"The Water Line: Morality, the Rule of Law, and Leadership II " (Dennis Loo, World Can't Wait):
No mass sentiment, no matter how widespread and strongly felt, can find concrete and effective expression unless it is organized, focused and led. People who blame the American people for their apathy and conclude that the public is principally (or wholly) at fault for Bush and Cheney’s reign and our current crises fail to recognize that all societies (and any group of any kind) need leadership.
The adage, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow” misses a critical fact. For the people to lead, that is, for the unusual circumstance to occur of the public by-passing the existing leaders and forcing the existing leaders to abide by the public’s wishes, leaders from among the public’s ranks must step forward as new and substitute leaders leading the rest of the people. To expect otherwise would be like asking an arrow whose point has been broken off to stick to a target.
If mass sentiment remains unfocused and unorganized, and the existing government leaders refuse to abide by the popular will, the government can effectively prevent the popular will from being done. In 2006 the American electorate swept the GOP majority out of Congress because the people wanted the Iraq war to end and the Bush White House held to account. The Democratic controlled Congress not only didn’t do these things, they actually gave Bush more money for the illegitimate wars than Bush asked for and legalized after the fact the felonious crimes Bush had been caught committing!
What can stop political leaders from refusing to abide by public sentiment when the mass media refuses to reveal the full and true nature of popular sentiment and act as flacks for the political leadership class?
That's Dennis Loo and that's the second part of a three-part essay. I highlighted him last night so I'm calling this "Dennis Loo II." Again, I don't agree with the above. I understand what he's saying; but I think the people are at fault.
I do not think that we had a more aware public going into 2008 than we'd seen since the sixties. People were talking about who was making money off the war and other very real issues. But what happened?
They went for Barack. They went for him because their 'leaders' told them to. They went for him because their 'leaders' lied. I mean, look at the ridiculous FAIR. At least once a month in 2008, Ava and C.I. were explaining to you how that ridiculous organiation wasn't following its own guidelines. Now, yes, Ava and C.I. are highly intelligent; however, this wasn't one incident they picked up on. These were repeated incidents. That FAIR wasn't following the guidelines and standards they set for others should have been obvious to all.
It shouldn't have taken C.I. calling them out for not protesting Ralph Nader being shut out of the debates (as they'd done in election cycles prior) for them to finally launch a lame action alert (in complete response to C.I. laying it out with links to their past work on the subject).
Non-FAIR, another example. Do we believe in public financing? If we are left, yes, we do. Barack kicked it to the curb. How do you forget that? You don't.
The public allowed themselves to be lied to. If you've been drilled for years to be a media critic over and over, you should be able to do that when your beggar media fails you. But now we have another War Hawk and one who also doesn't listen to the people.
Great. We're not back where we started from, we're worse off and the reason is because huge sections of the population are afraid to criticque Barack. That includes a noted writer who is a friend of C.I.'s and had the best critique of Barack. But waited and waited and waited to offer it and already has another but feels that there needs to be a pause (even though it's been months) or else it will be non-stop attacks.
People are afraid to speak the truth. Imagine if we have another 9-11. Right now, without one, people are afraid to speak the truth.
So, I'm sorry Dennis Loo, I love your essays and am enjoying the series but people need to take accountability.
Okay tonight is a theme post. Betty wrote about "Stevie Nicks" Monday and I got that post assigned. (We all had a post assigned.)
I think Betty really captured Stevie in her post. The music is elemental and romantic and when she spoke of a storm moving in and how she and her brother would open the windows and blast Stevie, it really captured what makes Stevie's music so alive.
For some longterm fans, the question is Stevie solo or with the Mac?
I say solo. I wouldn't have said that before. But on albums, I say solo.
I think Buckingham's given far too much control over the Mac albums. I think he betrayed Stevie by speeding her voice up on the last studio album. I also think he tends to get all his garbage on an album and others (now just Stevie) have to fight for space.
With Christine McVie gone, it's becom especially irritating. Christine is a talented songwriter and singer. But the thing I notice most is how with her gone, the background vocals aren't worth noting.
I prefer Stevie on CD solo. Even at her worst, I'd prefer her solo. (Worst? I hated Street Angel for years.) I hope she does another solo album before the decade ends. There isn't a great deal of time. She and the Mac are either just starting a tour or about to so it's doubtful she'll do another CD.
That's actually very depressing, grasping that a decade's almost gone by and we only got one solo album from Stevie.
An American original and one of a kind.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama is expected to announce a 'plan' for Iraq by week's end, a manhunt is underweigh in Iraq, Jack Straw faces intense criticism, the non-withdrawal 'withdrawal,' and more.
Appearing on NBC's Today Show this morning, US Vice President Joe Biden spoke with Matt Lauer and the issue of Iraq was raised at the end of the exchange when Lauer brought up the reports that US President Barack Obama would be announcing a draw down plan for some troops which would be done over a nineteen-month period:
Matt Lauer: Now you guys ran on a pledge to withdraw all US combat troops within 16 months. I'm not going to split hairs on the three months, I don't think anybody will, but I want to get these troop numbers down. That would not be a withdrawal of all combat troops, would it?
Joe Biden: Look, the president's going to make an announcement on Friday -- I believe it's Friday -- or very soon on this very point, Matt. And I'd rather have him speak to that and he'll speak to it in detail. I think the American public will be -- understand exactly what we're doing and they will be pleased.
Matt Lauer: But are we going -- are you keeping a campaign promise or breaking a campaign promise?
Joe Biden: We're keeping a campaign committment.
The question was necessary because, as Ross Colvin (Reuters) notes, "When former President George W. Bush addressed the U.S. Congress in January 2008 he gave three pages of his speech to the Iraq war. On Tuesday night his successor Barack Obama spoke a single sentence." That was Barack's 52-minute speech last night, where he yet again made clear that the Iraq War isn't a topic he wants to be pinned down on despite the White House running to reporters all yesterday insisting Iraq would be part of the speech. And his inattention to the topic is being registering. Gordon Lubold and Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) report, "One Iraqi official says the US and Iraq have not yet begun negotiations on the size of the residual force, adding that the Obama administration, currently focused on the American economy and ramping up operations in Afghanistan, was far less engaged with Iraq policy than the previous administration." Yesterday on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, David Martin reported on the expected announcements regarding the draw down in Iraq, noting the speculation of insiders that Barack has elected to go with a 19-month timeline to withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq.David Martin: But there would still be tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, perhaps as many as 50,000. They would be formed into so-called 'training and assistance' brigades to support the Iraqi army and police but they would still be capable of conducting combat operations and would be able to call in strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft.
And, yes, there would be. ABC News' Martha Raddatz was raising that issue back in January on PBS' Washington Week -- Ava and I noted it here:Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws --Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq.Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely.This morning, Elisabeth Bumiller and Peter Baker (New York Times) reported that "defense officials said they did not know how many combat troops would stay behind in new missions as trainers, advisers or counterterrorism forces, at least some of whom would still be effectively in combat roles. Military planners have said that in order to meet withdrawal deadlines, they would reassign some combat troops to training and support of the Iraqis, even though the troops would still be armed and go on combat patrols with their Iraqi counterparts." Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut (Washington Post) note that the possible Friday announcement could take place in North Carolina (Barack will be visiting bases) and that the 19-months being tossed around is "three months later than promised during his campaign". Depending on the news outlet, the estimates for the number of US troops currently on the ground in Iraq goes from approximately 142,000 (Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut as well as David Martin go with that figure) to 147,000 (especially popular with AFP and Scottish outlets). (Yes, the Pentagon should have a running count to clear the issue up.) Matt Lauer can decide he's not going to make an issue out of it -- as he demonstrated -- but he's a morning talk show host. He's not been elected by anyone to speak on behalf of Americans. He may be fine and dandy with three extra months (that will not even lead to a withdrawal) but let's be clear that three months could mean 44 dead Americans. That is the number of US service members who have died in Iraq in the last three months (February isn't done yet so the number could rise). Matt's fond of taking Jack along on interviews with Barack. If Jack Lauer were over in Iraq, possibly the thought of 44 more deaths might be of interest to Matt. You don't play the lotto with human lives. So, yes, three months do matter.
Military Families Speak Out's Elaine Brower (writing at World Can't Wait) has a son who is on his third tour of Iraq. It matters.
This is wrong. The occupation is wrong, and those of us in the anti-war movement have been screaming this at the top of our lungs for the last 6 years, even before the first boots were on the ground in Iraq. Even before the campaign of "shock and awe" even lit up the skies above innocent people. What the hell are we thinking?
Because it isn't Bush and Cheney, those loathsome characters we so love to hate that isn't doing this, it's OK? That because it isn't Don Rumsfeld, that warmongering war criminal of a pig, it's OK? Because the face of the occupation is now Barack Obama it's OK?
Well I have a newsflash, it's NOT OK! We have in our infinite wisdom killed over 1 million Iraqis, displaced 2 million, destroyed hospitals, mosques, historical sites, homes, agricultural, stolen natural resources, orphaned children, made widows, killed entire families, sent over 4,200 soldiers to their deaths, severly wounded another 50,000, not including those who have PTSD and are committing suicide in record-breaking amounts, and we think we shouldn't be out in the streets demanding an end to this now? Why is that?
It also matter that Barack left an impression with the American people as to his 'plan' -- left that impression throughout his primary and general campaigns (which is what Matt was trying to get to on Today this morning). Thomas E. Ricks (author of The Gamble) appeared on CBS' Washington Unplugged (click here for just the Ricks' segment) two Fridays ago and explained how Barack's 'promise' came across to Americans:Thomas E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what they heard was 'I will have no American troops dying in 16 months.' But it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015. Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong time to take troops out."
Barack deliberately misled the American people -- a large faction was willing to be misled and wanted to be. Equally true is that, when pressed (he was rarely pressed), he would admit that he would not just stop withdrawing troops but reverse the direction (send more troops back in) depending upon 'the situation on the ground.' That was his policy -- outlined best to the New York Times -- in the transcript of the interview, not the bad write up and it was covered at length in the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- and it can be boiled down as: "My concerns is if you draw down in response too rapidly, draw down in response to American political pressure, instead of as the Iraqis take over area, then there are other ares of Iraq that don't have a government presence that desperately need one, and rather than bring our forces home we should be moving into those areas. When we have all of Iraq with a security presence, that is significant enough to make a difference, then we can start drawing down . . . " And that quote? It's actually from Col Thomas Hammes (retired) and he explained the 'plan' on The NewsHour (PBS -- link has video and text) back in December 23, 2005. No, there's not a bit of difference between Barack and Bush.
And that was noticeable in November 2007. Tom Hayden showed up making like Helen Morgan and singing "The Man I Love" over the write-up Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did. Then, when the transcript was pointed out to him, he was a bit more somber and had one of those You-listen-to-me-Barack moments. (They fade quickly. And Billie Holiday also recorded a strong version of "The Man I Love," I just find it more apt to compare Tom-Tom to Helen Morgan.) It was always there: The bases around -- but not in -- Iraq, the need for a 'residual presence' even after 'withdrawal,' admitting he'd send US troops back into Iraq in the midst of 'withdrawal' dickering over terms to maintain 'combat troops' had been removed -- in fact, let's provide an example of that:
Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions. NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces? Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that. NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?
Again, it was known. From that day's snapshot:
Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over."
So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train (the police0 and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.
If any of the above surprises you, you can scream at the media (and should) but it's also time for you to take a little accountability for your own willful ignorance. Moving to some calling out the nonsense today and starting with Chris Floyd (via CounterPunch) who was one of the few calling it out when it mattered:
It would be surperflous in us to point out that a plan to "end" a war which includes the continued garrisoning of up to 50,000 troops in a hostile land is, in reality, a continuation of that war, not its cessation. To produce such a plan and claim that it "ends" a war is the precise equivalent of, say, relieving one's bladder on the back of one's neighbor and telling him that the liquid is actually life-giving rain.
But this is exactly what we are going to get from the Obama Administration in Iraq. Word has now come from on high -- that is, from "senior administration officials" using "respectable newspapers" as a wholly uncritical conduit for government spin -- that President Obama has reached a grand compromise with his generals (or rather, the generals and Pentagon poobahs he has inherited -- and eagerly retained -- from George W. Bush) on a plan to withdraw some American troops from the country that the United States destroyed in an unprovoked war of aggression.
Meanwhile John Walsh (Dissident Voice) notes how cozy and familiar with the right-wing Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher of The Nation magazine) and Leslie Cagan (pension drawer in retirement pretending to lead an 'anti-war' movement):
Vanden Heuvel's most recent piece in The Nation runs under a title in the form of a query, "Obama's War?" Whose war does she think it is anyway? Even the mainstream media calls it Obama's war -- sans question mark. Her piece ran shortly after Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and almost a month after both Afghan and Pakistani civilians were first bombed at Obama's orders. She concludes her piece, after citing the deployment of additional troops, "Up to this point the Afghan war belonged to George W. Bush, but Obama's escalation threatens to make it his own. There's still time to change direction. President Obama don't make this your war"! (Emphasis mine. If escalation of the AfPak war (the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan) only "threatens" to make the war Obama's, what will it take to give him ownership?)
Having supported Obama during the election when he was very clear about his coming Crusade in Afghanistan and having made no demands in exchange for their support, the liberals are now reduced, their leverage gone, to begging for a change in course. Pity, pathos, disgust or a sense of betrayal -- it is hard to know what to feel when one encounters this stuff.
