insulting, hateful word meant to degrade.
Many people in this world have challenges. There are also people who are just mean and hurtful. What plays on South Park is not adult, it demonstrates no thirst for knowledge, no longing for higher learning. NYU should be ashamed that the title went up. It is offensive.
A community member e-mailed me that piece and she didn't find it 'funny.' She is the parent of a child who is mentally challenged. Resnikoff is old enough to know better and NYU should close up shop if they don't. It is rude, it is hurtful and it is phobic. That is not about P.C., that is about the 21st century when the r-word is not a word educated people use anymore than they would use the n-word. In both instances, it is an insulting, hateful word meant to degrade.
If NYU now sees South Park as the 'academic' standard to meet that may be the saddest thing of all.
"Palin Opens Up On Controversial Issues" (CBS Evening News with Katie Couric):
The governor told us though she's not a member of any church, she visits a couple of them regularly when she's home. She took issue with news reports that one of them, The Wasilla Bible Church, sponsored a conference where gays could be made straight through prayer.
Palin: Well, it matters though, Katie, when the media gets it wrong. It frustrates Americans who are just trying to get the facts and … be able to make up their mind on, about a person's values. So it does matter. But what you're talking about, I think, value here, what my position is on homosexuality and you can pray it away, because I think that was the title that was listed on that bulletin. And you know, I don't know what prayers are worthy of being prayed. I don't know what's prayers are going to be asked and answered. But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships. I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my "gay friend," she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people.
People may judge her after Thursday's debate, where she'll be unfiltered and unedited - something reporters complain the campaign has resisted.
Palin: The campaign knows that I am an open book. My record is out there and my life is out there.
I really think the Barack campaign has made yet another tactical error. They and their surrogates (such as Ian Masters) have made Palin out to be a buffoon thereby lowering expectations so that all she has to do is stand upright and not drool for the media to applaud her performance.
I don't think they grasp how the media works. They love to tear down and they love to build up. If Palin is judged a 'bomb,' they have little to offer for the weeks prior to the election. They want the jockeying to continue. Where there is no conflict, they will create it.
Joe Biden makes multiple gaffes and if anyone had their thinking caps on, the Obama campaign and its surrogates would have repeatedly attempted to lower expectations.
I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
"Column: Don’t let Nader haters bar him from debate" (Gerald Flynn, Destin Log):
The race between Barack Obama and John McCain is a virtual tie. This has been a wild, unpredictable election year. An election that will likely be decided by who wins the independent votes and swing states.
Well guess what? McCain and Obama are not the only contenders. This year, America’s presidential choices include lifelong consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, and two former members of Congress, one running as a Green, another as a Libertarian. These are not minor characters. These are viable candidates with growing support. They deserve to be heard and deserve to be in the debates.
This is an important factor of the 2008 election that the media is overlooking. While the Democrat and Republican camps bicker over pigs and lipstick and try to out-shout each other in reckless calls for offshore oil-drilling, independent candidates have been steadily rising in the polls.
Why aren’t you covering this story? There’s strong evidence that third-party candidates from both sides of the spectrum will play a significant role this year. Said the San Francisco Examiner’s Igor Derysh on Sept. 10: “While all of the Sarah Palin hype and the 24-hour-scandals will eventually be forgotten, the biggest factor in this election is one that has for the most part gone unmentioned. Independent candidates Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) and Ralph Nader appear to be commanding a big chunk of the vote in a recent CNN poll.”
It’s true. Ralph Nader is polling at 6 percent nationally according to new CNN polls, and as high as 6-8 percent in key battleground states of Colorado (7%), Michigan (6%), Pennsylvania (7%), New Mexico (8%), Nevada (6%). Yet the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a corporation created by and for the Republican and Democratic parties, has complete control over the three presidential and one vice-presidential debates, and will not let Nader, or anyone else participate.
This week the Ralph Nader campaign announced that Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in 45 states plus D.C. That includes populous California and New York. That’s the most ballots Nader has ever been on — 12 more than in 2004, [two] more than in the infamous election 2000. Don’t you think your readers would want to know all this? Don’t they have a right to know? Our nation is mired in two wars, sinking deeper into recession, financial institutions collapsing around us, foreclosures and soaring oil prices our bleak new economic landscape. Both main parties — the one in the White House and the one with a slim majority in Congress — played a part in the policies and decisions that got us into this mess.
Is it any wonder that a growing number of Americans are looking for another option? On all the key issues, Ralph Nader’s positions mirror those of the majority of Americans. Most of us want an immediate end to the Iraq war, true single-payer healthcare, and accountability for the ravages of the Bush/Cheney years. So does Nader. But not Obama or McCain. Nader has a right to be heard. In the media and in the presidential debates. You have a duty to report on him and other third-party candidates. You short-change your readers by not covering them. You are also missing a potentially big story.
Our democracy depends on free speech and open debate. The fourth estate has an important responsibility to keep our electorate informed. Only then can voters make sound decisions and cast intelligent votes. The American public relies on you, to report on all relevant aspects of the story. Clearly the third-party candidates this year are very relevant.
I urge you to live up to your responsibility and tell the American people about their alternatives. Report on the third-party candidates. Give them a fair hearing. And urge the Commission on Presidential Debates to include other voices in the debates. For the sake of American voters, for the sake of democracy, please do your job.
I am a total Nader backer, and he expresses the views I believe. The other two candidates are shills for corporation backers. Ralph Nader is NOT!
Gerald Flynn is a resident of DeFuniak Springs.
I really enjoyed that letter and thought Mr. Flynn was worth sharing. It really is sad that people have to take to the letter page to ask the press to live up to its obligation. What is the point of an allegedy free press if it cannot inform the people? I also find it very interesting that Dennis Kucinich's statements on Monday's Democracy Now! have not received attention from the press. Maybe not so suprising, they've been in the tank for Barack for some time. But if you missed it, the reason the bailout bill did not include protection for Main Street (home owners) was because, Kucinich was told in the caucus, Barack didn't want them in.
"2007: The Year of Living Useless (Year in Review)" (C.I., The Common Ills):
The world is beautiful today
More beautiful by far
Than any other day
I only know
That I'm in love with such green earth . . .
Nothing's Sacred was turned into a Broadway musical entitled Hazel Flagg and, if lacking any other realities she should have grown up with, Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel appears familiar with the score and damn determined to regularly sing it (the score Time magazine called in real time overly loud -- a bit like those annoying "Sweet Victories" posts). But we'll get back to that.
2007 was the year independent media should have been sent to their rooms -- with no TV or computer privileges.
For those who missed it, 2007 was not an election year, though you'd never know it to sample independent media. Much has been made of the public exhaustion with what passes for coverage of candidates (you always know it's a trend -- real or media created -- when the Times rushes to weigh in), but never forget that independent media was first out of the gate in the horse race coverage.
Community member Lloyd was wanting C.I.'s year-in-review noted so we're all picking a favorite section and highlighting it tonight. The Iraq War is hardly in the papers today. But blame Panhandle Media which has made the last two years all about an election. Imagine how far along the peace movement would be if they'd spent those two years not cheerleading a candidate (who is a War Hawk) but actually addressing real issues?
Naomi Klein and others said never again after the 2004 election but no one listened and judging by an appearance of Klein's (to promote her just out in soft cover book), she didn't listen either. Or maybe she thinks 'jokes' about Sarah Palin are somehow addressing ending the illegal war?
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, September 30, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Iraqi refugees forced out of Jordan, a 'turnover' takes place tomorrow, and more.
On the medical front, Jormana Karadsheh (CNN) reports that along with allowing Iraqi doctors to carry guns, Nouri al-Maliki's council also decreed that they cannot be "detained by police without Ministry of Health approval" and notes the International Committee of the Red Cross' March report (PDF format warning, click here) which stated over " 2,200 doctors and nurses have been killed and more than 250 kidnapped since 2003" and that there were "34,000 register doctors in 1990" but "at least 20,000 have left the country." Karadsheh goes on to site the Iraqi government's figure of 8,000 having "left their jobs" (and "some fleeing the country") but "about 800 doctors have returned to their jobs". The Iraqi government figures are bunk. (Credit to Karadsheh for crediting the source on those figures -- other outlets present them as facts with no sourcing.) As noted in the August 4th snapshot, Dr. Essan Namiq (Deputy Minister of Health for Grants and Loans) and Dr. Kahmees al-Sa'ad (Administrative deputy Minister of Health) held a press conference in the Green Zone August 3rd in which many fanciful claims were floated in which Dr. Essan Namiq declared that "more than 80% of the Iraqi doctors" had returned. They just make up the numbers with whatever they think make looks them good and never worry about their own figures matching up at a later date with . . . their own figures. 80% of 8,000 is not 800.
That's really what told on them immediately in the Myth of the Great Return -- they released a figure over the weekend and, by Monday, you had to add more zeros to the abusrd claim. The myth started in the fall of 2007. Fall is here again and it's time to make it appear the Iraqi refugee situation isn't all that bad . . . really. The country's oil wealth allows them to call in favors. Hani Hazaimeh (Jordan Times) reports that 74,000 barrels of oil were shipped to Jordan from Iraq "in the past 10 days" and quotes Jordan's Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Khaldou Qteishat declaring, "The ministry is cooperating with its Iraqi counterpart to overcome several challenges in order to meet the daily target of 10,000 barrels as stipulated in the agreement, to be increased gradually to 30,000 barrels." The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates there are at least 4.7 million Iraqi refugees -- internal and external. Of the over 2 million external refugees many are in Jordan or Syria (with some estimates of 700,000 in each country; others of 750,000 in Jordan and as many as 1.5 million in Syria). But when Iraq buys you off on oil, you're happy to eject refugees. IRIN reports, "The Iraqi embassy in Amman is organising the repatriation by planes of dozens of Iraqi families who wish to return home, despite warnings from UN agencies about the security situation. Iraqi diplomats in Amman said they had charted a plane to repatriate the Iraqis later this week, during the Muslim holiday of Eid al Fitr. Disabled people and the elderly will be among the Iraqis leaving in what, according to the Iraqi ambassador, will be the first official return by air to the homeland since the US-led invasion in 2003." The disabled and the elderly. The most vulnerable. Sent back to the violence in Iraq. China's Xinhua reports that 2 "busloads of Iraqis" have already been shipped out and that some on the buses "said they were forced to return due to difficult economic conditions in Jordan." To be clear, Jordan turned a penny on the refugees long before the oil infusion. Nicholas Seeley (Christian Science Monitor) reported at the start of July that while Jordan refused to allow the refugees to work and while they were dependent upon assistance, Jordan was spending aid money for the refugees: "In 2007, 61 percent of UNHCR's operational budget was given directly to Jordan, along with millions of bilateral aid from the European Community and the United States" "a large portion of the aid . . . has gone to address Jordan's own urgent national priorities." Turning a profit from human misery, that's all it was. Meanwhile the UNHCR set up tents for Ramadan in Amman, "For the second straight year, the UN refugee agency has provided iftar to needy Iraqis and Jordanians during the month of Ramadan, which ends on Tuesday. Muslims believe that feeding someone iftar (the evening meal during Ramadan) as a form of charity is very rewarding." It's apparently a thought passed over the Jordanian government -- which represent a citizenry that is 94% Muslim.
