Friday, February 15, 2008

How Obama Loses In November

"Enough. (a long GBCW essay)" (Jarhead 5536, No Quarter):
Hillary is MY candidate, however. I agree with her on 98% of her choices, and support for marriage equality will come to her one day, I am sure. She may not get the chance because the Democratic Party has managed to in one year what the Republican Party could not after over 20 years of trying -- destroy Hillary Clinton.

That's a wonderful essay and I've highlighted the last portion. Reading through the comments, I see one thing missing and that's largely because a female aquaintence of C.I. and mine felt the need to e-mail us both (at our own accounts, not accounts for our sites) about how her party, Republican, will win the November election.

She thinks Obama gets the nomination for the Democratic Party. She argues that John McCain (who does not yet have the nomination) then walks all over him. How?

There's some test cases in polling the GOP's been doing (according to her and she is a party insider -- she is not Mary Matlin, by the way, I need to note that because it is known that C.I. knows MM and I don't want anyone to wrongly assume MM's leaking GOP research).

The talking point is that Obama wins in a match-up against McCain. That's what the press keeps repeating. The reality is Obama is undefined and the GOP specializes in defining (via smear).

But reading over the e-mail, I see that the research targets racist impulses and actually has one good technique.

Let's start with the good technique. By "good," I mean it trumps Barack Obama without resorting to racism. The rest is all racism.

McCain and Obama, if the nominees, will not be running alone and that's what the GOP is preparing for. It's what the Dems aren't preparing for. They're off in dream-ticket land while the GOP is researching to find out what does the most damage. It's not about "We need this state!" It's about damage.

There research shows, according to the e-mail (and the woman is a party insider -- more so than MM because this woman is from a wealthy family), that the answer for the GOP is a v.p. candidate in his (yes, they research says male for v.p.) early forties with a baby face. It works to underscore that "leaders" are mature. A Dan Quayle type (that's a quote from the e-mail) but DQ himself is too old. It's a "golly sir" type candidate. It buttresses McCain's maturity while setting up a comparison in voters' minds that the v.p. candidate, like Obama, is awfully young.

It could be effective. It may not be. That's the only idea (really, the only comment) that doesn't address race.

It's going to be a race campaign if Obama gets it.

The research indicates that's the way to go. Edwards as v.p. doesn't poll well in their independent voter focus groups. Why? He's appears older than Obama (he is older). It might seem like a Bully Boy and Dick Cheney match up where Edwards brings (for some) the idea of substance and adds weight to the ticket. But, she argues, race comes in and Edwards looks ineffectual since he is older and it plays into some fears on the part of some White voters.

I'm probably not explaining that well because I found it offensive (as did C.I.). But what the GOP is counting on with Obama is that he can't put a White male (or female) on the ticket without going young. The person has to be younger, they argue, because otherwise, you've got a ticket where race relations are raised and they feel/hope it will be touchy for some voters.

(This might be true for some voters if Hillary were at the top of the ticket and she had a man her age or older as her v.p. choice. The feeling is that without a White, older male at the top, swing voters will get the "willies." However, they don't include Hillary in the analysis. They feel it's Obama and, on the GOP side, McCain.)

If he goes with someone White who is older they have all sorts of 'cute' lines for McCain. She shares one about how the race is about running the government, they're not making a cop buddy picture. That seems a bit dated to me, as a reference, but they're not going for young voters and expect that most of them will not turn out. They're staking out the over 30 vote.

If he goes younger than himself and goes White, you've got two young people on the ticket. They like the visual of that. If he goes for a person of color, they think they win the race with very little effort on their part.

I saw the e-mail this morning. It was e-mailed to both of us. The woman regularly e-mails ha-ha messages, she knows us both from our families and always sees as 'raving radicals' but, due to the money background, sees that as a lark on our part. She's spent decades expecting us to 'get over' our 'lark.' Her batting average is sometimes accurate. She was correct about the Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan match up. She was correct about the Bully Boy and John Kerry match up. She rightly predicted that Robert Dole would not have the guts to go the distance and Clinton would win in 1996 (re-election). She rightly saw Jimmy Carter trouncing Ford (and also felt Ford didn't have the guts to go the distance). She was wrong about Al Gore and Bully Boy in terms of the way it would be fought. (In terms of the 'victory,' I believe that election was stolen. She doesn't. Make up your own mind.) She was wrong about Bush I v. Clinton in 1992.

With Kerry, she said they were going to the Dukakis playbook and would destroy all his strengths including his military service. I didn't believe that was possible. Obviously, I was hugely wrong.

So I mentioned the e-mail to C.I. who hadn't seen it. C.I. read over it and I said, "I'm posting on it." Obama may get the nomination and, if he does, consider that the only contribution I intend to make to his campaign. We both agreed there's no fall out for the woman (when you help bankroll the party, they can't touch you) and it's not like the low level operatives (the ones you see on TV -- the ones some mistakenly think are 'players' when they're only the help) will know who it came from.

But if he does get the nomination, he needs to be very careful about whom he selects for his running mate.

That's regardless of whether the above is used or not by the GOP. C.I. and I both have a very hard time picturing McCain going young for his v.p. It's possible, but we would assume he would go for someone old that would translate as 'experience.' But it's not like we can figure out the GOP next move and the woman does have a track record (that I've basically outlined) so you can decide for yourself.

I'm going to title this post "How Obama Loses The General Election" because I do want it to get attention. Not for me, but due to the fact that he may get the nomination and his campaign needs to be seriously thinking about these variables.

I probably have done a very poor job of explaining the racism aspect of the proposed campaign but that's because it sickens me to read that portion. I would hope that even the GOP wouldn't play that card to that degree. (I am sure they will play the race card, it's perfectly in keeping with their previous campaigns.)

