It's Friday! :D
Starting with a tip. C.I. is puking. You do not want to miss their TV commentary Sunday. They watched that and I came in on a break from the Iraq study group and they were yelling at the computer (they were watching a disc a friend burned for them) and as it was winding down, C.I. said, "That show made me sick." And wasn't joking. They both had a very violent reaction to that crap, that right-wing crap that airs on a PBS station. Ava's gone in search of Pepto Bismol for herself and I'm not joking about this. They are sickened by what they watched. You do not want to miss their commentary on Sunday. (Ava said, "If I've ever been that the writers were on strike, it's right now because I had to watch that s**t.") From the host's voice (I only caught the last of it and it was pretty frightening), it's a program from the south but I don't know where in the south. This is the program Jim mentioned in his "A Note to Our Readers" and, as C.I. said tonight, "We knew it was going to be bad from the cover note but we had no idea it was going to be this bad."
Elaine's ticked off, read her tonight. I'm following her lead in removing a link in the snapshot (for the same reasons). Speaking of strong women, this is from Margaret Kimberley's "Why We Write About Obama:"
In the week before the Nevada caucuses Barack Obama responded to our critics for us. If the stakes were not so high, we might exult in saying, "We told you so." The dangers presented by an Obama presidency are becoming clearer every day, and that is no reason for celebration.
In an editorial board meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal, Obama said the following about Ronald Reagan:
"I do think that for example the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Not only did Obama praise Reagan, but he used racist, conservative code words from the GOP play book to do it. Obama's supporters should be the first to ask him what he believes to be the "excesses of the 60s and 70s." Does he think the Voting Rights Act was an excess? What about the Civil Rights Act? Were the protests against the Vietnam War excessive? What about Fair Housing legislation, was it all too much for the Republic to handle? Was abortion legalization an excess?
Obama's very vocal fans should speak up. Their candidate is praising the right wing rollback of civil rights. Do they think the 60s and 70s were full of excess? If so, what were those excesses? If they don't agree with Obama, will they say so? What does this statement portend for the policies of an Obama administration? It is past time for the love fest to end, and hard questioning to begin.
Let's stick with strong women, this is from National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn's "Senate Poised to Capitulate to Cheney’s Fear-Mongering:"
After a January 24 debate in the Senate on amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Senate appears ready to capitulate once again to the Bush administration’s agenda of sacrificing liberty for questionable security.
On the day before Congress was slated to take up this issue, Dick Cheney addressed the Heritage Foundation, the most influential right-wing think tank. He was given a thunderous reception, to which he quipped, "I hold an office that has only one constitutional duty - presiding over the Senate and casting tie-breaking votes." But the most powerful vice president in this nation's history was about to strong-arm Congress into doing the administrations' bidding.
Invoking the memory of September 11, 2001 twelve times, Cheney said it was "urgent" that Congress update the FISA law immediately and permanently. Notwithstanding the administration's well-known violations of FISA months before 9/11, Cheney claimed they had used "every legitimate tool at our command to protect the American people against another attack." He omitted the illegal tools the administration has admitted using, that is, Bush's so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and a massive data mining program. FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, for the executive to conduct a wiretap without statutory authorization. The TSP has been used to target not just the terrorists, but also critics of administration policies, particularly the war in Iraq.
Although Cheney repeatedly linked amending FISA with protecting America, there is no evidence Bush's secret spying program has made us any safer. Indeed, in 2006, the Washington Post reported that nearly all of the thousands of Americans' calls that had been intercepted revealed nothing pertinent to terrorism. About the same time, the New York Times quoted a former senior federal prosecutor, who described tips from intelligence officials involved in the surveillance. "The information was so thin and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up," he said.
Cheney demands and Congress gives. They're like weaklings forking over their lunch money each day. Rebecca's started blogging (the Iraq study group is over) and she's next to me. She just found an article I'm pulling up right now. Okay, this is from AP's "Link to man in scandal goes back years:"
The Democratic presidential hopeful also has been forced to explain how Rezko got tangled in the purchase of the Obama family home and other ties to Rezko, some of them going back more than 15 years. If federal prosecutors are right, his ties to Rezko may even mean Obama's campaign unwittingly accepted money generated by illegal activities.
Obama, who has a spotless reputation after 11 years in public offices, has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko or anyone else.
Nevertheless, the first-term U.S. senator seemingly missed plentiful warning signs that Rezko was headed for trouble with the law.
"The senator exhibited some bad judgment in continuing the relationship once it became clear that Tony Rezko had such serious clouds overhead," said Cindi Canary, director of the nonpartisan Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.
That's it. I'm tired. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, January 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, actions gear up in support of war resisters in Canada, the US military announces another death, Glen Ford offers a look at coded terms in the political races, the treaty that would tie the US and Iraq together (in combat) for years, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Candace Hechman (Seattle Post Intelligencer) notes that Project Safe Haven is staging a "vigil in front of the Canadian consulate in downtown Seattle to plead that AWOL Iraq veterans be allowed to remain in sanctuary in the Great White North" and quotes Gerry Condon explaining, "Canada has a rich tradition of providing sanctuary to those who conscientiously refused to fight in war. Now it is time for the Canadian government to do the right thing, before it's too late."
What's Condon referring to? On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution. 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. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
War resister Patrick Hart states, "It's great that people all across Canada and the US are coming out to show support for the war resisters. My family could be told we have to go back to the States anytime now. We just want to be able to live here in peace and raise our son, Rian. We hope that the politicians will let us do that." Among the actions taking place in Canada on Saturday the 26th:
* Toronto at the Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor St. West, beginning at 1:00 p.m. and will feature, among others, activist and actress Shirley Douglas, Lawrence Hill (co-author of The Deserter's Tale with Joshua Key) and Member of Parliament Olivia Chow who has led on the issue of war resisters from early on.
*Saskaton at Frances Morrison Library Theatre, 311 23rd Street East, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in which Joshua Key will be the featured speaker, Navdeep Sidhu and Friends will provide music and Michelle Mason's documentary on war resisters () will be shown.
*Vancouver at the main branch of Vancouver Public Library (Georgia and Homer), starting at 1:00 p.m., and featuring IVAW's Ash Woolson and Canadian MP Bill Siksay.
A full list of Canadian actions can be found here.
War resister Brad McCall will speak in Saturday at Fairfield United Church Hall in Victoria (1303 Fairfield Road) starting at 10:00 am, along with MP Denise Savoie. McCall explains his story in "From the U.S. Army to Canada: a resister's journey" (The Rabble) "One Sergeant explained how he shot a man in an alleyway just for being out after dark. He expressed how easy it was to kill "hajjis" once you did it for the first time. I listened as one soldier told how a specialist in my unit kept a human finger in his wall locker during his entire tour of duty. The laughing ensued as I heard the story of a soldier in another company eating the charred flesh of an Iraqi civilian, the unfortunate victim of an IED attack aimed at American forces. I thought about how callous these men had become, and how horrified I was at the idea of disrespecting human life in such a manner. This is when doubt began to flood my mind."
Laura Kaminker (writing at Common Dreams) observes, "In discussing this issue with supposedly progressive Americans, I was shocked - and frankly disgusted - to learn that some people who oppose the war in Iraq do not support the war resisters' cause. Their argument: 'If they didn't join in the first place, there wouldn't be a war!' This strikes me as both extremely naive and horribly selfish. Many of us were fortunate to grow up in homes where questioning authority was encouraged, where dissent and protest were a way of life - not to mention in families that could afford higher education and health care. If you cannot imagine what kind of background might lead someone to enlist in the US military, I again recommend The Deserter's Tale. But even if we never would have made such a choice, do we want to see people who have experienced such a radical change of mind punished for their beliefs? Isn't this the very change of heart that we wish to instill in others? And most importantly, should a person be imprisoned for refusing to kill?"
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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 event:
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'."
In the United States yesterday the Green Party issued a call "on Americans who oppose the Iraq War to rebuff an agreement among pro-Democratic 'antiwar' lobbies to scale back pressure to end the war." IVAW's Jason Wallace, running as a Green for the US House of Representatives from Illinois 11th District, is quoted stating, "MoveOn.org, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and other groups have decided that passing legislation in Congress that does nothing to end the war makes their favorite Democratic candidates look better than demanding action to end the war quickly. The big myth of the 2008 election is that Democrats are the antiwar candidates. In reality, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a longer occupation in Iraq and possibly a war with Iran." Earlier this month PR Watch explained that "Ryan Grim reports that the biggest and best-funded organizations in the liberal peace movement, primarily MoveOn and the groups in its Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) coalition, are no longer advocating that Congress end the war. This year "the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. ... The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November." The Green Party also quotes Titus North who is running for the US House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 14th district stating, "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they'd maintain a permanent US military presence in Iraq with only a limited draw-down of combat troops that could then be redeployed 'just over the horizon.' This military misadventure is not in the best interests of Americans or Iraqis and only benefits the oil and weapons industries. Groups like MoveOn that divert the energies of peace activists towards Democrat candidates who fail to push for a prompt and total withdrawal only undermine the peace movement and advance the war agenda. Voters need genuine peace candidates like thos from the Green Party." Bob Kinsey, who is running for the US Senate out of Colorado, explains, "The position of Green candidates is that we are not willing to accept any more dying by violence -- American or otherwise. It has been the willingness of US military policy to accept collateral damage in the hundreds of thousands and forcing people to live under governments of our choosing, which drives hostility towards us and decreases our own security. The recent statement by NATO leaders urging maintenance of a first strike nuclear policy is one more example of a dangerous position that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats." July tenth through thirteenth is when the Green Party will be holding their National Nominating Convention in Chicago. Click here for the Green Party News Center, here for a database of Green candidates, here for video of the Green presidential candidates and of course, if it's Green news, Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is probably posting about it. The Green Party has scheduled another presidential candidate forum for February 2nd at Busboys & Poets in DC (14th and V Streets) at ten in the morning -- Jesse Johnson and Kent Mesplay are confirmed to appear others may or may not. More info click here. This will be their second presidential forum for the 2008 election. Meanwhile, Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) observes that the same exclusion practiced in the Democratic debates "will happen to the Green Party -- which, if they have any sense at all, will nominate former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney as their standard bearer. But only those who keep up with such things will be aware that the Greens have a candidate" as a result of the media blackout.
Having ignored a real issue all week, it's not pretty when people try to play catch up. Today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) declared during headlines, "The New York Times is reporting the Bush administration plans to insist the Iraqi government agree to effectively extend the legal immunity enjoyed by foreign contractors operating inside Iraq. The demand is one of several expected from the White House as it negotiates an extension of its UN-backed occupation mandate set to expire at the end of the year."
NO! There are mistakes already but we're not going further after that one. This isn't "an extension of its UN-backed occupation." The United Nations is being written out of the picture. How you fail to grasp that, I don't know. But this isn't a new topic and we've covered and re-covered it for nearly two months now. There is no extension of the UN mandate. That's the whole point of what is going on, to escape the minor guidelines imposed by the United Nations. al-Maliki ignored the Iraqi Parliament and renewed the mandate for one last year -- he says it's the last year -- which would carry the illegal war through December 2008 (and the UN ignored that he didn't have the authority to renew it by himself). The White House and their Baghdad puppet are now attempting to sidestep the UN's 'oversight' and enter into a treaty which would bind the US to Iraq for many years to come. Back to Goodman, "Democrats are demanding congressional oversight over what it says amounts to a full-on treaty. The White House also wants to expand the immunity for all U.S. military and extend its authority to hold Iraqi prisoners." No, it's not just the Democrats. There are Republicans wanting Congressional oversight as well. Now, believe it or not, the big issue isn't the contractors. The biggest issue is that it's a treaty and the Congress is bypassed. So is the Iraqi parliament and, Goodman, they're objecting too. So are legal scholars. That headline was no help at all and just demonstrated that you can't rush in after ignoring an important topic and dispense with it in a few sentences. This wasn't even the lead headline. Bully Boy's attempting to circumvent the Constitution and, if he does, he will tie US forces to Iraq far beyond his departure from the White House.
Here's how Charlie Savage (Boston Globe) explains it today:
President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.
Goodman's mistake is in citing the New York Times which always supports the State Department (regardless of who is in the Oval Office) and sent the clean up crew of Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myer to 'cover' the story today. They accept the premise that the treaty is fine but there's a sticky point -- those pesky contractors. That's like arguing the only problem with the illegal war is that white phosphorus is used. Peter Spiegel and Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) do a little better job than Shanker and Myer and note US Senator Hillary Clinton spoke out against the treaty in Monday's Democratic presidential debate.
Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.
