Hump day, hump day, can't trust that day, the loonies come out, and they don't go away. C.I. had something on loon Robert Scheer in the snapshot. I don't know what, but my grandfather was talking about Candy Scheer (actually "Candy Ass Scheer") and I called C.I. to say, "I'm writing about the idiot." C.I. said good and that Scheer would be pulled from the snapshot.
My grandfather is one of my heroes. He's someone who always stood up. My whole life, yes, but long before I was born. He's a socialist and he read Scheer's latest nonsense today (It opens with: "As long as Hillary Clinton, and now Gloria Steinem, has chosen to play the women's card against the race card, let me throw in a third one: the class card."). He said, "No one whines more than a Red-diaper baby who went to the center." That really is Robert Scheer for you.
Once upon a time, he fancied himself as a radical. Maybe he got a Red-rash? Now he's just One More Dull Old White Guy you wish would retire already.
Gloria Steinem wrote a great column ("Women Are Never Front-Runners"). Robert Scheer, who's done nothing his whole life, wants to call her out. He wants to claim she played the "gender card." She wrote about reality. That's hard for Scheer to recognize because it's been years since he wrote about reality.
Who the hell is he to go after Gloria Steinem? "Prick of the Week" should go to Scheer.
He gets all testy (or as testy as his shriveled nads will let him get) that Steinem notes the obvious: Men are more likely to grow more conservative with age while women have been more likely to grow more radical with age. If Scheer can't get that basic point, all he needs to do is check himself against Steinem. Red-diaper baby is far from his roots and just another boring, middle-of-the-roader.
Scheer had a mini-meltdown in public before. So it needs to be noted that it's not JUST his hatred of women that has him bawling about Steinem's column.
He hates women and goes after Steinem today because he really, really hates Hillary Clinton.
We wrote about the pyscho at The Third Estate Sunday Review in November, "The kind-of left embarrasses with age." That's not: "The kind of left that . . ." That's "kind-of left," meaning not really left. We were all hedging our words a little during the writing session until Dona showed C.I. a statement Bobby Scheer made that offended C.I. more than anything else (confusing opinion-journals with news outlets). Hack.
Even C.I. said it. Then C.I. really lead on the bulk of it (C.I. and Ava had to do their TV review, I think that's why they bailed before the thing was finished). One of my favorites is this point where C.I. corrects the record that Old Man Scheer was just dumped by a paper:
Truthdig is a website that Scheer started up, after The Los Angeles Times decided they no longer needed to print a column by a retired member of their staff -- Scheer retired from the paper in 1993, he was fired in 2005 -- with Zuade Kaufman who likes to talk about the need for "alternative models."
He retired in 1993 and he's still writing a weekly column for the paper. Hey, Old Man, you should have given up your berth for younger voices. If you retire in 1993, you don't need to still be writing regularly for the paper 12 years later. Retirement's supposed to mean something.
Here's another section I loved:
Dementia apparently set in when he felt the need to declare the following:
And I think of The Nation and I say, let's take the Weekly Standard. The Weekly Standard did not marginalize itself. When Bush came in, The Weekly Standard said, "OK, we're now going to be the conscience of this administration. We're going to help guide this administration. We're going to work within; we’re going to rally our forces." And they've been enormously effective, as have the New York conservatives. The Nation is right now the leading progressive organization in this country. Not just a news organization; it’s the leading institution in the United States on the left. No question. And it seems to me that moving into this next period, particularly, I would like to see the Democrats win, and I would like to see The Nation, and people in this room, take a responsible attitude towards that shift in power. And not marginalize themselves.
If those are Scheer's honest opinions, he is a hack. We're not even talking a partisan hack, we mean a journalistic hack. The Los Angeles Times should have canned his ass decades prior if that is Scheer's honest opinion of journalism. (A) The Nation is not "just a news organization" -- it's not a news organization at all. It's an opinion journal. That's what it was created as and that is what it remains. Yes, there are the occasional news stories each year, a small number of them, but it has never presented itself as a news organization (Victor Navasky's recent book on his life in journalism made it clear that he saw it as an opinion-journal). That someone who worked for a daily paper could be so uninformed as to what a news organization is goes to a very serious problem with Scheer's grasp of reality. (B) It's not the leading institution of the left. Leaving aside that it's not all that left and never has been (look at it's history which includes racism being endorsed -- despite the fact that it started as an abolition outlet), it's circulation is dropping, though no one's supposed to notice. (C) Though its independence is worthy of questioningwq ` today, it is still not The Weekly Standard nor should it ever be. Leaving aside right/left issues, The Nation has not attempted (in the past) to set itself up as the friendly-advisor to the White House. To do so would be death for the publication, see The New Republic(an).