I went back and forth over whether to post this or not. I talked about it over and over with C.I. I do not support Obama (I voted for Gravel in the primary) and will probably go with the Green Party if he gets the nomination. (That's based on the fact that I do not trust Obama after the face to face meet up when he was running for the US Senate and stated that the US was in Iraq now and had to stay.) But the racism aspect did sicken me and I really can't take the guilt if it comes to pass. I told C.I. that and C.I. called a friend (of many years) high up in the Obama campaign. The response was laughter. The attitude was, "Let the Republicans try that." I can understand the feeling of "it'll never work" because that was my attitude in 2004 when we were getting our missive from the same friend saying Kerry's war record was going to be ripped apart. (That may have been a letter. She's a Luddite. 2006 was an e-mail and I'm avoiding mid-term missives from her because they are apples and oranges and because I'd have to rack my brain to remember what those letters said and who ended up in control to determine whether she was accurate or not.) So that's what one ardent, big-moneyed GOP-er is claiming waits in the wings. Be sure to read C.I.'s "I Hate The War" from last night.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, February 15, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US kills allies, the refugee crisis has a new wrinkle -- voting, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Brad McCall is a war resister who went to Canada because he could not serve in an illegal war. Yesterday he blogged about an e-mail he received from an angry Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Driggers whom McCall attempts to explain it again to, "I am protecting my nation by doing what I have done. I am also supporting my fellow soldiers that are serving in this war. By leaving and making it clear that I will not conform to this act of hate committed by my government, I make it clear that there are soldiers with conscience and that we (soldiers) should be kept safe in our own borders, and not in some country that we have no business in." Earlier this week, he addressed another e-mail from a soldier and responded, "You see, the military is built so that men, and women, have no chance to speak out against what is obviously wrong. In the Army there was this saying: 'Out of sight, out of mind'. Most lower ranking soldiers live on that principle. They believe that the quieter they stay, the smoother they will flow through, and essentially, the quicker they will get out. They are afraid to speak out. They know what can happen. I knew what would happen when I spoke up."

With Canada's Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters like McCall may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."

IVAW calls for an immediate end to the illegal war, for reparations for the Iraqis and for full benefits for US service members. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the US House Armed Services Committee held a meeting on "Medical Care For Wounded Soldiers."
US House Rep Susan Davis is chair of the subcommittee and she opened with a statement which included: "The purpose of today's hearing is for members to get an update on the implementation of the Army's Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and hear how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are caring for their wounded warriors. At out last hearing on this subject back in June of last year, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, suggested that we have him back in October and January to testify on the progress of AMAP towards Full Operational Capability. Circumstances precluded such follow-up hearings, and we understand that General Cody has just returned from Iraq in the past few hours, but we will nonetheless push foward so that we may learn how far the AMAP has come, and how far it still has to go." Testifying were Vice Admiral Adam Robinson, Surgeon General of the Navy; Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, Surgeon General of the Army; and Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, Assistant Surgeon General of the Army. With those and members of Congress, you might think the hearing could get somewhere.

You would be wrong. Can someone offer US House Rep Joe Wilson a job with MoviePhone? How much time did he use talking about the documentary Fighting for Life? Did the limited time of the hour and 45 minute hearing really allow for Wilson to read from p.r. material for the film? To note a screening? But regardless of the Congress member, there appeared to be far too much concern with making nice and far too little concern about getting down to what was being done or what needed to be done.

Rep John McHugh broke from his peers to ask actual questions regarding demobilization and to address the stories the committee was hearing about servicemembers "being ordered to demobilze while still undergoing treatment." McHugh noted the information on this continues to come in despite the fact that "we brought those concerns to your predecessor and we were assured by Navy leadership that those practicies would end." Robinson claimed to be unaware of any such stories and insisted that care for those in the service was maintained before offering, "From the surgeon in me, I'm tell you that most of the time I don't think that anyone should leave the service until their medical condition has been delineated or treated." It was all a lively side-step by Robinson. The question wasn't 'What do you think?' Again, to McHugh's credit, he did show some focus and determination and followed up with, "To be clear, in general terms, it would not be the navy's policy to discharge a soldier who a few days later had surgery scheduled?" When pressed Robinson would answer and answered, "That is correct." However, he quickly followed with, "I would expect that we would care for them." You would expect? What is the policy and is the policy followed? This is the military appearing before Congress -- what is the policy, what are the orders. It's very basic.

Bethesda (National Naval Medical Center) was mentioned often. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is set to be closed and replaced with a systematic facility that would see Bethesda expanded. Schoomaker stated that the "full integration of services" has already began and used US Secretary of Defense Robert Gate's shoulder injury to illustrate the way the system flows. Robinson maintains that, under the new system, "there won't be anyone left behind" and that "inroads" are being made.

US House Rep Nancy Boyda started off noting that a one year ago the committee was informed "military to civilian transitions were supposed to be halted" but when she looks at the 2009 budget, she sees they "are still in there." In March of 2007, the subject was addressed with US House Rep McHugh endorsing the 'need' for military positions to be transitioned to civilians as 'cost-cutting' steps. At that time, McHugh noted that 5,500 positions had already been 'transitioned' to civilians with 2,700 left to go. Boyda's point was that, after previous hearings, this is still in the budget. The response was, for the Air Force, that the positions "not filled by 2009 will revert back to the military." Did Boyda have a point in asking the question? Apparently not because she mistook herself for a high school guidance counselor in all that followed -- non-stop repetitions of speaking-for-me-we-want-to-make-sure-your-needs-are-met. Over and over. Really, when you a member of Congress, why not try conducting yourself like one. Boyda went on to insist that we (but really her, remember, speaking for herself) want the military to have "the ability to make the decisions that you think are best for our military personnel." Boyda may see that as footage to run in her re-election campaign but the reality is not only does Congress have an obligation but there's also the fact that the Walter Reed scandal requires that Congress provide serious oversight. If anyone member of Congress other than McHugh (a Republican) had any idea what they were doing in that hearing, they hid it very, very well.

Having wasted so much time with 'Help-me-help-you' babble, there wasn't time for all the witness to answer her question on what they needed. Schoomaker stated "we need more latitude" when it came to mental health. It really would have been nice to have had a follow up to that but Boyda ensured that no follow ups would come as she wasted her time. Schoomaker also wanted to see "a medical suppliment".

Susan Davis, the chair, captured the mood of the hearing and it wasn't pretty as she asked, "Any additional thoughts on what the problems were? Whether there was a" here she laughs "misscomunication somewhere?" Exactly what was funny about that? And does Davis really think that's how to chair a committee? It was disgusting. Davis wanted to know about the "bedside training" of the military's CADRE.