Charlie Savage notes, "The New York senator has filed legislation that would block the expenditure of funds to implement any agreement with Iraq that was not submitted to Congress for approval. Her rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, became a cosponsor to the bill on Tuesday." As the true dean of the DC press corps, Helen Thomas (Boston Channel), notes, "Congress should keep Bush from making commitments concerning Iraq that could tie the hands of his successor and trap the next president in his pointless war. In responde to my question, deputy White House press secreatry Tony Fratto said Bush had not signed any documents to keep the war going, but he added that work is under way on an agreement to cement the U.S. relationship with Iraq." Lane Lambert (Sandwich Broadsider) notes, "U.S. Rep. William Delahunt is sounding the alarm about a new U.S.-Iraq security agreement that he says could bind this country to an unprecedented, possibly unconstitutional, commitment of American military force" and quotes Delahunt declaring, "This is one of the most significant foreign policy decisions that will be made this year or next year. If this doesn't rise to the level of a treaty, I don't know what does."
As noted in yesterday's snapshot Hoshyar Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) is already calling it a treaty. Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports on Zebari today and notes, "The Iraqi leaders are eager to sign by July a bilateral treaty with the US which would in effect determine who rules Iraq." Treaty. Ali Gharib (IPS) notes that Brookings Boy Mikey O'Hanlon thinks Congress has no say -- and we all know what a liar and war cheerleader O'Hanlon is. Brian Beutler (Mother Jones) notes the legal scholars that testified at Delahunt's subcommittee hearing Wednesday, "If covered within a treaty, Congress could block the president from making this sort of agreement with Maliki. But without one the president could provide similar assurances informally, leaving the future president -- Democrat or Republican -- in a tricky diplomatic position if he or she decides not to honor Bush's promise. Testifying on Wednesday, [conservative AEI's Michael] Rubin noted that any guarantee that U.S. troops would defend Iraqi territory would demand a treaty."
On US politics, Tom Hayden (writing at the San Francisco Chronicle) points out that the Democratic candidates for president (Clinton, Obama and John Edwards) have not been pinned down and that "combat troops" does not equal "all troops," "To sum up, if all American combat troops ever are withdrawn, there still will remain 50,000 to 100,000 Americans involved in a low-visibility, dirty war in Iraq, just like those that involved death squads in Central American in the '70s, or the earlier Phoenix program in South Vietnam, in which the Viet Cong infrastructure was decimated by assassinations and torture. Top American advisers in Baghdad today operated the El Salvador counter-insurgency and have praised the Phoenix program. This, in fact, already is happening. The Baghdad regime is described by a source in the Baker-Hamilton report as a Shiite dictatorship. The recent lessening of violence in Baghdad largely is due to the ethnic cleansing of its Sunni population. At least 50,000 detainees are imprisoned today without charges or trial dates. The United States is paying Sunnis to fight Sunnis, funding the Shiite-dominated security forces, and has increased its bombardment from the air by fivefold since last year."
Let's turn to some of today's violence and it's Friday which means very little gets reported.
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded a police officer and a civilian and a Diyala Province roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left another person wounded.
Shootings?Reuters reports US collaborators in the 'Awakening' Council in Samarra shot two people while outside Falluja they teamed up with the Iraqi police to shoot one person and leave another injured.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Saidiyah.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier died Jan. 25 of noncombat related causes." ICCC's total currently stands at 3932 US service members killed in Iraq while serving in the illegal war.
On this week's CounterSpin, Peter Hart spoke with Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford addressed the issue of candidate Barack Obama (Ford is not a Hillary supporter and notes the two are siamese twins).
Glen Ford: He has garnered White support at the expense of Black folks. Now he has done this in so many ways I've had to pare it down. But here are two. He said in Selma that Blacks have already come 90% of the way to equality with the inference of course that if he gets to be president we will have come all the way. Of course that's a signal to White people that this is almost over -- all this talk about race, all these 'complaints' from the likes of and they always fill in the blanks -- Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. 'But I'm with you, it's almost over, the progress has been almost completed.' That is so blatantly an appeal to White folks who just don't want to hear about race. If it had come out of White man's mouth, Barack Obama would have been excoriated by Black people. And now, most recently, in fact, effectively, he praised the Republicans for their ideas in the 90s and on Ronald Reagan. And he talks about all the excesses of the 60s and 70s. I have never heard a more blantant code phrase than that. Which, of course, again, if it had come out of a White Democrat's mouth, that candidate would be persona non grata in all progressive quarters of the Democratic Party. So Obama is in a very real sense -- and he's been doing this from the beginning -- running a campaign on race but one that's appealing to White people.
On the campaigns quickly, Taylor Marsh is covering everything but there's a problem for some with her site loading -- if you're checking out one post at her site, this one will give you the basics today including Matt Lauer's nonsense and it has a video clip.
like maria said paz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the common ills
marjorie cohn
the national lawyers guild
mikey likes it
iraq
brad mccall
iraq veterans against the war
charlie savagethom shankerthe new york timesjulian e. barnesthe los angeles times
walter pincusthe washington post
kimberly wilder
glen fordblack agenda report
peter hart
counterspin
tom hayden
patrick cockburn
mcclatchy newspapers
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Hans Bennet, writers strike, more
Thursday! One day until the weekend! Are you ready? I am. :D
Jim asked me to note Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Democracy Sometimes?" because the reception has been phenomonal (sp?). That thing's being passed around in the MSM and you've got them weighing in -- including some people who've been called out in the past who are saying things like "Well they are fair." And Ava and C.I. are. If they don't think they can be fair, they don't cover a show. There's a producer who does TV entertainment shows and they don't think they can be fair about his shows because they know him too well so they have never covered his shows. Jim, Dona and Ty have been working their butts off just trying to read all the feedback coming in on that and they're never though. Each day, Jim said, they tell themselves, "Okay, we're almost caught up, we'll read the rest tomorrow." Then tomorrow comes and they've got even more e-mails.
I think it goes to four things. 1) Ava and C.I. know their stuff. 2) They've got everything lined up and backed up and they write so wonderful. If I'm any better here it's largely because of being fans of their work and because of working with everyone at Third. 3) They tell the truth! They're like Phoebe on that episode of Friends where the kids are used to hearing animal songs and she sings about life. :D 4) People who were feeling something was off about Democracy Now! but couldn't figure it out or thought it was just them seeing it now see that it's not.
And when you get what they're talking about which goes beyond bias but actual journalistic breaches it's no surprise that they've had such a huge response. Jim says that in one week (and noted the week wasn't over) it's gotten more responses than anything they've written in a one week's time. (They have people finding their stuff all the time, years later. Jim's talking about in the immediate one week shelf life of one of their pieces.) This thing has just gone through the roof. And that's happened plenty of times with Ava and C.I.'s stuff. Each week, their feature article is the most popular thing. And it's not uncommon for it to get a huge life beyond their normal readers. But it's never been like this. This is just huge beyond words.
Which means they'll probably scale back this week because that's their way. If something gets more attention than they are comfortable with, they'll pull back. Otherwise, people expect that sort of thing every week. I've talked about that before and how I learned how that works when I got reposted at a site. People start wanting you to write the same thing the same way. So it's better to pull back or else you just end up copying yourself.
Hans Bennet has a great piece on movies, by the way. It's called "The Bourne Ultimatum: Rejecting the CIA:"
Along with the previously mentioned films, two other post 9-11 spy thrillers are highly recommended. The 2007 film Shooter, starring Mark Wahlberg and Danny Glover, is based on the book Point of Impact, about the fictional ex-Marine sniper Bob Lee Swagger, written by The Washington Post film critic Stephen Hunter. Interestingly, in the beginning of Shooter, the disaffected Swagger (played by Wahlberg) is seen viewing the prominently displayed the radical-activist Znet website. After Glover's character talks him into doing one last favor for the government, Swagger is double-crossed, and proceeds to use his Marine skills to hunt down the private military contractors and politicians who skillfully framed him for a murder that he didn't commit.
The 2004 version of the 1962 movie, The Manchurian Candidate, starring Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, is a riveting critique of the post-911 climate of fear-mongering, the power of transnational corporations like Haliburton, and the chilling real-life history of experiments in mind-control similar to the CIA's MK-Ultra program.
The whole thing's great but I really love The Shooter. I wrote about it back in December. And we picked it for the best of "2007 in DVDs" at Third. If you haven't seen the movie yet, go rent it. You will not be disappointed.
Just like I wasn't disappointed by Chuck tonight. It's on NBC again and there are two episodes tonight. I tried to blog during the first one and got one line written. It comes back on in another hour with another new episode. I want to be done before that so I can enjoy it. I had forgotten how much I loved the show. I knew I loved it but I forgot how much. C.I. had told me about this episode, the first one tonight, awhile back and I knew I was going to like it. John's ex-girlfriends is his ex because she died but she didn't die. This was just a great episode. They changed the opening of the show as well. I think I like it. But I know I love the show. I'm kind of bummed they're showing two new episodes tonight because that means it'll be over all the quicker.
You may have seen this at Third: Medium (NBC). When C.I. had to go into the template in November of early December, it got put in. That's the link to the show's site. I didn't catch it this week but I've been watching online anyway. That's a really good show and Patricia Arquette is both a great actress and a really good person. But that had me thinking, I should put in a link to Chuck when I talk about it so if someone wants to see it and missed it, they don't have to search around for it. Ava and C.I. said it was the best new show back before the fall season started airing and they weren't wrong. I will probably get this TV show on DVD because it's so good and I could watch it over and over. I don't have any shows on DVD because my sister got Friends, two of their seasons, and I liked Friends a lot but just didn't feel like watching it over and over. I'd watch it if I was flipping channels and came across an episode in syndication but I'm just not into sitting down with a boxed set of DVDs and watching them all. But I would watch Chuck.
Ava and C.I. aren't reviewing entertainment programming due to the writers strike. So since I'm talking about TV shows, let me make up for it by explaining what happens when I watch Medium online. I see a really great show, yes. And writers get paid for that when it airs on TV. How? Well the networks make their money on advertising. Now when I go to NBC to watch Medium online, guess what happens? I watch a commercial before the episode starts. The networks sell that time. Who gets the money? Not the writers.
That's what the strike's about. The writers are not asking for raises. They're not saying, "I don't care that the economy is tanking! I want a raise!" They're asking for their share from online advertising.
See that's not been covered in commercials. But that is the new wave. And the networks are hauling in this money and they're not sharing it. The writers aren't saying, "Give us all the ad money!" They're saying, "We deserve a share." And they do.
That's why you should be glad they're striking. They're striking for basic fairness and their strike is really a strike for all of us who work. It's like they're pulling another shift and not getting paid for it. And that wouldn't be fair if it happened to you and it's not fair for them.
There are more aspects of the strike but that's the easiest one for me to explain. CounterPunch ran that piece of crap thing insulting the writers early on. That was pretty sad, that a left, supposedly pro-labor site would be mocking workers for striking.
So think about how most of them are not wealthy and going on strike means they don't get paid for stuff right now. They've been on strikes for weeks now. And they've stood up for something that matters.
We should all be supporting them because this really is what we all need to do, stand up for ourselves.
If you want to see pathetic, search "DNC Should Encourage Democrats to Campaign in Florida" for John Nichols crap. Nichols couldn't say one damn word about Michigan (he did include it in a title, just 'forgot' to write about it) and suddenly he wants to 'do the right thing.' Too little, too late. Michigan and Florida needed people standing up for them. Diane Rehm could and did. Nichols is a coward. Who wrote a really bad book on impeachment that was apparently a way to make a fast buck since he doesn't cover it since The Nation decided it wasn't a story.
But Air Berman has to take the cake for being pathetic. You sort of picture him jerking off or with a finger up his butt as he drools over his screensaver of Obama. He still can't write about anything of substance from the Monday debate. Tonight, he goes off on nonsense again. They don't have smart people at The Nation, just Koo Koo Katrinas. Pathetic little nothings who couldn't get real jobs. Little suck ups.
It may end up being hard to pick the "Idiot of the Week" tomorrow after all. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Thursday, January 24, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, actions to support war resisters gear up, all the gas bags in Little Media aren't worth a nickle but General Dynamics makes a killing on the illegal war, and more.
Starting with war resistance. In Canada, people are gearing up for action. Why? On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.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. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
Jason Youman (Canada's Monday Magazine) reports "Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign is mobilizing for a Pan-Canadian Day of Action on Saturday, January 26.The purpose, says Victoria organizer Valerie Lannon, is to persuade the federal government to halt deportation proceedings against U.S. army deserters already in Canada, and pass legislation that would allow future resisters to stay in the country as refugees once they cross the border." Youman notes the Victoria event will be held at Fairfield United Church Hall, 1303 Fairfield road (beginning at ten a.m.) and that speakers will include Member of Parliament Denise Savoie and "American war resister Brad McCall, who has lived in Vancouver since leaving his army company in Colorado Springs in September. McCall has been vocal in his distaste of America's current role in Iraq, telling the Georgia Straight he didn't want to participate in 'war crimes.' McCall allegedly spent two days in a Surrey detention centre when he crossed the Canadian border."