Similarly Cagan's United for Peace and Justice, dominated by the "Progressive" Democrats of America ("P"DA) and the "Communist" Party of the U.S.A ("C"PUSA) -- more or less the same thing, not because "P"DA is radical but because the "C"PUSA is not -- has been all too silent on Obama's AfPak War. As a result there have been discordant rumblings among the rank and file about UFPJ's failure to call a national demonstration against the wars flaring from Iraq to Pakistan and refusal to join the only one called, that by ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) for March 21.
The March 21st action around the corner and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Meanwhile Michael Collins (Dissident Voice) asks why aren't the Iraqi people consulted on this issue: "Who asked the Iraqi people about the withdrawal schedule? As the self-proclaimed proponents for democracy and human rights, shouldn't the United States inquire as to the will of the people before initiating any policy changes? . . . Relying on the ever-shifting positions of a very unpopular Iraqi government is useless in assessing the will of the Iraqi people. The only way to determine their will is through a national election."
No democracy, no real justice system. The latter is being found out by Mohammad al-Daini, a Sunni member of the Iraqi Parliament. As Marc Santora (New York Times) reported this morning, al-Daini was publicly accused Sunday of various crimes including bombing Parliament in 2007 and MP Saleh al-Mulaq is calling for "a full investigation fo the Shiite leaders of government for their links to violence" and states, "Let's begin a real effort to disclose information about those involved in killings and sectarian displacement. Then we will discover that there are leaders inside the political process who took part in these events." Ahmed Rasheed and Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) report that al-Daini was due to land in Jordan this morning; however, al-Maliki's government ordered that the plane return to Iraq which it did. The reporters also note that Parliament voted to lift his legal immunity (as an MP, he did have legal immunity). Tina Susman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report that "Daini's whereabouts remain a mystery as the political clamor over his alleged crimes, everything from murder to gold heists, escalates and threatens to rev up sectarian polarization in parliament. The plainclothes security guard who escorted Daini, a Sunni Arab politician, off the plane was part of his personal security contingent, as were the security officers who drove away with him shortly before a nationwide manhunt began."
In other news . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left six people injured, a Mosul car bombing that resulted in the death of the driver and a Mosul grenade attack that injured two people.
Shootings?
Reuters notes that Tuesday night in Kirkuk "a prominent business man" was shot dead.
Kidnappings?
Reuters notes that "three employees of Iraq's state-run Northern Oil Company' and one other person were kidnapped in Rashad today.
Yesterday's snapshot noted the death of a US soldier. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) was the first reporter with a US paper to file on it (as Ruth pointed out last night): "A U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter were killed today and three American troops were injured when gunmen, who officials said wore Iraqi police uniforms, fired on them in the northern city of Mosul. It was the third time since November that men in Iraqi security forces uniforms have attacked American forces in Nineveh province." Those waking up with today's New York Times could read Marc Santora's print article on the incident where he sketched out what was known and what was supsected. The Kansas City Star has to run an article by Brian Murphy (AP) because, despite being a McClatchy outlet, there was no McClatchy story to carry. Meanwhile Matthew D. LePlante (Salt Lake Tribune) reports the passing of a local resident:
The students in Micheal Alleman's class didn't take kindly to the news.It was the middle of the school year, and the popular fifth-grade teacher was leaving his career as an educator to join the Army. He told the class he wanted to be like the nation's first president, who left his career as a Virginia planter to take up arms against the British monarchy."He said that George Washington was his hero," said Samantha Larkin, 11, a student in Alleman's class at Nibley Elementary School in Cache County, last year. "But it was a little bit confusing to us."On Tuesday, Alleman's former students were among those in several Utah communities coming to terms with a revelation that was even more difficult to accept: The teacher-turned-soldier had been killed in Iraq.
Along with Michael Alleman, Michael L. Mayne and Zachary Norman were killed in Iraq on Monday. WTHR-TV notes Indianapolis reaction to Zachary Norman's death:
"It was sad for his instructors and I know sad for his family. At three o'clock today there is a gonna be a moment of silence for him as students dismiss. We will ask students to do the moment of silence and to think about the sacrifices that Zach and other veterans have made for our freedom," said Cheri O'Day, Ben Davis High School.
Ben Davis will also add Zachary Nordmeyer's name to a wall of honor for its graduates that have died in the line of duty. Nordmeyer becomes the 18th former student who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Saturday, May 12, 2007 an al-Taqa attack on US soldiers took place resulting in 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator being killed immediately and three US soldiers missing. The three missing were Jospeh Anzack, Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. In May of 2007 (23rd), the family of Joseph Anzack was informed his body had been identifed. Still missing were Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. July 11, 2008 the press reported (citing Byron Fouty's step-father for confirmation) that the remains of both soldiers had been identified. That afternoon the US Dept of Defense released a statement: "The Department of Defense today announced the deaths of two soldiers previously listed as "Missing-Captured" while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. On July 10, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner positively identified human remains recovered in Iraq July 9 to be those of two soldiers who had been previously listed as 'Missing-Captured.' . . . Jimenez and Fouty were part of a patrol that was ambushed by enemy forces south of Baghdad on May 12, 2007. They were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. The Department of Defense previously announced the names of soldiers killed in the attack. They were Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack, Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif.; Sgt. 1st Class James D. Connell, Jr., 40, of Lake City, Tenn.; Pfc. Daniel W. Courneya, 19, of Nashville, Mich.; Cpl. Christopher E. Murphy, 21, of Lynchburg, Va.; and Sgt. Anthony J. Schober, 23, of Reno, Nev." Last night, Mike highlighted Brian MacQuarrie (Boston Globe, Feb. 18, 2009) article on Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez' families holding a service at Arlington National Cemetary:
One stone will mark the resting place for Jimenez, 25, and Fouty, 19.Rest, also, could come for two families who endured nearly 14 months of agony until, after a massive manhunt involving 4,000 troops, the bodies of the soldiers were discovered at last on July 8, 2008. A native of Pembroke, Mass., Private Matthew Bean, died after being shot by a sniper during the search.The remains that could be identified had already been buried: Jimenez's in Farmingdale, N.Y., near his mother's home; Fouty's in Fort Sam Houston, Texas.A second funeral, however, proved no easier for parents and loved ones living with recurring, excruciating thoughts of the suffering that their soldiers probably endured."It's very difficult, because we know that part of him is in there," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran of Queens, N.Y., as she nodded toward the casket during a wake the previous night.
In England yesterday there was huge news and one of the few US outlets to cover the story today is the Dallas Morning News which notes, "Britain's justice secretary overturned an order Tuesday that would have forced the government to make public the formal minutes of two contentious Cabinet discussions held before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The minutes detail advice the Cabinet was receiving on the legality of the Iraq war." That secretary is Jack Straw and Gary Slapper (Times of London) declares he "has violated a key principle of the British constitution. The principle is nemo judex in sua causa: no-one should be aj udge in his own case. Mr Straw stands personally to gain by continuing secrecy of the cabinet papers. The war in Iraq has been described by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former senior law lord, as "a serious violation of international law". The British public has a legitimate interest in knowing how its government came to have entered it. Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary at the key time." At the UK's Military Families Against the War, Rose Gentle (whose son Gordon Gentle died in Iraq) asks:
What is the point of a freedom of information act if there is a escape clause in it just for government? Do they have something to hide?
They did say when the troops where out that they would have an Inquiry into the war. Will people ever trust a government again?
All we want to know is why our troops where sent in to Iraq -- this country has the right to know what is in those minutes. I have the right to know why my son was sent there to die. We all know it definitely wasn't for WMD -- lets hope one day their kids or grand kids don't go to a war looking for WMD
Sam Coates (Times of London) reveals Straw, by his own words, is "considering a clampdown on freedom of information laws".
iraq
matt lauergwen ifillpbswashington weekcbs newswashington unpluggedthe cbs evening news with katie couricthe new york timeselisabeth bumiller
marc santorapeter bakerthomas e. ricks
the washington postann scott tysonanne e. kornblut
the los angeles timestina susman
chris floyd
john walsh
michael d. laplante
gary slapper
ross colvin
mikey likes itruths report
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Dennis Loo
"The Water Line: Morality, the Rule of Law, and Leadership" (Dennis Loo, World Can't Wait):
When one considers Bush and Cheney’s presidency, the question almost invariably comes up: “Who is to blame for this colossal debacle?” How could Bush and Cheney have been permitted to take office in the first place and remain in office, escaping prosecution and removal through impeachment, when they were repeatedly caught red-handed engaging in acts far in excess of abuse of office: openly flouting the law, pervasive and persistent lies, torture, committing the supreme war crime by invading a country that had not attacked us, treason, feloniously spying on all Americans, uber malfeasance, criminal negligence in the face of Katrina and global warming, and corruption on a staggering scale, with this list only a part of their long, sordid tale?
Most people’s answer to this is: “It’s the American people’s fault.” Americans (apologies to the other Americans of South and Central America) are apathetic or secretly wanted what Bush and Cheney carried out or are just plain ignorant, selfish, materialistic and lazy.
While material comforts do clearly dampen political activity and some Americans are certainly willfully ignorant – I would estimate their numbers at perhaps 15-20% of the population (some of these not merely ignorant but politically reactionary) – and a sizable percentage politically disinterested (disinterest and willful ignorance are not the same thing), the majority are neither willfully ignorant nor reactionary. They are, instead, misled, naïve, poorly informed, and misinformed.
Were it the case that most Americans were simply stupid, selfish and lazy, then it would not be necessary for the mass media and political parties to systematically censor, distort and deceive. They would not need to spend the gigantic sums that they devote to propaganda that they do. Fox News would not have to exist and it wouldn’t have to maintain the laughable pretence that they are “fair and balanced.” Their slogan could be: “We’re biased and so are you.” Bush and Cheney wouldn’t have had to lie about a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. They could have said: “We’re going to invade Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and empire. Yahoo! Let’s go!”
Dennis Loo has written a great article but I disagree with him in the section above. My reason is "Fool me once, shame on you . . . Fool me -- fool me, twice, fool me -- won't get fooled again!" George W. Bush once said something like that.
The actual line is supposed to be, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
My point? Those idiots buying Barack as the Christ-child? They did the same with George W. Bush. That's why the media has always loved Barack. They knew they wouldn't have to do a great deal with Barack. The media loathed Hillary. If she got the presidency, it would be hard for them to say nice things, the way they flatter Barack.
It had to be Barack.
The fact that supposedly educated Americans have fallen for this new face of empire goes to their own stupidity. There are no more excuses after the last eight years.
They live in a state of willful denial.
They will have to own up to their part in that. I am sorry that I cannot offer some kinder words or thoughts.
But I see far too many hopium addicts. Craving their fix and knowing it's going to kill them, they continue to pursue the drug. Knowing it will kill not only them but also the rest of us, they continue to pursue the drug.
Dennis Loo is more forgiving or more understanding (or both) than I am.
To me, America spent the last eight years burning themselves and now, because Barack's in the White House, they want to rest their hands on stove burners. No doubt, they will then try to act surprised. I'm not in the mood for it.
Cedric's Big Mix
Barack says tomorrow will come
10 hours ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! BARACK GETS BLOCKED!
10 hours ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Stevie Nicks
11 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
folk rock
11 hours ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
Aretha Franklin
11 hours ago
Trina's Kitchen
Jefferson Airplane
11 hours ago
Ruth's Report
Laura Nyro
11 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
Carly Simon
11 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
Janis Joplin
11 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Sly and the Family Stone
11 hours ago
Mikey Likes It!
The Doors
11 hours ago
The above are the links to last night's posts. Most of us covered music as the titles indicate. I enjoyed reading all of them and continue to maintain that these biographical posts are actually incredibly autobiographical.
Okay, that's it for me. I Tivoed the speech. I told Mike we could watch highlights. I couldn't sit through it live. Great speaker, my ass. So now let me find out what 'great' thing Dear Leader did tonight.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, February 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, another US service member is reported dead, Barack prepares to speak to the nation and the chatter is Iraq may actually be a topic, Jack Straw says no to an informed citizenry (and yes to covering up the illegal war), measles hit Iraq, and more.
Hamid Ahmed (AP) reported this morning, "Two policemen opened fire on U.S. troops visiting an Iraqi police station in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, killing a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter and wounding three other Americans, officials said." Missy Ryan and Kevin Liffey (Reuters) add, "Lieutenant Colonel David Doherty, a U.S. military spokesman, said four U.S. soldiers and one interpreter were injured, and another interpreter was killed." (A US military statement can be found here on the death of the interpreter.) This brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4251. Today's death follows yesterday's announcement of three deaths. "Three US soldiers and their interpreter were killed in Iraq. The US military reported they died in combat in Diyala Province, north of Baghdad. For the month of February, 13 Americans have died in Iraq," Gwen Ifill informed viewers last night on The NewsHour. In informing her viewers of that news, Gwen became the only US evening anchor on broadcast TV to bother doing so (though they all had time to bore their audiences with Slumlord Milionaire). AP's Kim Gamel covered the news for papers because no newspaper with their own Iraq division or US staff could be bothered writing about yesterday's deaths apparently. There are now 14 US military deaths in Iraq announced for the month thus far -- 6 of those have been announced since Saturday. Six US military deaths in Iraq announced in four days.