Tucker explained that the CADRE comes "from all the ranks in the Army" and that the course-work is currently a 40 hour training; however, it is becoming a three week course based out of Houston beginning in October. The three week course will put "them through the bedside manner, like you've spoken about, ma'am." He explained the special duty pay which was not initially in place (this despite his terming the CADRE's work to be "the Lord's work"). Currently they get $300 of special duty pay a month the first year and $375 the second.

Schoomaker gave a complicated example that was meant to confuse but, judging by their performance, the committee showed up confused. Schoomaker's example rested around the fact that when you are in the military and found to have a health problem, say weak ankles, they discharge with a rating, say 30%. But a person usually has more than just that or, as Schoomaker termed them, a "total person," they have a "combination of problems." And the problem with military care for active duty service members, according to Schoomaker is that. After discharge, the same service member will begin receiving treatment in a VA hospital and the VA will certify him or her for additional health problems. Schoomaker appeared to be making an argument that both the VA and the military should work from the same table -- this was what he found "fundamentally flawed" in the process. It really shouldn't require a great deal of work on the part of Congress to ensure that the VA and the military work from the same disability tables. And it should be the VA's because, as Schoomaker pointed out, that table addresses the "total person" and the health in full. Why don't they use it currently? No one on the committee thought to ask. It's cheaper to discharge with one disability, cheaper for the military. It keeps the costs of beneifts down. Sure would have been nice if Davis or Boyda had thought to use their time for something that really mattered. Schoomaker cautioned of quick fixes, "When you speed up a bad process all you have is a fast bad process."

US Rep John Kline wondered if "we let this emphasis on PTSD . . . pull us away from this orthopedic effort?" Schoomaker disagreed that there was a signature injury to the Iraq War although he did feel there was a signature weapon "blasts." On "blast injury," Schoomaker wondered, "Are we keeping balanced? Are we looking at all the gaps? . . . And are we doing all the things for this singular weapon which is blast?" Robinson offered that "amputations are seen" which makes it appear to have an end point that conditions such as PTSD may not appear to have. He stated that "research needs to be done also in terms of the limbs and the bio-mechanics and the future is really bounding with opportunities." But TBI -- traumatic blast injury -- "is something that's unseen and we don't know what we don't know. With a limb there is an amputation . . . With" TBI "you don't know." Robinson also noted that PTSD was present during Vietnam and the veterans who developed it "were not treated . . . and now we're seeing . . . 35 years later that that was an important thing."

Davis was in wind-down mode (even though the hearing could have run for 15 more minutes) and wondered whether evaluations (she termed what had transpired an "evaluation") should be done yearly or every six months. All offering testimony agreed that a year was too long and that they should meet every six months on this topic. Davis' website notes, "A leading advocate for military families in San Diego and around the world, Davis intends to conduct thoughtful hearings which will focus on the needs of our servicemen and women and their families." That intention was not present in the hearing.

In today's New York Times, Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag continue to explore the violence taking place for veterans when they return and they open with the story of Sgt. Erin Edwards who, despite taking the necessary steps to keep her husband Sgt. William Edwards away from her, was killed by her husband in 2004. Steps she took were not followed through on and one example is the fact that William Edwards was not supposed to be allowed off base without an officer accompanying him but that wasn't enforced. The reporters observe that there was a minor wave of attention to domestic abuse and spousal homicide rates in the US military at the end of the 90s, but "just as the Defense Department undertook substantial changes, guided by a Congressionally chartered task force on domestic violence that decried a system more adept at protecting offenders than victims, the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq began." The reporters note that, "The fatalities examined by The Times show a military system that tries and sometimes fails to balance the demands of fighting a war with those of eradicating domestic violence. According to interviews with law enforcement officials and court documents, the military has sent to war service members who had been charged with and even convicted of domestic violence crimes. Deploying such convicted service members to a war zone violates military regulations and, in some cases, federal law." On January 27th, Alvarez and Sontag contributed "Combat Trauma Takes the Witness Stand," January 13th, they contributed "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles" and, February 14, 2007, Alvarez reported on the the increase for moral waivers allowing those with felony convictions to join the military.

Meanwhile, Ian Fisher (New York Times) gets a first for his paper, Iraqis killed by US forces are innocent -- and before an investigation! If you're thinking there's a major shift taking place at the paper of record, think again. The six dead aren't just any Iraqis, they're the heart of the counter-insurgency plans, the 'Awakening' Council. Fisher reports that the six "mistakenly fired on American soldiers in the north, the Iraqi police said. The American forces fired back, killing them and two women in nearby houses, the polic said." Contrast that with any other event even the September slaughter in Baghdad on the part of Blackwater. No Iraqi dead ever gets that sort of treatment from the New York Times but the "Awakening" Council isn't any mere Iraq, they are Iraqis on the US payroll, paid to drop arms against the US, and 'loyal' as long as the money's there. Those deaths were yesterday (and the two women are barely dealt with). Today, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports 3 'Awakening' Council members shot dead in Baghdad by "an American helicopter" which also wounded two more and notes, "Sheik Mohammed Ghuriari, who heads the so-called Awakening Councils that supply fighters to protect neighborhoods in north Babil province, said it was the third U.S.-led strike on one of their checkpoints in less than two months.".

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and left four more wounded. Reuters notes a Tal Afar bombing where 16 civilians were killed at a mosque. Sahar Issa reports that there were two bombers with one getting shot and the other detonating the bomb. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The attackers struck during the midday Friday prayers, the most important of the Muslim week." M-NF announces, "Attack helicopters responded to a small-arms fire attack on Coalition Forces near the town during the early morning hours Feb. 15. The helicopters engaged one structure with rockets."


Kidnappings?
Reuters reports aa family of four ("including two women") were kidnapped in Balad Ruz today.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses in Baghdad and 5 corpses in Diyala Province. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Balad Rus.

Meanwhile, Moahmmed Abbas (Reuters) quotes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki who apparently -- possibly during his time as exile -- is a big fan of Donna Summer: "We must keep our fingers on the trigger." Because? Love is in control?