The War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky explains to NOW magazine, "The rally is one of a number being held across Canada because we believe we are close to a decision on two issues: that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada." The rally he is speaking of -- also on Saturday -- takes place in Toronto at the Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor St. West, beginning at 1:00 p.m. and will feature, among others, activist and actress Shirley Douglas, Lawrence Hill (co-author of The Deserter's Tale with Joshua Key) and Member of Parliament Olivia Chow who has led on the issue of war resisters from early on. Those and other actions in Canada take place on Saturday. Go to War Resisters Support Campaign for more information and if you won't be in Canada, actions will take place everywhere with Courage to Resist calling for actions beginning tomorrow.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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 event:
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'."
Monday night, Democratic presidential contenders had a debate. And the same little media that whines about big media's lack of substance was where the next day? Or, in the continued embarrassment that is William Greider, days later? Greider seems intent to telegraph to anyone that everything he had he gave to Rolling Stone and reading him now is like watching a dying man waste away. Yesterday he sputtered about "Slick Willie" and a "blue dress." Yes, he really is that pathetic and so is The Nation. Maybe after this election he can return to another multi-page piffle of 'lessons' he learned about heart and soul from his mommy? From Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot:"Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.
Yes, that was said in the debate. But try to find out about it from the Hillary Hating left. Katrina vanden Heuvel can't sniff it -- surprising. Little Matty Rothschild (who will receive "Smut Merchant of the Week" at The Third Estate Sunday Review this week -- and he earned it and then some, hiding behind the right-wing to make the slur he's too 'tasteful' to make on his own) can't find it. John Nichols, Amy Goodman, the Air No-Stars of The Nation's Campaign blog, not even Stab's half-witted daughter (that's half a wit more than her mother) can find it. They all pretended to write about and comment on the debate. But they just showed glimpses of their own inner madness -- and, no, they didn't work through their madness, just flashed it.
Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) explains, "The leading Democratic presidential candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have launched fierce attacks in recent days on a White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government, complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office. Among the top critics is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). She has used the past two Democratic presidential debates to blast President Bush for his effort, as she put it Monday in South Carolina, 'to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy'." It is a big issue, it is a monumental issue for this country and Iraq but it's not one the Half-Wits and Dim-Bulbs of today's 'independent' media could catch with both hands and their big mouths wide open. It's amazing what the gas bags produced this week, the same ones who whine and whine about Big Media. In their own spaces this week, they threw tantrums, soiled their nappys and demonstrated they could pout for days at a time.
At the grown ups table, Guy Raz (NPR) explains that Bully Boy and his puppet, Nouri al-Maliki started the whole thing in November with "Declaration of Principles" and "includes a provision that promises to maintain the stability of Iraq's government from 'internal and external threats.' This sentence is raising alarms for some U.S. lawmakers. Any such agreement would be considered a treaty by many legal experts. And under the U.S. Constitution, treaties have to be ratified by Congress." vanen Heuvel purrs about democracy this week but somehow the checks and balances set out in the Constitution, the separation of powers, doesn't enter into her concept of 'democracy'.
Supposedly the gas bags of Little Media want 'issues.' But look at the trash they offered this week -- and William Kristol at his worst couldn't have provided more trash, not even with an assist from David Brock before his transformation -- and try to figure out where any issue was? As they offered their smut, where was any issue? They wasted 2007 covering the 2008 elections and they offered nothing. It's now 2008 and they still offer nothing. William Greider thinks a "blue dress" is a way to tar and feather Hillary and doesn't grasp that it only makes him look like the cheap scum he's become.
At issue in terms of the illegal war is how long the US will be 'locked into' Iraq and, if Bully Boy gets his way, it will be for a long, long time. Guy Raz (NPR) notes "could last decades" and points out that al-Maliki's cabinet is referring to it as a "treaty." Raz:
Yet nearly half of Iraq's elected members of Parliament have signed a letter demanding a full U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq within the next two years.
But Iraq's top Cabinet ministers -- people who depend on U.S. protection and the same officials negotiating on Iraq's behalf -- have implied that large numbers of U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for at least another decade.
That poses a problem because the U.S. Congress has passed three laws that prohibit any U.S. funding for permanent U.S. military installations in Iraq.
But according to Kurt Campbell -- a top Pentagon official during the 1990s and now the head of the Center for a New American Security -- there are also ways around that.
"While no one will say anything about permanent bases, [there are] lots of ways to create the potential for bases to be in Iraq for decades to come," he says.
So White House and Pentagon lawyers may opt to use adjectives like "enduring" or "continuing" instead of the word "permanent" when they announce the final agreement.
And to Campbell, the agreement is an attempt, "in the last days of the Bush administration, to hand a new administration a done deal."
When does Little Media plan to get around to addressing that? Now every one of them begs for money. Money, money, money, give money. They're like those tele-evangelists. Those con artists sell the idea that you can buy an after-life by handing them your money. What is independent media selling when it's begging time? They claim they do amazing work and maybe they did . . . once. But what we're seeing is the 90s on replay only this time it's coming from the left speaker of your stereo and not the right one. It really is pathetic and they're doing it on your dime.
US Senator Joe Biden held a press conference today to note Bully Boy attempting to circumvent Congress. In the press conference he released the December 19th letter he sent the Bully Boy -- one that has still not received a reply:
At the core of this issue is, of course, the war power of Congress. A careful study of the Constitution and the intent of the framers as reflected, for example, in statements made at the Constitutional Convention, leave no doubt that, except for repelling sudden attacks on the United States, the Founding Fathers intended decisions to initiate either general or limited hostilities against foreign countries to be made by the Congress and not the Executive. The President is to direct and lead the Armed Forces and put them to any use specified by Congress.
Over the years Administrations that have taken a particularly expansive view of the presidential power to repel sudden attacks have encroached on this original understanding of the war power of Congress. This theory of executive power has frequently been justified on the basis of expediency and practical necessity in view of the nature of modern conflict. But no prior Administration has suggested that the Executive's power in this area is unlimited or that it applies to ex ante agreements where there is ample time for Congress to participate. Moreover, in my view, the division of war powers specified in the Constitution is both compatible with modern warfare and essential to constitutional government.
A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our Armed Forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities. Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment. As stated in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations that accompanied the National Commitments Resolution in 1969, "[t]he means of a democracy are its ends; when we set aside democratic procedures in making our foreign policy, we are undermining the purpose of that policy."
I expect that the Committee will review this issue in hearings next year, and look forward to close consultation with your Administration. In advance of such hearings, I would welcome a clarification from you on the scope of the agreement you are considering, and the specific security assurances and commitments that it might entail. I would also appreciate a definitive statement from you affirming that Congress must authorize or approve any "security commitments" the United States negotiates with Iraq.
Biden released the letter right before Tom Casey, deputy spokesperson for the US State Department, held today's briefings and Casey appeared surprised to be confronted with a press eager to question. Casey noted that the United Nations had "governed" the US presence in Iraq but that now the US and Iraq would enter into their own agreement. He then tried to distract everyone with Uniform Military Code of Justic. Then he got to the issue of permanent bases and tying the hands of future presidents and insisted "that's certainly not the case" but it just provides a "full range of policy options". Asked directly whether the 'agreement' (it's a treaty) would "require Congressional approval," Casey responded no and insisted that the 'agreement' covers things that "are obviously things that are determined by the military commanders and unltimately by the President." Really.
Tom Casey, in reply to the next question, will state, "Again, it's a legal framework." Legal framework -- or legislation -- doesn't come through the US military or the executive branch. Pressed again, Tom Casey insisted that future presidents or prime ministers "are obviously going to be up to their discretion." Asked directly if he was "saying that SOFA agreements notwithstanding, the Bush administration doesn't intend to -- in any way, to commit US forces to Iraq after it leaves office," Casey responded that "we believe that we need to have a long-term relationship with Iraq" followed with a speech of the 'importance' to "lay the groundwork" for some undefined relationship. And again he reveals this is a Congressional duty by stating the agreement needs to provide "a solid, legal basis" -- that's not the executive branch, Tom Casey. He denied that permanent bases were desired or sought and some will believe that nonsense.
On US political campaigns, John Pilger (New Statesman) has a great column and normally we'd quote it but considering the current environment Little Media's created, we'll just note his column and link to it. Someone still remembers what "independent" is supposed to mean.
If you missed Democracy Now! today, you didn't miss anything. It was time to go back to 2002 and 2003 and step lightly because avoding ever mentioning that Chris Hedges put the false link between 9-11 and Iraq on the front page of the New York Times (October 2001) requires goose-stepping. We noted "False Pretenses" in yesterday's snapshot for three medium size paragraphs and that's probably about as much time as it requires (if not too much). If you missed it, it's a tabluation of all the lies ("false statements" insisted a reporter brought on for who knows why, he didn't participate in the "False Pretenses" and had nothing to add) the White House made to start the illegal war. In yesterday's snapshot, we gave more weight to an actual study, one that required Freedom of Information requests -- the National Priorities Project study about recruitment. That has serious implications. But it's nothing far enough in the past for the comfort of Amy Goodman apparently -- possibly, she'll next interview the woman raped in Central Park a la Dateline. In addition to that study, we also noted the developments in England yesterday. The Guardian of London's Jonathan Steele states, "The only way to get the truth is to have a full-scale inquiry. What did the government's experts really do? Why didn't they go beyond Whitehall and regularly consult specialists outside? What questions did ministers ask? How an inquiry should be conducted - in public, partly in private, by privy counsellors or a select committee - are matters for debate. The crucial issue is that the government must open itself up to scrutiny." What's Steele talking about? [Kat wrote about this last night.]
The lies of the illegal war. He's talking about a full blown investigation and Americans with long memories might remember during the lead up to the November 2006 elections, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi couldn't stop raving about the way things would change if the Democratic Party took control (of even one house!) and had subpeona power. They got both houses. Where are the investigations?
The New Statesman proclaims, "Fresh from securing the collapse of the Official Secrets trial agains Foreign Office whistleblower Derek Pasquill, we are delighted to announce another victory. The Information Tribunal has just rejected an appeal by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to stop the release, under the Freedom of Information Act, of an early draft of the now infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier." Andrew Sparrow (Guardian of London) explains, "A Whitehall spin doctor may have played a greater role in the drafting of the famous dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction than the government admitted at the time . . . The dossier, which claimed Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, became the subject of huge controversy when the BBC reported that it had been 'sexed up' by Downing Street." The Scotsman reminds, "Dr David Kelly, a weapons expert, was found dead shortly after being named as the source of a BBC report suggesting that the dossier, used to support an invasion of Iraq, was 'sexed up'."
The BBC picks up there noting, "Dr Kelly cited the example of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be used within 45 minutes of him giving an order. The report led to a high profile dispute between the BBC and Downing Street which culminated in Dr Kelly's death." The BBC also informs that two people have "annoated" the report but "the tribunal has ordered that one of the handwritten notes should be taken off the draft when it is released. The ruling was welcomed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who said it strengthened the case for an independent inquiry into the war." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) points out, "[John] Williams' role in the affair was not disclosed to the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly, the government weapons expert who questioned the way the dossier was drawn up."
At his blog, Martin Rosenbaum (BBC) notes that it's "almost exactly four years ago" since the release of the Hutton Inquiry report: "I had been seconded from my job as a BBC journalist to work with BBC management on the inquiry, spending many weeks involved in meticulous scrutiny of consistencies and inconsistencies between all the accounts of who said what where when and why. I didn't expect Lord Hutton's conclusion, I didn't expect the resignations that followed, and I didn't expect that four years later the Freedom of Information Act might lead to disclosure of further documents which would allow another burst of such scrutiny for those of us who remain interested." The one who moved mountains, Chris Ames (New Statesman) walks through the process and the history and ends by quoting MP John Baron of the Conservative Party declaring, "I am now pressing the Foreign Secretary immediately to make public the Williams draft, so that we can asses for ourselves the significance of this document in the run up to war -- a war which we should never had been party to. The Tribunal agrees that the Williams draft could have played a greater part in influencing the drafting of the dossier than the Government has so far admitted even to the Hutton Inquiry. The Government cannot hide this document any longer."
And in the US, no efforts to press towards accountablity. Why bother? It's so very good for . . . so very few.
So you could make a killing
Oh you could make a killing
Oh you could make a killing
-- "You Could Make a Killing," written by Aimee Mann, from I'm With Stupid.