I just read over it and saw C.I. left to apologize to friends at LAT that C.I. screamed at when Scheer got canned.
Old Man Scheer wants to be a power broker. He doesn't want to be a journalist. Good thing because he's not a journalist.
Dad pointed out something about Scheer when my grandfather and I were talking. Scheer today wants to be a Democratic Party Cheerleader but the only thing he's known for is asking Jimmy Carter about sexual thoughts (Carter said he'd lusted in his heart). That's pretty sad for an alleged journalist, don't you think? He's only known for asking a cheesy sex question. He's like Barbara Walters with a dirty limmerick. :D
(That was my grandfather's line, the Barbara Walters' part. He's hysterical.)
But by Scheer's non-logic today, that question wouldn't be asked because the left press (or the kind-of left press) is suppoed to be a power-broker. Scheer's an old man who's common sense departed long ago.
C.I.'s hilarious too. This line was C.I.'s (from the Third piece): "We should also note that when you pass 70-years-of-age, your usage of 'bro' should cease under court-order." (Wally, Jim and I came up with the next line which I think is also funny but I may be prejudiced due to helping craft it. :D)
While he's trashing Ralph Nader for running for president, Scheer then declares (this is from the Third piece and we're quoting his summer debate with Nader):
For example the deal breaker, I think people in this room should make it very clear that they would not accept Hillary Clinton as a candidate if she continues to her current position supporting the war. I have written columns saying that. I have said, I’m on the record as saying, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she has the position that she has now. I have said it. I’ll even vote for Ralph Nader, I'll even write in Ralph Nader, if Hillary Clinton is the candidate and she still takes the current position on the war. But that's difference from saying there isn’t room to organize, to operate, that there are not good candidates out there are.
He tells Nader not to run . . . unless Hillary does! Today he insults Gloria Steinem who's given a hell of a lot over the years. Robert Scheer is a just a woman-hater. He can't stand women. He calls Gloria Steinem writing about race and gender playing "the gender card." He probably squeals that whenever his pig-head is exposed to any realities.
Steinem wrote a great column. Scheer's brain pickled long ago and now he just embarrasses himself over and over. And who would have thought that a man famous for asking a cheesy sex question could embarrass himself further?
He's old, he's tired. He's got nothing to offer but screaming rants about vote Democrats! Even moderates he said in the debate. But don't vote Hillary. It's all about gender to him and he's the one playing the "gender card." He's a pig.
Oink-0ink, Old Man Scheer.
You are disgusting.
You are Human Trash and you wallow in your own filth.
The Pigs were ganging up on Hillary. You'll notice that none of the Pigs wrote about the "Iron My Shirt" sexism (except for piglet Ari who buried it at the end). This is Gloria Steinem's point. With some people, gender equality can always wait. With some people, gender discrimination can always be ignored. Because they want it to be (that's me, not Steinem). They don't want to see it. They refuse to see it.
This really is a hang-up for Scheer's generation. C.I. and Elaine have written about that at length and I think they led on a piece (probably with Ava's help) at Third about it. They're still mourning that the lives they never had, the ones Leave It To Beaver told them awaited. They're pathetic little assholes because "equality" never means women are equal. "Equality" just means it works out for them as they want.
Of course Koo Koo Katrina published it. Maybe she'll even run it in her crappy magazine and not just online. After all, she worked really hard to only publish 149 women last year to 491 men. It takes a lot of work to render women invisible and she and Scheer love to hate women. Queen Bee Katrina loves to be the only woman at the table.
Scheer's playing the Last Gasp of Ancient Sexism. Sexism still exists today but it takes an Old Pig to write like Scheer. He's pathetic.