Picking up from yesterday, we'll return to the subject of the refugees. Over 4 milliion refugees have been created by the illegal war. The figure includes internal and external refugees -- both those displaced outside their country and those displace internally. The Iraqi Parliament is calling for provisional elections and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that among the unanswered questions are those pertaining to the refugees including where they would vote if they were allowed to vote? Would they be counted as voters in the provinces they hailed from or, if internally displaced, voters for the provinces they currently reside in? Rubin also notes, "The problem is that many of the nation's most powerful political parties have divided up most of the seats on the Independent Higher Election Commission, which oversees national election policy. That means there are few, if any, independent brokers overseeing the election process, according to Iraqi academics and lawmakers. Some other parties are not represented on the commission."

Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reminded that is still not safe for refugees to return to Iraq. IRIN quotes Guterres: "We have clear criteria for the promotion of returns -- those criteria are not met by the situation in Iraq now. So we are not promoting returns to Iraq in the present circumstances because we do not believe the conditions are there for that to be possible on a meaningfuly scale." Haifa Zangana (Guardian of London) explains:

The return of some refugees is not related to the success of the surge, the establishment of security or a reduction in "sectarian violence", the euphemism for death squads that have infiltrated the security services and local militias. The savings of most refugees have run out, and they face real poverty since they cannot compete for the few jobs available in countries that have historically been poorer than Iraq. While I was in Amman in June, I met an Iraqi engineer who now works as a cleaner to provide for his family. Others, especially the elderly and children, are exhausted by visa restrictions; Most refugees, being of urban backgrounds, rented flats at steep prices, forcing families to share, sometimes with up to five adults and children in one room. Many refugees, previously from professional backgrounds, have had to rely on charity donations or support from relatives living in Europe.
Refugees in Syria or elsewhere rely on pensions, requiring them to go back to their workplaces in Iraq once every couple of months, leaving their families behind. Some go back also to collect monthly food rations to partially sell in the country. In the past, due to corruption in various government offices, some employees didn't attend work but collected half their salaries. Their bosses collected the rest in exchange for allowing them not to show up except for occasional days. All these arrangements came to an end after neighbouring countries implemented visa restrictions and it is almost impossible to get a visa to the UK or the US, despite their responsibility in creating the mayhem in Iraq. Now many refugees who have survived so far with such arrangements are desperate, and their only remaining hope is to share life with their extended families inside Iraq. In most cases they are "internally displaced", ie still refugees.

The Myth of the Great Return. Or as Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) observed last weekend: "As a propaganda exercise designed to show that the Iraqi government was restoring peace, it never quite worked. The majority of the returnees said they were returning to Baghdad, not because it was safer, but because they had run out of money in Syria or their visas had expired. There has been no mass return of the two million Iraqis who fled to Syria and Jordan or a further 2.4 million refugees who left their homes within Iraq." The propaganda push did a lot of damage in real time.

Turning to US politics, as Mike, Marcia, Kat, Rebecca, Cedric and Wally noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton won New Mexico -- a Super Duper Tuesday state that only finished its count yesterday.
Posted by at

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Ted Rall, Ralph Nader

If you're writing web posts about the surprising defeat of Al Wynn (who MoveOn calls a "right wing Democrat") by progressive underdog Donna Edwards in last night's Maryland Democratic primary, note that we recently (1/18/08) did a profile of this match-up, including interviews with both candidates, supporters, and a look at one of their debates. It's great, deep insight into this local story with national reverberations.
Democrats Divided
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/403/index.html

That's just a heads up if someone wants to catch it.

"There Should Be Blood" (Ted Rall, Common Dreams):
After 9/11 Republicans repeatedly screamed that liberals were pro-Islamist, anti-American traitors. Right-wing opinion mongers--Ann Coulter, Andrew Sullivan, James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard (and now The New York Times) accused me of treason. (Hey, I'm not the one trying to get rid of the Bill of Rights.)
Former GOP presidential candidate Alan Keyes suggested that I be imprisoned or shot. And "mainstream" Republicans indicated their tacit agreement with cricket-chirping silence. Not once did a Republican Congressman demand that their neo-McCarthyite allies apologize for their statements. Not once did a Republican opinion columnist take issue with equating the Democratic Party with anti-Americanism. Not once. Compare that to the Democratic practice of "Sister Souljah-ing" lefties who annoy the conservative hyenas.
"I want the Republicans to feel the way I did in 2004," an Iowa Democrat told The New York Times. So do I. I want them to watch everything they care about disassembled. Take Reagan and Bush's names off the airports, nationalize major corporations, demolish Gitmo, gay marriage--anything that pisses them off.
I want revenge. Obama preaches reconciliation. "I will create a working majority because I won't demonize my opponents," says Obama. The Illinois senator is an interesting politician and might make a good leader. But not yet. Give me eight years of Democratic rule as ruthless and extreme and uncompromising as the last eight years of Bush. Then we can have some bipartisanship.
Obama’s let's-tiptoe-through-the-tulips-with-the-GOP shtick amounts to bargaining with yourself. If a vendor at a flea market offers to sell you a lamp for $10 and you're willing to pay $8, you don’t offer $8. Demonize, Barack, demonize!
Oh, and Obama says he wouldn't have voted for the Iraq War. I say he's lying. So do his votes for funding the war since he joined the Senate. His voting record on Iraq is the same as Hillary's.

So Ted Rall tells some truth and Common Dreams posts it (more on that in a second) and the reaction. The Tears of the Bambi Groupies. KateAnne wants to vote for "hope" which sounds a lot like "fool." She identifies herself as a liberal and lists both Air America Radio and Field of Dreams as her faves which just demonstrates what a fool she is. (One's a 'feel good' racist film, the other's bad radio without ratings). She also just knows impeachment is around the corner which makes a triple-threat fool. It's not happening. Grow up. All of you grow up, it's not happening. Your dream date doesn't support impeachment, Kucinich's not going to do anything until after his election (if then) and the Democratic leadership doesn't want it to happen. I guess the Bambi groupies really need to delude themselves.