And where's the coverage? CBS and the New York Times are hyping a poll of the great uninformed American electorate who can sob "It's not our fault!" but that excuse got old long ago. You get the democracy you deserve and Americans chose what passes for democracy currently. Look around, all the things so offensive under the Bully Boy are suddenly manna squeezed out of Barack's ass. CBS breathlessly gushes, "Americans are more optimistic about the situation in Iraq than they have been since 2003 [!] . . . with 63 percent saying that things are going well for the United States in the country." Don't wake them from their slumber, it might require helping them wipe away their drool or, worse, changing their 'nighttime sticky' sheets. The foolish think "it is important that troops leave the country within President Obama's timeline of 16 months". What timeline? The one he was supposed to have begun upon being sworn in? That was the promise. February will be over shortly. Still no announcement on what he 'intends' to do. A working media would damn well be demanding answers on that issue. But you don't get a working news media with a compliant, overstuffed, lazy ass public drugged out on (and hooked on) hopium. It's February, he was sworn in back in January -- he might be able to make it to November without ever addressing that campaign promise that was supposed to start on day one. That would certainly allow more Americans to make fools of themselves by refusing to grasp (at this point, it's refusing, even for the uneducated) that "combat" troops does not mean all troops. Cristin Flanagan (Bloomberg News) reports on rumors that tonight, while speaking to the nation (most PBS stations will not only carry it live but also offer analysis afterwards), he will announce his 'withdrawal' plan is beginning . . . 19-months for the withdrawal of some -- not all -- troops. Meanwhile Steven Lee Myers (New York Times' Baghdad Bureau Blog) reports that Iraqis have more questions about Barack Obama than might be known (or might be reported?): "Sheik Moyad Fadhel Hussein al-Ameri, one of three brothers who were the hosts, said he was worried. A former mayor of Mahmudiya, he has a politician's acuity. And with it, he has closely tracked President Barack Obama's early statements on Iraq. 'President Obama is always talking about change,' he said, dressed in traditional robes and headdress and seated in one of the plush arm chairs that ringed the long greeting hall. 'We would like to know what change'."
Those who would like to the live in the reality-based world should know that next month, many people will be standing against the war and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
As Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) observed this weekend:
As Barack Obama's troop escalation begins in Afghanistan and talking heads debate how many more troops the US should send, the leadership of what was once the largest antiwar organization (UFPJ) in the United States rejected a call for a unified antiwar protest on March 21st, 2009. Instead, they issued a call to go to Wall Street on April 4th, 2009 and encourage the war profiteers to move "beyond a war economy," while toning down the demand to end the wars and occupations now to a demand to merely end them. Like antiwar organizer Ashley Smith told me in an email: "(That is) something Dick Cheney could support." The implication of this call by UFPJ is that now that Barack Obama and the Democrats are in power, there is no longer any need to protest against war. Not only is this incredibly naive, it is downright dangerous for the future of the world. As anybody who has paid the least bit of attention to the nature of the US economy over the past century, its very foundations rest on the production of war and materials for war. Also apparent to those of us who have been paying attention is that the Democrats are just as responsible for this reality as the Republicans are. Just because George Bush and his administration were personally reprehensible and their arrogance and disregard for principles most Americans hold dear was as obvious as the nose on Pinocchio's wooden face doesn't mean that the policies of the Democrats are substantially different.Consequently, the antiwar movement would be foolish to think they have a government of allies in Washington, DC now. There may be a more personable bunch of folks ruling the country now, but the odds of those folks pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq now instead of later without a major push from the American people insisting that they do so are about as poor as they were under the Bush administration. The time for the antiwar movement to demand that the Obama administration end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is now, before its political ego becomes entangled in a military exercise that is ill-advised, poorly done, and just plain wrong.
Ashley Smith, mentioned above, has covered the 'peace' movement for sometime. Smith and Eric Ruder wrote about United for Pathetic and Juvenile decision to be inactive for the next four years in the Socialist Worker back in December.
Yesterday's snapshot noted IVAW member Suzanne Swift and there should have been a link to her website. There wasn't, my apologies.
28-year-old Iraq War veteran Kristoffer Walker was noted in yesterday's snapshot as well. He is the Army Reservist who is in the news for refusing to return to Iraq. WISC reports, "Walker said Monday night his beliefs haven't changed but he's considering all his options." The Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board doesn't want Walker to consider his options, they just want him to go back to Iraq. They want that so badly, that they fail at their job. An editorial has 'weight' because it is informed. When you don't know the basics, no one mistakes you for informed. The editorial board hides behind the words of the publicity hack (what a proud moment, "Mom, Dad, I'm in the army! What's that? I fight the word war!") Nathan Banks who insists that you get 30 days and after 30 days you will be charged with desertion. Lie, lie, lie. Hacks are worse than recruiters. Agustin Aguayo turned himself in after being gone less than 30 days. Agustin was still court-martialed for desertion. By contrast, many who have been court-martialed for going AWOL? Gone over 30 days. It is a 'rule of thumb,' it is not an actual rule. Walker could turn himself in tomorrow and face a court-martial. Something allegedly educated and informed people who sit on an editorial board damn well should have known before they wasted everyone's time in order to flaunt their ignorance.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings that left 8 injured, a Mosul grenade attack on the PUK Party headquarters that left two people injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers wounded.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Diyala Province "between a joint American and Iraqi forces and insurgents" that left 3 suspected 'insurgents' dead.
As spin continues, Tim King (Salem-News) does not agree with the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk: ". . . in spite of this rosy article from the UK, people are still dying in Iraq, and the war is anything but successful. In fact, according to recent reports, Iraq is still very dangerous. I was there over the summer just in time to see the beginning of the elimination/reduction of the 'Sons of Iraq' program which is one of the few elements of the 'Surge' that actually brought peace and stability to this country. (see: Could Removal of U.S. Support Shift Iraq's Peaceful Balance? (VIDEO)). Iraqi people told me that as soon as the U.S. pulls out, a civil war will reignite between Shiite and Sunni Muslims." He goes on to explain that, while in Iraq, the only ones he encountered who supported the US remaining there were people on the US payroll.
Independent journalist Dahr Jamail is back in Iraq. This week, he reports on the medical situation in the country:
Seventy percent of Iraq's doctors are reported to have fled the war-torn country in the face of death threats and kidnappings. Those who remain live in fear, often in conditions close to house arrest.
"I was threatened I would be killed because I was working for the Iraqi government at the Medical City," Dr. Thana Hekmaytar told IPS. Baghdad Medical City is the largest medical complex in the country.
Dr. Hekmaytar, a head and neck surgeon, has now been practising at the Saint Raphael Hospital in Baghdad for the last five years.
It is difficult now both as woman and as doctor, she says. Most women are now living in repressive conditions because the government is less secular. And that is besides the chaotic conditions around Iraq.
"It is particularly difficult for female doctors," Dr. Hekmaytar says. "Large groups in Iraq only want us to stay at home, and certainly not be professionals."
"We've had doctors kidnapped, and so many others have fled," said Khaleb, a senior manager at the hospital who requested that his last name not be used. He named several doctors who had been kidnapped. This IPS correspondent, he said, was the first media person allowed into the hospital since the U.S. invasion of March 2003.
Dahr's examination of the medical situation (he filed on the 21st) anticipates today's news from IRIN: Measle outbreaks are taking place in many provinces in Iraq "where health services had collapsed".
Turning to England where ITV reports Jack Straw, alleged 'Justice' Secretary, has blocked the release of the minutes where War Criminal Tony Blair and his cronies made the decision to break international law and go to war on Iraq. Philip Johnston (Telegraph of London) points out he predicted Straw would block the release "exactly a year ago after Richard Thomas, took the courageous decision to demand their release. Mr Thomas's opinion was subsequently upheld by the Information Tribunal to which the Government unsuccessfully appealed. Mr Straw, the artchitect of the FoI [Freedom of Information] Act, has now been forced to demolish his own edifice by exposing both the lack of teeth of the Information Commissioner and Labour's skin deep commitment to true openess." James Chapman (Daily Mail) explains, "The meetings considered the hugely controversial issue of whether the invasion was allowed under international law. In his diary, the late Foreign Secretary and leader of the Commons Robin Cook recorded details of the Cabinet discussions at which several ministers raised serious concerns about the legality of the looming conflict. But Mr Cook claimed that Mr Brown, previously sceptical about the war, delivered a 'long and passionate statement of support' of then Prime Minister Tony Blair's strategy in the days before the war." The Scottish National Party has issued a statement where they quote SNP Westminster leader and Defence spokesperson Angus Robertson stating, "The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an inquiry. This Cabinet cover up is typical of the Labour government's attitude to freedom of information. We must learn the lessons from the worst UK Foreign policy decision in living memory. Our brave troops have had to pay the price of an illegal conflict forced by Tony Blair, paid for by Gordon Brown and supported by the Tories. Those responsible have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this war. The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers." The Liberal Democrats have also issued a statement where they quote Liberal Democrat Shadow Justice Secretary David Howarth, "The decision to go to war in Iraq was momentous, controversial and disastrous, especially for this country's repuation as an upholder of international law. There never has been a full and comprehensive public inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq. Jack Straw must now give his support for such an inquiry. We need to learn the lessons, and we need to learn them as quickly as possible. That is why there Cabinet minutes should be released much earlier than would normally be the case. We already know the names of the dissenters from their memoirs. All we need to know is whether there was any discussion and any challenge of any sort. That is a matter of great public importance and goes to the heart of accountability." Straw read a prepared speech to the House of Commons today and, upon arriving at his announcement not to release the minutes, cries of "disgraceful" and "that's disgraceful" could be heard from members of the House of Commons. Straw ignored the cries, refused to look up and continued reading his statement. As the outrage continues to grow, Jack Straw remains silent as his own blog or maybe he's just so proud of that post about his "Fleece-lined, steel toe-caps" boots that he wore earlier this month in London and wants to be sure everyone has a chance to catch that?
In other legal news, charges "of conspiracy to commit murder" have been dropped against US Sgt Charles Quigley regarding a 2007 death in Baghdad. Madeline Chambers and Tim Pearce (Reuters) explain, "Three soldiers have already been convicted of crimes linked to their involvement in the incident and two more -- Sergeant First Class Joseph P. Mayo and Master Sergeant John E. Hatley -- face trial in the coming months at the Rose Barracks Courthouse in Vilseck in southern Germany, the army said."
And, on politics, the Independent of London (via Information Clearing House) asks, "Obama, Tell Us The Whole Truth:"
This newspaper was not so naive as to imagine that President Obama would immediately conform to the most scrupulous interpretation of US and international law. We are pleased that he has ordered the closure within a year of Guantanamo Bay, halted military trials and restricted CIA interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques. But the refusal to grant legal rights to detainees at Bagram is disappointing. The US Supreme Court ruling in 2004 that prisoners in Guantanamo had the right to take their cases to US courts ended the anomalous status of the prison camp in Cuba. President Bush's attempt to create a legal limbo outside the American and international legal systems had failed. But he continued to try to deny legal rights to prisoners not just in Guantanamo but in Iraq and Bagram, too. Mr Obama's closure of Guantanamo therefore smacks more of fulfilling a symbolic pledge than following it through. The Bush administration's legal case was transparently unconvincing. It argued that detainees were "enemy combatants" being held until hostilities ceased. If so, they should have been entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions on the rights of prisoners of war. Yet President Bush resisted even that, and now President Obama represents continuity with that policy. Indeed, Elena Kagan, Mr Obama's nominee for Solicitor General, said during her confirmation hearing that someone suspected of helping to finance al-Qa'ida should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without trial -- even if captured in the Philippines, say, rather than a battle zone. Nor is this the first disappointment of Obama's presidency. Earlier this month, a government lawyer stuck to the Bush line in a case brought by Binyam Mohamed, the British resident expected home from Guantanamo tomorrow -- about whom Clive Stafford Smith writes today. Mohamed and others are suing a subsidiary of Boeing for arranging "extraordinary rendition" flights, by which they were taken secretly to other countries where they say they were tortured.
iraqkim gamel
pbsthe newshourgwen ifill
iraq veterans against the wara.n.s.w.e.r.world can't wait
suzanne swift
kristoffer walker
ron jacobsashley smitheric ruder
tim king
dahr jamail
cbs news
green bay press-gazette
the new york times
steven lee myers
When one considers Bush and Cheney’s presidency, the question almost invariably comes up: “Who is to blame for this colossal debacle?” How could Bush and Cheney have been permitted to take office in the first place and remain in office, escaping prosecution and removal through impeachment, when they were repeatedly caught red-handed engaging in acts far in excess of abuse of office: openly flouting the law, pervasive and persistent lies, torture, committing the supreme war crime by invading a country that had not attacked us, treason, feloniously spying on all Americans, uber malfeasance, criminal negligence in the face of Katrina and global warming, and corruption on a staggering scale, with this list only a part of their long, sordid tale?
Most people’s answer to this is: “It’s the American people’s fault.” Americans (apologies to the other Americans of South and Central America) are apathetic or secretly wanted what Bush and Cheney carried out or are just plain ignorant, selfish, materialistic and lazy.
While material comforts do clearly dampen political activity and some Americans are certainly willfully ignorant – I would estimate their numbers at perhaps 15-20% of the population (some of these not merely ignorant but politically reactionary) – and a sizable percentage politically disinterested (disinterest and willful ignorance are not the same thing), the majority are neither willfully ignorant nor reactionary. They are, instead, misled, naïve, poorly informed, and misinformed.
Were it the case that most Americans were simply stupid, selfish and lazy, then it would not be necessary for the mass media and political parties to systematically censor, distort and deceive. They would not need to spend the gigantic sums that they devote to propaganda that they do. Fox News would not have to exist and it wouldn’t have to maintain the laughable pretence that they are “fair and balanced.” Their slogan could be: “We’re biased and so are you.” Bush and Cheney wouldn’t have had to lie about a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. They could have said: “We’re going to invade Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and empire. Yahoo! Let’s go!”
Dennis Loo has written a great article but I disagree with him in the section above. My reason is "Fool me once, shame on you . . . Fool me -- fool me, twice, fool me -- won't get fooled again!" George W. Bush once said something like that.