External refugees that return frequently become internal refugees. That's due to the fact that (a) they left the region due to violence and threats and (b) their former homes are often occupied. The Institute for War and Peace Reporting's Zaineb Naji (via Kansas City Star) states that Iraq's internatl refugees are not registering (72,000 have registerd to vote in what may (or may not) be upcoming provincial elections, "just 2.6 per cent of the total figure for those uprooted by the conflict") and reminds, "According to a report in July by the International Organisation for Migration, IOM, IDPs do not have adequate shelter or access to drinking water, food, health care, education and electricity. Many are squatting in public buildings, mud huts, or in houses abandoned by other families. The latter is a widespread problem preventing many IDPs from returning home. Surveys have shown that more than 60 per cent of the displaced want to go back to their towns and villages."
Meanwhile, the New York Times' Erica Goode (at the paper's blog, Baghdad Bureau Blog) writes of spending the night at the home of an Iraqi friend which required her to wear a a black abaya and hijab and climb a darkened staircase to ensure that no neighbors grasped an American visiting. In the apartment with her friend, her friend's husband and the couple's three-year-old daughter on a 114 degree day, they saw frequent 15 minute burst of electricity (apparently making up -- when combined -- the few hours of electricity outside the Green Zone Baghdad sees each day): "The electricity shortage, they said, is a problem not just for comfort but for the refrigerator in the bedroom, which goes off and on all day, making it difficult to store food. The water in the sink and shower, too, is unpredicatble, sometimes working, sometimes not. . . . We drank fruit juice and bottled war -- even when there is tap water, it is not potable." And that's Baghdad (outside the Green Zone), not a distant province in the country. Five years after the start of the illegal war, that's life in Baghdad. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reports (at Inside Iraq) on taking a taxi through the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad: "Meanwhile, we saw graffiti on the walls. 'There is no place for betrayers in the Islamic State of Iraq,' someone had spray painted on one wall. The saying refers to the Islamic state, a front for a Qaida in Iraq."
Moving to the the oil-rich northern region, Anna Fifield (Financial Times of London) reports that Ibril is the 'hot spot' in the Kurdistan region of Iraq where "prices have almost doubled in the past two years and are still climbing" in the "English village -- complete with cul-de-sacs lined with identical two-storey houses, garden gnomes on front lawns and Range Rovers in driveways". A British investor, Russell Jones, raves, "There is an enormous amount of free money here being kept under people's mattresses." It helps to have name oil and, of course, name lobbyists to advocate for you. But in Baghdad? Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "Dumped bodies are once again appearing along Baghdad's streets. Two years ago, Iraqi police recovered an average of 50 bodies a day across the capital, most of them shot in the head with their hands tied behind their backs. By this summer, the bodies had all but disappeared, but this month, they began to show up again, usually one or two a day." The corpse count climbs as a 'handover' approaches. The US military is due to hand the "Awakening" Council members over to the puppet government in Baghdad. Pakistan's Daily Times reports: "The US military will this week begin handing over control of 100,000 Sunni anti-Qaeda fighters to Iraq's Shiite-led government, a move that risks undermining hard-earned security gains. The Iraqi government and the US military have agreed in principle to the transfer of responsibility of all 'Sons of Iraq' from October 1, beginning with 54,000 men in the province of Baghdad. . . . Iraq will start paying the salaries of Sahwa men in Baghdad -- a monthly bill of around 15 million dollars -- from November 10, Major General Jeffery Hammond, commander of US forces in the Iraqi capital, told reporters." This transfer will come at a time when unemployment is already a big issue around the country. Corrine Reilly (McClatchy) notes
"most approximations put unemployment across Iraq at between 30 percent and 60 percent. . . Iraqi and American officials agree, the country's soaring unemployment rate must come down. They say that if more Iraqis don't find work soon, people here will pay the cost in blood. . . . The link between unemployment and bloodshed is in especially sharp focus right now, as the U.S. military prepares to hand authority over the Sons of Iraq to the Iraqi government. . . . If the government fails to pay the Sons of Iraq and they don't find other employment, many fear the former insurgents will turn back to violence."
Returning to the issue of provincial elections, eNews 2.0 offers "Iraq's unity threatened by lack of minority quota" which explains that the bill that passed the Iraqi Parliament on provincial elections last week continues to be a source of scorn -- specifically for failing to provide "a clause that defines the quota of minorities in provincial councils" and Ageel Abdel-Hussein of Moqtada al-Sadr's movement states, "Minorities should be given their rights in the provincial councils to contribute to the building of the Iraqi state." The write-up also informs that in Nineveh Province, Iraqi Christians protested Sunday in numbers exceeding 5,000.The bill will be nixed or approved by the Iraqi presidency council made up of the president and Iraq's two vice presidents. Iraq's president is Jalal Talabani and The Jordan Times reports that he returned to Iraq Monday after spending "nearly two months in the United Sates for medical treatment" (not noted in the article was his wife, Hero Ibrahim Ahmed, visiting Los Angeles in attempt to find a distributor for her film Saturday) and that he is stating the treaty between the US and the puppet government (wrongly called a SOFA) must go through.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bomings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 4 lives (with nine people wounded) and a Diyala Province roadside bombing that targeted the Kudristan Democratic Party's Jamal al Sayd Khalili who was wounded in the bombing.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two police officers wounded in a Mosul shooting.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul yesterday.
Today the US military announces: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier died of wounds at approximately 12:45 p.m. at a Coalition force's Combat Support Hospital Sept. 30. The Soldier was wounded when his patrol came under small-arms fire in northern Baghdad at approximately 12:15. The Soldier was medically evacuated by air to the medical facility, however, the Soldier later succumbed to the wounds. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and official release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings to 4176 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 25 announced for the month thus far. That is one shy of the July figure (13) which was trumpeted as 'big news' and yet another 'turned corner.' It is two more than the number of deaths for August (23).
Meanwhile, Reuters notes, "Defense Secretary Robert Gates predicted on Monday that growth in U.S. military spending would level off in the coming years but not face severe cutbacks, despite the current economic crisis." No surprise there. Chalmers Johnson (at The Asia Times) explains, "On Wednesday, September 24, right in the middle of the fight over billions of taxpayer dollars slated to bail out Wall Street, the House of Representatives passed a $612 billion defense authorization bill for 2009 without a murmur of public protest or any meaningful press comment at all. (The New York Times gave the matter only three short paragraphs buried in a story about another appropriations measure.) The defense bill includes $68.6 billion to pursue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is only a down payment on the full yearly cost of these wars. (The rest will be raised through future supplementary bills.) It also included a 3.9% pay raise for military personnel, and $5 billion in pork-barrel projects not even requested by the administration or Secretary of Defense Robert Gates." Meanwhile Joseph Gerth (Kentucky Courier-Journal) reports on a state poll which found "54 percent of Kentuckians support the U.S. presence in Iraq, and 62 percent favor the U.S. presence in Afghanistan."
Turning to the US presidential race. Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes (link has text and video), the US top commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, explained to Lesley Stahl that he doesn't vote and why: "I will say this. I made a decision when I got promoted to colonel that I would not longer vote in national elections because I feel it's my job to serve the commander-in-chief. So I have not voted. Probably a bad American for not voting, but I made that decision because of the position that I have." Voting or not voting is a personal decision. So is taking accountability which the Democratic presidential nominee cannot apparently do still. CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic reports that Barack Obama thinks the meltdown is just groovy because it allows talking about issues: "I mean, there was a time pretty recently when we were talking about lipstick and pigs." We? We? Barack plagiarized a Washington Post comic and made insulting remarks but it's "we". He can always grab credit for what he hasn't done, he just never takes accountability for what he did do. Where it gets really funny is if you compare Maria Gavrilovic's reports today. In one, Barack is saying that the economic meltdown is "not a time for politics" and, less than an hour later, Barack's stating the economic meltdown allows for a good test of the candidates. But who will he cheat off of?
Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential nominee and here's an important statement regarding her campaign:Green Party National Women's Caucus challenges NOW to support the historic McKinney/Clemente presidential campaignMonday, 29 September 2008 19:38Distributed by the Green Party of the United States National Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the United States For Immediate Release Monday, September 29, 2008 Contact:Morgen D'Arc, Spokesperson, 207-761-7797, morgenizer@yahoo.com Linda Manning Myatt, Spokesperson, 248-548-6175, lmmyatt@wowway.com Green Party National Women's Caucus challenges NOW to support the historic McKinney/Clemente presidential campaign WASHINGTON, DC -- The National Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the United States has sent an open letter to the National Organization for Women (http://www.now.org) urging support for the Green Party's presidential ticket. The text of the letter is appended below. The letter cites Green nominee Cynthia McKinney's six terms in Congress and her unmatched dedication to the principles of equality and human rights championed by NOW. The National Women's Caucus emphasizes the historical role that alternative parties have played in the struggle for women's suffrage and rights, and notes that NOW has failed even to recognize the significance of America's first national campaign by two women of African descent: Ms. McKinney is African American and running mate Rosa Clemente is Black Puerto Rican. OPEN LETTER TO NOW, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMENNational Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the United StatesSunday, September 28, 2008Dear National Organization for Women leadership and members: The National Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the United States is dismayed that your recent endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States did not acknowledge the first all-female ticket in recent U.S. history. Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are running for President and Vice President, respectively, on the Green Party ballot line. Cynthia McKinney served six terms in the U.S. Congress and two terms in the Georgia General Assembly. She is a global human rights and peace activist with a substantial voting record supporting women. Rosa Clemente is a community organizer and journalist who was one of the founders and primary organizers of the first national Hip Hop political convention. Their "Power to the People" campaign goal is to ensure that public policy reflects the Green Party values of ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, and nonviolence. Cynthia McKinney has been a steadfast supporter of full reproductive rights for women throughout her legislative career, including funding for contraception and UN family planning, and opposition to "abstinence only" sex education. Rosa Clemente has been an outspoken advocate on issues affecting people of color, particularly women, and has directed her campaign toward the 48% of young people who don't vote, to encourage participation in the electoral process. Additional positions of the McKinney/Clemente campaign that will benefit women include: - Equal Rights - End to forced sterilization and coerced or uninformed consent procedures, - Immediate end to the War in Iraq and reinvestment of the money into our communities - Single-payer, universal "Medicare for All" - Election integrity where every vote is counted - Right to same-sex marriage - Free higher education - End to the drug war - Right of return of survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita - Withdrawal from corporate trade agreements such as NAFTA that are devastating economies worldwide - Promotion of renewable energy (no coal or nuclear) to create hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing, construction and service jobs Neither Obama nor his Republican opponent John McCain support these positions. The National Organization for Women PAC repeatedly praised Congresswoman McKinney during her six terms in U.S. Congress; and her record, on every relevant issue, surpasses those of the male endorsees. But now, these two women of color -- powerful and power-challenging, real choices, and nominated by a political party that proudly boasts Feminism & Gender Equity among our Ten Key Values -- don't even receive acknowledgment. The National Organization for Women, at all levels, has long struggled over diverging feminist paths -- choosing either to press for change within the existing power structure, and its institutions, or to step outside of the expected and challenge the institutions themselves. In the view of the National Women's Caucus of the Green Party of the United States, NOW has best served women when NOW has recognized, in the words of Audre Lord, that "when you look back on the road you've come, and see pain, and look forward to the road you're on, and see pain, then, step off the road, and make a new path." We recall when NOW distributed buttons proclaiming that "Women were not born Democrats, Republicans, or YESTERDAY." We recall when the heroines of our heritage were Belva Lockwood, Alice Paul and Sonia Johnson, each willing to form her own political party, or run for president independently, or both. They were willing because that path provided fewer barriers to telling the plain truth, the truth that needed to be heard, than did service to the establishment parties. We even recall when NOW announced the formation of its own, alternative, political party, the "Party for the 21st Century," with Dolores Huerta at its head. We rejoiced when NOW sought to make a new path, because the old political road was simply too filled with the pain of condescension and compromise, deferment and settling for what was offered. Even when NOW, through its political action committee, decided in the last two decades to bestow its endorsement on candidates from the over-represented political parties, it was to reward them for actually moving closer to the day when a woman might be president, with a Geraldine Ferraro and a Hillary Clinton sitting in the candidate car, and not just trudging behind it, pushing. But this past week, that endorsement reward was offered without even that, out of the same "fear of the alternative" that has driven women to set our own hopes, dreams and destinations aside, time and again, to let the men drive the car. Belva, Alice and Sonia did not become president of the United States, but, with the support of the feminists of their time, speaking truth, each re-formed the vision that America had about women. While men can be feminists too, their institutions can only be deemed feminist if they produce equality. The dearth of elected women, at every level, is its own condemnation of the party structures that are the paved road of American democracy. It disappoints us greatly, that earlier this month, NOW has not made a new path. By failing to commend, or even comment on, the presidential candidacy of Cynthia McKinney and her Green Party running mate, Rosa Clemente, NOW is driving on the wrong side of history. We invite the National Organization for Women, and feminists everywhere, to support the Green Party and the McKinney/Clemente campaign. Come walk the walk with us, and make a new path. Sincerely, National Women's Caucus, Green Party of the United States Nan Garrett, Co-Chair Ginny Marie Case, Co-Chair National Women's Caucus Member Claudia Ellquist, National NOW Board member, 1990-94, participated in the drafting of this letter National Women's Caucus Green Party of the United States 1711 18th Street NW Washington, DC 20009 202-319-7191 202-319-7192 MORE INFORMATION Abortion and contraception: McKinney is a firm supporter of abortion rights, appearing on EMILY's List of pro-choice women. She has also supported federal funding for contraception and U.N. family planning programs. Quite a long statement on Women, Families and Children [. . .] * Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)* Supported funding child care, child health, & child housing. (Jul 1999) McKinney immediately challenged Georgia House rules requiring women to wear dresses by wearing slacks Green Party of the United States 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN Fax 202-319-7193 Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente 'Power to the People' Campaign for the White House http://votetruth08.com http://www.runcynthiarun.org Cynthia McKinney on video http://www.youtube.com/user/RunCynthiaRun http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RunCynthiaRun • Press conference, September 10 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5ivgS4asc • Speech in Denver, August 24: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPxgcjOjUEc • Music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx1NPlQjkqo
For more on the embarrassment that was the NOW PAC endorsement, see the Sept. 16th snapshot. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Team Nader notes:
Got $3?
Donate it now to Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
We're just $25,000 from reaching the $3 million mark.
Three million dollars for the year!
That might be peanuts to McCain and Obama.
But it's real nutrition for Nader/Gonzalez.
And it's literally three times what any other third party or independent campaign has raised so far this year.
October promises to be a month of surprises -- for both Obama and McCain -- but also for Nader/Gonzalez.
But before we deal with October, we have to finish off September.
And we need to reach our $3 million goal by midnight tonight.
So, we need 8,400 of you, our loyal supporters, to donate $3 now.
Why?
Because we've always liked Ralph. (pictured here in his hometown of Winsted, Connecticut at age 11.)
And because at midnight tonight we close our books for the month of September. And report to the FEC.
All the national pundits will ask -- hey Nader/Gonzalez.
How much money have you raised with one month left until the election?
And we can say -- $3 million.
Donate $3 dollars now -- or whatever you can afford.
If 8,400 of you do it, we'll meet our goal of $3 million by the end of tonight.
And we'll also meet our most recent Three Way Race fundraising goal of $150,000 by midnight tonight.
So, let's crank 'er up.
And get it done.
iraqhani hazaimehthe jordan timesjoseph gerthanna fifieldjomana karadshehcnn
mcclatchy newspaperscorinne reillylaith hammoudithe daily times
the new york timeserica goode
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday feminist post
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Boys Do Cry" went up Sunday morning:
They didn't think it was news when McCain did that. They pretend they think it's news to ridicule Palin. I've had it with this crap. Keep it up and I may not vote for Nader. I plan to vote for him. But I'm seeing a sexist pile on and I will only take so much more before I will end up voting for a Republican for the first time in a presidential election. Palin is competent. She does have experience. This sexist nonsense, this double standard, is something I will not tolerate. Right now I am just calling it out but all the Barack lovers using this 'strategy' should be aware it contributed to Hillary winning all the important primaries. It wasn't the only reason but it was one reason. You saw a competent woman being ripped apart by the Barack enthralled press for everything -- things she said and did and things she didn't say and do. I'm not putting up with that crap again.
Another point to remember, the polling they were so enthused on during the Democratic primaries usually had Barack doing better in those states than Hillary but that's not how the vote turned out, is it? It has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with ridiculing someone so much that people called felt they had to say the 'approved' (by the press) thing. They may have been too intimidated to tell the pollster that they were voting for Hillary but they weren't so intimidated that they didn't vote for her in the voting booth.
The Obama Cult should remember that there are no caucuses in the general election. They can't bully and intimidate with a secret ballot.
Also of interest, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Chris Martin's cold play" and "Kat's Korner: Hold Me Down." Kat's a great writer and those are wonderful reviews. I crossed Coldplay off my list after X & Y. It was obvious they had nothing to say but Martin was going to use as many words as possible to pretend otherwise.
"TV: One ticket gets a pass, the other doesn't" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
The most basic point to note is the SNL cast includes only two women this year. (An all time low and a featured player is not part of the cast.) One of the two women is pregnant and will be off shortly. That would be the one who plays Hillary. As we were told last April by a writer with SNL, the show believed they had comedy gold in skewering Hillary throughout the lead up to the general election even if she didn't get her party's nomination. So the female character they planned to utilize the most is played by one of the show's two female cast members and she'll be off the show shortly. That leaves Kristin Wing.
Sarah Palin was not a character SNL planned for last spring. She became a character they were required to do once John McCain picked her as his running mate. In that role, she is ripe for portrayals on SNL. With one of the two women already playing Hillary, that was obviously the role for Kristen.
But Kristen didn't get to play her, did she? At a time when women are less than one third of the cast and are too often cast in the role of the girlfriend (who gets little to no lines), there was excitement for Kristen (who is very well liked by past SNL cast members). This was going to provide her with the character, it was thought, that would elevate her up with Jane Curtain, Jan Hooks, Molly Shannon, Cheri Oteri and a few other female SNL cast members. (Gilda Radner remains in a superstar class by herself.) One of the first calls we got the day after the announcement was made about Palin was from one of SNL's big name former male cast members who said, "Watch and see. This is Kristen's moment."
And it damn well should have been.
But Tina Fey, who has her own damn sitcom that she acts on and writes, decided to be a glory hog and play the part. Among former SNL cast members, it's compared to Audrey Hepburn stealing Julie Andrews' role (My Fair Lady) and Barbra Streisand stealing Carol Channing's (Hello Dolly). It has created a lot of ill will because cast members remember how hard they had to fight each week for air time. It was Kristen's role and it was stolen from her.
Considering the faltering ratings (as a 70s SNL cast member pointed out to us) for 30 Rock, Fey could better spend her time trying to promote her own show, which so few watch, instead of poaching roles on another show. That's the cleaned up version of his profanity laced critique. Thing is, we agreed with every word he said.
A male cast member who found fame in the 90s expressed the belief that even if Kristen had sucked in the role, "So what? Do you know how many times we sucked?" The feeling was that Kristen was up for the role but, even if she wasn't, it was her role. He began referring to how Tina was known as "teacher's pet" and the worst suck up the series had ever had.
Fey's really damn lucky that the Emmy voting took place before she stole the role from Kristen. Looking around after her name was announced, we were surprised by how many were not applauding (we applauded).
The competition for air time at SNL is intense and Lorne (unlike Dick Ebersol) loves pitting performers against one another. He's always thought it keeps them 'on their toes' and maintains the 'high energy' needed for a live broadcast. But performers tend to view it differently, especially after they leave the show for other opportunities and find out that the normal work experience is not so cut throat. But as any performer will tell you (male or female), the females in the cast especially have to fight. So for Tina to swoop in and pluck the strongest female character of the fall from a cast member is appalling.
Appalling was the first skit she played Palin in. Some women claiming to be feminists have taken to posting that garbage online and insisting it's funny. It's not funny at all. It's nothing but stereotypes of women. Hillary's so bitter she's ripping apart a podium? She seethes over Palin's nomination? Uh, where in the public record is anything indicating that? (Outside of the crackpot and fact-free rants of Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.)