Rall's piece is not pro-Hillary or pro-Bambi. Common Dreams doesn't run pro-Hillary pieces. They just live to trash her because that's how 'progressives' act, right? They ran 13 drool for Bambi pieces last week. What about the other sexist rat posing as a 'progressive,' BuzzFlash? Remember when they used to link to topless and nudie pics of women? They thought that was 'cute' and didn't even give a warning. You'd click on a link and there you'd be with some topless woman on Ahnuld's shoulders. Their Hillary Hatred these days makes it very clear how much they hate all women. (For little cry babies who can't sleep at night when someone insults their cult leader, I will never for Bambi. Nor did I vote for Hillary. I'm also not an elderly in the closet Communist so I can't write a love letter to Bambi and deranged rants about Hillary's sex life with Bill. I did vote for Mike Gravel on Super Duper Tuesday.) So among the nonsense BuzzFlash links to is this:


Zogby Poll: "Obama Cruises in Election Match-Ups against McCain, Huckabee. Clinton lags, losing to McCain and barely leading Huckabee." If you care About Putting a Democrat in the White House in November, Read the Details.

Zogby polls? Is everyone laughing? Remember when Zogby assured us John Kerry would win this state and that state and . . . Now it wasn't just Ohio Zogby got wrong. Zogby gets everything wrong these days because, as C.I. can explain at length, they've 'expanded' their pool. Not enough to get California correct. But the 'expansion' leaves out the working class, a little known fact unless you check the polling data and make some calls (C.I. aced research & methodology, never show C.I. polling results and ask a basic question about them -- it will result in "Let's look at the raw data, now see this, hold on, let's check this . . .")

Zogby is a joke a poll firm and the reality is that Bambi didn't define himself. He will now be defined if he gets the nomination in the same way that John Kerry was. If he gets the nomination, it will be a slaughter.

Hillary is known and Hillary can win. Some of the people supporting Bambi are not groupies. Some are not part of a cult. They would vote for her. That would give her the needed numbers to win. There are no surprises with Hillary.

If Hillary's out of the race, the s**tstorm begins on Bambi. His many groupies cannot take it when people -- such as Paul Krugman -- have gently tried to caution them and they've responded with RAGE. Imagine what it will be like when Bambi faces the Right Wing Echo Chamber. The untested, unknown Bambi.

It's over if Bambi gets the nomination. Which is a strong reason to vote Green. This time the 'wasted' vote will be for the Democrats. It will be a blood bath and batting his eye lashes won't work as well as it seems to today.

John McCain's going to have one one-liner after another and Bambi's going to try real hard to drop his stiff manner. People do get that right, the ones with any sense left, he is as stiff as John Kerry. Unlike John Kerry, he's got rhetorical flow (a laughable one) but he's stiff as a board. It will not be pretty if he gets the nomination.

So remember that there are other candidates out there. C.I. forwarded me this e-mail:

Good morning.
We were watching the political fireworks last night and kept asking ourselves:
Who is going to stand against the corporate takeover of our democracy?
Who is going to stand against nuclear power?
Who is going to stand for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney?
Who is going to stand for cutting the bloated, wasteful, ever-expanding military budget?
Who is going to stand for a Palestine free from U.S./Israeli military domination?
Who is going to stand for an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime?
Who is going to stand for the repeal of the anti-union Taft Hartley law?
Who is going to stand up to health insurance industry and for a single-payer, Medicare for all, Canadian-style health care system?
We watched closely last night, and didn’t notice anyone standing for any of this.
Within the coming days, Ralph Nader will decide whether or not to throw his hat into the ring.
We’re still exploring.
But time is running short.
Please, help us spread the word about our exploratory effort.
And give as generously as you can.
Thank you for your ongoing support and activism.
Onward
The Nader Team

I will consider voting for Nader or for Cynthia McKinney and, unlike Nader's 2000 celebrity supporters, I won't embarrass myself by cowtowing to the Democratic Party afterwards. Remember all those brave musicians and actors in 2000? They're a bunch of sellouts today. Eddie Vedder's probably the worst. I saw Pearl Jam on that tour and they talk a good game but now they're just a part of the two-party system. Kind of similar to the way they caved on TicketMaster or the way they caved on never making a video or the way . . .

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, February 13, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, one CBS News employee is released by kidnappers, it sounds like a treaty when Iraqi government spokespeople describe it, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Courage to Resist notes a new campaign for Andrew Hegerty, Jeffrey Gauntt and James Blanks, all US service members, all in Mannheim, Germany in a US military prison for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan. They note Agustin Aguayo's confinement there earlier and how much letters meant to him. Aguayo went to Iraq as a medic. He found that training and ethics were disregarded (that's putting it mildly and Aguayo's comments are echoed by many others who were sent to Iraq as medics). While serving, Aguayo had a religious awakening or deepening. Seeing death and destruction strengthened previous beliefs and led him to contemplate additional issues. Not surprising and not uncommon. But the military command attempted to play dumb, attempted to act as though such a thing never happened, could never happen. Aguayo applied for CO status.
He was then informed that his CO status would be determined AFTER his second tour of Iraq. On his first tour, he'd refused to load his gun due to his religious deepening. While this was going on, his fight for CO status was also going through the federal courts. Despite that, the US military told him he was going back to Iraq. Aguayo self-checked out briefly trying to demonstrate how serious he was about not returning to Iraq. When that message was not received, he self-checked out again and was gone for less than the 30-day rule of thumb (30 days or more usually is seen by the US military as desertion, less is generally seen as AWOL). Aguayo turned himself in. He was court-martialed and charged with desertion which was only one of the many violations in the military 'justice' system. He is appealing the verdict from his court-martial (he has already served the time the judge sentenced him to).

Courage to Resist provides contact info for James Blanks (due out this month), Jeffrey Gauntt (due out April 2008) and Andrew Hegerty (due out in August 2008) are reachable at: Unit 29723, Box LL, APO, AE 09028-9723, USA -- Just put the name of whichever of the three you are writing to.