Pathetic and tired and longing for a world he saw on TV that never existed but he just knows he was robbed of: where women said, "Good morning, Mr. Scheer, here's your cup of coffee" and he 'thanked' them by swatting them on the ass. Poor Bobby. With his looks, he probably really needed that myth to picture himself getting lucky. Women who had a right to say no and not worship every man had a right to turn him down. And probably those women who rejected him were playing the "gender card" in his mind as well.
As he looks back on his conservative life, he mourns what never was. And tells himself he's an agent of change. He's just a throwback. No one whines like a Red-diaper baby who's moved to the center. Which is why no one whines like Bobby Scheer.
If he had any self-respect, he'd apologize to Gloria Steinem but, if he had any self-respect, he wouldn't have done half the things he has in the last year.
And maybe someone as allegedly against the Iraq War as he claims to be wouldn't publish Chris Hedges who LIED on the front page of the New York Times in October 2001 that there was a link between 9-11 and Iraq? Hedges participated in the PBS LIE on this as well. Hedges has never gotten honest though PBS has. Hedges refuses to name his sources for the story. But Chris Hedges is published non-stop, each week at Scheer's LieDig website. That's how it works for Scheer who would call out Judith Miller but never call out the reporter who first got the LIE about 9-11 and Iraq on the front page of the paper. But then, Hedges is a man, right? It's all about that for Scheer, always has been. And it's not just Hedges. Should probably also be noted that Scheer's also happy to publish the mainstream media reported twice busted for online sexual predator activities PIG.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, January 9, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, Big Oil is salivating for Iraq, Matthew Rothschild accuses Bill Clinton of distortions but, in this case, it's Rothschild who is distorted, and more.
Starting with war resisters. Earlier this week Andrea Stone (USA Today) reported on Darren Manzella who is a sergeant in the US army and openly gay. Stone noted that he discussed this recently with 60 Minutes "and the program aired a home video that showed him kissing a former boyfriend" and there's been no fallout. Stone also notes that the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network estimates there are 500 out troops currently. Who knew the US military brass was so laid back? Of course the reality is that they aren't but have little choice but to enter this century as a result of the Iraq War. War resister Bethany "Skyler" James shared her story upon arriving in Canada. She explained to Ariel Troster (Capital Xtra) back in October that her plan was to be low key about her sexuality but she "was ridiculed daily by other soldiers and even received hate letters" which led Skyler to be more open "even hanging a rainbow flag in her room at the military base, despite a rule which prohibits anyone who 'demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts' from serving in the US army." So what was going on? Troster explains, "You would think that by disclosing her identity, Skyler would have received a 'get out of the army free' card. By outing herself, she was clearing contravening regulations in a way that should have earned her a discharge. But according to Skyler, it isn't that easy. The US military is so desperate to enlist more troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, that they are willing to turn a blind eye to even the most blatant homosexual conduct -- leaving people like Skyler to endure the double injustice of fighting in wars they don't agree with, while also being subjected to harassment and intimidation from their fellow soldiers."
This is another example of what is missed when independent media doesn't cover war resisters. And note that the MSM view puts foward a concept of tolerance when the reality is that the military can't afford to kick anyone out.
Skyler is in Canada hoping to be granted refugee status. 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.
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, Carla 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.