Women posting that awful skit on blogs in the name of 'sisterhood' should instead be asking why SNL portrayed two women as incapable? Palin was an airhead and Hillary's a jealous bitch. That's what the skit says. It's offensive as hell and does nothing but plaster over the 18 million cracks Hillary put in that glass ceiling.
Monday, September 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the US Secretary of Defense declares no withdrawal happening if Obama or McCain become president, Friday's non-debate and more.
Today Basil Adas (Gulf News) covers the continued efforts to of the White House and the puppet government in Baghdad to push through a treaty (circumventing the US Senate and the US Consitution, though the Iraqi Parliament will supposedly be able to give a thumbs up or thumbs down)masquerading as a SOFA. Adas reports that the issue of the immunity of US troops is something the US now signals they're willing to discuss according to the Kurdistan Alliance's Feriad Rawanduz who is hopeful that a treaty can be pushed through before the end of the year. Abdul Aziz al Hakim tells Adas that possibly their could be a judicial body comprised of both Iraqis and Americans who would rule on the actions of individual US service members. Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, is optimistic and claims the 'movement' is some sort of rebuke to Iran (from Iraq). Adas says the path after a treaty is drawn up is the Executive Board, then the National Security Council and the Iraqi Parliament. Finally, Adas notes: "Meanwhile, Defence Minister Abdul Qader Jasem Mohammad confirmed yesterday that Washington had offered a number of Beechcraft spy planes to bolster the Iraqi security forces." Iran's Press TV reports that rumors state the White House and the puppet have "settled their main differences over a controversial security agreement." Nothing was said about the treaty in Robert Wood's press briefing at the US State Dept today nor did Tony Fratto mention it in his White House press briefing today. US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has repeatedly blamed the Iranian government for the US failure to control the puppet and did so again in an interview with AP's John Daniszewski where he stated, "The evidence is pretty clear. It is the stream of public statements coming out of Tehran, political and clerical figures, all criticizing the agreement. So they are being very open about their interference."
From the treaty to provincial elections. Last week a bill passed the Parliament that is now awaits a thumbs up or down from the presidency council. On Sunday, Iraqi Christians took to the streets to protest the bill. AP noted that "hundreds of Christians staged protests" today in Iraq and those protests were probably most effective on the world stage. al-Maliki's shown no concern for the rights of any of the religious minorities in Iraq; however, the puppet knows that persecution of Christians won't play well with the Americans still supporting the Iraq War so he moved quickly to insist that he supports seats in Parliament being reserved for religious minorities. Sadly, some will play that development out as if it matters. It doesn't matter at all. Parliament voted on the bill, it is sent to the presidency council who will either sign off on it (making it law) or reject it. al-Maliki's way too late to impact anything unless the bill is rejected and the Parliament takes another shot at it. Reuters notes that al-Maliki's claiming Parliament can add things to the bill. Well that would actually make it a new bill and not what the full Parliament voted on. Reuters quotes Iraq's Chaladean Catholic leader, Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, stating, "I call on the presidency council not to approve the cancellation of article 50 of the provincial law which is an oppression against our presence and representation in Iraqi society." Shamiram Daniali (Assyria Times) declares, "Just when we thought things cannot possibly go any worse for the most persecuted population of Iraq, its indigenous people who are Assyrian Christians, we witnessed the biggest injustice yet by the Iraqi Parliament."
Staying with the weekend, Saturday AFP reported a Jalawla raid by the Iraqi police on the Kuridsh pesh merga and, citing Salah Koikha ("spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan"), 1 pesh merga member was killed during the raid. Reuters adds that 1 Iraqi police office officer died. The raid took place in Diyala Province where the pesh merga has prevented Iraqi forces from enterting certain areas such as Khanaquin (see last Monday's snapshot). India's Economic Times observes, "In a mirror image of Kirkuk, the Kurdish town of Khanaqin near the border with Iran that holds sizeable oil reserves is being exposed to ethnic tensions and rival territorial claims. The local Kurdish political leadership warns that the area could see an ethnic explosion, as they call for Khanaqin to join the adjoining autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of northern Iraq."
This morning Basil Adas (Gulf News) reported, "Meanwhile, Defence Minister Abdul Qader Jasem Mohammad confirmed yesterday that Washington had offered a number of Beechcraft spy planes to bolster the Iraqi security forces." Vanessa Gera (AP) reports that it was 12 planes and that Mohammed al-Askari, Defense Minister, has confirmed that "six King Air planes had been delivered and the other six were expected soon." In a possible related item, Aseel Kami (Reuters) reports Iraqi doctors can now pack heat thanks to a new decree from al-Maliki's cabinet.
Violence continued over the weekend and Sundays bombings gathered attention. Reporting on that (and the Iraqi Christians), Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) observed, "The violence and the protests showed the tensions that still exist in Iraq despite progress on security and political reconciliation. The blasts were particularly jarring because they came around sunset, when the markets are filled with people buying food for the evening meal that breaks their daylong fast during the holy month of Ramadan." Susman quoted bombing victim Hidar Abdulhussein stating, "We are innocent and peaceful people. Why are they targeting markets and shoppers? How were they able to get in? There are so many army and police checkpoints." Sam Dagher and Muhammed al-Obaidi (New York Times) cite Mizher Abed Hanoush who "echoed concerns voiced by many Iraqis in recent weeks about the fragility of the security situation in Baghdad. 'The situation is turning to the worse again, I do not know why,' he said." AP notes that the death toll from yesterday's bombings have climbed to at least 35. Turning to some of today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack which wounded five people, another which wounded three people and a third which wounded one person while a Mosul car bombing left nine people wounded "including 5 Peshmerga members of the PDK." Reuters notes 1 "Sunni Arab tribal leader died on Monday of wounds inflicted by a bomb attached to his car that exploded on Sunday in Mosul," an Iskandariya roadside bombing that claimed 1 life (three people wounded) and a Samarra roadside bombing that left Samarra Mayor Mahmoud Khalif (and four of his guards) wounded.
Shootings?
Reuters reports 2 brothers were shot dead in Mosul. Vanessa Gera (AP) reports Sheik Ahmed Salim was wounded in a Diyala Province shooting which also claimed the lives of his 2 sons.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.
Reuters notes, "A U.S. soldier was killed by small arms fire when his patrol was attacked in eastern Baghdad, the U.S. military said."
Meanwhile, speaking in DC at the National Defense University today, US Secretary Robert Gates joked about the run away defense budget, "Resources are scarce -- and yes, it is a sign I've already been at the Pentagon for too long to say that with a straight face when talking about a half trillion dollar base budget. Nonetheless, we still must set priorities and consider inescapable tradeoffs and opportunity costs." He further made clear that McCain or Obama, there's no withdrawal from Iraq happening: "In Iraq, the number of U.S. combat units in country will decline over time. About the only argument you hear now is about the pacing of the drawdown. Still, no matter who is elected president in November, there will continue to be some kind of American advisory and counter-terrorism effort in Iraq for years to come."
Moving into the US presidential race. Lynette Long is supporting the McCain - Palin ticket and Long is a feminist. Bill Clinton cited her last week on ABC's The View and yesterday on NBC's Meet The Press. At her site, Long compiles a list of reasons as to why Governor Palin is "Good For Women" which includes "keeping the issue of sexism in the United States of America front and center" and expanding "the definition of feminism." She also writes that following speaking at a McCain - Palin rally, "An executive member of the National Organization for Women contacted me the very next day. It was a friendly conversation tinted with sarcasm. 'How do you feel about your speech?' she asked me. 'Great.' I responded. 'Why shouldn't I feel great. I gave a speech about women's rights in front of a large audience. I highlighted the under-representation of women in every branch of government, the sexism in the media, and the unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party.' 'Where did you give your speech?' A rhetorical question deserved a quip answer, 'Before thirty-thousand Americans.' Republicans are Americans, aren't they. 'By speaking at a McCain-Palin event people will think you are endorsing McCain.' That's the point, I am endorsing McCain-Palin." We're starting with this because a number of members of the Cult of Obama are repeating the lie that many 'feminists' have. (And it will be 'feminists' until they correct that and other lies they've spread.) 'Sarah Palin wants rape victims to pay for their own rape kits!' Prove it. September 24th, FactCheck.org published their item on it and they found nothing to prove that rumor. No proof. That's how the Cult took down Hillary, they repeated lies and piled on more lies. Usually, the most effective lie was the one that turned a Hillary strength into a liability -- a strength Barack didn't posses. So when 'feminists' rush to tell you Sarah Palin hunted wolves from a helicopter, the appropriate response is, "You, ma'am, are a damn liar." And when they insist that Palin forced rape victims to pay for rape kits, the same reply should be followed by pointing to Barack's "Faith, Family, Values Tour" with headliner Doug Kmiec who is both a homophobe (and actively fighting to overturn marriage equality in California) and an anti-choice advocate who admitted to the New York Times last month that he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. If 'feminists' think that's feminism, they have more problems than lying.
As the press continues digging around Palin's past can someone help me out here? I thought during the Democratic Party primaries, when Barack kept suggesting that there was something evil in Hillary and Bill Clinton's tax returns, that Barack himself made a promise. There was nothing evil in their tax returns as was demonstrated when the Clintons released them. But didn't Barack promise to release his papers from when he was in the Illinois legislature. It was hard, he whined, because he didn't have that much money. Well he's sitting on a large wad of Wall St. money and surely, all these months later, the papers must have been compiled. Exactly when will he be making them public?