And while you're writing, Canada's Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

Monday's snapshot notes the 44th Munich Conference on Security Policy and the protests taking place which included war resister Chris Capps who was an awarded a peace medal from the Munich American Peace Committee. Tim Slater (Media with Conscience) provides some of Capps speech:

To all of you here, at this protest: I would like to thank you, not just for awarding me this prize, but also for exposing and standing up to the arrogance of those leaders who commonly make decisions that destroy the lives of those who certainly are not a threat to their nations' security. To be certain, it is the legitimate right of a just government to protect the lives of its citizens. However, this is not accomplished by bombing and invading countries on the other side of the world where the majority of their citizens live in poverty. The kind of 'security' policies my country, the United States, has pursued over the last few years has enraged much of the world's Muslim population, and brought more desperation to Iraq and Afghanistan; it has led to loss of privacy and liberty for American citizens, and it has reverted my country to the dark ages when torture was an acceptable form of interrogation. Today, as it stands, America has invaded Iraq supposedly to defend its "national security". The allegations that Iraq was a threat to America have since been proven false. As a result, four thousand American soldiers have died in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead over thirty thousand Americans are wounded, and millions of Iraqis have become refugees. It is time to show the people in there [indicating the location where the Munich Security Conference was being held] that military force should only be a very last resort, that it should not be used until all other options are exhuasted, and until it is completely transparent and evident that we truly must take these actions to defend ourselves. Thousands of soldiers have made the same decision I have: the decision not to do the bidding of those who consider them Federal property. Many more people have refused to pay their taxes until these wars come to an end; and then there are people like you who have taken to the streets to show their outrage about these destructive policies. It is going to take all of us and all of our efforts to put these policies to an end and hold our leaders accountable for them.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers.

Earlier this month David Ovalle (Miami Herald) reported on 21-year-old Alex Lotero, an Iraq War veteran who has been disagnosed with PTSD but still could not get treatment forcing him to self-check out (they did, however, offer him a discharge that would strip him of all of his benefits -- an offer that should result in a Congressional investigation). Lotero was in jail at the time. Today Ovalle reports that Lotero remains in jail after "nearly two weeks without seeing a judge after his arrest on charges of going AWOL" and quotes Anady Lotero (his mother) explaining that during this two weeks, he hasn't been receiving "his usual medications for anxiety, sleep disorder and back pain." Ovalle explains, "On Monday, Maj. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman in Washington, said the rules actually allow for 30 days to pick up a soldier who is absent without leave. Often, the military will ask a jail to release a soldier and send him a bus ticket to his home base. Lotero, however, will be picked up by an 'extradition team' sent from Fort Benning, Ga., Banks said." AP quotes Adrieen Willis of Veterans for America who says the transfer should have taken place already ("within 72 hours"), "He hasn't seen a lawyer, he hasn't had any of his medication, he hasn't had any of the rights of an American citizen, so it's a little concerning. It's very odd that he can be sitting there without representation, without seeing a judge for 30 days." Very odd and that also describes a soldier Erin Emery (Denver Post) reported on Sunday: "A Fort Carson Soldier who says he was in treatment at Cedar Springs Hospital for bipolar disorder and alcohol abuse was released early and ordered to deploy to the Middle East with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team. The 28-year-old specialist spent 31 days in Kuwait and was returned to Fort Carson on Dec. 31 after health care professionals in Kuwait concurred that his symptoms met criteria for bipolar disorder and 'some paranoia and possible homicidal tendencies,' according to e-mails obtained by The Denver Post. The soldier, who asked not to be identified because of the stigma surrounding mental illness and because he will seek employment when he leaves the Army, said he checked himself into Cedar Springs on Nov. 9 or Nov. 10 after he attempted suicide while under the influence of alcohol. He said his treatment was supposed to end Dec. 10 but his commanding officers showed up at the hospital Nov. 29 and ordered him to leave."

Turning to other abuses, from the front page no less, James Risen (New York Times) reports on women working for US corporations reporting sexaul assaults in "by co-workers while working as contractors in Iraq but now find themselves in legal limbo, unable to seek justice or even significant compensation. Many of the same legal and logistical obstacles that have impeded other types of investigations involving contractors in Iraq, like shootings involving security guards for Blackwater Worldwide, have made it difficult for the United States government to pursue charges related to sexual offenses. The military justice system does not apply to them, and the reach of other American laws on contractors working in foreign war zones remains unclear five years after the United States invasion of Iraq." UPI notes Jamie Leigh Jones was among those offering testimony to the US House Judiciary Committee. Maddy Sauer (ABC News) reports Jones and other victims of sexual assault explained how the arbitration clause in employment contracts for KBR and others requires victims "to argue their cases of sexual harassment, assault and rape before secretive arbitration panels rather than in an open court before a judge and jury." Feminist Wire Daily recaps, "Jamie Leigh Jones, a former KBR employee testified again on Tuesday at a congressional hearing that she was drugged and gang-raped by a group of her co-worker in the Green Zone KBR camp in Iraq in 2005" and reports on the second woman offering testiomny: "Mary Beth Kineston, an American truck driver for KRB, says she was sexually assaulted by a fellow driver, who continued to work for KRB even after she made a complaint. Subsequently, she was groped by another KRB worker and was fired when she attempted to place a second complaint." Maddy Sauer quotes US House Rep Ted Poe who opposes the arbitration route (at least in sexual assault cases) and states, "Air things out in a public forum of a courtroom. That's why we have courts in the United States." Risen notes, "Ms. Jones and her lawyers said 38 women who worked as contractors in Iraq, Kuwait and other countries had contacted her since she testified" in December "to discuss their own experiences. Now Congressional leaders are seeking answers from the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies to try to determine the scope of the threats facing women who are contractors." Risen also quotes Pamela Jones who worked for KBR in Kuwait and reported her sexual assault even though she knew that doing so meant "that you could lose your job."