US civilians have been in Iraq (that comment isn't recognizing mercenaries as civilians) and one example is Jamie Leigh Jones. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "The Pentagon's top watchdog has announced he won't investigate rape allegations made by a former employee of the war contractor Halliburton and its subsidary KBR. The alleged victim, Jamie Leigh Jones, says she was gang-raped by co-workers in Iraq. Jones has accused KBR and the US government of covering up the crime. On Tuesday, Pentagon Inspector General Claude Kicklighter said he won't look into the charges because the Justice Department still considers it an open case. Democratic lawmakers and Jones' defense team both criticized the decision. A criminal probe has already last more than two and a half years with no charges filed." Yesterday, ABC News' Justin Rood reported on the latest and noted the office of US Senator Bill Nelson (Florida) says, "We're not satified with" the non-response and Rood noted, "Despite deferring to the Justice Department, Kicklighter's office told Nelson it was willing to pursue other questions Nelson raised about Jones' case. Kicklighter agreed to explore 'whether and why' a U.S. Army doctor handed to KBR security officials the results of Jones' medical examination, a so-called "rape kit," which would have contained evidence of the crime if it had occurred." Justin George (St. Petersburg Times) reports that Nelson is focused on two cases specifically -- Jamie Leigh Jones and another, unidentified woman: "The Tampa woman alleges she was sexually assaulted by a drunken male colleague while working in Ramadi, Iraq in June 2005 for KBR Inc. subsidary Service Employees International Inc. Nelson has said the Navy Criminal Investigative Service turned its finding over to the Justice Department, but nothing has come of the matter. The woman sued KBR, claiming the company failed to protect her from foreseeable harm." That's Tracy Barker. Today David Ivanovich (Houston Chronicle) reports that in addition to determining that, "The Inspector General's office also is trying to learn how many other rape examinations have been performed by U.S. military doctors in Iraq, as well as what steps federal departments are taking to ensure similar criminal cases are properly investigated." Ivanovich also cites Republican US House Rep Ted Poe (who was informed of the gang-rape and imprisonment of Jamie Leigh Jones by Jones' father and began pressing the US State Department to expalin why a US citizen was being held against her will by a contracting company with State Department knowledge) stating, "Who is in charge here? With a $400 billion budget, you would think that the Defense Department would have the resources to protect Americans overseas and maybe even a little left over to investigate allegations of criminal activity as well."
While the White House has shown no interest in the assaults on women in Iraq, Bully Boy did get a briefing on the non-progress in Iraq. CBS and AP report that "John Jones, the provisional reconstruction team leader in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad" gave the feel good performance of the day. "The key thing for us," said Jones of Diyala, "is we're making small steps." That would be the province Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported on today where "American troops began a major offensive on Tuesday". Farrell quotes Major General Mark P. Herling (you thought the Times would quote rank and file?) who declares, "What has been happening in Baquba and Wajihiya specifically has been somewhat of a deception effort. We have allowed the enemy to believe that Diyala has been wide open while we have been generating forces in here to nail them." The deception is in Herling's remarks. The 'plan' was a last-minute scramble to use the surplus forces the escalation provided before significant numbers are deployed out of Iraq. CBS and AP forget to name the province (might it hurt Jones' feel-good report on Diyala? -- no need to worry, reality hurt Jones' feel-good report when the US military announced multiple deaths in the region today) but note that "No. 2 U.S. commander, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, announced the new operations and took pains to say it would focus on bettering Iraqi lives". Two things. Odierno was among those stating publicly last summer that the escalation would end this year because the US military did not have the numbers to maintain it. Second, for those who want to believe Herling's lies, they need to immediately call for him and others above him to be brought on charges of War Crimes. If you really believe the lie that this was planned months ahead -- to route violence into Diyala Province -- then the US military brass willfully made Iraqi civilians living in that area a target which would be a violation of the rules of law.
Meanwhile another province, Al Anbar, is the focus of a corporate struggle. Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) reports that Shell and Total both want "to develop a huge gasfield" in Al Anbar -- in an area that "is thought to contain up to seven trillion cubic feet of gas -- up to 6 per cent of Iraq's estimated total of 112 trillion cubic feet. The field is capable of producing up to 50 million cubic feet a day, but this could be raised to 450 million cubic feet per day if developed further." Pagnamenta states Shell maintains the Iraqi Oil Ministry requested their involvement. Thomas Financial reports that talks were held by the Iraqi government "with a number of potential companies last week". Last week, Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) noted, "Iraq has set a Jan. 31 deadline for international oil firms to register to compete for tenders to help develop the world's third-largest oil reserves, the Ministry of Oil said today."