The actual line is supposed to be, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
My point? Those idiots buying Barack as the Christ-child? They did the same with George W. Bush. That's why the media has always loved Barack. They knew they wouldn't have to do a great deal with Barack. The media loathed Hillary. If she got the presidency, it would be hard for them to say nice things, the way they flatter Barack.
It had to be Barack.
The fact that supposedly educated Americans have fallen for this new face of empire goes to their own stupidity. There are no more excuses after the last eight years.
They live in a state of willful denial.
They will have to own up to their part in that. I am sorry that I cannot offer some kinder words or thoughts.
But I see far too many hopium addicts. Craving their fix and knowing it's going to kill them, they continue to pursue the drug. Knowing it will kill not only them but also the rest of us, they continue to pursue the drug.
Dennis Loo is more forgiving or more understanding (or both) than I am.
To me, America spent the last eight years burning themselves and now, because Barack's in the White House, they want to rest their hands on stove burners. No doubt, they will then try to act surprised. I'm not in the mood for it.
Cedric's Big Mix
Barack says tomorrow will come
10 hours ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! BARACK GETS BLOCKED!
10 hours ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Stevie Nicks
11 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
folk rock
11 hours ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
Aretha Franklin
11 hours ago
Trina's Kitchen
Jefferson Airplane
11 hours ago
Ruth's Report
Laura Nyro
11 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
Carly Simon
11 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
Janis Joplin
11 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Sly and the Family Stone
11 hours ago
Mikey Likes It!
The Doors
11 hours ago
The above are the links to last night's posts. Most of us covered music as the titles indicate. I enjoyed reading all of them and continue to maintain that these biographical posts are actually incredibly autobiographical.
Okay, that's it for me. I Tivoed the speech. I told Mike we could watch highlights. I couldn't sit through it live. Great speaker, my ass. So now let me find out what 'great' thing Dear Leader did tonight.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, February 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, another US service member is reported dead, Barack prepares to speak to the nation and the chatter is Iraq may actually be a topic, Jack Straw says no to an informed citizenry (and yes to covering up the illegal war), measles hit Iraq, and more.
Hamid Ahmed (AP) reported this morning, "Two policemen opened fire on U.S. troops visiting an Iraqi police station in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, killing a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter and wounding three other Americans, officials said." Missy Ryan and Kevin Liffey (Reuters) add, "Lieutenant Colonel David Doherty, a U.S. military spokesman, said four U.S. soldiers and one interpreter were injured, and another interpreter was killed." (A US military statement can be found here on the death of the interpreter.) This brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4251. Today's death follows yesterday's announcement of three deaths. "Three US soldiers and their interpreter were killed in Iraq. The US military reported they died in combat in Diyala Province, north of Baghdad. For the month of February, 13 Americans have died in Iraq," Gwen Ifill informed viewers last night on The NewsHour. In informing her viewers of that news, Gwen became the only US evening anchor on broadcast TV to bother doing so (though they all had time to bore their audiences with Slumlord Milionaire). AP's Kim Gamel covered the news for papers because no newspaper with their own Iraq division or US staff could be bothered writing about yesterday's deaths apparently. There are now 14 US military deaths in Iraq announced for the month thus far -- 6 of those have been announced since Saturday. Six US military deaths in Iraq announced in four days.
And where's the coverage? CBS and the New York Times are hyping a poll of the great uninformed American electorate who can sob "It's not our fault!" but that excuse got old long ago. You get the democracy you deserve and Americans chose what passes for democracy currently. Look around, all the things so offensive under the Bully Boy are suddenly manna squeezed out of Barack's ass. CBS breathlessly gushes, "Americans are more optimistic about the situation in Iraq than they have been since 2003 [!] . . . with 63 percent saying that things are going well for the United States in the country." Don't wake them from their slumber, it might require helping them wipe away their drool or, worse, changing their 'nighttime sticky' sheets. The foolish think "it is important that troops leave the country within President Obama's timeline of 16 months". What timeline? The one he was supposed to have begun upon being sworn in? That was the promise. February will be over shortly. Still no announcement on what he 'intends' to do. A working media would damn well be demanding answers on that issue. But you don't get a working news media with a compliant, overstuffed, lazy ass public drugged out on (and hooked on) hopium. It's February, he was sworn in back in January -- he might be able to make it to November without ever addressing that campaign promise that was supposed to start on day one. That would certainly allow more Americans to make fools of themselves by refusing to grasp (at this point, it's refusing, even for the uneducated) that "combat" troops does not mean all troops. Cristin Flanagan (Bloomberg News) reports on rumors that tonight, while speaking to the nation (most PBS stations will not only carry it live but also offer analysis afterwards), he will announce his 'withdrawal' plan is beginning . . . 19-months for the withdrawal of some -- not all -- troops. Meanwhile Steven Lee Myers (New York Times' Baghdad Bureau Blog) reports that Iraqis have more questions about Barack Obama than might be known (or might be reported?): "Sheik Moyad Fadhel Hussein al-Ameri, one of three brothers who were the hosts, said he was worried. A former mayor of Mahmudiya, he has a politician's acuity. And with it, he has closely tracked President Barack Obama's early statements on Iraq. 'President Obama is always talking about change,' he said, dressed in traditional robes and headdress and seated in one of the plush arm chairs that ringed the long greeting hall. 'We would like to know what change'."
Those who would like to the live in the reality-based world should know that next month, many people will be standing against the war and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
As Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) observed this weekend:
As Barack Obama's troop escalation begins in Afghanistan and talking heads debate how many more troops the US should send, the leadership of what was once the largest antiwar organization (UFPJ) in the United States rejected a call for a unified antiwar protest on March 21st, 2009. Instead, they issued a call to go to Wall Street on April 4th, 2009 and encourage the war profiteers to move "beyond a war economy," while toning down the demand to end the wars and occupations now to a demand to merely end them. Like antiwar organizer Ashley Smith told me in an email: "(That is) something Dick Cheney could support." The implication of this call by UFPJ is that now that Barack Obama and the Democrats are in power, there is no longer any need to protest against war. Not only is this incredibly naive, it is downright dangerous for the future of the world. As anybody who has paid the least bit of attention to the nature of the US economy over the past century, its very foundations rest on the production of war and materials for war. Also apparent to those of us who have been paying attention is that the Democrats are just as responsible for this reality as the Republicans are. Just because George Bush and his administration were personally reprehensible and their arrogance and disregard for principles most Americans hold dear was as obvious as the nose on Pinocchio's wooden face doesn't mean that the policies of the Democrats are substantially different.Consequently, the antiwar movement would be foolish to think they have a government of allies in Washington, DC now. There may be a more personable bunch of folks ruling the country now, but the odds of those folks pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq now instead of later without a major push from the American people insisting that they do so are about as poor as they were under the Bush administration. The time for the antiwar movement to demand that the Obama administration end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is now, before its political ego becomes entangled in a military exercise that is ill-advised, poorly done, and just plain wrong.
Ashley Smith, mentioned above, has covered the 'peace' movement for sometime. Smith and Eric Ruder wrote about United for Pathetic and Juvenile decision to be inactive for the next four years in the Socialist Worker back in December.
Yesterday's snapshot noted IVAW member Suzanne Swift and there should have been a link to her website. There wasn't, my apologies.
28-year-old Iraq War veteran Kristoffer Walker was noted in yesterday's snapshot as well. He is the Army Reservist who is in the news for refusing to return to Iraq. WISC reports, "Walker said Monday night his beliefs haven't changed but he's considering all his options." The Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board doesn't want Walker to consider his options, they just want him to go back to Iraq. They want that so badly, that they fail at their job. An editorial has 'weight' because it is informed. When you don't know the basics, no one mistakes you for informed. The editorial board hides behind the words of the publicity hack (what a proud moment, "Mom, Dad, I'm in the army! What's that? I fight the word war!") Nathan Banks who insists that you get 30 days and after 30 days you will be charged with desertion. Lie, lie, lie. Hacks are worse than recruiters. Agustin Aguayo turned himself in after being gone less than 30 days. Agustin was still court-martialed for desertion. By contrast, many who have been court-martialed for going AWOL? Gone over 30 days. It is a 'rule of thumb,' it is not an actual rule. Walker could turn himself in tomorrow and face a court-martial. Something allegedly educated and informed people who sit on an editorial board damn well should have known before they wasted everyone's time in order to flaunt their ignorance.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings that left 8 injured, a Mosul grenade attack on the PUK Party headquarters that left two people injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers wounded.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Diyala Province "between a joint American and Iraqi forces and insurgents" that left 3 suspected 'insurgents' dead.
As spin continues, Tim King (Salem-News) does not agree with the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk: ". . . in spite of this rosy article from the UK, people are still dying in Iraq, and the war is anything but successful. In fact, according to recent reports, Iraq is still very dangerous. I was there over the summer just in time to see the beginning of the elimination/reduction of the 'Sons of Iraq' program which is one of the few elements of the 'Surge' that actually brought peace and stability to this country. (see: Could Removal of U.S. Support Shift Iraq's Peaceful Balance? (VIDEO)). Iraqi people told me that as soon as the U.S. pulls out, a civil war will reignite between Shiite and Sunni Muslims." He goes on to explain that, while in Iraq, the only ones he encountered who supported the US remaining there were people on the US payroll.
Independent journalist Dahr Jamail is back in Iraq. This week, he reports on the medical situation in the country:
Seventy percent of Iraq's doctors are reported to have fled the war-torn country in the face of death threats and kidnappings. Those who remain live in fear, often in conditions close to house arrest.
"I was threatened I would be killed because I was working for the Iraqi government at the Medical City," Dr. Thana Hekmaytar told IPS. Baghdad Medical City is the largest medical complex in the country.
Dr. Hekmaytar, a head and neck surgeon, has now been practising at the Saint Raphael Hospital in Baghdad for the last five years.
It is difficult now both as woman and as doctor, she says. Most women are now living in repressive conditions because the government is less secular. And that is besides the chaotic conditions around Iraq.
"It is particularly difficult for female doctors," Dr. Hekmaytar says. "Large groups in Iraq only want us to stay at home, and certainly not be professionals."
"We've had doctors kidnapped, and so many others have fled," said Khaleb, a senior manager at the hospital who requested that his last name not be used. He named several doctors who had been kidnapped. This IPS correspondent, he said, was the first media person allowed into the hospital since the U.S. invasion of March 2003.
Dahr's examination of the medical situation (he filed on the 21st) anticipates today's news from IRIN: Measle outbreaks are taking place in many provinces in Iraq "where health services had collapsed".
Turning to England where ITV reports Jack Straw, alleged 'Justice' Secretary, has blocked the release of the minutes where War Criminal Tony Blair and his cronies made the decision to break international law and go to war on Iraq. Philip Johnston (Telegraph of London) points out he predicted Straw would block the release "exactly a year ago after Richard Thomas, took the courageous decision to demand their release. Mr Thomas's opinion was subsequently upheld by the Information Tribunal to which the Government unsuccessfully appealed. Mr Straw, the artchitect of the FoI [Freedom of Information] Act, has now been forced to demolish his own edifice by exposing both the lack of teeth of the Information Commissioner and Labour's skin deep commitment to true openess." James Chapman (Daily Mail) explains, "The meetings considered the hugely controversial issue of whether the invasion was allowed under international law. In his diary, the late Foreign Secretary and leader of the Commons Robin Cook recorded details of the Cabinet discussions at which several ministers raised serious concerns about the legality of the looming conflict. But Mr Cook claimed that Mr Brown, previously sceptical about the war, delivered a 'long and passionate statement of support' of then Prime Minister Tony Blair's strategy in the days before the war." The Scottish National Party has issued a statement where they quote SNP Westminster leader and Defence spokesperson Angus Robertson stating, "The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an inquiry. This Cabinet cover up is typical of the Labour government's attitude to freedom of information. We must learn the lessons from the worst UK Foreign policy decision in living memory. Our brave troops have had to pay the price of an illegal conflict forced by Tony Blair, paid for by Gordon Brown and supported by the Tories. Those responsible have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this war. The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers." The Liberal Democrats have also issued a statement where they quote Liberal Democrat Shadow Justice Secretary David Howarth, "The decision to go to war in Iraq was momentous, controversial and disastrous, especially for this country's repuation as an upholder of international law. There never has been a full and comprehensive public inquiry into the decision to go to war in Iraq. Jack Straw must now give his support for such an inquiry. We need to learn the lessons, and we need to learn them as quickly as possible. That is why there Cabinet minutes should be released much earlier than would normally be the case. We already know the names of the dissenters from their memoirs. All we need to know is whether there was any discussion and any challenge of any sort. That is a matter of great public importance and goes to the heart of accountability." Straw read a prepared speech to the House of Commons today and, upon arriving at his announcement not to release the minutes, cries of "disgraceful" and "that's disgraceful" could be heard from members of the House of Commons. Straw ignored the cries, refused to look up and continued reading his statement. As the outrage continues to grow, Jack Straw remains silent as his own blog or maybe he's just so proud of that post about his "Fleece-lined, steel toe-caps" boots that he wore earlier this month in London and wants to be sure everyone has a chance to catch that?
In other legal news, charges "of conspiracy to commit murder" have been dropped against US Sgt Charles Quigley regarding a 2007 death in Baghdad. Madeline Chambers and Tim Pearce (Reuters) explain, "Three soldiers have already been convicted of crimes linked to their involvement in the incident and two more -- Sergeant First Class Joseph P. Mayo and Master Sergeant John E. Hatley -- face trial in the coming months at the Rose Barracks Courthouse in Vilseck in southern Germany, the army said."