Violet Socks (Reclusive Leftist) explains, "Whenever women in a patriarchal society buck male opinion, there's hell to pay and they know it. Women in America really went out on a limb this year by backing Hillary in the face of withering derision from men (and from young women attempting to curry favor with men, consciously or not). Now they're making amends by piling on Palin. Ridiculing Sarah Palin as a moron -- which she clearly is not -- is de rigueur for everybody now in the Obama camp. It's their preferred sport. It's true that Palin is verbally awkward in interviews, but then, Obama himself is a man whose unscripted remarks are so ignorant and confused they defy belief. A teleprompter-deprived Obama thinks there are 57 states in the Union, believes Oregon is in the Great Lakes region, doesn't know which states border his own state of Illinois, and has no idea which Senate committees he's on." And, yes, in response to some e-mails today, the ridicule Palin faces is sexism and just because some self-proclaimed 'feminist' online wants to pretend Tina Fey's sexist (and, yes, bitchy) portrayal of Palin is nothing to fret over doesn't make it so. Staying with stupidity, the I-stalk-my-ex-and-trash-his-younger (and prettier)-new-partner 'feminist' Katha Pollitt who offered up that Palin was an "affirmative action babe." First, there's nothing wrong with affirmative action when someone is qualified. Second, when Katha's sold out feminism (as she freely admitted doing in April) for her hero Barack, maybe calling a candidate an "affirmative action" hire isn't the way to go because Barack's qualifications are non-existant. Katha wipes the sweat from underneath her many chins, hunkers down at the keyboard and comes up with one falsehood after another. At one point, she has to drag Carly Fiorina into it because Katha longs for a girlfight (longs for anything that will get her fat ass some attention but it's not 1996 and most stopped reading Katha long ago) so she rushes to type that Carly Fiornia was "ushered off the stage after she pointed out that Sarah Plin couldn't run a major corporation". Just as Katha has to insist that she was dumped by the one who got away because of his own problems (not the story everyone else heard), Katha has to omit a lot of reality when pretending to talk politics. CNN quoting Fiorina, "Well I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation, I don't think Barack Obama could run a major corporation, I don't think Joe Biden could run a major corporation." It must be very sad to be Katha Pollitt. It's even sadder to have to read her (no link to trash so no link to Katha). Long after the election's over, feminists will be addressing what went down and Liars for Barack like Katha will be the new Susan Brownmillers (and that's not anything to wish for, read Susan Faludi's Backlash). And since Katha crossed my line-you-do-not-cross (special needs children), let me toss out that each passing day finds Katha looking more and more like Bill Clinton's ugly brother. And for Katha's friend who sometimes e-mails, ask Katha to watch her words about special needs children before you beg me not to comment on Katha's Butt Ugly-ness. Meanwhile Mollie (Get Religion) explains how the press regularly distorts Palin's religion and, no surprise there, she just had to look to the Los Angeles Times.
Barack participated in a two-party presidential 'debate on Friday. Susan (Random Thoughts) offers this evaluation, "Thank God it's over. I call it a draw; both were equally boring, equally deceptive, equally unfit for the job of president." Klownhaus notes the Cult reaction and attempts to break it down for TalkLeft's Jeralyn: "Do you want to know what the difference between spinning and outright lying is? There isn't one." Patrick Martin (WSWS) found the debate underscored "that there is no choice in the 2008 presidential election within the confines of the official two-party system. Two candidates stood facing each other, espousing nearly identical positions in defense of Wall Street and American militarism which would, in any other country in the world, immediately identify them as representatives of the ultra-right. . . . Obama said that the lesson of Iraq was 'we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe, never hesitate to use military force'." Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer ("how do you see the lessons of Iraq, Senator Obama?"), Barack responded, "So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq." That was a good catch by Martin and one I honestly missed. After the question is asked by Lehrer, Barack takes six paragraphs to get that point (six paragraphs according to CNN transcript). Speaking to PBS' Ray Suarez following the debate (transcript and audio), presidential historian Michael Beschloss noted that "John McCain was repeatedly on the offensive and, to some extent, Obama was on the defensive. I was surprised by that. In terms of strategy, we'll see what works. But oftentimes in debates, if a candidate does go on the offensive, it does tend to work. That's what Kennedy did in 1960. It's what Ronald Reagan did in 1980. And it is what Bill Clinton did in 1992." PBS' Washington Week did two broadcast on Friday instead of their usual one. The first was pre-debate (standout there was the Washington Post's Dan Balz reporting from the debate location) and the second was a post-debate discussion. From the second broadcast:
Gwen Ifill: I was struck Michele that Barack Obama didn't seem to have much of an answer to that experience question.
Michelle Norris (NPR): I was surprised because it was basically John McCain's closing statement. He said that he had been involved in virtually every major national security crisis over the last 25 years and he said directly --
Gwen Ifill: He named half the leaders he'd met with.
Michele Norris: Yes. And he said I don't think Barack Obama has the experience or the judgment to be president and Jim Lehrer didn't say anything and basically let Barack Obama respond and the first thing he said was my father came from Kenya It was not directly dealing with that and I was very surprised by that.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader offers his thoughts regarding the 'debate':
It isn't who won. It's what won. Always ask after you watch a debate, not who won, but what lost and what won. Militarism won. Boondoggle star wars won. Corruption won. Corporate crime won. Bailouts for Wall Street won. Nuclear power won. Aggressive NATO won.
What Lost? Peace advocates lost. Consumers lost. Workers lost. Solar energy really lost. You ought to ask what they don't talk about, what they ignore, what they avoid. Both of these candidates are vying to get into the White House so they can take orders from their corporate paymasters. That's what it's all about. Corporate government or the people's government? That's why we're running: to make a people's government. When you ask what won you get a clear view that these two candidates are really afraid of challenging corporate power. It's our job to make them more afraid of the people than big business.
Video of Ralph's critique can be viewed here. KPFK broadcast the debates (click here for KPFK archives -- it's Friday under "Special Programming" at 5:03 p.m.) with commentary provided by, among others, Sonali Kolhatkar (host of Uprising) who stated, "I think Obama lost a lot of opportunities to strike back at McCain. Obama was on the defensive, as you said, Obama sounded like he was on the defensive and overall, I think, the debate was quite a bit more boring than I think most people thought." The only worthwhile guest not running for office was Chris Hedges who noted of the debate, "A lot of empty talk. It's pretty clear nothing's going to change in Iraq. Both candidates are going to ramp up the war in Afghanistan. Neither of them would address the real issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because their hands are tied by the Israeli lobby and the Israeli government." You can also laugh at many crackpots if you listen (Dr. Drew -- and add counting to the many skills Dr. Drew lacks). You can hear Sonali's co-host Ian Masters -- aka Babbling Brook or maybe just "Trainwreck" -- utilize non-stop sexism in his 'commentary' on this week's debate (the one that hasn't taken place). It wasn't just enough that he deploy SEXISM against Palin, after Cynthia McKinney was off the air he mocked her and called her "loopy" for her Florida analysis which, for the record, was correct. Ian Masters is a sexist idiot. It's pathetic that KPFK aired that embarrassment. It's linked for three reasons. 1) Audio for those who want to listen to the debate. 2) Cynthia McKinney. 3) Ralph Nader. Sonali asked Cynthia whether she supported the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq?
Cynthia McKinney: Absolutely, there's no way that -- I think the Democrats and the Republicans are on the wrong track when they say that we need to have more troops in Afghanistan. No. the people of Afghanistan don't want more missiles, more deaths, more bombs, more violence. They want peace. They want justice. They want self-determination. And that is what the United States ought to be offering the people of Afghanistan. And they want legitimate government which Ha mad Karzi does not represent.
Asked of differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, Cynthia replied:
Well of course I understand the Democratic Party very well after having served four years in the Georgia legislature as a Democrat and after having served twelve years in the United States Congress as a Democrat. What I can say is that voters never lose when they vote their values and that is really the message that we should be sending. And for voters who might be torn because of what the corporate press has told them to support -- the corporate political parties about the election of 2000, basically what has been told to voters has been told to them in an effort to prevent them from voting their values because if they voted their values and their values included peace then they would not vote Democrat or Republican, they would vote Green. . . . If their values were social justice, they would not vote Democrat or Republican, they would vote Green. And what the corporate press has failed to tell us is that the corporate political parties were engaged in the rankest form of disenfranchisement to the tune of one million Black people all over the United States being disenfranchised, being denied the right to have their votes counted in 2000. 78,000 of them were right there in the state of Florida and the Democratic Party did nothing to protect the right of their own voters, which the Black community represents, to have their votes counted. And then in 2004, the further insult was made by John Kerry who made a commitment, a recorded commitment, that we weren't going to see a repeat of 2000 where one million Black people had their votes not counted and then despite the fact that reports were coming in from Ohio of tremendous disenfranchisement in the Black community, John Kerry conceded the very next day.
Following McKinney, Aura Bogada (Free Speech Radio News) spoke to Ralph Nader.
Ralph Nader: I think something needs to be done for the millions of home owners who are going to be foreclosed. There are a lot of good ways to save them from losing their homes. The progressive economist Dean Baker in Washington suggests that they be allowed to rent their homes until the situation is stabilized -- rather than be evicted from their homes, they become tenants so that's one approach. But by and large the White House has not made the case that there needs to be a gigantic bailout and Congress is not investigating having a series hearing of deliberative hearings the way they did for a tiny bail out of Chrysler in 1979. So they haven't made the case and if there is to be a bailout they haven't shown what kind of bailout, how much is needed, should it be injection of capital, how do they evaluate the distressed assets, how are they going to pay for it, when are they going to pay for it. It's nothing but a blank check. $700 billion. George Bush wants. King George the IV, and that's it. This is dictatorial rule-making and unfortunately the Democrats with a few tweaks here and there are going to roll over.
The measure Ralph spoke of died in the House today. Offering a Green perspective, Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) writes about the topic (one attempt by the House to kill the bill doesn't mean it's over) and her suggestions include:
-Demand the absolute moratorium on foreclosures that some people have already envisioned might be needed. -Demand a moratorium on apartment evictions. -Encourage our friends and neighbors to truly evaluate their resources now, a few days or weeks before something happens: Make a network with 3 or 4 family members. Where would everyone go, who would they live with, if one by one they got kicked out of their homes? -Start thinking of laws to propose, or amendments to this bailout bill, that either punish landlords with residential property not rented out, or make squatting rules so simple that there will not be empty apartments rotting around the country, while some people are homeless and looking for a place to lie their head. -Start thinking about a way to put a moratorium on the enforcement of "keeping my neighborhood affluent laws" such as in the town I live in, where it is illegal to have a home with two front doors. Or, rules that only one family can live in a home. (Which should be well thought out, I realize. Because, they could be misapplied by bad landlords to overcrowd, or create burdens that make impossible parking/traffic situations if there is not an emergency.)
We're working that topic back to the presidential election via US House Rep Dennis Kucinich. On Democracy Now! today, he revealed that Barack Obama was said, by House Democrats not to want bankruptcy protection for the home owners:
Amy Goodman: Congressman Kucinich, can you explain how it is that the Democrats are in charge, yet the Democrats back down on their demand to give bankruptcy judges authority to alter the terms of mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, that Democrats also failed in their attempt to steer a portion of any government profits from the package to affordable housing programs?
Dennis Kucinich: Well, I mean, those are two of the most glaring deficiencies in this bill. And I would maintain there was never any intention to -- you know, well, many members of Congress had the intention of helping people who were in foreclosure. You know, this -- Wall Street doesn't want to do that. Wall Street wants to grab whatever change they can and equity that's left in these properties. So --
Amy Goodman: Right, but the Democrats are in charge of this.