While the corporations rub their hands eagerly, others are less eager to enter Iraq. Sue Pleming (Reuters) notes, "Nearly half of U.S. diplomats who do not want to serve in Iraq say a key reason is because they do not support the Bush administration's policies there, according to a union survey released on Tuesday. The survey by the American Foreign Service Association, which represents the rank-and-file diplomatic corps, not political appointees, also found that most U.S. diplomats were frustrated by what they saw a lack of resources." The American Foreign Service Association has the report [PDF format warning] by Steve Kashkett entitled "ASFA Opinion Poll Results Highlight Disturbing Trends" which notes early on, "With regard to Iraq, a clear majority believes that war-zone postings should remain voluntary; some 68 percent oppose directed assignments as unneccsary and undesirable. More than 2,000 FS members -- including 110 currently serving in Iraq and 295 who said they had previously done tours of duty there -- provided comments on ways to encourage more people to volunteer for Iraq assignments. Many themes emerged repeatedly: increasing the Separate Maintenance Allowance, getting tax exemptions for war-zone service, awarded meritorious step increases, shortening the length of a standar unaccompanied tour. But a large number of comments suggested a fundamental disagreement with the whole approach of seeking evver greater incentives to staff an escalating list of Provincial Reconstruction Teams and an expanding embassy; instead, many hundreds of employees urged a downsizing of the U.S. mission there, both for practical and policy reasons."
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Kirkuk car bombing that wounded one person and another that wounded two, a Khalis bombing that wounded a police officer and a Baquba bombing that left four people wounded.
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a suspected member of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia was shot dead in Salahuddin and two people were woundedin a Baquba shooting.
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division -- North Soldiers died from injuries sustained during an attack while conducting operations in Salah ad Din province Jan. 8." And they announced: "Six Multi-National Division -- North Soldiers were killed by a house born improvised explosive device while conducting operations in Diyala Jan. 9. Additionally, four MND-N Soldiers were injured in the explosion and evacuated to a Coalition Forces' hospital." Peter Graff (Reuters) notes the six deaths today is "one of the highest daily death tolls for U.S. troops in Iraq for months and followed the deaths of three soldiers in the operation a day earlier."
Meanwhile, CBS and AP report, "The number of Iraqis fleeing their homeland has declined in recent months, primarily because neighboring countries refuse to let them enter, the U.N. refugee agency said Tuesday." IRIN notes the UN World Food Program is ready to begin in Iraq, "will run for a year and target 750,000 of the most vulnerable internally displaced persons (IDPs) inside Iraq, as well as over 360,000 Iraqi refugees in Syria."
Turning to US politics. On Saturday the Democratic nominees for president (minus Mike Gravel) debated in New Hampshire. On Monday, Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) weighed in with observations such as "Obama played it cool throughout and projected calmness to Clinton's desperation." While Rothschild channeled Whoopi in Ghost ("Molly, you danger in, girl" became "Hillary is in deep trouble") for Hillary, he laid it on thick for Bambi: "played it cool throughout," "projected calmness," "Obama's eloquence," "his eloquence," etc. On Ava and my scale, egg on your face for failed attempts at humor and awkwardly worded statements don't qualify as "eloquence," but whatever . . . except, post-New Hampshire results (last night), Rothschild ponders how Hillary won in New Hampshire last night and offers, among other things, "It could have been Obama's lackluster debate performance Saturday night . . ." Huh? The one where he was "cool throughout," the one Rothschild found so eloquent he had to note the eloquence twice in what appears to have been a 21 sentence column? (Check my math.) Help 'em out, do they hum along to "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?" or "The Morning After"? The Bambi-boys are needing a tune today that will carry them over to the primary after next.
Rothschild maintains, that the Clintons are going to make it "uglier" (as opposed to the gauzy haze the press has created?). Rothschild declares we can see that in a speech Bill Clinton gave (isn't it funny that Elizabeth Edwards has called out both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeatedly in the press -- even in the pages of The Progressive -- but that's never an issue?). Rothschild writes that "Bill said the media had fed the public a 'fairy tale' about Obama, and then he distorted Obama's record on the Iraq War." Goodness me! I thought it was the press' job to distort Bambi's record on the illegal war (in his favor). Turns out, Bill Clinton didn't distort Bambi's record, Bill Clinton told the truth (try it, it's liberating). The Chicago Tribune has the video and text online. Here's Bill Clinton:
"But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' "
"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"
"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.
"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.