And, on politics, the Independent of London (via Information Clearing House) asks, "Obama, Tell Us The Whole Truth:"
This newspaper was not so naive as to imagine that President Obama would immediately conform to the most scrupulous interpretation of US and international law. We are pleased that he has ordered the closure within a year of Guantanamo Bay, halted military trials and restricted CIA interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques. But the refusal to grant legal rights to detainees at Bagram is disappointing. The US Supreme Court ruling in 2004 that prisoners in Guantanamo had the right to take their cases to US courts ended the anomalous status of the prison camp in Cuba. President Bush's attempt to create a legal limbo outside the American and international legal systems had failed. But he continued to try to deny legal rights to prisoners not just in Guantanamo but in Iraq and Bagram, too. Mr Obama's closure of Guantanamo therefore smacks more of fulfilling a symbolic pledge than following it through. The Bush administration's legal case was transparently unconvincing. It argued that detainees were "enemy combatants" being held until hostilities ceased. If so, they should have been entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions on the rights of prisoners of war. Yet President Bush resisted even that, and now President Obama represents continuity with that policy. Indeed, Elena Kagan, Mr Obama's nominee for Solicitor General, said during her confirmation hearing that someone suspected of helping to finance al-Qa'ida should be subject to battlefield law -- indefinite detention without trial -- even if captured in the Philippines, say, rather than a battle zone. Nor is this the first disappointment of Obama's presidency. Earlier this month, a government lawyer stuck to the Bush line in a case brought by Binyam Mohamed, the British resident expected home from Guantanamo tomorrow -- about whom Clive Stafford Smith writes today. Mohamed and others are suing a subsidiary of Boeing for arranging "extraordinary rendition" flights, by which they were taken secretly to other countries where they say they were tortured.
iraqkim gamel
pbsthe newshourgwen ifill
iraq veterans against the wara.n.s.w.e.r.world can't wait
suzanne swift
kristoffer walker
ron jacobsashley smitheric ruder
tim king
dahr jamail
cbs news
green bay press-gazette
the new york times
steven lee myers
Monday, February 23, 2009
Janis Joplin
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Al Distraction"
That is Isaiah's comic from Sunday and he has one that went up today as well and, yes, is planning another. Let's move to his next one.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Domestic Arts Czar"
Al Sharpton can say, "I didn't ask for anyone to be fired!" Bull-f**king-s**t. You stirred it, you boiled it and now you want to blame someone else for the cooking? Doesn't work that way you uneducated moron -- whose father left his mother for Al's sister.
Is that correct? Do I have the lowlife's life correct? That was told to me by a journalist at the Chicago Tribune today when he called about another matter (he's a friend). Well that certainly explains a great deal, doesn't it? We already know the 'rev' became one at age nine or ten which goes to how uneducated he is and how little his title means (after the man who ordained him passed away, Al Sharpton switched religions and was ordained in another faith).
I'm sorry I can't cheer on Al's attacks on the arts.
When CBS fired the producer of the Hitler mini-series for publicly (and rightly) comparing George W. Bush to Hitler, I thought that was too far. I do support the arts, unlike Al Sharpton but then I have an education, an actual education. Of course, my parents didn't sleep with my siblings either which also puts me far above Al.
Is that harsh?
Too damn bad.
I'll play the snob I was raised to be when it comes to attacks on the arts.
Throw Vincent Warren, Center for Constitutional Rights, in with Al Sharpton. Vinnie didn't get an education, apparently. Probably didn't grow up around the arts anymore than Al did. Here's little Vinnie, " The monkey is supposed to be President Barack Obama -- the first African American president and the 44th president of the United States of America." Poor Vinnie, too uneducated to be an art critic or even know the difference between a monkey and a chimp. (Hint, Vinnie, it was a chimp, not a monkey. Your education system failed you because you don't grasp that there is a difference. Quelle surprise.)
At Third we did an "Animation roundtable" and, think about what Vinnie 'knows' ("The monkey is supposed to be . . .") when you read my comments:
Elaine: I can't stress enough how strongly I agree with what Isaiah's saying. Some may say, "Well it's subtle but I see racism in it." I can nod along with that. I can agree with that if we're looking at a piece of art. Someone telling me, however, that the piece is racist, not "I see," and basing it on their interpretation is someone that has no background in the arts and really is not suited or trained to offer criticism. I mean, there are many times Ava and C.I. could rip apart the way a scene is staged. For Hilda's Mix, sometimes, they'll offer that as "Interpretations." Clearly defined as such. They'll note the power dynamics and the violence of a scene that's not supposed to be violent and they'll explore what that could mean. But for their pieces here, they don't do that. And they don't ever --at Hilda's Mix -- offer, "This is what it has to mean!" They know art, they grasp art, they grasp that it is open to interpretations. I have no problem looking at illustrations or statues or whatever with friends and hearing them say "I see . . ." But I have a huge problem with anyone who offers their interpretation and tries to pass it off as something other than an interpretation.
Vincent Warren is a garbage dump of intellectual waste. How the hell dare he attack a cartoon? How the hell dare he decide that his interpretation -- his uneducated interpretation -- is what an artist -- any artist -- intended? He really crossed a line and CCR crossed one by allowing that garbage of Vinnie's to go up at their site.
I've really had it with the Barack Obama Lovers who think they are somehow doing a damn thing. I've had it with how their love for Barack -- the idea of Barack, their idea of him -- matters more to them than reality.
Who the hell does Vincent Warren think he is? Is he a psychic? He's not an art critic. But he 'knows,' he just 'knows' what an artist meant.
What an uneducated, unelightened buffoon.
As I was saying, the Cult of Barack has gotten more than a wee bit out of control. CCR is nothing but a radical organization -- read Marxist, Lennist, etc. -- and when they can't stop being cheerleaders for Barack, there's really no reason for them to exist.
It's amazing Vincent found time to defend his lover (take his balls out of your mouth, Vinnie, before speaking) -- the same lover he can't call out for Guantanamo.
It's past time that the left figured out whether they were independent or cheerleaders.
I was discussing that with a friend Friday night and he pointed out that if George McGovern had been elected in 1972 and made the promises Barack did in the leadup to the election, been sworn in and all this time later done nothing to end the illegal war, we would have been marching, protesting and a lot more.
But instead of bravery, we get punk ass Vinnie and the Cowardly Center for Barack's Rights. Michael Ratner, you should be ashamed of CCR and of yourself right now. How dare you? Where is your courage?
In 1976, do you know how many complaints the FCC received about alleged 'vulgarities' from radio airwaves? 2300. 1976. These reactionaries are always around and they will always try to impose their morality on the rest of us. Those complaints, it should be noted, included complaints against the Carly Simon hit "Nobody Does It Better." That was 'vulgar.' People just knew it was, like Vinnie just knows a chimp isn't a chimp. Excuse me, the educationally challenged Vinnie can't tell the difference between a monkey and a chimp.
Good, I got Janis. Ellen Willis as well -- and we could certainly use her on the left today -- we have no intellectuals among us apparently. This is a theme night post and we're doing music. The way it works is that we are all using one of three books. Selected because they were readily available to all. Mine is The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll (Jim Miller, editor, Random House).
"Janis Joplin" (Ellen Willis):
Joplin belonged to that select group of pop figures who mattered as much for themselves as for their music; among American rock performers she was second only to Bob Dylan in importance as a creator/recorder/emobdiment of her generation's history and mythology. She was also the only woman to achieve that kind of stature in what was basically a male club, the only Sixties culture hero to make visible and public women's experience of the quest for individual liberation, which was very different from men's. If Janis's favorite metaphors -- singing as fucking (a first principle of rock and roll) and fucking as liberation (a first principle of the cultural revolution) -- were equally approved by her male peers, the congruence was only on the surface. Underneath -- just barely -- lurked a feminist (or prefeminist) paradox.
The male-dominated counterculture defined freedom for women almost exclusively in sexual terms. As a result, women endowed the idea of sexual liberation with immense symbolic importance; it became charged with all the secret energy of an as yet suppressed larger rebellion. Yet to express one's rebellion in that limited way was a painfully literal form of submission. Whether or not Janis understood that, her dual persona -- lusty hedonist and suffering victim -- suggested that she felt it. Dope, another term in her metaphorical equation (getting high as singing as fucking as liberation) was, in its more sinister aspect, a pain0killer and finally a killer. Which is not to say that the good times weren't real, as far as they went. Whatever the limitations of hippie/rock star life, it was better than being a provincial matron -- or a lonely weirdo.
If you don't know Ellen Willis, you may not grasp what a hole her death left. Janis? My two favorite songs are ones that rarely get noted. "Call On Me" is a song she recorded with Big Brother & The Holding Company. You can find a live version on the Janis boxed set (which also has another essay on Janis by Ellen). "A Woman Left Lonely" is my other all time favorite and I don't believe she's ever gotten the credit she deserves for the vocals on that song.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, February 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces 5 deaths in Iraq since Friday (3 today), Iraq War veteran Kristoffer Walker says "no more" to the Iraq War, Iraq War veteran Suzanne Swift shares the stories of her harassment and command rape while serving in the military, Baghdad's museum re-opens . . . kind of, and more.
Starting with 28-year-old Kristoffer Walker who is saying no to returning to Iraq. Sarah Rasmussen (WEAU13 -- link has text and video) reports:
Sarah Rasmussen: Good evening, I'm Sarah Rasmussen and after serving after part of a duty in Iraq, the soldier in Wisconsin has decided not to rejoin his unit and faces possible arrest for that decision. We first told you about Specialist Kristoffer Walker [last] night on WEAU13 News at Six. He's serving with the 353rd transportation company that was supposed to ship out yesterday morning to return to Iraq after a two week leave; however, after his request for a transfer went unanswered by his superiors Walker opted not to return to Iraq for moral reasons Walker, who enlisted in the Army Reserve shortly after September 11, says after six years the US is still fighting a war they should have never been involved with. Kristoffer Walker: Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is -- it's an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed.Sarah Rasmussen: According to the United States Military, Specialist Walker has 30 days to report. After that he'll be considered a deserter and the military will issue a warrant for his arrest.
Kristoffer explained to Lou Hillman (Fox 11), "My beliefs haven't changed and nothing has changed between Friday and now in Iraq. I am not a pacifist. There is an absolute need for our armed forces" but Kristoffer believes the Iraq War is wrong. As for his opposition and how he should oppose, Kristoffer told Tony Walter (Appleton Post Crescent), "The Army's definition is a little different than mine. The Army's definition is that you have to be opposed to war and all its forms. That's not me. I absolutely support using military force to respond or retaliate to attack. By their standards, you're not allowed to object to one conflict over another." Adam Aaro (WBAY -- link has text video, quote is from video and is correct, text quote is inaccurate) visited with Kristoffer and Sierra Walker and Kristoffer told him, "And I figured if I were to go back to Iraq and do something again that's contrary to my belief structure, I wouldn't be able to really live with myself. . . . Obviously there's a little bit of nervousness there because it's a very real possibility, but what are the other consequences on the flip side if I decide to go back to Iraq and do something that's immoral?" Laura Smith (Fox 11) explains, "Walker says he is receiving suppot from friends and family -- that includes soldiers he served with in Iraq. US Army officials have said Walker still has time to change his mind but would likely face some internal consequences for not reporting." James A. Carlson (AP) reports Kristoffer sees the Iraq War as "an illegitimate, unnecessary campaign." He told WEAU13 that, "Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed."
Kristoffer is standing up right now. He knows the Iraq War didn't end. He's not fooling himself into believing it ends tomorrow -- Oh, Blessed Day. Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes, "Meanwhile, there has been no action on Obama's election-year promises to pull out US combat troops from Iraq. Within weeks of the November 4 vote, Obama signaled his intention to maintain the US occupation by retaining Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the architect of the Bush administration's 'surge' policy in Iraq. No US troops have been withdrawn, and US military officers, including the overall commander in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno have dismissed as unviable Obama's pledge to withdraw all combat troops in 16 months." Those in the reality-based world who would like to stand up should know that next month, many people will be standing against the war and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
The illegal war is not ending on its own -- no matter how much time you waste "Wishin' & Hopin'". News of US soldiers dying in Iraq continues -- because the illegal war continues and pretending it ended with an election (in the US or Iraq) is something only a Crazy Ass Cockburn would do. Saturday the US miltary announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Division--Baghdad Soldier died Feb. 21 while conducting a combat patrol near Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is currently under investigation." Making that announcement was so tiring for M-NF that they allowed the Dept of Defense to make the other one yesterday, "The Department of Defense announced the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. PFC Cwislyn K. Walter, 19, of Honolulu died Feb. 19 in Kuwait City, Kuwait, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. She was assigned to the 29th Special Troops Battalion, 29th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Hawaii National Guard. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation." Today the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- Three U.S. Coalition Soldiers and an interpreter died as a result of combat operations in Diyala Province, Iraq, Feb. 23." The announcements bring the number of deaths of US service members in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4250.
While 4250 US service members and approximately 1.6 million Iraqis have died, many more people have been injured. Some wounds are physical, some are mental wounds -- all are serious. One woman who fought back against command rape recently discussed that ordeal and the effects she carries with her today. Back in January, we noted IVAW's Suzanne Swift had finally been discharged. Courage to Resist interviewed her (link is audio only) earlier this month about her experiences and this is an excerpt:
Courage to Resist: Suzanne Swift joined the US Army in 2003 having been assured by her recruiter that she would not be deployed to Iraq. But almost immediately after her military police training, Swift's unit was ordered to deploy. Soon after she arrived in the Middle East, Suzanne began having to deal with the sexual advances of superiors. One of those superiors coerced her into a sexual relationship. After she returned to the states, Swift was due to deploy again but she chose to go AWOL instead. Eventually she was arrested and court-martialed and in early 2009, she was discharged from the military. She is talking with us today on the phone from her home in Oregon. Suzanne, thanks so much for speaking with Courage to Resist today. [. . .] Listen, let's go back to 2003, when you decided to join up. Tell me why you enlisted in the first place?