And some really do rake it in. Edmond Lococo (Bloomberg News) reports, "General Dynamics Corp., the largest maker of armored vehicles for the U.S. military, said fourth-quarter earnings surged 42 percent on higher sales for the war in Iraq. Net income rose to $579 million, or $1.42 a share, from $408 million, or $1, a year earlier, the Falls Church, Virginia-based company said in a statement today. . . . The Iraq war boosted quarterly combat-systems sales 47 percent on rising demand for the Abrams tank and Stryker troop transport." Krystal Chow (Ottawa Business Journal) makes clear the "double-digit jump in both sales and profits" was the "result of strong demand from the U.S. military for the war in Iraq". AP works overtime to white-out the Iraq War. (The Wall St. Journal doesn't.) BBC points out that there are potential problems for the profit margin with "analysts" fretting "that there may be a possible change in defence policy under a new US president. Calls to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq could lead to weaker demand for military equipment, they said." That would, indeed, be a pity -- if the illegal war ended before Big Business could get all the blood money they craved. Reuters notes General Dynamics is only ranked fourth among US defense contractors and that others are expected to release their quarterly earnings shortly. Yesterday's snapshot noted the Congressional Budget Office's findings that the costs of the illegal war increase each year. This year, Bully Boy wants $193 billion which is $100 billion more than it cost in the first year. Think about that -- the illegal war costs more in its fifth year than in its first and the claim of 'winning' seems even shakier. Today, Peter R. Orszag, CBO director, testified to the US Senate Committee on the Budget where he warned that "additional funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could further increase the deficit for this year" and that "additional funding that is likely to be needed to finance military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan could add $30 billion to outlays this year."
Yesterday Orszag testified to the US House Committee on the Budget giving the same prepared remarks. Kent Conrad, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, noted in today's hearing, "We looked at the CBO deficit estimate, and we put with that the President's policies -- that is the extension of the tax cuts and additional war cost -- and we see that by 2018 we would face a deficit of nearly $600 billion. All of this leaves us with a picture of ever escalating debt." In the new issue of Ms. magazine, Martha Burk ("Gender Budgets, Anyone?," pp. 57-58) observes, "To date the war in Iraq has cost over a trillion dollars and counting. The money spent on one day of the war could buy health care for 423,529 kids, or homes for 6,500 families." [The article is not yet available online and the new issue -- Winter 2008 -- hits bookstores and magazine racks January 29th.]
Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes yesterday's Mosul bombing and that "[v]ictims were still being pulled from the rubble late Wednesday night" and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that the number dead climed to 40 and 220 wounded. It was just Tuesday that the New York Times was cleaning up for the 'Awakening' Councils attack on a family, burning their home down, refusing to allow them the head of a dead member for a burial. Today Solomon Moore and Richard A. Oppel Jr. note the attacks on the US collaborators with "[a]t least 100 . . . killed in the past month" but they fail to note the thug nature of the thugs for hire. The article notes what's been noticeable for some time in terms of the attacks on the increasingly unpopular 'Awakening' Councils; however, it's one-sided and refuses to note the very real violence that the thugs are inflicting. Not surprising since, as a general rule, anyone who has to be paid/bribed to 'come over' to a side isn't generally thought of as 'trust worthy' or 'noble.'
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a downtown Baghdad bombing that claimed the lives of 2 police officers and three wounded, three other Baghdad bombings left three people injured and, in the continued targeting of officials, a Karbala bombing targeting Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al Karbala'i ("Sistani's representative") claimed the lives of two bodyguards and left two more wounded. Matthew Weaver (Guardian of London) notes a Mosul bombing that claimed 3 lives -- Iraq police chief and two police officers -- when a bomber dressed as a police officer killed himself and the other three.:
Shootings?
Reuters reports an armed clash in Dhuluiya that left 3 dead and four people wounded and a man shot dead by police in Khalidya.
Kidnappings?
Reuters reports 7 "oil tanker drivers" were kidnapped yesterday outside Samarra.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Iskandariya.
the common ills
mikey likes it
iraq
brad mccalljason youmanslee zaslofsky
joshua key
iraq veterans against the war
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.alissa j. rubinthe washington postmichael abramowitzmatthew weaver
richard norton-taylor
martha burkms.ms. magazine
npr
guy raz
aimee mann
kats korner
Jim asked me to note Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Democracy Sometimes?" because the reception has been phenomonal (sp?). That thing's being passed around in the MSM and you've got them weighing in -- including some people who've been called out in the past who are saying things like "Well they are fair." And Ava and C.I. are. If they don't think they can be fair, they don't cover a show. There's a producer who does TV entertainment shows and they don't think they can be fair about his shows because they know him too well so they have never covered his shows. Jim, Dona and Ty have been working their butts off just trying to read all the feedback coming in on that and they're never though. Each day, Jim said, they tell themselves, "Okay, we're almost caught up, we'll read the rest tomorrow." Then tomorrow comes and they've got even more e-mails.
I think it goes to four things. 1) Ava and C.I. know their stuff. 2) They've got everything lined up and backed up and they write so wonderful. If I'm any better here it's largely because of being fans of their work and because of working with everyone at Third. 3) They tell the truth! They're like Phoebe on that episode of Friends where the kids are used to hearing animal songs and she sings about life. :D 4) People who were feeling something was off about Democracy Now! but couldn't figure it out or thought it was just them seeing it now see that it's not.
And when you get what they're talking about which goes beyond bias but actual journalistic breaches it's no surprise that they've had such a huge response. Jim says that in one week (and noted the week wasn't over) it's gotten more responses than anything they've written in a one week's time. (They have people finding their stuff all the time, years later. Jim's talking about in the immediate one week shelf life of one of their pieces.) This thing has just gone through the roof. And that's happened plenty of times with Ava and C.I.'s stuff. Each week, their feature article is the most popular thing. And it's not uncommon for it to get a huge life beyond their normal readers. But it's never been like this. This is just huge beyond words.
Which means they'll probably scale back this week because that's their way. If something gets more attention than they are comfortable with, they'll pull back. Otherwise, people expect that sort of thing every week. I've talked about that before and how I learned how that works when I got reposted at a site. People start wanting you to write the same thing the same way. So it's better to pull back or else you just end up copying yourself.
Hans Bennet has a great piece on movies, by the way. It's called "The Bourne Ultimatum: Rejecting the CIA:"
Along with the previously mentioned films, two other post 9-11 spy thrillers are highly recommended. The 2007 film Shooter, starring Mark Wahlberg and Danny Glover, is based on the book Point of Impact, about the fictional ex-Marine sniper Bob Lee Swagger, written by The Washington Post film critic Stephen Hunter. Interestingly, in the beginning of Shooter, the disaffected Swagger (played by Wahlberg) is seen viewing the prominently displayed the radical-activist Znet website. After Glover's character talks him into doing one last favor for the government, Swagger is double-crossed, and proceeds to use his Marine skills to hunt down the private military contractors and politicians who skillfully framed him for a murder that he didn't commit.
The 2004 version of the 1962 movie, The Manchurian Candidate, starring Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep, is a riveting critique of the post-911 climate of fear-mongering, the power of transnational corporations like Haliburton, and the chilling real-life history of experiments in mind-control similar to the CIA's MK-Ultra program.
The whole thing's great but I really love The Shooter. I wrote about it back in December. And we picked it for the best of "2007 in DVDs" at Third. If you haven't seen the movie yet, go rent it. You will not be disappointed.
Just like I wasn't disappointed by Chuck tonight. It's on NBC again and there are two episodes tonight. I tried to blog during the first one and got one line written. It comes back on in another hour with another new episode. I want to be done before that so I can enjoy it. I had forgotten how much I loved the show. I knew I loved it but I forgot how much. C.I. had told me about this episode, the first one tonight, awhile back and I knew I was going to like it. John's ex-girlfriends is his ex because she died but she didn't die. This was just a great episode. They changed the opening of the show as well. I think I like it. But I know I love the show. I'm kind of bummed they're showing two new episodes tonight because that means it'll be over all the quicker.
You may have seen this at Third: Medium (NBC). When C.I. had to go into the template in November of early December, it got put in. That's the link to the show's site. I didn't catch it this week but I've been watching online anyway. That's a really good show and Patricia Arquette is both a great actress and a really good person. But that had me thinking, I should put in a link to Chuck when I talk about it so if someone wants to see it and missed it, they don't have to search around for it. Ava and C.I. said it was the best new show back before the fall season started airing and they weren't wrong. I will probably get this TV show on DVD because it's so good and I could watch it over and over. I don't have any shows on DVD because my sister got Friends, two of their seasons, and I liked Friends a lot but just didn't feel like watching it over and over. I'd watch it if I was flipping channels and came across an episode in syndication but I'm just not into sitting down with a boxed set of DVDs and watching them all. But I would watch Chuck.
Ava and C.I. aren't reviewing entertainment programming due to the writers strike. So since I'm talking about TV shows, let me make up for it by explaining what happens when I watch Medium online. I see a really great show, yes. And writers get paid for that when it airs on TV. How? Well the networks make their money on advertising. Now when I go to NBC to watch Medium online, guess what happens? I watch a commercial before the episode starts. The networks sell that time. Who gets the money? Not the writers.
That's what the strike's about. The writers are not asking for raises. They're not saying, "I don't care that the economy is tanking! I want a raise!" They're asking for their share from online advertising.
See that's not been covered in commercials. But that is the new wave. And the networks are hauling in this money and they're not sharing it. The writers aren't saying, "Give us all the ad money!" They're saying, "We deserve a share." And they do.
That's why you should be glad they're striking. They're striking for basic fairness and their strike is really a strike for all of us who work. It's like they're pulling another shift and not getting paid for it. And that wouldn't be fair if it happened to you and it's not fair for them.
There are more aspects of the strike but that's the easiest one for me to explain. CounterPunch ran that piece of crap thing insulting the writers early on. That was pretty sad, that a left, supposedly pro-labor site would be mocking workers for striking.
So think about how most of them are not wealthy and going on strike means they don't get paid for stuff right now. They've been on strikes for weeks now. And they've stood up for something that matters.
We should all be supporting them because this really is what we all need to do, stand up for ourselves.
If you want to see pathetic, search "DNC Should Encourage Democrats to Campaign in Florida" for John Nichols crap. Nichols couldn't say one damn word about Michigan (he did include it in a title, just 'forgot' to write about it) and suddenly he wants to 'do the right thing.' Too little, too late. Michigan and Florida needed people standing up for them. Diane Rehm could and did. Nichols is a coward. Who wrote a really bad book on impeachment that was apparently a way to make a fast buck since he doesn't cover it since The Nation decided it wasn't a story.
But Air Berman has to take the cake for being pathetic. You sort of picture him jerking off or with a finger up his butt as he drools over his screensaver of Obama. He still can't write about anything of substance from the Monday debate. Tonight, he goes off on nonsense again. They don't have smart people at The Nation, just Koo Koo Katrinas. Pathetic little nothings who couldn't get real jobs. Little suck ups.
It may end up being hard to pick the "Idiot of the Week" tomorrow after all. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Thursday, January 24, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, actions to support war resisters gear up, all the gas bags in Little Media aren't worth a nickle but General Dynamics makes a killing on the illegal war, and more.
Starting with war resistance. In Canada, people are gearing up for action. Why? On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.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. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
Jason Youman (Canada's Monday Magazine) reports "Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign is mobilizing for a Pan-Canadian Day of Action on Saturday, January 26.The purpose, says Victoria organizer Valerie Lannon, is to persuade the federal government to halt deportation proceedings against U.S. army deserters already in Canada, and pass legislation that would allow future resisters to stay in the country as refugees once they cross the border." Youman notes the Victoria event will be held at Fairfield United Church Hall, 1303 Fairfield road (beginning at ten a.m.) and that speakers will include Member of Parliament Denise Savoie and "American war resister Brad McCall, who has lived in Vancouver since leaving his army company in Colorado Springs in September. McCall has been vocal in his distaste of America's current role in Iraq, telling the Georgia Straight he didn't want to participate in 'war crimes.' McCall allegedly spent two days in a Surrey detention centre when he crossed the Canadian border."
The War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky explains to NOW magazine, "The rally is one of a number being held across Canada because we believe we are close to a decision on two issues: that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada." The rally he is speaking of -- also on Saturday -- takes place in Toronto at the Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor St. West, beginning at 1:00 p.m. and will feature, among others, activist and actress Shirley Douglas, Lawrence Hill (co-author of The Deserter's Tale with Joshua Key) and Member of Parliament Olivia Chow who has led on the issue of war resisters from early on. Those and other actions in Canada take place on Saturday. Go to War Resisters Support Campaign for more information and if you won't be in Canada, actions will take place everywhere with Courage to Resist calling for actions beginning tomorrow.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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 event:
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'."
Monday night, Democratic presidential contenders had a debate. And the same little media that whines about big media's lack of substance was where the next day? Or, in the continued embarrassment that is William Greider, days later? Greider seems intent to telegraph to anyone that everything he had he gave to Rolling Stone and reading him now is like watching a dying man waste away. Yesterday he sputtered about "Slick Willie" and a "blue dress." Yes, he really is that pathetic and so is The Nation. Maybe after this election he can return to another multi-page piffle of 'lessons' he learned about heart and soul from his mommy? From Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot:"Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.
Yes, that was said in the debate. But try to find out about it from the Hillary Hating left. Katrina vanden Heuvel can't sniff it -- surprising. Little Matty Rothschild (who will receive "Smut Merchant of the Week" at The Third Estate Sunday Review this week -- and he earned it and then some, hiding behind the right-wing to make the slur he's too 'tasteful' to make on his own) can't find it. John Nichols, Amy Goodman, the Air No-Stars of The Nation's Campaign blog, not even Stab's half-witted daughter (that's half a wit more than her mother) can find it. They all pretended to write about and comment on the debate. But they just showed glimpses of their own inner madness -- and, no, they didn't work through their madness, just flashed it.
Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) explains, "The leading Democratic presidential candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have launched fierce attacks in recent days on a White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government, complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office. Among the top critics is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). She has used the past two Democratic presidential debates to blast President Bush for his effort, as she put it Monday in South Carolina, 'to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy'." It is a big issue, it is a monumental issue for this country and Iraq but it's not one the Half-Wits and Dim-Bulbs of today's 'independent' media could catch with both hands and their big mouths wide open. It's amazing what the gas bags produced this week, the same ones who whine and whine about Big Media. In their own spaces this week, they threw tantrums, soiled their nappys and demonstrated they could pout for days at a time.
At the grown ups table, Guy Raz (NPR) explains that Bully Boy and his puppet, Nouri al-Maliki started the whole thing in November with "Declaration of Principles" and "includes a provision that promises to maintain the stability of Iraq's government from 'internal and external threats.' This sentence is raising alarms for some U.S. lawmakers. Any such agreement would be considered a treaty by many legal experts. And under the U.S. Constitution, treaties have to be ratified by Congress." vanen Heuvel purrs about democracy this week but somehow the checks and balances set out in the Constitution, the separation of powers, doesn't enter into her concept of 'democracy'.
Supposedly the gas bags of Little Media want 'issues.' But look at the trash they offered this week -- and William Kristol at his worst couldn't have provided more trash, not even with an assist from David Brock before his transformation -- and try to figure out where any issue was? As they offered their smut, where was any issue? They wasted 2007 covering the 2008 elections and they offered nothing. It's now 2008 and they still offer nothing. William Greider thinks a "blue dress" is a way to tar and feather Hillary and doesn't grasp that it only makes him look like the cheap scum he's become.
At issue in terms of the illegal war is how long the US will be 'locked into' Iraq and, if Bully Boy gets his way, it will be for a long, long time. Guy Raz (NPR) notes "could last decades" and points out that al-Maliki's cabinet is referring to it as a "treaty." Raz:
Yet nearly half of Iraq's elected members of Parliament have signed a letter demanding a full U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq within the next two years.
But Iraq's top Cabinet ministers -- people who depend on U.S. protection and the same officials negotiating on Iraq's behalf -- have implied that large numbers of U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for at least another decade.
That poses a problem because the U.S. Congress has passed three laws that prohibit any U.S. funding for permanent U.S. military installations in Iraq.
But according to Kurt Campbell -- a top Pentagon official during the 1990s and now the head of the Center for a New American Security -- there are also ways around that.
"While no one will say anything about permanent bases, [there are] lots of ways to create the potential for bases to be in Iraq for decades to come," he says.
So White House and Pentagon lawyers may opt to use adjectives like "enduring" or "continuing" instead of the word "permanent" when they announce the final agreement.
And to Campbell, the agreement is an attempt, "in the last days of the Bush administration, to hand a new administration a done deal."
When does Little Media plan to get around to addressing that? Now every one of them begs for money. Money, money, money, give money. They're like those tele-evangelists. Those con artists sell the idea that you can buy an after-life by handing them your money. What is independent media selling when it's begging time? They claim they do amazing work and maybe they did . . . once. But what we're seeing is the 90s on replay only this time it's coming from the left speaker of your stereo and not the right one. It really is pathetic and they're doing it on your dime.
US Senator Joe Biden held a press conference today to note Bully Boy attempting to circumvent Congress. In the press conference he released the December 19th letter he sent the Bully Boy -- one that has still not received a reply:
At the core of this issue is, of course, the war power of Congress. A careful study of the Constitution and the intent of the framers as reflected, for example, in statements made at the Constitutional Convention, leave no doubt that, except for repelling sudden attacks on the United States, the Founding Fathers intended decisions to initiate either general or limited hostilities against foreign countries to be made by the Congress and not the Executive. The President is to direct and lead the Armed Forces and put them to any use specified by Congress.
Over the years Administrations that have taken a particularly expansive view of the presidential power to repel sudden attacks have encroached on this original understanding of the war power of Congress. This theory of executive power has frequently been justified on the basis of expediency and practical necessity in view of the nature of modern conflict. But no prior Administration has suggested that the Executive's power in this area is unlimited or that it applies to ex ante agreements where there is ample time for Congress to participate. Moreover, in my view, the division of war powers specified in the Constitution is both compatible with modern warfare and essential to constitutional government.
A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our Armed Forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities. Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment. As stated in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations that accompanied the National Commitments Resolution in 1969, "[t]he means of a democracy are its ends; when we set aside democratic procedures in making our foreign policy, we are undermining the purpose of that policy."
I expect that the Committee will review this issue in hearings next year, and look forward to close consultation with your Administration. In advance of such hearings, I would welcome a clarification from you on the scope of the agreement you are considering, and the specific security assurances and commitments that it might entail. I would also appreciate a definitive statement from you affirming that Congress must authorize or approve any "security commitments" the United States negotiates with Iraq.
Biden released the letter right before Tom Casey, deputy spokesperson for the US State Department, held today's briefings and Casey appeared surprised to be confronted with a press eager to question. Casey noted that the United Nations had "governed" the US presence in Iraq but that now the US and Iraq would enter into their own agreement. He then tried to distract everyone with Uniform Military Code of Justic. Then he got to the issue of permanent bases and tying the hands of future presidents and insisted "that's certainly not the case" but it just provides a "full range of policy options". Asked directly whether the 'agreement' (it's a treaty) would "require Congressional approval," Casey responded no and insisted that the 'agreement' covers things that "are obviously things that are determined by the military commanders and unltimately by the President." Really.
Tom Casey, in reply to the next question, will state, "Again, it's a legal framework." Legal framework -- or legislation -- doesn't come through the US military or the executive branch. Pressed again, Tom Casey insisted that future presidents or prime ministers "are obviously going to be up to their discretion." Asked directly if he was "saying that SOFA agreements notwithstanding, the Bush administration doesn't intend to -- in any way, to commit US forces to Iraq after it leaves office," Casey responded that "we believe that we need to have a long-term relationship with Iraq" followed with a speech of the 'importance' to "lay the groundwork" for some undefined relationship. And again he reveals this is a Congressional duty by stating the agreement needs to provide "a solid, legal basis" -- that's not the executive branch, Tom Casey. He denied that permanent bases were desired or sought and some will believe that nonsense.
On US political campaigns, John Pilger (New Statesman) has a great column and normally we'd quote it but considering the current environment Little Media's created, we'll just note his column and link to it. Someone still remembers what "independent" is supposed to mean.
If you missed Democracy Now! today, you didn't miss anything. It was time to go back to 2002 and 2003 and step lightly because avoding ever mentioning that Chris Hedges put the false link between 9-11 and Iraq on the front page of the New York Times (October 2001) requires goose-stepping. We noted "False Pretenses" in yesterday's snapshot for three medium size paragraphs and that's probably about as much time as it requires (if not too much). If you missed it, it's a tabluation of all the lies ("false statements" insisted a reporter brought on for who knows why, he didn't participate in the "False Pretenses" and had nothing to add) the White House made to start the illegal war. In yesterday's snapshot, we gave more weight to an actual study, one that required Freedom of Information requests -- the National Priorities Project study about recruitment. That has serious implications. But it's nothing far enough in the past for the comfort of Amy Goodman apparently -- possibly, she'll next interview the woman raped in Central Park a la Dateline. In addition to that study, we also noted the developments in England yesterday. The Guardian of London's Jonathan Steele states, "The only way to get the truth is to have a full-scale inquiry. What did the government's experts really do? Why didn't they go beyond Whitehall and regularly consult specialists outside? What questions did ministers ask? How an inquiry should be conducted - in public, partly in private, by privy counsellors or a select committee - are matters for debate. The crucial issue is that the government must open itself up to scrutiny." What's Steele talking about? [Kat wrote about this last night.]
The lies of the illegal war. He's talking about a full blown investigation and Americans with long memories might remember during the lead up to the November 2006 elections, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi couldn't stop raving about the way things would change if the Democratic Party took control (of even one house!) and had subpeona power. They got both houses. Where are the investigations?
The New Statesman proclaims, "Fresh from securing the collapse of the Official Secrets trial agains Foreign Office whistleblower Derek Pasquill, we are delighted to announce another victory. The Information Tribunal has just rejected an appeal by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to stop the release, under the Freedom of Information Act, of an early draft of the now infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier." Andrew Sparrow (Guardian of London) explains, "A Whitehall spin doctor may have played a greater role in the drafting of the famous dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction than the government admitted at the time . . . The dossier, which claimed Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, became the subject of huge controversy when the BBC reported that it had been 'sexed up' by Downing Street." The Scotsman reminds, "Dr David Kelly, a weapons expert, was found dead shortly after being named as the source of a BBC report suggesting that the dossier, used to support an invasion of Iraq, was 'sexed up'."
The BBC picks up there noting, "Dr Kelly cited the example of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be used within 45 minutes of him giving an order. The report led to a high profile dispute between the BBC and Downing Street which culminated in Dr Kelly's death." The BBC also informs that two people have "annoated" the report but "the tribunal has ordered that one of the handwritten notes should be taken off the draft when it is released. The ruling was welcomed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who said it strengthened the case for an independent inquiry into the war." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) points out, "[John] Williams' role in the affair was not disclosed to the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly, the government weapons expert who questioned the way the dossier was drawn up."
At his blog, Martin Rosenbaum (BBC) notes that it's "almost exactly four years ago" since the release of the Hutton Inquiry report: "I had been seconded from my job as a BBC journalist to work with BBC management on the inquiry, spending many weeks involved in meticulous scrutiny of consistencies and inconsistencies between all the accounts of who said what where when and why. I didn't expect Lord Hutton's conclusion, I didn't expect the resignations that followed, and I didn't expect that four years later the Freedom of Information Act might lead to disclosure of further documents which would allow another burst of such scrutiny for those of us who remain interested." The one who moved mountains, Chris Ames (New Statesman) walks through the process and the history and ends by quoting MP John Baron of the Conservative Party declaring, "I am now pressing the Foreign Secretary immediately to make public the Williams draft, so that we can asses for ourselves the significance of this document in the run up to war -- a war which we should never had been party to. The Tribunal agrees that the Williams draft could have played a greater part in influencing the drafting of the dossier than the Government has so far admitted even to the Hutton Inquiry. The Government cannot hide this document any longer."
And in the US, no efforts to press towards accountablity. Why bother? It's so very good for . . . so very few.
So you could make a killing
Oh you could make a killing
Oh you could make a killing
-- "You Could Make a Killing," written by Aimee Mann, from I'm With Stupid.
And some really do rake it in. Edmond Lococo (Bloomberg News) reports, "General Dynamics Corp., the largest maker of armored vehicles for the U.S. military, said fourth-quarter earnings surged 42 percent on higher sales for the war in Iraq. Net income rose to $579 million, or $1.42 a share, from $408 million, or $1, a year earlier, the Falls Church, Virginia-based company said in a statement today. . . . The Iraq war boosted quarterly combat-systems sales 47 percent on rising demand for the Abrams tank and Stryker troop transport." Krystal Chow (Ottawa Business Journal) makes clear the "double-digit jump in both sales and profits" was the "result of strong demand from the U.S. military for the war in Iraq". AP works overtime to white-out the Iraq War. (The Wall St. Journal doesn't.) BBC points out that there are potential problems for the profit margin with "analysts" fretting "that there may be a possible change in defence policy under a new US president. Calls to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq could lead to weaker demand for military equipment, they said." That would, indeed, be a pity -- if the illegal war ended before Big Business could get all the blood money they craved. Reuters notes General Dynamics is only ranked fourth among US defense contractors and that others are expected to release their quarterly earnings shortly. Yesterday's snapshot noted the Congressional Budget Office's findings that the costs of the illegal war increase each year. This year, Bully Boy wants $193 billion which is $100 billion more than it cost in the first year. Think about that -- the illegal war costs more in its fifth year than in its first and the claim of 'winning' seems even shakier. Today, Peter R. Orszag, CBO director, testified to the US Senate Committee on the Budget where he warned that "additional funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could further increase the deficit for this year" and that "additional funding that is likely to be needed to finance military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan could add $30 billion to outlays this year."
Yesterday Orszag testified to the US House Committee on the Budget giving the same prepared remarks. Kent Conrad, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, noted in today's hearing, "We looked at the CBO deficit estimate, and we put with that the President's policies -- that is the extension of the tax cuts and additional war cost -- and we see that by 2018 we would face a deficit of nearly $600 billion. All of this leaves us with a picture of ever escalating debt." In the new issue of Ms. magazine, Martha Burk ("Gender Budgets, Anyone?," pp. 57-58) observes, "To date the war in Iraq has cost over a trillion dollars and counting. The money spent on one day of the war could buy health care for 423,529 kids, or homes for 6,500 families." [The article is not yet available online and the new issue -- Winter 2008 -- hits bookstores and magazine racks January 29th.]
Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes yesterday's Mosul bombing and that "[v]ictims were still being pulled from the rubble late Wednesday night" and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that the number dead climed to 40 and 220 wounded. It was just Tuesday that the New York Times was cleaning up for the 'Awakening' Councils attack on a family, burning their home down, refusing to allow them the head of a dead member for a burial. Today Solomon Moore and Richard A. Oppel Jr. note the attacks on the US collaborators with "[a]t least 100 . . . killed in the past month" but they fail to note the thug nature of the thugs for hire. The article notes what's been noticeable for some time in terms of the attacks on the increasingly unpopular 'Awakening' Councils; however, it's one-sided and refuses to note the very real violence that the thugs are inflicting. Not surprising since, as a general rule, anyone who has to be paid/bribed to 'come over' to a side isn't generally thought of as 'trust worthy' or 'noble.'
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a downtown Baghdad bombing that claimed the lives of 2 police officers and three wounded, three other Baghdad bombings left three people injured and, in the continued targeting of officials, a Karbala bombing targeting Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al Karbala'i ("Sistani's representative") claimed the lives of two bodyguards and left two more wounded. Matthew Weaver (Guardian of London) notes a Mosul bombing that claimed 3 lives -- Iraq police chief and two police officers -- when a bomber dressed as a police officer killed himself and the other three.:
Shootings?
Reuters reports an armed clash in Dhuluiya that left 3 dead and four people wounded and a man shot dead by police in Khalidya.
Kidnappings?
Reuters reports 7 "oil tanker drivers" were kidnapped yesterday outside Samarra.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Iskandariya.
the common ills
mikey likes it
iraq
brad mccalljason youmanslee zaslofsky
joshua key
iraq veterans against the war
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.alissa j. rubinthe washington postmichael abramowitzmatthew weaver
richard norton-taylor
martha burkms.ms. magazine
npr
guy raz
aimee mann
kats korner
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The stink of Bambi Love
Hump day, hump day! Hope you already read Rebecca's "primaries & more" -- she makes a strong case for why the debate went to Hillary. I think it went to Edwards but I can see the points she's making.
She passed on an article and I've got bad news for everyone, Paul Roget Loeb (or however you spell the idiot's name) is apparently to gas bags what Meryl Streep is to acting. That's right, he may go three for three and win Idiot of the Week this Friday. I couldn't get through the whole thing tonight. It's difficult when we're talking about a world class liar who distorts everything.
An e-mail asked about CounterPunch? If Elaine decides to delink, C.I. delinks, Third delinks . . . I, of course, delink. I'm involved with Elaine. No one is surprised that Alexander Cockburn and JSC (I'm not going to try to spell his name) hate Hillary. They made that clear in books and columns. We could all ignore their writing or shrug. But that crap they ran (those articles) trashing Gloria Steinem is another thing. And if you check out the crap this week, you've got some woman (I think from India) singing the praises of Linda Tripp. Screw that crap. And she's trying to make some idiotic point about Hillary owing Paula Jones. The woman's a fool and you really have to have a sickness to write CRAP like that. You really have to have a sickness to post CRAP like that at your website.
We're all sick of it. We're sick of the topless photos Cockburn will insert in a column. We're sick of the women bashing. And don't give me some 'feminist' that comes along to bash as 'a girl' because we don't need that CRAP either. We're sick of it.
It's a slanted site. Now everyone knew AC and JSC would be anti-Hillary. But what's going on with all the other writers and all that crap they've been posting (especially that first article on Gloria by the pig idiot who trashed all feminists) is just pathetic. If they can't pull it together, we're delinking. There's no point in reading that crap. There's no point in linking to it.
Now Margaret Kimberly is no fan of Hillary Clinton. She hates Hillary Clinton. But she doesn't tear Clinton apart and then go on and lie about Barack Obama. She applies the same standard to all.
But you've got all these people acting like raving loons because they have a standard for Hillary and then they LIE about Bambi. We're sick of it.
We're sick of being lied to, being hyped.
Amy Goodman has blown it with me. I don't think there is a comeback now. She's slanted her show forever. And then finding out that she knew Melissa Harris-Lacewell was a Bambi supporter working for his campaign when she brought the woman on Democracy Now! but Amy let her praise Bambi and never told us "This is someone working for the Obama campaign." That's just nonsense. That's lying. That's the kind of crap you expect from The Weekly Standard.
All we expected was that all the War Hawks would be held to the same standard.
That's not happening. It's like they all want to suck up to Koo Koo Katrina.
Whatever it is, they've lowered themselves and disgraced themselves demonstrating that for all their whining about MSM, they are even worse. They are worse because they know better (or they wouldn't criticize the MSM) but they do the same thing.
Bambi actually is worse than Hillary for a number of reasons.
And I'm sorry but when I saw that crap from that twit today, where she's saying Hillary owes Paula Jones, et al., that was loony tunes. That was American Spectator time.
I read David Brock's book (actually two of them, the confessions one and the right-wing echo chamber) and I can't see a damn bit of difference between what he's describing on the right and what today's alleged left is doing. It's disgraceful.
And it's disgraceful how Obama the presidential candidate now has a pattern of homophobia and everyone wants to ignore that. While pretending to be 'left'.
This is from Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger's Los Angeles Times article today:
Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the name of Barack Obama's Chicago patron into the South Carolina debate Monday night, putting front and center a tangled relationship that has the potential to undermine Obama's image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent.
Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an entrepreneur who made a fortune in pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants and real estate, goes on trial next month on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy. There is no suggestion that Obama is involved in any of the alleged criminal activity. But the upcoming trial -- and details of Obama's relationship with its central figure -- could cast a shadow over his carefully cultivated image at a critical time.
In recent weeks, including during the debate, Obama sought to minimize the nature of that relationship. Among other things, he has returned $85,000 in Rezko-related campaign contributions in what a staffer calls "an abundance of caution."
A review by the Los Angeles Times shows that Rezko, a businessman long active in Chicago politics, played a deeper role in Obama's political and financial biography than the candidate has acknowledged.
For example, Rezko, his employees and business associates -- such as his consultants, lawyers and their families -- have provided Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995, helping fuel his rapid ascent in Illinois and U.S. politics. Although Rezko is not Obama's largest bundler, he was there at the start and at critical moments along the way, helping support the candidate when few others were.
In addition to being a campaign benefactor, Rezko also surfaced when Obama and his wife purchased their house on Chicago's South Side in 2005. On the day the Obamas bought their house, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought an adjacent lot from the same sellers, part of which Obama later bought back.
Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Media Matters has their panties in a wad over the above. "It's nothing new!" they whine. It's new because there's a federal indictment and he's now running for national office. Don't be a moron. The Chicago papers have covered this, yes. Big surprise. He was running for the US Senate from Illinois. Now he wants to be president. It's news. Pull your panties out of your crack and calm down, Media Matters. For the record, it's really sad that David Brock's group hasn't called Bambi out for homphobia. Maybe he's one of the gays that thinks if he acts like it doesn't bother him, he'll be accepted? That'll really help advance the cause of gay rights!
Here's the New York Times:
Mr. Obama turned to Mr. Rezko for help at several important junctures. Records show that when Mr. Obama needed cash in the waning days of his losing 2000 Congressional campaign, Mr. Rezko rounded up thousands of dollars from business contacts. In 2003, Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama expand his fund-raising for the Senate primary by being host of a dinner at his Mediterranean-style home for 150 people, including some whose names have since come up in the influence scandal.
And when Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a house in 2005, Mr. Rezko stepped in again. Even though his finances were deteriorating, Mr. Rezko arranged for his wife to buy an adjacent lot, and she later sold the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land that expanded their yard.
This is from John Edwards' campaign blog:
Today, California's Fresno Bee endorsed Senator John Edwards for President citing his leadership in standing up for middle class families and ending the war in Iraq.
"Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' campaign for president offers a much-needed vision that recognizes the hope and promise of America. It's a view that includes solidifying the plight of working families and others in the middle class. This group of Americans has struggled the past eight years under an administration that has catered to the well-connected and powerful, and it's time for leadership that understands the contributions and needs of American families. We believe that John Edwards can provide that leadership and urge Democratic and independent voters to support him in the California primary on Feb. 5."
Last week, more than 1,000 supporters attended a community meeting with Senator Edwards at the Southern California Public Service Workers' headquarters in Los Angeles. John Edwards enjoys the support of more than 760,000 union members across California, including the support of California's single largest union, the California SEIU State Council. And Senator Edwards has also won the support of dozens of diverse Democratic elected officials and party leaders from every region of the Golden State.
Read the full article below the fold!
Edwards best for Dems
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq attempts to wrestle the title Land of Poppies from Afghanistan, the fifth year of the illegal war could cost $100 billion more than the first year, the US army has a recruiting problem, and more.
Starting with war resistance.
A Lieutenant in the army
in his heart and his soul he believes
in the land of the free
and the home of the brave
now he's standing on trial
for he will not behave
as they wish
ya-iya-a-wayy
He said "I believe the constitution
to dfend it and uphold
I will not fight your war for profit
no sir I will not go"
Imagine that.
So sings Melissa Ethridge on track fifteen ("Imagine That") of her lastest CD The Awakening about Ehren Watada. [The Awakening gets a strong review from Detorit's Metro Times.] Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He has rightly termed it an illegal war. After a kangaroo court-martial in February, Watada -- whose service contract ran out in December 2006 -- remains in the military as he waits to see what happens next. The Constitutional provision against double-jeopardy should mean he can't be court-martialed again and, thus far, the court of appeals has held that to be the case with Judge Benjamin Settle noting in November that Watada will likely win on the double-jeopardy clause.
Some war resisters refuse to go, some refuse to return. In both groups, some go to Canada and attempt to be granted asylum. On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.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. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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 event:
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'."
Today Bryan Bender (Boston Globe) reports that the number of recruits to the US army who hold a high school diploma has reached "a 25-year-low" and had "dropped more than 12 percent between 2005 and 2007" -- "from almost 84 percent in 2005 to less than 71 percent last year" according to a new study conducted by the National Priorities Project. Let's flashback to the October 31, 2006 snapshot: "In ridiculous news, CBS and AP report that the White House (which can't even give an accurate count on how many US troops have died in Iraq -- not even one that matches their own Pentagon's count) is attacking US Senator John Kerry as a 'troop basher' because he noted in a California speech on Monday: 'You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.' The truth in those remarks (recruiters target the lower class with less hopes of a college education) struck to close to home with the White House leading Tony Snow to demand that Kerry apologize to all those serving. The apology should come right after Bully Boy apologizes for (a) starting the illegal war and (b) using Daddy's connections to get out of serving in Iraq and yet not even bothering to show up for his National Guard Training." The February 14, 2007 snapshot noted that 'moral' waivers to recruits who had criminal records had increased by 65% and that " Lizette Alvarez (New York Times) reports this increase has come in the last three years, that '[t]he number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent,' and that '[t]he Defense Department has also expanded its applicant pool by accepting soldiers with criminal backgrounds and medical problems like asthma, high blood pressure and attention deficit disorder'." Today on KPFK's Uprising Radio, Sonali Kolhatkar addressed the findings noting that "the army's failure to meet the benchmark last year is part of a downward trend since 2005." What's not being noted are the lies the army only recently put out. Lolita C. Baldor (AP) reported on January 10th of this year that the army was singing the praises of their Active First program for recruits and "The Defense Department also announced that all services met or exceeded their recruiting goals in December." Really? A twenty-five year low on recruits with at least a high school diploma is 'meeting or exceeding' goals? As Kolhatkar noted the Department of Defense's goal was 90% and it didn't meet it. Exceeding goals? Josh White (Washington Post) notes that "Army officials confirmed that they have lowered their standards to meet high recruiting goals in the middle of two ongoing wars" and quotes the National Priorities Project's Anita Dancs stating, "The trend is clear. They're missing their benchmarks, and I think it's strongly linked to the impact [of] the Iraq war." Dancs was Kolhatkar's guest today for the first segment of Uprising Radio and they addressed how the Freedom of Information requests resulted in the data and other topics.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Now the army attributes this drop in getting high school recruits to declining high school graduation rates over all. Is that something that the National Priorities Project agrees with?
Anita Dancs: No. I think -- that may be a slight factor. But the real factor we're talking about is the impact of the Iraq War. This just, our analysis of army recruiting data, just points to the larger failure of the Iraq War. Increasingly youth are realizing that the Iraq War was an unneccessary war, it was one led by deception on the part of the administration, it's bad foreign policy, and youth -- and youth that have alternatives, other alternatives, are just much more reluctant to go into the army and fight in a war that is unnecessary and that, at this point, looks like it's never going to end.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Now I understand the military has had to increase the number of waivers and raise enlistment bonuses
Anita Dancs: Right
Sonali Kolhatkar: -- to try to entice people and I think at the same time, as I mentioned, your group found that upper-middle and high income neighborhoods were under-represented among US army recruits. Essentially, are we seeing a trend towards an army of poorer and poorer Americans?