Where's the distortion, Rothschild? That the resolution wasn't seen as an automatic greenlight? I believe Elizabeth Edwards has made that point herself . . . in the pages of The Progressive. That wasn't flagged in the article as a falsehood. Is Rothschild now saying Elizabeth Edwards lied? The White House wanted the Iraq War to start. That was not in doubt. Some, like Senator Chuck Hagel, did believe that the resolution passing would mean war would only break out if a resolution passed in the United Nations or other conditionals. So Bill Clinton is correct on that point. In fact, let's hear how that resolution was explained not all that long ago: "And the resolution wasn't really to go to war. The resolution, if you remember, was forcing Bush to to the U.N. first. Of course, we expected him to actually listen to the U.N., which didn't happen. The resolution was actually a slowing technique".
That had better be correct, even for Rothschild, because it was printed -- without challenge -- in The Progressive. It's from Ruth Conniff's "Elizabeth Edwards Interview" which The Progressive printed last fall. As for Bambi, Elizabeth Edwards stated in that interview, "Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extrordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding." (She also notes, "So you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way." Gee, whom do you think she was referring to?)
His second point? Clinton maintains Bambi "got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on this resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break." First Whoopi, now he channels John Stossel.
Bill Clinton told the truth. Matthew Rothschild is either ignorant of the truth or he is lying. It pains me to say that but that is reality. Bill Clinton could have carried the 2004 point through to 2006 and noted that Bambi told The New Yorker he didn't know how he would have voted in 2002 if he was in the US Senate at that time. Again, Bill Clinton is correct. Bill Clinton didn't distort a damn thing, Matthew Rothschild, however, has -- intentionally or not. And he needs to get his facts right -- facts, after all, are supposed to be his business.
It is a "fairy tale." We've used that term and many others to describe the lies about 'anti-war' Bambi. The New York Times? I believe we last noted Bambi telling them he didn't know how he would have voted in the January 4th snapshot: " Obama tells Monica Davey (New York Times, July 26, 2004) he doesn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate. Two years later, he's telling David Remnick (The New Yorker) he doesn't know how he would have voted." Bill Clinton noting the disappearence of the speech Obama is now so proud of? Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon (then at The Black Commentator) pointed that out before Bambi made it to the Senate (the date of that is addressed later in the snapshot). Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) reminded people of that again on December 12th of last year. Where's the distortion, Rothschild? There is none. Either Rothschild is suffering from the fairy tale Bill Clinton rightly noted or else he's lying. Hopefully, it's the former and not the latter. The reality is that the media -- Big and Small -- have fed the public a fairy tale on 'anti-war' Obama and. The reality is that Bill Clinton didn't distort Bambi's record -- the distortions have been done by the media. Matthew Rothschild joins in the distortions today and needs to do a reality check real quick.
Does independent media follow independent media? Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon and Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) have done tremendous and amazing work but maybe Little White Media sees "Black Agenda Report" and scurries off in fear? (If so, apparently Ford, Dixon and Kimberly changing the title to "Biracial Agenda Report" would make the site more 'friendly' for some Whites.) Let's start with Margaret Kimberley's latest and in the excerpt below, she's commenting on New Hampshire:
The media have already begun making fantastic claims attributing the backhanded treatment to his multi-racial heritage. Those ridiculous assertions must be dismissed out of hand. There is a lot less to Obama than meets the eye. He is little more than a very slick and very savvy politician. He knows how to impress and please powerful people, and speaking up for black Americans accomplishes neither one of those things.
Obama has masterfully out maneuvered the amateurish Hillary Clinton. She isn't smart enough to know that she should at least attempt to give Democratic voters a little bit of lip service. While she voted in favor of a senate resolution against the Iranian government, Obama stayed on the campaign trail and conveniently missed the vote. In fact he is just as willing to go to war as she is.