Dennis Kucinich: Right. You know, I'll tell you something that we were told in our caucus. We were told that our presidential candidate, when the negotiations started at the White House, said that he didn't want this in this bill. Now, that's what we were told.
Amy Goodman: You were told that Barack Obama did not want this in the bill?
Dennis Kucinich: That he didn't want the bankruptcy provisions in the bill. Now, you know, that's what we were told. And I don't understand why he would say that, if he did say that. And I think that there is a--the fact that we didn't put bankruptcy provisions in, that actually we removed any hope for judges to do any loan modifications or any forbearance. There's no moratorium on mortgage foreclosures in here. So, who's getting --who's really getting helped by this bill? This is a bailout, pure and simple, of Wall Street interests who have been involved in speculation.
Hardly surprising considering where Barack's campaign money comes from. But see if that gets any more news traction than Biden's speaking error did last week. Barack and John got to stand on stage in a so-called presidential debate. Shut out were presidential candidates Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. Team Nader reports that Trevor Lyman is attempting to organize a debate in NYC for McKinney, Nader, Barr and Baldwin as well as (invited even if they don't show) Barack and McCain. Lyman explains: "Please join us for a third party candidate debate and money bomb (date to be announced as we approach 10,000 pledges mark, location in New York City). All of the major candidates will be invited to participate. The event will be broadcast via BreakTheMatrix.com and many others (details to come). Remember, all of America is on the Internet. Together we can break the media blackout on third party candidates. Be sure to tell your friends and family to tune in." And before any e-mails come in, no, all of America is not online.
iraq
the los angeles timestina susmanthe new york timessam daghermuhammed al-obaidi
shamiram daniali
basil adasjohn daniszewski
kpfkuprising radiosonali kolhatkar
Consider this my Monday feminist post. Feminists are women and men. So Isaiah clearly fits into the motif. If you're missing his point, Joe Biden cried in Pennsylvania last week, repeatedly, while speaking to a crowd. That does not mean Biden's not qualified or that any thing is wrong with him. But the issue is how the media avoided it.
By contrast, Hillary's eyes well up in New Hampshire and it's time to examine whether she's qualified (based on that moment) to be president, and was it sincere, and was it faked, and blah blah blah. This was not one day of coverage of even just one weeks. Months later, sexist columnists still referred to it in their writing. But Biden? Apparently, there is a different standard for men. Funny because I have certainly had my share of male patients who had difficulty expressing their feelings because they were taught (by family and society) that crying "was for girls."
"Ridiculing Palin to make up for the sin of liking Hillary" (Violet Socks, Reclusive Leftist):
What interests me about the Palin attacks is their vigor. To a large extent, it’s a continuation of the misogyny that is such an integral part of the Obama movement: from the campaign itself, from the media collaborators, from the male supporters, from the self-loathing young female supporters.
The new ingredient is those women who had the temerity earlier this year to sort-of admire Hillary and who are now desperately eager to get back in the good graces of the patriarchy. It helps that Sarah Palin is not the brilliant, mature stateswoman that Hillary is, but just saying that isn’t enough. No, Palin has to be ridiculed as a moron, a half-wit, a looney-tune, a mental toddler. Women vie to demonstrate the fullness and depth of their rejection of the cootie-encrusted bitch. Of course the patriarchy-enabling aspect of it is unconscious, as it usually is. This stuff is ingrained in us from birth.
I think we need to start feminism all over again.
They didn't think it was news when McCain did that. They pretend they think it's news to ridicule Palin. I've had it with this crap. Keep it up and I may not vote for Nader. I plan to vote for him. But I'm seeing a sexist pile on and I will only take so much more before I will end up voting for a Republican for the first time in a presidential election. Palin is competent. She does have experience. This sexist nonsense, this double standard, is something I will not tolerate. Right now I am just calling it out but all the Barack lovers using this 'strategy' should be aware it contributed to Hillary winning all the important primaries. It wasn't the only reason but it was one reason. You saw a competent woman being ripped apart by the Barack enthralled press for everything -- things she said and did and things she didn't say and do. I'm not putting up with that crap again.
Another point to remember, the polling they were so enthused on during the Democratic primaries usually had Barack doing better in those states than Hillary but that's not how the vote turned out, is it? It has nothing to do with racism. It has everything to do with ridiculing someone so much that people called felt they had to say the 'approved' (by the press) thing. They may have been too intimidated to tell the pollster that they were voting for Hillary but they weren't so intimidated that they didn't vote for her in the voting booth.
The Obama Cult should remember that there are no caucuses in the general election. They can't bully and intimidate with a secret ballot.
Also of interest, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Chris Martin's cold play" and "Kat's Korner: Hold Me Down." Kat's a great writer and those are wonderful reviews. I crossed Coldplay off my list after X & Y. It was obvious they had nothing to say but Martin was going to use as many words as possible to pretend otherwise.
"TV: One ticket gets a pass, the other doesn't" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
The most basic point to note is the SNL cast includes only two women this year. (An all time low and a featured player is not part of the cast.) One of the two women is pregnant and will be off shortly. That would be the one who plays Hillary. As we were told last April by a writer with SNL, the show believed they had comedy gold in skewering Hillary throughout the lead up to the general election even if she didn't get her party's nomination. So the female character they planned to utilize the most is played by one of the show's two female cast members and she'll be off the show shortly. That leaves Kristin Wing.
Sarah Palin was not a character SNL planned for last spring. She became a character they were required to do once John McCain picked her as his running mate. In that role, she is ripe for portrayals on SNL. With one of the two women already playing Hillary, that was obviously the role for Kristen.
But Kristen didn't get to play her, did she? At a time when women are less than one third of the cast and are too often cast in the role of the girlfriend (who gets little to no lines), there was excitement for Kristen (who is very well liked by past SNL cast members). This was going to provide her with the character, it was thought, that would elevate her up with Jane Curtain, Jan Hooks, Molly Shannon, Cheri Oteri and a few other female SNL cast members. (Gilda Radner remains in a superstar class by herself.) One of the first calls we got the day after the announcement was made about Palin was from one of SNL's big name former male cast members who said, "Watch and see. This is Kristen's moment."
And it damn well should have been.
But Tina Fey, who has her own damn sitcom that she acts on and writes, decided to be a glory hog and play the part. Among former SNL cast members, it's compared to Audrey Hepburn stealing Julie Andrews' role (My Fair Lady) and Barbra Streisand stealing Carol Channing's (Hello Dolly). It has created a lot of ill will because cast members remember how hard they had to fight each week for air time. It was Kristen's role and it was stolen from her.
Considering the faltering ratings (as a 70s SNL cast member pointed out to us) for 30 Rock, Fey could better spend her time trying to promote her own show, which so few watch, instead of poaching roles on another show. That's the cleaned up version of his profanity laced critique. Thing is, we agreed with every word he said.
A male cast member who found fame in the 90s expressed the belief that even if Kristen had sucked in the role, "So what? Do you know how many times we sucked?" The feeling was that Kristen was up for the role but, even if she wasn't, it was her role. He began referring to how Tina was known as "teacher's pet" and the worst suck up the series had ever had.
Fey's really damn lucky that the Emmy voting took place before she stole the role from Kristen. Looking around after her name was announced, we were surprised by how many were not applauding (we applauded).
The competition for air time at SNL is intense and Lorne (unlike Dick Ebersol) loves pitting performers against one another. He's always thought it keeps them 'on their toes' and maintains the 'high energy' needed for a live broadcast. But performers tend to view it differently, especially after they leave the show for other opportunities and find out that the normal work experience is not so cut throat. But as any performer will tell you (male or female), the females in the cast especially have to fight. So for Tina to swoop in and pluck the strongest female character of the fall from a cast member is appalling.
Appalling was the first skit she played Palin in. Some women claiming to be feminists have taken to posting that garbage online and insisting it's funny. It's not funny at all. It's nothing but stereotypes of women. Hillary's so bitter she's ripping apart a podium? She seethes over Palin's nomination? Uh, where in the public record is anything indicating that? (Outside of the crackpot and fact-free rants of Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.)
Women posting that awful skit on blogs in the name of 'sisterhood' should instead be asking why SNL portrayed two women as incapable? Palin was an airhead and Hillary's a jealous bitch. That's what the skit says. It's offensive as hell and does nothing but plaster over the 18 million cracks Hillary put in that glass ceiling.
It is offensive as hell and what's more offensive are the women who praise the Fey skits. To take out Sarah Palin, you have to attack women as unqualified. Fey grasps that and she plays into the stereotypes of women. It is not just about Palin. If it was just about Palin, it wouldn't get as many laughs. It taps into the deep hatred of women still embedded in this society and it takes a real gender self-hater like Tina Fey to front that crap.
She does not sound like Palin, she does not look like Palin. But listen to people tell you otherwise. It's because she's playing into that deep hatred, she's tapping into it and using it. I hope Tina Fey manages to find some new fans because, as I understand it, women were her sitcom's most loyal audience. I think they will be drifting off now. I also know that NBC isn't all that interested in carrying that show another year if it can't improve its ratings. (More importantly, the support at the top of the network is now gone.)
If the show continues to drag down Thursday night in the ratings, don't be surprised if Fey and her show are the target of sexist attacks. If that happens, Fey needs to find someone else to whine to because she's deployed sexism to go after Palin and there will not be a large number of people rushing to her defense.
Monday, September 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the US Secretary of Defense declares no withdrawal happening if Obama or McCain become president, Friday's non-debate and more.
Today Basil Adas (Gulf News) covers the continued efforts to of the White House and the puppet government in Baghdad to push through a treaty (circumventing the US Senate and the US Consitution, though the Iraqi Parliament will supposedly be able to give a thumbs up or thumbs down)masquerading as a SOFA. Adas reports that the issue of the immunity of US troops is something the US now signals they're willing to discuss according to the Kurdistan Alliance's Feriad Rawanduz who is hopeful that a treaty can be pushed through before the end of the year. Abdul Aziz al Hakim tells Adas that possibly their could be a judicial body comprised of both Iraqis and Americans who would rule on the actions of individual US service members. Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, is optimistic and claims the 'movement' is some sort of rebuke to Iran (from Iraq). Adas says the path after a treaty is drawn up is the Executive Board, then the National Security Council and the Iraqi Parliament. Finally, Adas notes: "Meanwhile, Defence Minister Abdul Qader Jasem Mohammad confirmed yesterday that Washington had offered a number of Beechcraft spy planes to bolster the Iraqi security forces." Iran's Press TV reports that rumors state the White House and the puppet have "settled their main differences over a controversial security agreement." Nothing was said about the treaty in Robert Wood's press briefing at the US State Dept today nor did Tony Fratto mention it in his White House press briefing today. US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has repeatedly blamed the Iranian government for the US failure to control the puppet and did so again in an interview with AP's John Daniszewski where he stated, "The evidence is pretty clear. It is the stream of public statements coming out of Tehran, political and clerical figures, all criticizing the agreement. So they are being very open about their interference."