Suzanne Swift: I . . . I don't know. Honestly, it just had a really good recruiting pitch and I didn't have anything else to do and they'd give me a job where they said I wouldn't have to deploy to Iraq which I thought was a really good thing.
Courage to Resist: And the job was in the military police, right?
Suzanne Swift: Right. Military police, one of the most deployed MOSs [Military Occupation Specialties] in the US Army.
Courage to Resist: So would you say they misled you?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, definitely.
Courage to Resist: So you went to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri for basic training and for MP training, is that right?
Suzanne Swift: Right.
Courage to Resist: And where was your duty station after that?
Suzanne Swift: I was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington.
Courage to Resist: How long were you there before you went to Iraq?
Suzanne Swift: I would say about three, maybe four weeks.
Courage to Resist: Oh my goodness, that was fast.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, it sure was. Kind of a whirlwind.
Courage to Resist: Did you have any troubles during basic or MP training or at Fort Lewis with other soldiers?
Suzanne Swift: No, not really. I had, at Fort Lewis, one squad leader who -- whose intentions were not -- I don't even know how to say that.
Courage to Resist: He - he- he didn't have honorable intentions?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, exactly -- but that we find out later. Not at Fort Lewis, at Fort Leonard Wood.
Courage to Resist: Oh, that was at Fort Leonard Wood? But he never actually physically assaulted you or anything?
Suzanne Swift: No, not until we got to Iraq.
Courage to Resist: So -- so then you got to Iraq. Now tell me, when did the difficulties start?
Suzanne Swift: Almost immediately. We weren't even too Iraq yet. We were still staging in Kuwait and I had a platoon sergeant proposition me basically for sex and I was just completely in shock because, you know, these people are supposed to be like your parents -- especially when you're brand new, or like a brand new, young soldier. It's really appalling that someone would do that.
Courage to Resist: And how did you respond?
Suzanne Swift: Oh I told him no and then I told a couple of other people what had happened and kind of just like put it out there to see if he'd get any advice back. And I ended up talking to the Equal Opportunity Representative about it and he said that he would -- he would talk to the commander and that he would figure out what to do about it and then nothing ever came of that. Ever.
Courage to Resist: Nothing ever came of it? And did the propositions continue?
Suzanne Swift: Not from that particular person but from another person -- yeah, it sure did.
Courage to Resist: So you went from Kuwait to Iraq and where were you stationed in Iraq?
Suzanne Swift: Karbala, Iraq.
Courage to Resist: And that's where your more serious troubles began, is that right?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah.
Courage to Resist: Do you want to talk about some of that?
Suzanne Swift: Um. I -- it's kind of hard to talk about. I guess I've done it before though. I was basically coerced into a -- into a sexual relationship with -- with my superior. And when I tried to end it -- it went on for a few months -- when I tried to end it, he used every -- every resource he had available to make my life miserable -- to punish me for it.
Courage to Resist: And tell me the ways that he punished you.
Suzanne Swift: He would just -- he would tell me the wrong times to be at somewhere and then punish me for being late or not being at the right place and just do little things that would make me look bad. And he'd like spread rumors about -- about me and then like, I don't know. He just made me look bad in every possible way. And then would punish me for making me look bad.
Courage to Resist: Now what was his position in your unit?
Suzanne Swift: Uh, he was a squad leader. He was in a staff sergeant position but he was as a sergeant as an E-5.
Courage to Resist: So he was your squad leader and as your superior he did everything he could to make your life miserable when you refused to continue the relationship he had coerced you into?
Suzanne Swift: Right.
Courage to Resist: And what did you do about that?
Suzanne Swift: Nothing, honestly, you know, I just kept my head down and tried to stay out of trouble.
Courage to Resist: Did he continue his sexual pursuit of you?
Suzanne Swift: Not once the punishment started, no.
Courage to Resist: Did you ever try to report this?
Suzanne Swift: I told a bunch of people. Look, everybody knew what was going on. Just nobody wanted to fix it and plus what was the point? That was my frame of mind then. And he had -- he had also made it like -- with the way he was treating me -- he made it look like I was just a bad soldier. So even if I had reported it, he could have just told them like, "Oh, she's just not -- because I punish her, she's making it all up."
Courage to Resist: So he really had you in a bind.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah. I mean, I could have reported it but it probably wouldn't have come of anything even if it did, I also would have got in trouble, so what was the point?
Courage to Resist: And this continued all the time you were there?
Suzanne Swift: Mmm-hmm. It stopped right before we were heading back to the States and then he just pretended I wasn't there.
Courage to Resist: Were there any other incidents with your other superiors or was that it?Suzanne Swift: Yeah, once we got back to the States I moved to a new unit that was standing up and I had a squad leader who -- he didn't proposition me for sex, he would just say little nasty things to me
Courage to Resist: Did you have the sense that he knew about the other situation?
Suzanne Swift: No, I never really thought about it.
Courage to Resist: And the things he said to you, were they sexual innuendos?
Suzanne Swift: Right, he would -- yeah. He was my team leader and he would -- he would just say, he'd call me at night and be like, "What are you wearing?" And like he'd call me for work-related stuff and be like, "Oh, what color of panties do you have on?" Like, "What are you doing right now? Oh, you just got out of the shower? So you're naked right now?"
Courage to Resist: Oh my goodness.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, he was just a pervy, little guy.
Courage to Resist: Did you report this guy?
Suzanne Swift: I absolutely did. I was in the States and I had been -- I had just been through enough that I was like, "You know what? This guy is not getting away with it."
Courage to Resist: And who'd you report him to?
Suzanne Swift: I reported it to the Equal Opportunity Representative and he did his job for once and took it up higher to the commander.
Courage to Resist: What did the commander do?
Suzanne Swift: They did an investigation during which they accused me of sleeping with him and gave me a class from my commander on how to prevent sexual harassment from happening to me.
Courage to Resist: And they did nothing to the guy that was harassing you?Suzanne Swift: He got -- he got a very harshly worded letter of reprimand. But that was it.
Courage to Resist: That was it and you were seen as colluding in his sexual aggression. You were treated the way many women are when the victim of sexual aggression is blamed.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah. 'Okay, let me figure out really quick how to prevent sexual harassment -- cause it's my fault when it happens, right?'
The way the military treated Suzanne Swift is appalling and inexcusable; however, it needs to be noted that this is typical and for those who doubt it, zoom in on a class to 'teach' women how not to be sexually harassed which goes to the problems with the military. The person who needs instruction is not the victim. By pushing the burden off on the victim, the military is stating that harassment has two willing parties -- the harasser and the harasseree. As long as they're allowed to push that lie, don't ever expect the culture to improve. And there's no improvement for women in Iraq. Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports 23-year-old Nachman Jaleel Kadhim is a widow who also lost her twin sisters to the illegal war, one of her own five-month twins and now barely surived in a trailer park with "her remaining daughter." Williams notes she's "one of the lucky ones" underscoring how horrible things are for Iraqi widows. Williams tells you the Iraqi economy is hurting but leaves out the puppet government's big-money purchases. Multi-National Forces noted Valentine's Day (their idea of candy and flowers?), "To this end, the Government of Iraq has spent more than $5 billion to buy military equipment, supplies and training from the U.S. through the Foreign Military Sales program." And they're putting in a new pier for the Iraqi navy (yes, that is laughable -- Iraqi navy) which will cost $53 million.
Equally hilarious is to hear the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs managing director (not minister) Leila Kadhim insist that it's impossible to help everyone. Wait, al-Maliki's puppet government cut the meager budget for the Interior of Women's Affairs from $7,500 a month to $1,000 and another ministry wants to whine? That's hilarious.Williams informs you that Iraqi women (ages fifteen to eighty) are widows in a 1 to 11 ratio. It's a growth industry for Iraqi women. Williams notes some widows end up "coerced" into marriage -- but forgets to note that one of al-Maliki's puppets -- a woman at that, Phyllis Schlafly's spiritual sister? -- has proposed governmental programs to force widows into marriages. This one especially should provide laughter, "The Iraqi military estimates that the number of widows who have become suicide bombers may be in the dozens." Which is it? The female suicide bombers -- less than 40 last year -- are young virgins who were raped or they're widows? Pick a narrative, New York Times, because you've insisted both this month. Amazing and typical, Williams report starts talking about raising the profile of women in Iraq and includes the widows mark during the one-two shoe toss and songs sang during the provincial elections but forgets Nawal al Samurrai who resigned (but is reconsidering) this month as the Minister of Women's Affairs when the meager budget for her ministry was cut from $7,500 a month to 1,500 a month. Tina Susman and Caser Ahmed (Los Angeles Times), Corey Flintoff (NPR), To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe at US News & World Reports, Feminist Wire Daily, wowOwow and Kim Gamel (AP) have covered Nawal. It's only the New York Times -- with all their reporters in Iraq -- who've never managed to file a story on her. wowOwow zooms in on the nonsense Mazin al-Shihan (Baghdad Displacement Committee) gives Timothy Williams (for paying men to marry widows, "If we give the money to the widows, they will spend it unwisely because they are uneducated and they don't know about budgeting. But if we find her a husband, there will be a person in charge of her and her chilrden for the rest of their lives." wowOwow observes, "No wonder the state's not doing enough for women."
No wonder. But a power struggle that took up a great deal of time for the puppet government has been resolved. Wednesday's snapshot noted: "Monday, Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) covered the power struggle between the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities and the Culture Ministry as to whether or not the museum will open next Monday. The Culture Ministry's Jabir al-Jabiri is stating that the museum is not opening and his ministry is over the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquties while MfTaA's Baha al-Mayahi states yes, they are opening next Monday. Aseel Kami (Reuters) explains today that nothing's changed. MfTaA's maintains that the museum will open Monday and Jaber al-Jaberi continues to insist that it won't and that 'is the official and final position.' Kami observes, 'The feud illustrates some of the challenges facing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government as it seeks to capitalise on a drop in violence and unify a country shattered by war'." Today Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports, "Iraq's restored National Museum was formally dedicated on Monday, nearly six years after looters carried away priceless antiquities and treasures in the chaos following the U.S.-led invasion." CNN notes that post-war looting resulted in "15,000 irreplaceable artifacts" being lost with "only about 6,000 . . . recovered." Nouri al-Maliki attended the grand opening -- wearing yet another of those tired blue ties he so favors. BBC offers a photo essay on the reopening of the museum. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) offers this description, "
The museum includes halls displaying items delivered or returned by Iraqi citizens or regained from other nations. There is also an Assyrian room, a hall of Manuscripts showing ancient books of the Quran and an Islamic Hall. Magnificent wall-size stone carvings and statues, ancient coins and glazed pottery were among the antiquities on display. However, a room that had displayed ancient gold jewelry only showed pictures of the treasures. The jewelry had been on display during the early part of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003. But the museum feared that the gold jewelry may tempt thieves so the pieces are now kept in a vault." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explains how the power struggle was resolved, ". . . a compromise: The museum will reopen Monday for the first time in six years. But only eight of the museum's 26 galleries will be accessible, and for only a few hours". The Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond blog informs, "As for when the rest of Iraq will be able to see the museum, that's unclear. Iraqi guards Monday afternoon told journalists it would be a couple of months."
On Iraq's prison-industrial-complex, Dona and Jim observed last night: "More prisons means Iraq needs more prisoners and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that Sunni member of Parliament, Mohammed Daini, has been fingered publicly by al-Maliki's puppet government as responsible for an April 2007 bombing of Parliament and many 'other crimes'. As usual, no evidence was produced to back up these assertions though they did whine that the alleged criminal would remain free because member of Parliament have immunity. Immunity apparently also extends to al-Maliki's officials who make charges in public which they cannot back up." Mohammed al Dyni is another spelling. Trenton Daniels (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes the MP responding to the charges today by declaring, "The injustice against us is because of our national positions. We knew that were were going to pay a price for that." He maintains that the confessions the government is trumpeting are false because his bodyguards "were tortured heavily. These confessions need proof." Newsday reports, "As the videos were played, forces surrounded al-Dayni's home in western Baghdad and confiscated weapons, explosives and other items, including the passport of former Sunni lawmaker Abdul Nasser al-Janabi, who was forced out of parliament in 2007 after declaring he would join insurgents. Al-Dayni was at a hotel in the Green Zone, where he was effectively placed under house arrest." Meanwhile Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports on at least 12 Shi'ite police officers being arrested today on violence charges.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing "near the Technology University" which left seven people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left four people injured and a Mosul sticky bombing attack on "a candidate of the National Iraqi list" which left the candidate injured.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 people shot dead in Baghdad with eight more injured.
The Academy Awards ceremony was held last night and Academy Award nominee (for 1979's Starting Over) Candice Bergen live-blogged them for wowOwow. Staying with film, David Zeiger, the director of the amazing Sir! No Sir!, notes that the long suppressed documentary FTA -- directed by Francine Parker and featuring Jane Fonda (back on Broadway in 33 Variations at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre through May 24th -- with Samantha Mathis, Colin Hanks), Donald Sutherland, Holly Near, Rita Martinson, the late Peter Boyle and Paul Mooney among others -- airs tonight on the Sundance Channel (9:00 pm EST). The film Tricky Dick Nixon never wanted America to see not only airs tonight, it can be ordered on DVD.