Anita Dancs: Right. I think, I think the first time we did this study was with 2004 data and what we found was that the upper-middle and high income neighborhoods are under-represented but with this most recent study of the 2007 data we found that those neighborhoods are even less represented than they were in 2004. And low to middle income neighborhoods are even more over-represented and I think this really speaks to when you're looking at the strategies by the Department of Defense that has been increasing enlistment bonuses, increasing re-enlistment bonuses, introducing new bonus programs where kids in high school can sign up to join the army later and get paid a thousand dollars a month now. It's crazy but they're using economic incentives and it does appear that the youth with the fewest alternatives who maybe can't afford to go to college or maybe didn't make it through high school are being recruited into the army because they don't have other economic alternatives.
Part of alternatives is knowing that they are out there, a point Aimee Allison and David Solnit's Army Of None cover in their book. Dancs felt that counter-recruitment was having some effects but noted that the are up against the overwhelming US military budget (funded by tax payers). Earlier this month Brandi Cummings (South Carolina's WIStv -- link has text and video) reported on military recruiter Sgt. Robert Jordan going to the local Target and inserting cards in clothing there in violation of the "no solicitation" policy that Target has. Leigh Nichols tipped the station off after she bought her thirteen-year-old son a pair of pants and they found Jordan's business card. At the National Priorities Project you can find more information.
On the topic of governmental monies, yesterday Iraq's Parliament was unable to agree on their 2008 budget; however, they did agree on a flag. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) provides the background and the realities explaining that the 'big' vote was for a "tempoary" flag and "is another band-aid solution. The constitution requires that the parliament pass a new law to pick a flag for Iraq and a national anthem. . . . In technical terms Iraq still has no flag and no anthem. Little has been decided that lasts in Iraq. The heads of the political blocs put the problem off for another year. In a year maybe the problem will again be solved at a later date." As for the 2008 budget, Ammar Karim (AFP) reports on the stumbling blocks noting, "Most of the unease, however, stems from a decision to allocate 17 percent of the budget to the oil-rich autonomous Kurdish region and on top of that to pay for its peshmerga security force from the national defence budget."
And what of the theft of Iraqi oil with Big Oil set to meet with Iraqi Oil Minster Hussein al-Shahristani? Andy Rowell (Oil Change) notes, "Iraq has extended a deadline for international companies to register a bid for a role in developing some of the nation's prized oil fields, until February 18, the Oil Ministry has confirmed." The extension comes as a meeting has already taken place. Qassim Hidhir (Kurdish Globe) reports delegates from the Kurdistan Regional Government (northern Iraq) went to Baghdad today where they were to address "the Oil and Gas Law and the issue of oil contracts signed by the KRG with a number of foreign oil companies." The central government in Baghdad has stated those contracts are null and void. Hidhir reports that they are calling for a new Iraqi Oil Minister and that, "The KRG delegation said the U.S. Department of State Secretary Assistant for Oil Affairs, Robin Jeffery, will attend the meetings in an attempt to mediate between Baghdad and Kurdistan." Alsumaria notes that Falah Mostafa, Director of Foreign Relations Office in Kurdistan Cabinet, has refused to invite the Oil Minister to the talks. As for Iraq's Oil Minister, AP notes that Hussein al-Shahristani has announced he will take part in the Davos World Economic Forum where he "is expected to launch discussions with European gas consumers about the possibility of pumping gas from Akkas gas field in western Iraq to Europe through Syria."
While the theft of oil may be in doubt (in terms of the timeline), other things are very clear. Example, opium is a cash crop in Iraq. Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports, "The cultivation of opium poppies whose product is turned into heroin is spreading rapidly across Iraq as farmers find they can no longer make a living through growing traditional crops." Cockburn notes that it has spread from Diwaniyah Province to Diayala Province and:
The growing and smuggling of opium will be difficult to stop in Iraq because much of the country is controlled by criminalised militias. American successes in Iraq over the past year have been largely through encouraging the development of a 70,000-strong Sunni Arab militia, many of whose members are former insurgents linked to protection rackets, kidnapping and crime. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the powerful Shia militia, the Mehdi Army, says that criminals have infiltrated its ranks.
The move of local warlords, both Sunni and Shia, into opium farming is a menacing development in Iraq, where local political leaders are often allied to gangsters.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba roadside bombing targeting US collaborators in the "Awakening" Council that left two members wounded, a Kirkuk car bombing that claimed 5 lives and left twelve people, a roadside bombing attack on Col. Yadgar Shukr Abdu Allah. In addition, there's the Mosul bombing. AFP notes an Al-Dibis car bombing that claimed 6 lives. CNN says five but notes the police expect the number to increase. Al Jazeera notes, "Witnesses to Wednesday's blast said it was one of the biggest explosions to hit Mosul, the capital of Ninawa province and 390km north of Baghdad." AFP explains, "Police Brigadier General Abdul al-Juburi said a powerful blast ripped through an empty three-storey apartment block in Mosul, Iraq's main northern city, bringing the building down and shattering adjoining houses." Paul Tait and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) count 15 dead and 132 injured and "Heavy equipment had been brought in to dig for survivors." CBS and AP note that the death toll is now 17 and they quote Um Mohammed who was in the midst of preparing dinner when the bombing took place, "Everything on the kitchen shelves fell on me, and I started to scream for help until my husband came and took me to the hospital."
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Iraqi soldiers shot dead in Baghdad with two more wounded, Munthir Ridha (Baghdad University's "dean of Dental medicine") shot dead in Baghdad and yesterday the Iraqi military shot dead a man in Mosul "and confiscated his car" and, also yesterday, Mosul University's Ali Suleiman Mohammad was shot dead in the continued attacks on educators.
Kidnappings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports engineer Ali Mahmood was kidnapped in Basra and two people were kidnapped outside of Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
From deaths to the lies that caused it, Gil Kaufman (MTV News) reports on the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism's study, "For years, the Bush administration has faced charges that it bent the truth or flat-out misled the public about Iraq's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of the country. Now, a study by two nonprofit journalism organizations claims that President Bush and top officials in his administration issued nearly 1,000 false statements about the security threat posed by Iraq in the wake of 9/11. The total is 935 lies and 259 of them were made by the Bully Boy. Next highest ranking? Dick Cheney? Condi? No. The Blot -- Colin Powell with 244. "False Pretenses" is the study written by Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith:
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
MTV News quotes Steve Carpinelli explaining that "The difference" with the new sudy "is that while there have many intelligence reports that came out that contradicted a lot of statements from administration officials, there's been nothing that could show you how it was a coordinated effort."
The release of that study comes as news of pre-war claims in England garners some attention. Michael Evans (Times of London) reports, "The Government was yesterday ordered to make public a secret document about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which was drawn up by the head of information at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2002. A ruling by the Information Tribunal rejected an appeal by Foreign Office lawyers who had claimed that the contents of the document were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."
Meanwhile, in the US, the Congressional Budget Office has released a study. Reuters reports that it has found a huge increase in funding of the illegal war: "War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote." The $193 billion tof this year would mean $100 billion more than it cost the first year of the illegal war.
the common ills
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
ehren watada
melissa etheridge
dee knightiraq veterans against the war
bryan bender
kpfkuprising radiosonali kolhatkar
aimeee allisondavid solnit
the new york times
lizette alvarez
josh whitethe washington post
leila fadelmcclatchy newspapers
patrick cockburn
She passed on an article and I've got bad news for everyone, Paul Roget Loeb (or however you spell the idiot's name) is apparently to gas bags what Meryl Streep is to acting. That's right, he may go three for three and win Idiot of the Week this Friday. I couldn't get through the whole thing tonight. It's difficult when we're talking about a world class liar who distorts everything.
An e-mail asked about CounterPunch? If Elaine decides to delink, C.I. delinks, Third delinks . . . I, of course, delink. I'm involved with Elaine. No one is surprised that Alexander Cockburn and JSC (I'm not going to try to spell his name) hate Hillary. They made that clear in books and columns. We could all ignore their writing or shrug. But that crap they ran (those articles) trashing Gloria Steinem is another thing. And if you check out the crap this week, you've got some woman (I think from India) singing the praises of Linda Tripp. Screw that crap. And she's trying to make some idiotic point about Hillary owing Paula Jones. The woman's a fool and you really have to have a sickness to write CRAP like that. You really have to have a sickness to post CRAP like that at your website.
We're all sick of it. We're sick of the topless photos Cockburn will insert in a column. We're sick of the women bashing. And don't give me some 'feminist' that comes along to bash as 'a girl' because we don't need that CRAP either. We're sick of it.
It's a slanted site. Now everyone knew AC and JSC would be anti-Hillary. But what's going on with all the other writers and all that crap they've been posting (especially that first article on Gloria by the pig idiot who trashed all feminists) is just pathetic. If they can't pull it together, we're delinking. There's no point in reading that crap. There's no point in linking to it.
Now Margaret Kimberly is no fan of Hillary Clinton. She hates Hillary Clinton. But she doesn't tear Clinton apart and then go on and lie about Barack Obama. She applies the same standard to all.
But you've got all these people acting like raving loons because they have a standard for Hillary and then they LIE about Bambi. We're sick of it.
We're sick of being lied to, being hyped.
Amy Goodman has blown it with me. I don't think there is a comeback now. She's slanted her show forever. And then finding out that she knew Melissa Harris-Lacewell was a Bambi supporter working for his campaign when she brought the woman on Democracy Now! but Amy let her praise Bambi and never told us "This is someone working for the Obama campaign." That's just nonsense. That's lying. That's the kind of crap you expect from The Weekly Standard.
All we expected was that all the War Hawks would be held to the same standard.
That's not happening. It's like they all want to suck up to Koo Koo Katrina.
Whatever it is, they've lowered themselves and disgraced themselves demonstrating that for all their whining about MSM, they are even worse. They are worse because they know better (or they wouldn't criticize the MSM) but they do the same thing.
Bambi actually is worse than Hillary for a number of reasons.
And I'm sorry but when I saw that crap from that twit today, where she's saying Hillary owes Paula Jones, et al., that was loony tunes. That was American Spectator time.
I read David Brock's book (actually two of them, the confessions one and the right-wing echo chamber) and I can't see a damn bit of difference between what he's describing on the right and what today's alleged left is doing. It's disgraceful.
And it's disgraceful how Obama the presidential candidate now has a pattern of homophobia and everyone wants to ignore that. While pretending to be 'left'.
This is from Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger's Los Angeles Times article today:
Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the name of Barack Obama's Chicago patron into the South Carolina debate Monday night, putting front and center a tangled relationship that has the potential to undermine Obama's image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent.
Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an entrepreneur who made a fortune in pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants and real estate, goes on trial next month on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy. There is no suggestion that Obama is involved in any of the alleged criminal activity. But the upcoming trial -- and details of Obama's relationship with its central figure -- could cast a shadow over his carefully cultivated image at a critical time.
In recent weeks, including during the debate, Obama sought to minimize the nature of that relationship. Among other things, he has returned $85,000 in Rezko-related campaign contributions in what a staffer calls "an abundance of caution."
A review by the Los Angeles Times shows that Rezko, a businessman long active in Chicago politics, played a deeper role in Obama's political and financial biography than the candidate has acknowledged.
For example, Rezko, his employees and business associates -- such as his consultants, lawyers and their families -- have provided Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995, helping fuel his rapid ascent in Illinois and U.S. politics. Although Rezko is not Obama's largest bundler, he was there at the start and at critical moments along the way, helping support the candidate when few others were.
In addition to being a campaign benefactor, Rezko also surfaced when Obama and his wife purchased their house on Chicago's South Side in 2005. On the day the Obamas bought their house, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought an adjacent lot from the same sellers, part of which Obama later bought back.
Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Media Matters has their panties in a wad over the above. "It's nothing new!" they whine. It's new because there's a federal indictment and he's now running for national office. Don't be a moron. The Chicago papers have covered this, yes. Big surprise. He was running for the US Senate from Illinois. Now he wants to be president. It's news. Pull your panties out of your crack and calm down, Media Matters. For the record, it's really sad that David Brock's group hasn't called Bambi out for homphobia. Maybe he's one of the gays that thinks if he acts like it doesn't bother him, he'll be accepted? That'll really help advance the cause of gay rights!
Here's the New York Times:
Mr. Obama turned to Mr. Rezko for help at several important junctures. Records show that when Mr. Obama needed cash in the waning days of his losing 2000 Congressional campaign, Mr. Rezko rounded up thousands of dollars from business contacts. In 2003, Mr. Rezko helped Mr. Obama expand his fund-raising for the Senate primary by being host of a dinner at his Mediterranean-style home for 150 people, including some whose names have since come up in the influence scandal.