From the treaty to provincial elections. Last week a bill passed the Parliament that is now awaits a thumbs up or down from the presidency council. On Sunday, Iraqi Christians took to the streets to protest the bill. AP noted that "hundreds of Christians staged protests" today in Iraq and those protests were probably most effective on the world stage. al-Maliki's shown no concern for the rights of any of the religious minorities in Iraq; however, the puppet knows that persecution of Christians won't play well with the Americans still supporting the Iraq War so he moved quickly to insist that he supports seats in Parliament being reserved for religious minorities. Sadly, some will play that development out as if it matters. It doesn't matter at all. Parliament voted on the bill, it is sent to the presidency council who will either sign off on it (making it law) or reject it. al-Maliki's way too late to impact anything unless the bill is rejected and the Parliament takes another shot at it. Reuters notes that al-Maliki's claiming Parliament can add things to the bill. Well that would actually make it a new bill and not what the full Parliament voted on. Reuters quotes Iraq's Chaladean Catholic leader, Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, stating, "I call on the presidency council not to approve the cancellation of article 50 of the provincial law which is an oppression against our presence and representation in Iraqi society." Shamiram Daniali (Assyria Times) declares, "Just when we thought things cannot possibly go any worse for the most persecuted population of Iraq, its indigenous people who are Assyrian Christians, we witnessed the biggest injustice yet by the Iraqi Parliament."
Staying with the weekend, Saturday AFP reported a Jalawla raid by the Iraqi police on the Kuridsh pesh merga and, citing Salah Koikha ("spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan"), 1 pesh merga member was killed during the raid. Reuters adds that 1 Iraqi police office officer died. The raid took place in Diyala Province where the pesh merga has prevented Iraqi forces from enterting certain areas such as Khanaquin (see last Monday's snapshot). India's Economic Times observes, "In a mirror image of Kirkuk, the Kurdish town of Khanaqin near the border with Iran that holds sizeable oil reserves is being exposed to ethnic tensions and rival territorial claims. The local Kurdish political leadership warns that the area could see an ethnic explosion, as they call for Khanaqin to join the adjoining autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of northern Iraq."
This morning Basil Adas (Gulf News) reported, "Meanwhile, Defence Minister Abdul Qader Jasem Mohammad confirmed yesterday that Washington had offered a number of Beechcraft spy planes to bolster the Iraqi security forces." Vanessa Gera (AP) reports that it was 12 planes and that Mohammed al-Askari, Defense Minister, has confirmed that "six King Air planes had been delivered and the other six were expected soon." In a possible related item, Aseel Kami (Reuters) reports Iraqi doctors can now pack heat thanks to a new decree from al-Maliki's cabinet.
Violence continued over the weekend and Sundays bombings gathered attention. Reporting on that (and the Iraqi Christians), Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) observed, "The violence and the protests showed the tensions that still exist in Iraq despite progress on security and political reconciliation. The blasts were particularly jarring because they came around sunset, when the markets are filled with people buying food for the evening meal that breaks their daylong fast during the holy month of Ramadan." Susman quoted bombing victim Hidar Abdulhussein stating, "We are innocent and peaceful people. Why are they targeting markets and shoppers? How were they able to get in? There are so many army and police checkpoints." Sam Dagher and Muhammed al-Obaidi (New York Times) cite Mizher Abed Hanoush who "echoed concerns voiced by many Iraqis in recent weeks about the fragility of the security situation in Baghdad. 'The situation is turning to the worse again, I do not know why,' he said." AP notes that the death toll from yesterday's bombings have climbed to at least 35. Turning to some of today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack which wounded five people, another which wounded three people and a third which wounded one person while a Mosul car bombing left nine people wounded "including 5 Peshmerga members of the PDK." Reuters notes 1 "Sunni Arab tribal leader died on Monday of wounds inflicted by a bomb attached to his car that exploded on Sunday in Mosul," an Iskandariya roadside bombing that claimed 1 life (three people wounded) and a Samarra roadside bombing that left Samarra Mayor Mahmoud Khalif (and four of his guards) wounded.
Shootings?
Reuters reports 2 brothers were shot dead in Mosul. Vanessa Gera (AP) reports Sheik Ahmed Salim was wounded in a Diyala Province shooting which also claimed the lives of his 2 sons.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.
Reuters notes, "A U.S. soldier was killed by small arms fire when his patrol was attacked in eastern Baghdad, the U.S. military said."
Meanwhile, speaking in DC at the National Defense University today, US Secretary Robert Gates joked about the run away defense budget, "Resources are scarce -- and yes, it is a sign I've already been at the Pentagon for too long to say that with a straight face when talking about a half trillion dollar base budget. Nonetheless, we still must set priorities and consider inescapable tradeoffs and opportunity costs." He further made clear that McCain or Obama, there's no withdrawal from Iraq happening: "In Iraq, the number of U.S. combat units in country will decline over time. About the only argument you hear now is about the pacing of the drawdown. Still, no matter who is elected president in November, there will continue to be some kind of American advisory and counter-terrorism effort in Iraq for years to come."
Moving into the US presidential race. Lynette Long is supporting the McCain - Palin ticket and Long is a feminist. Bill Clinton cited her last week on ABC's The View and yesterday on NBC's Meet The Press. At her site, Long compiles a list of reasons as to why Governor Palin is "Good For Women" which includes "keeping the issue of sexism in the United States of America front and center" and expanding "the definition of feminism." She also writes that following speaking at a McCain - Palin rally, "An executive member of the National Organization for Women contacted me the very next day. It was a friendly conversation tinted with sarcasm. 'How do you feel about your speech?' she asked me. 'Great.' I responded. 'Why shouldn't I feel great. I gave a speech about women's rights in front of a large audience. I highlighted the under-representation of women in every branch of government, the sexism in the media, and the unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party.' 'Where did you give your speech?' A rhetorical question deserved a quip answer, 'Before thirty-thousand Americans.' Republicans are Americans, aren't they. 'By speaking at a McCain-Palin event people will think you are endorsing McCain.' That's the point, I am endorsing McCain-Palin." We're starting with this because a number of members of the Cult of Obama are repeating the lie that many 'feminists' have. (And it will be 'feminists' until they correct that and other lies they've spread.) 'Sarah Palin wants rape victims to pay for their own rape kits!' Prove it. September 24th, FactCheck.org published their item on it and they found nothing to prove that rumor. No proof. That's how the Cult took down Hillary, they repeated lies and piled on more lies. Usually, the most effective lie was the one that turned a Hillary strength into a liability -- a strength Barack didn't posses. So when 'feminists' rush to tell you Sarah Palin hunted wolves from a helicopter, the appropriate response is, "You, ma'am, are a damn liar." And when they insist that Palin forced rape victims to pay for rape kits, the same reply should be followed by pointing to Barack's "Faith, Family, Values Tour" with headliner Doug Kmiec who is both a homophobe (and actively fighting to overturn marriage equality in California) and an anti-choice advocate who admitted to the New York Times last month that he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. If 'feminists' think that's feminism, they have more problems than lying.
As the press continues digging around Palin's past can someone help me out here? I thought during the Democratic Party primaries, when Barack kept suggesting that there was something evil in Hillary and Bill Clinton's tax returns, that Barack himself made a promise. There was nothing evil in their tax returns as was demonstrated when the Clintons released them. But didn't Barack promise to release his papers from when he was in the Illinois legislature. It was hard, he whined, because he didn't have that much money. Well he's sitting on a large wad of Wall St. money and surely, all these months later, the papers must have been compiled. Exactly when will he be making them public?
Violet Socks (Reclusive Leftist) explains, "Whenever women in a patriarchal society buck male opinion, there's hell to pay and they know it. Women in America really went out on a limb this year by backing Hillary in the face of withering derision from men (and from young women attempting to curry favor with men, consciously or not). Now they're making amends by piling on Palin. Ridiculing Sarah Palin as a moron -- which she clearly is not -- is de rigueur for everybody now in the Obama camp. It's their preferred sport. It's true that Palin is verbally awkward in interviews, but then, Obama himself is a man whose unscripted remarks are so ignorant and confused they defy belief. A teleprompter-deprived Obama thinks there are 57 states in the Union, believes Oregon is in the Great Lakes region, doesn't know which states border his own state of Illinois, and has no idea which Senate committees he's on." And, yes, in response to some e-mails today, the ridicule Palin faces is sexism and just because some self-proclaimed 'feminist' online wants to pretend Tina Fey's sexist (and, yes, bitchy) portrayal of Palin is nothing to fret over doesn't make it so. Staying with stupidity, the I-stalk-my-ex-and-trash-his-younger (and prettier)-new-partner 'feminist' Katha Pollitt who offered up that Palin was an "affirmative action babe." First, there's nothing wrong with affirmative action when someone is qualified. Second, when Katha's sold out feminism (as she freely admitted doing in April) for her hero Barack, maybe calling a candidate an "affirmative action" hire isn't the way to go because Barack's qualifications are non-existant. Katha wipes the sweat from underneath her many chins, hunkers down at the keyboard and comes up with one falsehood after another. At one point, she has to drag Carly Fiorina into it because Katha longs for a girlfight (longs for anything that will get her fat ass some attention but it's not 1996 and most stopped reading Katha long ago) so she rushes to type that Carly Fiornia was "ushered off the stage after she pointed out that Sarah Plin couldn't run a major corporation". Just as Katha has to insist that she was dumped by the one who got away because of his own problems (not the story everyone else heard), Katha has to omit a lot of reality when pretending to talk politics. CNN quoting Fiorina, "Well I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation, I don't think Barack Obama could run a major corporation, I don't think Joe Biden could run a major corporation." It must be very sad to be Katha Pollitt. It's even sadder to have to read her (no link to trash so no link to Katha). Long after the election's over, feminists will be addressing what went down and Liars for Barack like Katha will be the new Susan Brownmillers (and that's not anything to wish for, read Susan Faludi's Backlash). And since Katha crossed my line-you-do-not-cross (special needs children), let me toss out that each passing day finds Katha looking more and more like Bill Clinton's ugly brother. And for Katha's friend who sometimes e-mails, ask Katha to watch her words about special needs children before you beg me not to comment on Katha's Butt Ugly-ness. Meanwhile Mollie (Get Religion) explains how the press regularly distorts Palin's religion and, no surprise there, she just had to look to the Los Angeles Times.