In US politics, Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) continues exploring her place in the political landscape, "I still have hopes for the Green Party. But, not patience for them now. As for Cynthia McKinney...I will follow her almost anywhere. And, I intend to help her with her next campaign for any office, with a party I admire, or just dedicated to her and her message."
Lastly Kat's "Kat's Korner: The art of india.arie" went up Sunday as did Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Al Distraction" and Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Domestic Arts Czar" went up this morning. Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts -- he started his site Thursday.
iraqkristoffer walkerweau13sarah rasmussen
james a. carlsonlou hillmanmark lelandlaura smithtony waltersadam aaro
iraq veterans against the wara.n.s.w.e.r.world can't wait
suzanne swift
patrick martin
the los angeles timestina susmancaeser ahmed
nprcorey flintoff
bonnie erbe
timothy williamsthe new york times
gina chon
the wall street journal
kimberly wilder
david zeigersir! no sir!fta
jane fonda
holly near
kats kornerthe world today just nuts
the third estate sunday review
That is Isaiah's comic from Sunday and he has one that went up today as well and, yes, is planning another. Let's move to his next one.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Domestic Arts Czar"
Al Sharpton can say, "I didn't ask for anyone to be fired!" Bull-f**king-s**t. You stirred it, you boiled it and now you want to blame someone else for the cooking? Doesn't work that way you uneducated moron -- whose father left his mother for Al's sister.
Is that correct? Do I have the lowlife's life correct? That was told to me by a journalist at the Chicago Tribune today when he called about another matter (he's a friend). Well that certainly explains a great deal, doesn't it? We already know the 'rev' became one at age nine or ten which goes to how uneducated he is and how little his title means (after the man who ordained him passed away, Al Sharpton switched religions and was ordained in another faith).
I'm sorry I can't cheer on Al's attacks on the arts.
When CBS fired the producer of the Hitler mini-series for publicly (and rightly) comparing George W. Bush to Hitler, I thought that was too far. I do support the arts, unlike Al Sharpton but then I have an education, an actual education. Of course, my parents didn't sleep with my siblings either which also puts me far above Al.
Is that harsh?
Too damn bad.
I'll play the snob I was raised to be when it comes to attacks on the arts.
Throw Vincent Warren, Center for Constitutional Rights, in with Al Sharpton. Vinnie didn't get an education, apparently. Probably didn't grow up around the arts anymore than Al did. Here's little Vinnie, " The monkey is supposed to be President Barack Obama -- the first African American president and the 44th president of the United States of America." Poor Vinnie, too uneducated to be an art critic or even know the difference between a monkey and a chimp. (Hint, Vinnie, it was a chimp, not a monkey. Your education system failed you because you don't grasp that there is a difference. Quelle surprise.)
At Third we did an "Animation roundtable" and, think about what Vinnie 'knows' ("The monkey is supposed to be . . .") when you read my comments:
Elaine: I can't stress enough how strongly I agree with what Isaiah's saying. Some may say, "Well it's subtle but I see racism in it." I can nod along with that. I can agree with that if we're looking at a piece of art. Someone telling me, however, that the piece is racist, not "I see," and basing it on their interpretation is someone that has no background in the arts and really is not suited or trained to offer criticism. I mean, there are many times Ava and C.I. could rip apart the way a scene is staged. For Hilda's Mix, sometimes, they'll offer that as "Interpretations." Clearly defined as such. They'll note the power dynamics and the violence of a scene that's not supposed to be violent and they'll explore what that could mean. But for their pieces here, they don't do that. And they don't ever --at Hilda's Mix -- offer, "This is what it has to mean!" They know art, they grasp art, they grasp that it is open to interpretations. I have no problem looking at illustrations or statues or whatever with friends and hearing them say "I see . . ." But I have a huge problem with anyone who offers their interpretation and tries to pass it off as something other than an interpretation.
Vincent Warren is a garbage dump of intellectual waste. How the hell dare he attack a cartoon? How the hell dare he decide that his interpretation -- his uneducated interpretation -- is what an artist -- any artist -- intended? He really crossed a line and CCR crossed one by allowing that garbage of Vinnie's to go up at their site.
I've really had it with the Barack Obama Lovers who think they are somehow doing a damn thing. I've had it with how their love for Barack -- the idea of Barack, their idea of him -- matters more to them than reality.
Who the hell does Vincent Warren think he is? Is he a psychic? He's not an art critic. But he 'knows,' he just 'knows' what an artist meant.
What an uneducated, unelightened buffoon.
As I was saying, the Cult of Barack has gotten more than a wee bit out of control. CCR is nothing but a radical organization -- read Marxist, Lennist, etc. -- and when they can't stop being cheerleaders for Barack, there's really no reason for them to exist.
It's amazing Vincent found time to defend his lover (take his balls out of your mouth, Vinnie, before speaking) -- the same lover he can't call out for Guantanamo.
It's past time that the left figured out whether they were independent or cheerleaders.
I was discussing that with a friend Friday night and he pointed out that if George McGovern had been elected in 1972 and made the promises Barack did in the leadup to the election, been sworn in and all this time later done nothing to end the illegal war, we would have been marching, protesting and a lot more.
But instead of bravery, we get punk ass Vinnie and the Cowardly Center for Barack's Rights. Michael Ratner, you should be ashamed of CCR and of yourself right now. How dare you? Where is your courage?
In 1976, do you know how many complaints the FCC received about alleged 'vulgarities' from radio airwaves? 2300. 1976. These reactionaries are always around and they will always try to impose their morality on the rest of us. Those complaints, it should be noted, included complaints against the Carly Simon hit "Nobody Does It Better." That was 'vulgar.' People just knew it was, like Vinnie just knows a chimp isn't a chimp. Excuse me, the educationally challenged Vinnie can't tell the difference between a monkey and a chimp.
Good, I got Janis. Ellen Willis as well -- and we could certainly use her on the left today -- we have no intellectuals among us apparently. This is a theme night post and we're doing music. The way it works is that we are all using one of three books. Selected because they were readily available to all. Mine is The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll (Jim Miller, editor, Random House).
"Janis Joplin" (Ellen Willis):
Joplin belonged to that select group of pop figures who mattered as much for themselves as for their music; among American rock performers she was second only to Bob Dylan in importance as a creator/recorder/emobdiment of her generation's history and mythology. She was also the only woman to achieve that kind of stature in what was basically a male club, the only Sixties culture hero to make visible and public women's experience of the quest for individual liberation, which was very different from men's. If Janis's favorite metaphors -- singing as fucking (a first principle of rock and roll) and fucking as liberation (a first principle of the cultural revolution) -- were equally approved by her male peers, the congruence was only on the surface. Underneath -- just barely -- lurked a feminist (or prefeminist) paradox.
The male-dominated counterculture defined freedom for women almost exclusively in sexual terms. As a result, women endowed the idea of sexual liberation with immense symbolic importance; it became charged with all the secret energy of an as yet suppressed larger rebellion. Yet to express one's rebellion in that limited way was a painfully literal form of submission. Whether or not Janis understood that, her dual persona -- lusty hedonist and suffering victim -- suggested that she felt it. Dope, another term in her metaphorical equation (getting high as singing as fucking as liberation) was, in its more sinister aspect, a pain0killer and finally a killer. Which is not to say that the good times weren't real, as far as they went. Whatever the limitations of hippie/rock star life, it was better than being a provincial matron -- or a lonely weirdo.
If you don't know Ellen Willis, you may not grasp what a hole her death left. Janis? My two favorite songs are ones that rarely get noted. "Call On Me" is a song she recorded with Big Brother & The Holding Company. You can find a live version on the Janis boxed set (which also has another essay on Janis by Ellen). "A Woman Left Lonely" is my other all time favorite and I don't believe she's ever gotten the credit she deserves for the vocals on that song.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, February 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces 5 deaths in Iraq since Friday (3 today), Iraq War veteran Kristoffer Walker says "no more" to the Iraq War, Iraq War veteran Suzanne Swift shares the stories of her harassment and command rape while serving in the military, Baghdad's museum re-opens . . . kind of, and more.
Starting with 28-year-old Kristoffer Walker who is saying no to returning to Iraq. Sarah Rasmussen (WEAU13 -- link has text and video) reports:
Sarah Rasmussen: Good evening, I'm Sarah Rasmussen and after serving after part of a duty in Iraq, the soldier in Wisconsin has decided not to rejoin his unit and faces possible arrest for that decision. We first told you about Specialist Kristoffer Walker [last] night on WEAU13 News at Six. He's serving with the 353rd transportation company that was supposed to ship out yesterday morning to return to Iraq after a two week leave; however, after his request for a transfer went unanswered by his superiors Walker opted not to return to Iraq for moral reasons Walker, who enlisted in the Army Reserve shortly after September 11, says after six years the US is still fighting a war they should have never been involved with. Kristoffer Walker: Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is -- it's an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed.Sarah Rasmussen: According to the United States Military, Specialist Walker has 30 days to report. After that he'll be considered a deserter and the military will issue a warrant for his arrest.
Kristoffer explained to Lou Hillman (Fox 11), "My beliefs haven't changed and nothing has changed between Friday and now in Iraq. I am not a pacifist. There is an absolute need for our armed forces" but Kristoffer believes the Iraq War is wrong. As for his opposition and how he should oppose, Kristoffer told Tony Walter (Appleton Post Crescent), "The Army's definition is a little different than mine. The Army's definition is that you have to be opposed to war and all its forms. That's not me. I absolutely support using military force to respond or retaliate to attack. By their standards, you're not allowed to object to one conflict over another." Adam Aaro (WBAY -- link has text video, quote is from video and is correct, text quote is inaccurate) visited with Kristoffer and Sierra Walker and Kristoffer told him, "And I figured if I were to go back to Iraq and do something again that's contrary to my belief structure, I wouldn't be able to really live with myself. . . . Obviously there's a little bit of nervousness there because it's a very real possibility, but what are the other consequences on the flip side if I decide to go back to Iraq and do something that's immoral?" Laura Smith (Fox 11) explains, "Walker says he is receiving suppot from friends and family -- that includes soldiers he served with in Iraq. US Army officials have said Walker still has time to change his mind but would likely face some internal consequences for not reporting." James A. Carlson (AP) reports Kristoffer sees the Iraq War as "an illegitimate, unnecessary campaign." He told WEAU13 that, "Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war in Iraq, is an immoral operation and it's also being poorly managed."
Kristoffer is standing up right now. He knows the Iraq War didn't end. He's not fooling himself into believing it ends tomorrow -- Oh, Blessed Day. Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes, "Meanwhile, there has been no action on Obama's election-year promises to pull out US combat troops from Iraq. Within weeks of the November 4 vote, Obama signaled his intention to maintain the US occupation by retaining Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the architect of the Bush administration's 'surge' policy in Iraq. No US troops have been withdrawn, and US military officers, including the overall commander in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno have dismissed as unviable Obama's pledge to withdraw all combat troops in 16 months." Those in the reality-based world who would like to stand up should know that next month, many people will be standing against the war and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
The illegal war is not ending on its own -- no matter how much time you waste "Wishin' & Hopin'". News of US soldiers dying in Iraq continues -- because the illegal war continues and pretending it ended with an election (in the US or Iraq) is something only a Crazy Ass Cockburn would do. Saturday the US miltary announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Division--Baghdad Soldier died Feb. 21 while conducting a combat patrol near Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is currently under investigation." Making that announcement was so tiring for M-NF that they allowed the Dept of Defense to make the other one yesterday, "The Department of Defense announced the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. PFC Cwislyn K. Walter, 19, of Honolulu died Feb. 19 in Kuwait City, Kuwait, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. She was assigned to the 29th Special Troops Battalion, 29th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Hawaii National Guard. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation." Today the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- Three U.S. Coalition Soldiers and an interpreter died as a result of combat operations in Diyala Province, Iraq, Feb. 23." The announcements bring the number of deaths of US service members in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4250.
While 4250 US service members and approximately 1.6 million Iraqis have died, many more people have been injured. Some wounds are physical, some are mental wounds -- all are serious. One woman who fought back against command rape recently discussed that ordeal and the effects she carries with her today. Back in January, we noted IVAW's Suzanne Swift had finally been discharged. Courage to Resist interviewed her (link is audio only) earlier this month about her experiences and this is an excerpt:
Courage to Resist: Suzanne Swift joined the US Army in 2003 having been assured by her recruiter that she would not be deployed to Iraq. But almost immediately after her military police training, Swift's unit was ordered to deploy. Soon after she arrived in the Middle East, Suzanne began having to deal with the sexual advances of superiors. One of those superiors coerced her into a sexual relationship. After she returned to the states, Swift was due to deploy again but she chose to go AWOL instead. Eventually she was arrested and court-martialed and in early 2009, she was discharged from the military. She is talking with us today on the phone from her home in Oregon. Suzanne, thanks so much for speaking with Courage to Resist today. [. . .] Listen, let's go back to 2003, when you decided to join up. Tell me why you enlisted in the first place?
Suzanne Swift: I . . . I don't know. Honestly, it just had a really good recruiting pitch and I didn't have anything else to do and they'd give me a job where they said I wouldn't have to deploy to Iraq which I thought was a really good thing.
Courage to Resist: And the job was in the military police, right?
Suzanne Swift: Right. Military police, one of the most deployed MOSs [Military Occupation Specialties] in the US Army.
Courage to Resist: So would you say they misled you?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, definitely.
Courage to Resist: So you went to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri for basic training and for MP training, is that right?
Suzanne Swift: Right.
Courage to Resist: And where was your duty station after that?
Suzanne Swift: I was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington.
Courage to Resist: How long were you there before you went to Iraq?