And when Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a house in 2005, Mr. Rezko stepped in again. Even though his finances were deteriorating, Mr. Rezko arranged for his wife to buy an adjacent lot, and she later sold the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land that expanded their yard.
This is from John Edwards' campaign blog:
Today, California's Fresno Bee endorsed Senator John Edwards for President citing his leadership in standing up for middle class families and ending the war in Iraq.
"Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' campaign for president offers a much-needed vision that recognizes the hope and promise of America. It's a view that includes solidifying the plight of working families and others in the middle class. This group of Americans has struggled the past eight years under an administration that has catered to the well-connected and powerful, and it's time for leadership that understands the contributions and needs of American families. We believe that John Edwards can provide that leadership and urge Democratic and independent voters to support him in the California primary on Feb. 5."
Last week, more than 1,000 supporters attended a community meeting with Senator Edwards at the Southern California Public Service Workers' headquarters in Los Angeles. John Edwards enjoys the support of more than 760,000 union members across California, including the support of California's single largest union, the California SEIU State Council. And Senator Edwards has also won the support of dozens of diverse Democratic elected officials and party leaders from every region of the Golden State.
Read the full article below the fold!
Edwards best for Dems
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq attempts to wrestle the title Land of Poppies from Afghanistan, the fifth year of the illegal war could cost $100 billion more than the first year, the US army has a recruiting problem, and more.
Starting with war resistance.
A Lieutenant in the army
in his heart and his soul he believes
in the land of the free
and the home of the brave
now he's standing on trial
for he will not behave
as they wish
ya-iya-a-wayy
He said "I believe the constitution
to dfend it and uphold
I will not fight your war for profit
no sir I will not go"
Imagine that.
So sings Melissa Ethridge on track fifteen ("Imagine That") of her lastest CD The Awakening about Ehren Watada. [The Awakening gets a strong review from Detorit's Metro Times.] Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He has rightly termed it an illegal war. After a kangaroo court-martial in February, Watada -- whose service contract ran out in December 2006 -- remains in the military as he waits to see what happens next. The Constitutional provision against double-jeopardy should mean he can't be court-martialed again and, thus far, the court of appeals has held that to be the case with Judge Benjamin Settle noting in November that Watada will likely win on the double-jeopardy clause.
Some war resisters refuse to go, some refuse to return. In both groups, some go to Canada and attempt to be granted asylum. On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.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. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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 event:
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'."
Today Bryan Bender (Boston Globe) reports that the number of recruits to the US army who hold a high school diploma has reached "a 25-year-low" and had "dropped more than 12 percent between 2005 and 2007" -- "from almost 84 percent in 2005 to less than 71 percent last year" according to a new study conducted by the National Priorities Project. Let's flashback to the October 31, 2006 snapshot: "In ridiculous news, CBS and AP report that the White House (which can't even give an accurate count on how many US troops have died in Iraq -- not even one that matches their own Pentagon's count) is attacking US Senator John Kerry as a 'troop basher' because he noted in a California speech on Monday: 'You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.' The truth in those remarks (recruiters target the lower class with less hopes of a college education) struck to close to home with the White House leading Tony Snow to demand that Kerry apologize to all those serving. The apology should come right after Bully Boy apologizes for (a) starting the illegal war and (b) using Daddy's connections to get out of serving in Iraq and yet not even bothering to show up for his National Guard Training." The February 14, 2007 snapshot noted that 'moral' waivers to recruits who had criminal records had increased by 65% and that " Lizette Alvarez (New York Times) reports this increase has come in the last three years, that '[t]he number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent,' and that '[t]he Defense Department has also expanded its applicant pool by accepting soldiers with criminal backgrounds and medical problems like asthma, high blood pressure and attention deficit disorder'." Today on KPFK's Uprising Radio, Sonali Kolhatkar addressed the findings noting that "the army's failure to meet the benchmark last year is part of a downward trend since 2005." What's not being noted are the lies the army only recently put out. Lolita C. Baldor (AP) reported on January 10th of this year that the army was singing the praises of their Active First program for recruits and "The Defense Department also announced that all services met or exceeded their recruiting goals in December." Really? A twenty-five year low on recruits with at least a high school diploma is 'meeting or exceeding' goals? As Kolhatkar noted the Department of Defense's goal was 90% and it didn't meet it. Exceeding goals? Josh White (Washington Post) notes that "Army officials confirmed that they have lowered their standards to meet high recruiting goals in the middle of two ongoing wars" and quotes the National Priorities Project's Anita Dancs stating, "The trend is clear. They're missing their benchmarks, and I think it's strongly linked to the impact [of] the Iraq war." Dancs was Kolhatkar's guest today for the first segment of Uprising Radio and they addressed how the Freedom of Information requests resulted in the data and other topics.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Now the army attributes this drop in getting high school recruits to declining high school graduation rates over all. Is that something that the National Priorities Project agrees with?
Anita Dancs: No. I think -- that may be a slight factor. But the real factor we're talking about is the impact of the Iraq War. This just, our analysis of army recruiting data, just points to the larger failure of the Iraq War. Increasingly youth are realizing that the Iraq War was an unneccessary war, it was one led by deception on the part of the administration, it's bad foreign policy, and youth -- and youth that have alternatives, other alternatives, are just much more reluctant to go into the army and fight in a war that is unnecessary and that, at this point, looks like it's never going to end.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Now I understand the military has had to increase the number of waivers and raise enlistment bonuses
Anita Dancs: Right
Sonali Kolhatkar: -- to try to entice people and I think at the same time, as I mentioned, your group found that upper-middle and high income neighborhoods were under-represented among US army recruits. Essentially, are we seeing a trend towards an army of poorer and poorer Americans?
Anita Dancs: Right. I think, I think the first time we did this study was with 2004 data and what we found was that the upper-middle and high income neighborhoods are under-represented but with this most recent study of the 2007 data we found that those neighborhoods are even less represented than they were in 2004. And low to middle income neighborhoods are even more over-represented and I think this really speaks to when you're looking at the strategies by the Department of Defense that has been increasing enlistment bonuses, increasing re-enlistment bonuses, introducing new bonus programs where kids in high school can sign up to join the army later and get paid a thousand dollars a month now. It's crazy but they're using economic incentives and it does appear that the youth with the fewest alternatives who maybe can't afford to go to college or maybe didn't make it through high school are being recruited into the army because they don't have other economic alternatives.
Part of alternatives is knowing that they are out there, a point Aimee Allison and David Solnit's Army Of None cover in their book. Dancs felt that counter-recruitment was having some effects but noted that the are up against the overwhelming US military budget (funded by tax payers). Earlier this month Brandi Cummings (South Carolina's WIStv -- link has text and video) reported on military recruiter Sgt. Robert Jordan going to the local Target and inserting cards in clothing there in violation of the "no solicitation" policy that Target has. Leigh Nichols tipped the station off after she bought her thirteen-year-old son a pair of pants and they found Jordan's business card. At the National Priorities Project you can find more information.
On the topic of governmental monies, yesterday Iraq's Parliament was unable to agree on their 2008 budget; however, they did agree on a flag. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) provides the background and the realities explaining that the 'big' vote was for a "tempoary" flag and "is another band-aid solution. The constitution requires that the parliament pass a new law to pick a flag for Iraq and a national anthem. . . . In technical terms Iraq still has no flag and no anthem. Little has been decided that lasts in Iraq. The heads of the political blocs put the problem off for another year. In a year maybe the problem will again be solved at a later date." As for the 2008 budget, Ammar Karim (AFP) reports on the stumbling blocks noting, "Most of the unease, however, stems from a decision to allocate 17 percent of the budget to the oil-rich autonomous Kurdish region and on top of that to pay for its peshmerga security force from the national defence budget."
And what of the theft of Iraqi oil with Big Oil set to meet with Iraqi Oil Minster Hussein al-Shahristani? Andy Rowell (Oil Change) notes, "Iraq has extended a deadline for international companies to register a bid for a role in developing some of the nation's prized oil fields, until February 18, the Oil Ministry has confirmed." The extension comes as a meeting has already taken place. Qassim Hidhir (Kurdish Globe) reports delegates from the Kurdistan Regional Government (northern Iraq) went to Baghdad today where they were to address "the Oil and Gas Law and the issue of oil contracts signed by the KRG with a number of foreign oil companies." The central government in Baghdad has stated those contracts are null and void. Hidhir reports that they are calling for a new Iraqi Oil Minister and that, "The KRG delegation said the U.S. Department of State Secretary Assistant for Oil Affairs, Robin Jeffery, will attend the meetings in an attempt to mediate between Baghdad and Kurdistan." Alsumaria notes that Falah Mostafa, Director of Foreign Relations Office in Kurdistan Cabinet, has refused to invite the Oil Minister to the talks. As for Iraq's Oil Minister, AP notes that Hussein al-Shahristani has announced he will take part in the Davos World Economic Forum where he "is expected to launch discussions with European gas consumers about the possibility of pumping gas from Akkas gas field in western Iraq to Europe through Syria."
While the theft of oil may be in doubt (in terms of the timeline), other things are very clear. Example, opium is a cash crop in Iraq. Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports, "The cultivation of opium poppies whose product is turned into heroin is spreading rapidly across Iraq as farmers find they can no longer make a living through growing traditional crops." Cockburn notes that it has spread from Diwaniyah Province to Diayala Province and:
The growing and smuggling of opium will be difficult to stop in Iraq because much of the country is controlled by criminalised militias. American successes in Iraq over the past year have been largely through encouraging the development of a 70,000-strong Sunni Arab militia, many of whose members are former insurgents linked to protection rackets, kidnapping and crime. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the powerful Shia militia, the Mehdi Army, says that criminals have infiltrated its ranks.
The move of local warlords, both Sunni and Shia, into opium farming is a menacing development in Iraq, where local political leaders are often allied to gangsters.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba roadside bombing targeting US collaborators in the "Awakening" Council that left two members wounded, a Kirkuk car bombing that claimed 5 lives and left twelve people, a roadside bombing attack on Col. Yadgar Shukr Abdu Allah. In addition, there's the Mosul bombing. AFP notes an Al-Dibis car bombing that claimed 6 lives. CNN says five but notes the police expect the number to increase. Al Jazeera notes, "Witnesses to Wednesday's blast said it was one of the biggest explosions to hit Mosul, the capital of Ninawa province and 390km north of Baghdad." AFP explains, "Police Brigadier General Abdul al-Juburi said a powerful blast ripped through an empty three-storey apartment block in Mosul, Iraq's main northern city, bringing the building down and shattering adjoining houses." Paul Tait and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) count 15 dead and 132 injured and "Heavy equipment had been brought in to dig for survivors." CBS and AP note that the death toll is now 17 and they quote Um Mohammed who was in the midst of preparing dinner when the bombing took place, "Everything on the kitchen shelves fell on me, and I started to scream for help until my husband came and took me to the hospital."
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Iraqi soldiers shot dead in Baghdad with two more wounded, Munthir Ridha (Baghdad University's "dean of Dental medicine") shot dead in Baghdad and yesterday the Iraqi military shot dead a man in Mosul "and confiscated his car" and, also yesterday, Mosul University's Ali Suleiman Mohammad was shot dead in the continued attacks on educators.
Kidnappings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports engineer Ali Mahmood was kidnapped in Basra and two people were kidnapped outside of Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
From deaths to the lies that caused it, Gil Kaufman (MTV News) reports on the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism's study, "For years, the Bush administration has faced charges that it bent the truth or flat-out misled the public about Iraq's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of the country. Now, a study by two nonprofit journalism organizations claims that President Bush and top officials in his administration issued nearly 1,000 false statements about the security threat posed by Iraq in the wake of 9/11. The total is 935 lies and 259 of them were made by the Bully Boy. Next highest ranking? Dick Cheney? Condi? No. The Blot -- Colin Powell with 244. "False Pretenses" is the study written by Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith:
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
MTV News quotes Steve Carpinelli explaining that "The difference" with the new sudy "is that while there have many intelligence reports that came out that contradicted a lot of statements from administration officials, there's been nothing that could show you how it was a coordinated effort."
The release of that study comes as news of pre-war claims in England garners some attention. Michael Evans (Times of London) reports, "The Government was yesterday ordered to make public a secret document about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which was drawn up by the head of information at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2002. A ruling by the Information Tribunal rejected an appeal by Foreign Office lawyers who had claimed that the contents of the document were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."
Meanwhile, in the US, the Congressional Budget Office has released a study. Reuters reports that it has found a huge increase in funding of the illegal war: "War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote." The $193 billion tof this year would mean $100 billion more than it cost the first year of the illegal war.
the common ills
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
ehren watada
melissa etheridge
dee knightiraq veterans against the war
bryan bender
kpfkuprising radiosonali kolhatkar
aimeee allisondavid solnit
the new york times
lizette alvarez
josh whitethe washington post
leila fadelmcclatchy newspapers
patrick cockburn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)