Barack participated in a two-party presidential 'debate on Friday. Susan (Random Thoughts) offers this evaluation, "Thank God it's over. I call it a draw; both were equally boring, equally deceptive, equally unfit for the job of president." Klownhaus notes the Cult reaction and attempts to break it down for TalkLeft's Jeralyn: "Do you want to know what the difference between spinning and outright lying is? There isn't one." Patrick Martin (WSWS) found the debate underscored "that there is no choice in the 2008 presidential election within the confines of the official two-party system. Two candidates stood facing each other, espousing nearly identical positions in defense of Wall Street and American militarism which would, in any other country in the world, immediately identify them as representatives of the ultra-right. . . . Obama said that the lesson of Iraq was 'we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe, never hesitate to use military force'." Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer ("how do you see the lessons of Iraq, Senator Obama?"), Barack responded, "So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq." That was a good catch by Martin and one I honestly missed. After the question is asked by Lehrer, Barack takes six paragraphs to get that point (six paragraphs according to CNN transcript). Speaking to PBS' Ray Suarez following the debate (transcript and audio), presidential historian Michael Beschloss noted that "John McCain was repeatedly on the offensive and, to some extent, Obama was on the defensive. I was surprised by that. In terms of strategy, we'll see what works. But oftentimes in debates, if a candidate does go on the offensive, it does tend to work. That's what Kennedy did in 1960. It's what Ronald Reagan did in 1980. And it is what Bill Clinton did in 1992." PBS' Washington Week did two broadcast on Friday instead of their usual one. The first was pre-debate (standout there was the Washington Post's Dan Balz reporting from the debate location) and the second was a post-debate discussion. From the second broadcast:
Gwen Ifill: I was struck Michele that Barack Obama didn't seem to have much of an answer to that experience question.
Michelle Norris (NPR): I was surprised because it was basically John McCain's closing statement. He said that he had been involved in virtually every major national security crisis over the last 25 years and he said directly --
Gwen Ifill: He named half the leaders he'd met with.
Michele Norris: Yes. And he said I don't think Barack Obama has the experience or the judgment to be president and Jim Lehrer didn't say anything and basically let Barack Obama respond and the first thing he said was my father came from Kenya It was not directly dealing with that and I was very surprised by that.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader offers his thoughts regarding the 'debate':
It isn't who won. It's what won. Always ask after you watch a debate, not who won, but what lost and what won. Militarism won. Boondoggle star wars won. Corruption won. Corporate crime won. Bailouts for Wall Street won. Nuclear power won. Aggressive NATO won.
What Lost? Peace advocates lost. Consumers lost. Workers lost. Solar energy really lost. You ought to ask what they don't talk about, what they ignore, what they avoid. Both of these candidates are vying to get into the White House so they can take orders from their corporate paymasters. That's what it's all about. Corporate government or the people's government? That's why we're running: to make a people's government. When you ask what won you get a clear view that these two candidates are really afraid of challenging corporate power. It's our job to make them more afraid of the people than big business.
Video of Ralph's critique can be viewed here. KPFK broadcast the debates (click here for KPFK archives -- it's Friday under "Special Programming" at 5:03 p.m.) with commentary provided by, among others, Sonali Kolhatkar (host of Uprising) who stated, "I think Obama lost a lot of opportunities to strike back at McCain. Obama was on the defensive, as you said, Obama sounded like he was on the defensive and overall, I think, the debate was quite a bit more boring than I think most people thought." The only worthwhile guest not running for office was Chris Hedges who noted of the debate, "A lot of empty talk. It's pretty clear nothing's going to change in Iraq. Both candidates are going to ramp up the war in Afghanistan. Neither of them would address the real issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because their hands are tied by the Israeli lobby and the Israeli government." You can also laugh at many crackpots if you listen (Dr. Drew -- and add counting to the many skills Dr. Drew lacks). You can hear Sonali's co-host Ian Masters -- aka Babbling Brook or maybe just "Trainwreck" -- utilize non-stop sexism in his 'commentary' on this week's debate (the one that hasn't taken place). It wasn't just enough that he deploy SEXISM against Palin, after Cynthia McKinney was off the air he mocked her and called her "loopy" for her Florida analysis which, for the record, was correct. Ian Masters is a sexist idiot. It's pathetic that KPFK aired that embarrassment. It's linked for three reasons. 1) Audio for those who want to listen to the debate. 2) Cynthia McKinney. 3) Ralph Nader. Sonali asked Cynthia whether she supported the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq?
Cynthia McKinney: Absolutely, there's no way that -- I think the Democrats and the Republicans are on the wrong track when they say that we need to have more troops in Afghanistan. No. the people of Afghanistan don't want more missiles, more deaths, more bombs, more violence. They want peace. They want justice. They want self-determination. And that is what the United States ought to be offering the people of Afghanistan. And they want legitimate government which Ha mad Karzi does not represent.
Asked of differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, Cynthia replied:
Well of course I understand the Democratic Party very well after having served four years in the Georgia legislature as a Democrat and after having served twelve years in the United States Congress as a Democrat. What I can say is that voters never lose when they vote their values and that is really the message that we should be sending. And for voters who might be torn because of what the corporate press has told them to support -- the corporate political parties about the election of 2000, basically what has been told to voters has been told to them in an effort to prevent them from voting their values because if they voted their values and their values included peace then they would not vote Democrat or Republican, they would vote Green. . . . If their values were social justice, they would not vote Democrat or Republican, they would vote Green. And what the corporate press has failed to tell us is that the corporate political parties were engaged in the rankest form of disenfranchisement to the tune of one million Black people all over the United States being disenfranchised, being denied the right to have their votes counted in 2000. 78,000 of them were right there in the state of Florida and the Democratic Party did nothing to protect the right of their own voters, which the Black community represents, to have their votes counted. And then in 2004, the further insult was made by John Kerry who made a commitment, a recorded commitment, that we weren't going to see a repeat of 2000 where one million Black people had their votes not counted and then despite the fact that reports were coming in from Ohio of tremendous disenfranchisement in the Black community, John Kerry conceded the very next day.
Following McKinney, Aura Bogada (Free Speech Radio News) spoke to Ralph Nader.
Ralph Nader: I think something needs to be done for the millions of home owners who are going to be foreclosed. There are a lot of good ways to save them from losing their homes. The progressive economist Dean Baker in Washington suggests that they be allowed to rent their homes until the situation is stabilized -- rather than be evicted from their homes, they become tenants so that's one approach. But by and large the White House has not made the case that there needs to be a gigantic bailout and Congress is not investigating having a series hearing of deliberative hearings the way they did for a tiny bail out of Chrysler in 1979. So they haven't made the case and if there is to be a bailout they haven't shown what kind of bailout, how much is needed, should it be injection of capital, how do they evaluate the distressed assets, how are they going to pay for it, when are they going to pay for it. It's nothing but a blank check. $700 billion. George Bush wants. King George the IV, and that's it. This is dictatorial rule-making and unfortunately the Democrats with a few tweaks here and there are going to roll over.
The measure Ralph spoke of died in the House today. Offering a Green perspective, Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) writes about the topic (one attempt by the House to kill the bill doesn't mean it's over) and her suggestions include:
-Demand the absolute moratorium on foreclosures that some people have already envisioned might be needed. -Demand a moratorium on apartment evictions. -Encourage our friends and neighbors to truly evaluate their resources now, a few days or weeks before something happens: Make a network with 3 or 4 family members. Where would everyone go, who would they live with, if one by one they got kicked out of their homes? -Start thinking of laws to propose, or amendments to this bailout bill, that either punish landlords with residential property not rented out, or make squatting rules so simple that there will not be empty apartments rotting around the country, while some people are homeless and looking for a place to lie their head. -Start thinking about a way to put a moratorium on the enforcement of "keeping my neighborhood affluent laws" such as in the town I live in, where it is illegal to have a home with two front doors. Or, rules that only one family can live in a home. (Which should be well thought out, I realize. Because, they could be misapplied by bad landlords to overcrowd, or create burdens that make impossible parking/traffic situations if there is not an emergency.)
We're working that topic back to the presidential election via US House Rep Dennis Kucinich. On Democracy Now! today, he revealed that Barack Obama was said, by House Democrats not to want bankruptcy protection for the home owners:
Amy Goodman: Congressman Kucinich, can you explain how it is that the Democrats are in charge, yet the Democrats back down on their demand to give bankruptcy judges authority to alter the terms of mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, that Democrats also failed in their attempt to steer a portion of any government profits from the package to affordable housing programs?
Dennis Kucinich: Well, I mean, those are two of the most glaring deficiencies in this bill. And I would maintain there was never any intention to -- you know, well, many members of Congress had the intention of helping people who were in foreclosure. You know, this -- Wall Street doesn't want to do that. Wall Street wants to grab whatever change they can and equity that's left in these properties. So --
Amy Goodman: Right, but the Democrats are in charge of this.
Dennis Kucinich: Right. You know, I'll tell you something that we were told in our caucus. We were told that our presidential candidate, when the negotiations started at the White House, said that he didn't want this in this bill. Now, that's what we were told.
Amy Goodman: You were told that Barack Obama did not want this in the bill?
Dennis Kucinich: That he didn't want the bankruptcy provisions in the bill. Now, you know, that's what we were told. And I don't understand why he would say that, if he did say that. And I think that there is a--the fact that we didn't put bankruptcy provisions in, that actually we removed any hope for judges to do any loan modifications or any forbearance. There's no moratorium on mortgage foreclosures in here. So, who's getting --who's really getting helped by this bill? This is a bailout, pure and simple, of Wall Street interests who have been involved in speculation.
Hardly surprising considering where Barack's campaign money comes from. But see if that gets any more news traction than Biden's speaking error did last week. Barack and John got to stand on stage in a so-called presidential debate. Shut out were presidential candidates Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. Team Nader reports that Trevor Lyman is attempting to organize a debate in NYC for McKinney, Nader, Barr and Baldwin as well as (invited even if they don't show) Barack and McCain. Lyman explains: "Please join us for a third party candidate debate and money bomb (date to be announced as we approach 10,000 pledges mark, location in New York City). All of the major candidates will be invited to participate. The event will be broadcast via BreakTheMatrix.com and many others (details to come). Remember, all of America is on the Internet. Together we can break the media blackout on third party candidates. Be sure to tell your friends and family to tune in." And before any e-mails come in, no, all of America is not online.
iraq
the los angeles timestina susmanthe new york timessam daghermuhammed al-obaidi
shamiram daniali
basil adasjohn daniszewski
kpfkuprising radiosonali kolhatkar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)