Suzanne Swift: I would say about three, maybe four weeks.
Courage to Resist: Oh my goodness, that was fast.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, it sure was. Kind of a whirlwind.
Courage to Resist: Did you have any troubles during basic or MP training or at Fort Lewis with other soldiers?
Suzanne Swift: No, not really. I had, at Fort Lewis, one squad leader who -- whose intentions were not -- I don't even know how to say that.
Courage to Resist: He - he- he didn't have honorable intentions?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, exactly -- but that we find out later. Not at Fort Lewis, at Fort Leonard Wood.
Courage to Resist: Oh, that was at Fort Leonard Wood? But he never actually physically assaulted you or anything?
Suzanne Swift: No, not until we got to Iraq.
Courage to Resist: So -- so then you got to Iraq. Now tell me, when did the difficulties start?
Suzanne Swift: Almost immediately. We weren't even too Iraq yet. We were still staging in Kuwait and I had a platoon sergeant proposition me basically for sex and I was just completely in shock because, you know, these people are supposed to be like your parents -- especially when you're brand new, or like a brand new, young soldier. It's really appalling that someone would do that.
Courage to Resist: And how did you respond?
Suzanne Swift: Oh I told him no and then I told a couple of other people what had happened and kind of just like put it out there to see if he'd get any advice back. And I ended up talking to the Equal Opportunity Representative about it and he said that he would -- he would talk to the commander and that he would figure out what to do about it and then nothing ever came of that. Ever.
Courage to Resist: Nothing ever came of it? And did the propositions continue?
Suzanne Swift: Not from that particular person but from another person -- yeah, it sure did.
Courage to Resist: So you went from Kuwait to Iraq and where were you stationed in Iraq?
Suzanne Swift: Karbala, Iraq.
Courage to Resist: And that's where your more serious troubles began, is that right?
Suzanne Swift: Yeah.
Courage to Resist: Do you want to talk about some of that?
Suzanne Swift: Um. I -- it's kind of hard to talk about. I guess I've done it before though. I was basically coerced into a -- into a sexual relationship with -- with my superior. And when I tried to end it -- it went on for a few months -- when I tried to end it, he used every -- every resource he had available to make my life miserable -- to punish me for it.
Courage to Resist: And tell me the ways that he punished you.
Suzanne Swift: He would just -- he would tell me the wrong times to be at somewhere and then punish me for being late or not being at the right place and just do little things that would make me look bad. And he'd like spread rumors about -- about me and then like, I don't know. He just made me look bad in every possible way. And then would punish me for making me look bad.
Courage to Resist: Now what was his position in your unit?
Suzanne Swift: Uh, he was a squad leader. He was in a staff sergeant position but he was as a sergeant as an E-5.
Courage to Resist: So he was your squad leader and as your superior he did everything he could to make your life miserable when you refused to continue the relationship he had coerced you into?
Suzanne Swift: Right.
Courage to Resist: And what did you do about that?
Suzanne Swift: Nothing, honestly, you know, I just kept my head down and tried to stay out of trouble.
Courage to Resist: Did he continue his sexual pursuit of you?
Suzanne Swift: Not once the punishment started, no.
Courage to Resist: Did you ever try to report this?
Suzanne Swift: I told a bunch of people. Look, everybody knew what was going on. Just nobody wanted to fix it and plus what was the point? That was my frame of mind then. And he had -- he had also made it like -- with the way he was treating me -- he made it look like I was just a bad soldier. So even if I had reported it, he could have just told them like, "Oh, she's just not -- because I punish her, she's making it all up."
Courage to Resist: So he really had you in a bind.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah. I mean, I could have reported it but it probably wouldn't have come of anything even if it did, I also would have got in trouble, so what was the point?
Courage to Resist: And this continued all the time you were there?
Suzanne Swift: Mmm-hmm. It stopped right before we were heading back to the States and then he just pretended I wasn't there.
Courage to Resist: Were there any other incidents with your other superiors or was that it?Suzanne Swift: Yeah, once we got back to the States I moved to a new unit that was standing up and I had a squad leader who -- he didn't proposition me for sex, he would just say little nasty things to me
Courage to Resist: Did you have the sense that he knew about the other situation?
Suzanne Swift: No, I never really thought about it.
Courage to Resist: And the things he said to you, were they sexual innuendos?
Suzanne Swift: Right, he would -- yeah. He was my team leader and he would -- he would just say, he'd call me at night and be like, "What are you wearing?" And like he'd call me for work-related stuff and be like, "Oh, what color of panties do you have on?" Like, "What are you doing right now? Oh, you just got out of the shower? So you're naked right now?"
Courage to Resist: Oh my goodness.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah, he was just a pervy, little guy.
Courage to Resist: Did you report this guy?
Suzanne Swift: I absolutely did. I was in the States and I had been -- I had just been through enough that I was like, "You know what? This guy is not getting away with it."
Courage to Resist: And who'd you report him to?
Suzanne Swift: I reported it to the Equal Opportunity Representative and he did his job for once and took it up higher to the commander.
Courage to Resist: What did the commander do?
Suzanne Swift: They did an investigation during which they accused me of sleeping with him and gave me a class from my commander on how to prevent sexual harassment from happening to me.
Courage to Resist: And they did nothing to the guy that was harassing you?Suzanne Swift: He got -- he got a very harshly worded letter of reprimand. But that was it.
Courage to Resist: That was it and you were seen as colluding in his sexual aggression. You were treated the way many women are when the victim of sexual aggression is blamed.
Suzanne Swift: Yeah. 'Okay, let me figure out really quick how to prevent sexual harassment -- cause it's my fault when it happens, right?'
The way the military treated Suzanne Swift is appalling and inexcusable; however, it needs to be noted that this is typical and for those who doubt it, zoom in on a class to 'teach' women how not to be sexually harassed which goes to the problems with the military. The person who needs instruction is not the victim. By pushing the burden off on the victim, the military is stating that harassment has two willing parties -- the harasser and the harasseree. As long as they're allowed to push that lie, don't ever expect the culture to improve. And there's no improvement for women in Iraq. Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports 23-year-old Nachman Jaleel Kadhim is a widow who also lost her twin sisters to the illegal war, one of her own five-month twins and now barely surived in a trailer park with "her remaining daughter." Williams notes she's "one of the lucky ones" underscoring how horrible things are for Iraqi widows. Williams tells you the Iraqi economy is hurting but leaves out the puppet government's big-money purchases. Multi-National Forces noted Valentine's Day (their idea of candy and flowers?), "To this end, the Government of Iraq has spent more than $5 billion to buy military equipment, supplies and training from the U.S. through the Foreign Military Sales program." And they're putting in a new pier for the Iraqi navy (yes, that is laughable -- Iraqi navy) which will cost $53 million.
Equally hilarious is to hear the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs managing director (not minister) Leila Kadhim insist that it's impossible to help everyone. Wait, al-Maliki's puppet government cut the meager budget for the Interior of Women's Affairs from $7,500 a month to $1,000 and another ministry wants to whine? That's hilarious.Williams informs you that Iraqi women (ages fifteen to eighty) are widows in a 1 to 11 ratio. It's a growth industry for Iraqi women. Williams notes some widows end up "coerced" into marriage -- but forgets to note that one of al-Maliki's puppets -- a woman at that, Phyllis Schlafly's spiritual sister? -- has proposed governmental programs to force widows into marriages. This one especially should provide laughter, "The Iraqi military estimates that the number of widows who have become suicide bombers may be in the dozens." Which is it? The female suicide bombers -- less than 40 last year -- are young virgins who were raped or they're widows? Pick a narrative, New York Times, because you've insisted both this month. Amazing and typical, Williams report starts talking about raising the profile of women in Iraq and includes the widows mark during the one-two shoe toss and songs sang during the provincial elections but forgets Nawal al Samurrai who resigned (but is reconsidering) this month as the Minister of Women's Affairs when the meager budget for her ministry was cut from $7,500 a month to 1,500 a month. Tina Susman and Caser Ahmed (Los Angeles Times), Corey Flintoff (NPR), To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe at US News & World Reports, Feminist Wire Daily, wowOwow and Kim Gamel (AP) have covered Nawal. It's only the New York Times -- with all their reporters in Iraq -- who've never managed to file a story on her. wowOwow zooms in on the nonsense Mazin al-Shihan (Baghdad Displacement Committee) gives Timothy Williams (for paying men to marry widows, "If we give the money to the widows, they will spend it unwisely because they are uneducated and they don't know about budgeting. But if we find her a husband, there will be a person in charge of her and her chilrden for the rest of their lives." wowOwow observes, "No wonder the state's not doing enough for women."
No wonder. But a power struggle that took up a great deal of time for the puppet government has been resolved. Wednesday's snapshot noted: "Monday, Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) covered the power struggle between the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquities and the Culture Ministry as to whether or not the museum will open next Monday. The Culture Ministry's Jabir al-Jabiri is stating that the museum is not opening and his ministry is over the Ministry for Tourism and Antiquties while MfTaA's Baha al-Mayahi states yes, they are opening next Monday. Aseel Kami (Reuters) explains today that nothing's changed. MfTaA's maintains that the museum will open Monday and Jaber al-Jaberi continues to insist that it won't and that 'is the official and final position.' Kami observes, 'The feud illustrates some of the challenges facing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government as it seeks to capitalise on a drop in violence and unify a country shattered by war'." Today Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports, "Iraq's restored National Museum was formally dedicated on Monday, nearly six years after looters carried away priceless antiquities and treasures in the chaos following the U.S.-led invasion." CNN notes that post-war looting resulted in "15,000 irreplaceable artifacts" being lost with "only about 6,000 . . . recovered." Nouri al-Maliki attended the grand opening -- wearing yet another of those tired blue ties he so favors. BBC offers a photo essay on the reopening of the museum. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) offers this description, "
The museum includes halls displaying items delivered or returned by Iraqi citizens or regained from other nations. There is also an Assyrian room, a hall of Manuscripts showing ancient books of the Quran and an Islamic Hall. Magnificent wall-size stone carvings and statues, ancient coins and glazed pottery were among the antiquities on display. However, a room that had displayed ancient gold jewelry only showed pictures of the treasures. The jewelry had been on display during the early part of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003. But the museum feared that the gold jewelry may tempt thieves so the pieces are now kept in a vault." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explains how the power struggle was resolved, ". . . a compromise: The museum will reopen Monday for the first time in six years. But only eight of the museum's 26 galleries will be accessible, and for only a few hours". The Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond blog informs, "As for when the rest of Iraq will be able to see the museum, that's unclear. Iraqi guards Monday afternoon told journalists it would be a couple of months."
On Iraq's prison-industrial-complex, Dona and Jim observed last night: "More prisons means Iraq needs more prisoners and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that Sunni member of Parliament, Mohammed Daini, has been fingered publicly by al-Maliki's puppet government as responsible for an April 2007 bombing of Parliament and many 'other crimes'. As usual, no evidence was produced to back up these assertions though they did whine that the alleged criminal would remain free because member of Parliament have immunity. Immunity apparently also extends to al-Maliki's officials who make charges in public which they cannot back up." Mohammed al Dyni is another spelling. Trenton Daniels (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes the MP responding to the charges today by declaring, "The injustice against us is because of our national positions. We knew that were were going to pay a price for that." He maintains that the confessions the government is trumpeting are false because his bodyguards "were tortured heavily. These confessions need proof." Newsday reports, "As the videos were played, forces surrounded al-Dayni's home in western Baghdad and confiscated weapons, explosives and other items, including the passport of former Sunni lawmaker Abdul Nasser al-Janabi, who was forced out of parliament in 2007 after declaring he would join insurgents. Al-Dayni was at a hotel in the Green Zone, where he was effectively placed under house arrest." Meanwhile Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports on at least 12 Shi'ite police officers being arrested today on violence charges.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing "near the Technology University" which left seven people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left four people injured and a Mosul sticky bombing attack on "a candidate of the National Iraqi list" which left the candidate injured.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 people shot dead in Baghdad with eight more injured.
The Academy Awards ceremony was held last night and Academy Award nominee (for 1979's Starting Over) Candice Bergen live-blogged them for wowOwow. Staying with film, David Zeiger, the director of the amazing Sir! No Sir!, notes that the long suppressed documentary FTA -- directed by Francine Parker and featuring Jane Fonda (back on Broadway in 33 Variations at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre through May 24th -- with Samantha Mathis, Colin Hanks), Donald Sutherland, Holly Near, Rita Martinson, the late Peter Boyle and Paul Mooney among others -- airs tonight on the Sundance Channel (9:00 pm EST). The film Tricky Dick Nixon never wanted America to see not only airs tonight, it can be ordered on DVD.
In US politics, Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) continues exploring her place in the political landscape, "I still have hopes for the Green Party. But, not patience for them now. As for Cynthia McKinney...I will follow her almost anywhere. And, I intend to help her with her next campaign for any office, with a party I admire, or just dedicated to her and her message."
Lastly Kat's "Kat's Korner: The art of india.arie" went up Sunday as did Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Al Distraction" and Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Domestic Arts Czar" went up this morning. Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts -- he started his site Thursday.
iraqkristoffer walkerweau13sarah rasmussen
james a. carlsonlou hillmanmark lelandlaura smithtony waltersadam aaro
iraq veterans against the wara.n.s.w.e.r.world can't wait
suzanne swift
patrick martin
the los angeles timestina susmancaeser ahmed
nprcorey flintoff
bonnie erbe
timothy williamsthe new york times
gina chon
the wall street journal
kimberly wilder
david zeigersir! no sir!fta
jane fonda
holly near
kats kornerthe world today just nuts
the third estate sunday review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)