Not a lot of respect for health care in Iraq either. Which is how Sunday reports included of a US raid on a hospital. Reuters reported that the al-Rashad mental hospital in Baghdad was raided (citing an official at the hospital and an official with the Iraq Health Ministry) and the hospital's "acting director [was arrested], accusing him of workining with al Qaeda and recruiting mentally ill women and using them in suicide bombing operations" which revolves around the unproven claim that the February 1st Baghdad pet markets bombings were the result of women who were mentally challenged/disabled. Today Steve Lannen (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on the arrest that US Rear Adm. Greg Smith briefed on today, "A senior American official who asked not to be named because he wasn't authorized to discuss the case publicly said American investigators now thought the bombers were adults -- one in her 20s, the other in her 30s -- with long histories of psychiatric conditions including depression and schizophrenia. . . . The administrator who's being questioned is suspected of using his access to mental-patient records and possibly providing them to Islamic extremists, the official said." Smith's remarks on this today were:

On Sunday, Iraqi and coalition forces detained a hospital administrator in connection with the possible exploitation of mentally impaired women by al-Qaeda. On February 1st, two women were used to deliver a backpack filled with explosives and a suicide vest into the crowded pet markets in Baghdad. As part of the investigation into these tragic events, last Sunday, Iraqi and coalition forces detained the acting administrator of the al-Rashad Physciatric Hospital of Baghdad at his office and conducted a thorough search of the facility. The administrator remains in coalition force detention and is being questioned to determine what role, if any, he may have played in supplying al-Qaeada with information regarding patients at the al-Rashad Psychiatric Hospital or from other medical facilities in Baghdad. Because this is an ongoing investigation, I'm not at liberty to discuss any more details on this particular incident but will provide more information as it becomes available.

99 was the number of people who died in the two Baghdad bombings at the start of the month, according to CBS and AP who also note, "Iraq's parliament on Wednesday passed three key pieces of legislation that set a date for provincial elections, allot the US $48 billion for 2008 spending, and provide limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody. The three measures were bundled together for one vote to satisfy the demands of minority Kurds who feared they might be double-crossed on their demand that the budget allot 17 percent to their semiautonomous regional government in the north." Reuters apparently received a new pair of pom-poms thereby explaining their use of the term "breakthrough" to describe the passage of the 2008 budget . . . The budget for 2008 that should have passed last year but instead was passed February 13th of 2008 and only after threats to disband the Iraqi Parliament.

Staying with legislatures, in the US, the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on Defense, chaired by US House Rep John Murtha, met this morning and heard begging from government officials for more money. Apparently explaining why the US does not have health care or an adequately funded educational system, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates declared that "we must make the choices and investments necessary to protect the security, prosperity and freedom of Americans for today and future generations." Gates declared? Via Gordon England, the deputy of the department. When begging for a $35,9 billon increase, you'd think the head of the department could show up. But he does have an excuse, he has "a fracture to his right shoulder sustained when he slipped on some ice. . . Secretary Gates has been examined by a physician and is receiving treatment for this injury. He continues to perform all other duties and responsibilities of his position."

In Diyala Province and Anbar Province, the 'Awakening' Councils have been on strike. The US collaborators, paid approximately $300 a month, are the focus of a posting by a McClatchy Newspapers correspondent at Inside Iraq:

I believe the Americans tried to follow the steps of the awakening council in Anbar which was created by the sheikhs of Anbar province tribes. The mistake of the Americans was not studying the psychological side of Anbar experience. People of Anbar are almost from one main tribe and they all suffered from Qaida. When they decided to fight Qaida, they gathered their efforts to work as one real team because they wanted to end their suffering. They formed their awakening council and they succeeded because they had an exact goal. There is no way to compare between the awakening council of Anbar and any other awakening council whether its formed by Iraqis or American. Anbar awakening council is the real copy while the others are imitations.
Since almost one weak, the awakening council in one of Baghdad 's neighborhood and in Diyala province suspended their cooperation with the government. They both accuse the official security forces (police and army) of attacking these councils. The awakening council in Amiriyah neighborhood west Baghdad says that a joint force of the Iraqi and the US armies arrested some of its members. The supporters of the awakening council in Diyala demonstrate for the last four days demanding to depose the police chief of Diyala accusing him with the sectarian violence.

The 'Awakening' Council was addressed in the press conference (held by M-NF with Smith leading) today by Iraqi government spokesperson Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh who declared, "The Iraqi government supports all the Awakening Groups whether they were in Tikrit, Salah ad Din, Diyala, Anbara or even in Mosul. According to the potentials that the Government of Iraq views so that the security issue could be under the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. This is the policy of the Iraqi government with the Awakenings. We think that the Iraqi forces cannot perform the security services in the hot zones without the support from those people including the Awakenings and the members in the Awakenings." Rear Adm. Smith then went on to assure that the US military has always been in a "strong partnership" with that striking 'Awakening' members in Diyala Province and that talks "are ongoing". al-Dabbagh noted the treaty the White House hopes to structure and enter into with the puppet government (without any consent from the US Congress), "The negotiations with the United States; we still haven't set a date for that. Of course there are some points that the Iraqi government will take into consideration because Iraq seeks to build some really good relationships with the Americans. And the current relationship between the United States and the Multi-National Forces and Iraq is actually a relationship imposed on Iraq because Iraq lost the war. And that's why Iraq has been imposed by resolutions by the Security Council. And Iraq now is gaining back its sovereignty. Iraq wanted to be removed from the 7th Chapter from the United Nations so that it will enter some negotiations as a country that has full sovereignty so that it can maintain the best interests of the . . . of his people. We don't want Iraq to be a source or a starting point to any attack to any other countries. And we don't want any kind of military bases, long-term military bases in Iraq in addition to many other detailed things that needs much more sessions of negotiations so that we can reach to the best interests . . . to something that serves the best interests of both the United States and America . . . and Iraq." Good he remembered to work in Iraq there. What he's describing is involved and does require the US Congress. Meanwhile, the wounded Robert Gates got another blow today when another Iraqi official spoke publicly. Peter Graff (Reuters) reports that Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, the country's National Security Advisor, states that US forces should continue the drawdown as planned, without the 'pause' that Robert Gates and US Gen. David Peteraeus favor. He wants the figure below 100,000 (100,000 US service members stationed in the country). And, possibly most interesting, he declared that regardless of whether the Democratic Party's presidential nomination went to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and that the chosen then went on to win, he didn't see US forces leaving: "When they are in the oval office, they will think twice and they will consult with commanders on the ground." Wow, more truth than 'anti-war' 'leaders' like Tom Hayden can offer as they rush to cheerlead Obama. But then the 'anti-war' 'leader' Hayden is writing about such end-the-war issues as . . . super-delegates.

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack wounded one person and that two US service members were injured in a Baghdad bombing. Reuters notes a Falluja roadside bombing left two people injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 people were shot dead ("building workers" en route to work) by unknown assailants in Diyala Province and -- included in this section because the unknown assailants are described as "gunmen" -- an invasion of al Somood primary school outside Baghdad resulted in a school guard's wife being beaten and her son hung. In addition to the five construction workers shot dead, Reuters notes two more were injured.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad while a head was discovered in Khalis and, falling back to yesterday, a corpse was discovered in Kirkuk.

Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reported this morning that talks "with members of a faction of" the Mahdi Army, were supposed to lead to the release of the two employees of CBS News kidnapped on Sunday. Michael Holden and Mohammed Abas (Reuters) report that the translator has been released but the CBS correspondent has not and, as Heather Langan (Bloomberg News) notes, "The U.S. television network hasn't identified them."

The January 24th snapshot noted Martha Burk's "Gender Budgets, Anyone" in the new issue of Ms. magazine, Winter 2008. It is now out and the magazine's issued a press release on the issue now on the stands:

MEDIA ADVISORYFor immediate releaseCONTACT: duVergne GainesSusie Gilligan310-556-2500dgaines@feminist.orgsgilligan@feminist.orgNew Ms. Features Exposé on Ward Connerly and His Deceptively Named"Civil Rights Initiatives"The winter issue of Ms. magazine-on newsstands 1/29/08- features an in-depth investigation of Ward Connerly, the mastermind behind the deceptively named "civil rights initiatives" designed to eliminate state affirmative action programs for women and minorities in public contracting, employment, and education. As Connerly gears up to target five states with ballot measures this November (AZ, CO, MO, NE, OK), Ms.'s investigation uncovers Connerly's:-Extensive ties to big government contractors. Connerly has long served as a lobbyist and consultant for the good ole boys network of big contractors that want to shut out women- and minority-owned businesses from competing for government contracts. With more and more government services and functions being privatized, hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.-Eye-popping compensation package. Connerly and his firm have taken in $8.3 million in compensation from his nonprofits since 1998 or nearly half of the organizations' total revenue. Last year, his compensation topped $1.6 million, amounting to a whopping 66% of his non profits' total revenue-possibly in violation of federal tax laws that prohibit individuals from using charitable organizations to enrich themselves.-Deceptive campaign tactics. Renowned legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw exposes Connerly and his supporters' deliberate attempts to mislead voters into believing their initiatives are pro-civil rights and pro-women. She examines the current dispute in Missouri over proposed ballot language, revealing how vitally important it is that supporters of affirmative action sound the alarm on Connerly's tactics of deception."Voters need to know what's really going on," says Ms. Executive Editor Katherine Spillar. "Connerly is a well-paid front man for the good ole boys network of large public-works contractors who don't want to compete with women- and minority-owned firms."Note to editors: Executive Editor Katherine Spillar and Kimberle Crenshaw are available for interviews. If you want to request a copy of the article or inquire about reprint opportunities please contact Jessica Stites
(jsites@msmagazine.com; 310-556-2515).

The articles noted above run from page 34 to page 41. Currently, only Michele Kort's "Are U.S. Policies Killing Women?" is available online from the Winter issue but the issue itself is now available at book stores, newstands and magazine racks everywhere.

Quickly, US politics. Ted Rall explains what the 'anti-war' leaders won't regarding their beloved. Delilah Boyd (A Scrivener's Lament) notes the data on the Viriginia primary -- exit polls for those voting in the Democratic primary which finds that 72% of Republicans who voting in the DEMOCRATIC primary voted for Obama, those self-identifying as conservative brought the number to 73%. Larry Johnson (No Quarter) puzzles about who showed up to vote and the exit polling Boyd's referring to backs up what he was observing. SusanUnPC (No Quarter) highlights a disturbing article on the Bambi 'followers'. Today in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd wants to speak sisterhood and expects someone to take her seriously. Bob Somerby (The Daily Howler) critiques Dowd's pose (which is nothing but a tactic to allow her more slams at Hillary Clinton) and -- near the end -- continues to address the media silence on MSNBC. Delilah Boyd addresses the sliming of Chelsea Clinton by MSNBC here. Also on politics NOW on PBS (which airs on Friday in most markets) interviewed Donna Edwards last month -- she just beat out incumbent Al Wynn in Maryland's Democratic primary.

Finally, Ian Bell (UK's The Herald) writes about what's at stake in the case Rose Gentle and Beverly Clarke are arguing for their late sons:

Mr Blair will never face any sort of trial over Iraq: that would be the silly part. Such things do not happen to British prime ministers. These days, even impeachment is unthinkable, for better or worse. The western democracies insulate their leaders from such possibilities. There is no accident in that. Equally, if Mr Blair conducted himself according to the dictates of his conscience throughout the Iraq affair, as he continues to insist, insults and impertinence might sound callow. Errors are not equivalent to bad faith. If the then prime minister also acted from the sincere assumption that edited intelligence reports could always be trusted, the case for his defence could begin to seem credible, morally at least.The trouble is that none of this has anything to do with war crimes. There is a ton of legal argument on that subject, obviously, but the basic criteria can be put crudely. When is war justified? The first justification is banal: if you are under attack. Secondly, you can fight legally if there is clear, demonstrable evidence that an attack upon you is in preparation. Thirdly, you can wage war if you have received the explicit support of the United Nations. Anything else is unlawful. Hence, perhaps, the unusual spectacle of fully nine Law Lords gathering to hear the appeal lodged by Rose Gentle and Beverley Clarke. It will take some smart legal thinking to extricate the government, and Mr Blair's reputation, one suspects, from this one. The bereaved pair's lawyers argue that soldiers, given their unique relationship with the state, have a right to know that the cause in which they are ordered to fight is lawful. Mr Blair, they say, did not perform that duty of care.
Posted by at

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Joe Wilson, Vast Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't that really sum it?

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

So there's no more Laura Flanders.

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

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

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

All for Bambi.

Bambi Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

Canada's Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status and the country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters may have. You can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers.

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

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

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

In other violence . . .

Bombings?

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

Shootings?

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

Corpses?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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