That reality (not a distortion, Rothschild) matters for a number of reasons. Kat noted one reason last night with AP reporting that exit polls in New Hampshire found those citing the Iraq War as the top issue resulted in "an advantage" for Obama. That's due to what Bill Clinton, rightly, called a "fairy tale." (We'll address another reason at The Third Estate Sunday Review this weekend.) Also citing Bill Clinton is Glen Ford -- no surprise, Clinton was citing work he and Bruce Dixon have been doing for years -- who notes, "Actually, Clinton got one of the dates wrong. We at Black Agenda Report know -- because we have been closely scrutinizing Obama since his Illionis state senate days, and engaged him in a month-long interchange in June of 2003. Obama's October 2002 anti-war speech first disappered from his U.S. Senate campaign site, not in 2004, but in 2003, when public perception of the war and occupation -- with the exception of Black opinion -- had dramatically shifted towards war. At the time, Bruce Dixon and the core Black Agenda Report crew, including myself, were housed at Black Commentator.com. . . . What a difference a shift in public opinion on war makes. Bruce Dixon put it well: 'His passion evaporated, a leading black candidate for the US Senate mouths bland generalities on war, peace and the US role in the world." Ford goes on to offer a walk-through for those who missed reality in real time. (Ironically, Matthew Rothschild was one of the few in indymedia not to be taken in by the nonsense Barack offered at the 2004 DNC convention -- Rothschild rightly called it out in real time, one of the few who did.)
As Glen Ford again notes, Barack and Hillary are siamese twins. He notes they are "political twins" on Democracy Now! today where Amy Goodman hosted a debate between him and Michael Eric Dyson (Dyson being a long-term Barack supporter only recently out of the closet as such):
GLEN FORD: Well, it wasn't really a loss. He only lost by a couple of points. I think with New Hampshire and Iowa, Barack Obama has won a great unprecedented historical victory in proving that he can win the support of huge numbers of white people in essentially white primaries. And by doing that, he has accomplished the central mission of his entire campaign, which is to prove that a black man can be embraced by masses of white people. The problem is, he has done that at the expense of black people, by constantly, relentlessly sending out signals to white people that a vote for Barack Obama, an Obama presidency, would signal the beginning of the end of black-specific agitation, that it would take race discourse off of the table. And he's gone to extraordinary lengths to accomplish that. He said things that white Democrats would--that no white Democrat would ever say--for example, the ridiculous statement that blacks had already come 90% of the way on the road to equality, with the implicit idea that a vote for him would take black people the other 10% of the way. Now, it's a ridiculous statement. It's based on no substance whatsoever. No indexes show blacks 90% of the way towards equality in any area of life. We've never made 65% more in income than white people. Black median household wealth is one-tenth white median household wealth. And on and on and on and on. In fact, we can't find 90% figures relevant, outside of NBA teams and prison. But no white man, no white Democrat who said that would avoid being excoriated by the entire spectrum of black political opinion.
Goodman stated "this is part one of of this debate" so look for continued coverage on Democracy Now! and it's needed. It's not just the 'public' that's assuming myths of 'anti-war' Bambi, Matthew Rothschild does as well. In other New Hampshire primary news, Dennis Kucinich had a "narrow" fifth place "win." He received approximately 417 more votes than the sixth place winner when 100% of the precints had reported. Both he and the sixth place "winner" received one percent of the vote. Who was sixth place? "Total Write-ins." So Kucinich managed a "narrow" fifth place upset over the write-in candidates. The Concord Monitor has the results on the front page of their websites and, again, that's with 100% of the precints reporting. Also Michigan holds primaries January 15th, Democratic and Republican. Ted Roelof (Chronicle News Service) reminds that the DNC has attempted to punish Michigan as it's trying to punish Florida. This issue was raised on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today around the forty-minute mark of the first hour). Stuart Rothenberg (The Rothenberg Political Report) offered, "At the end of the day, I can't imagine a Democratic Convention without Florida and Michigan delegates that would be crazy," Rehm agreed, "I mean, it just doesn't make sense." Roelof notes of Michigan, "A squabble between state and national party officials over the state's early primary date led Obama and Edwards to withdraw their names. Clinton faces token opposition from Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. The other name on the ballot, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, dropped out last week."
robert scheer
gloria steinem
the common ills
mikey likes it
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
amy goodmandemocracy now
glen ford
margaret kimberley
bruce dixonblack agenda report
justin roodmcclatchy newspapers
the diane rehm shownpr
stephen farrellthe new york times
kats korner
matthew rothschild
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Ken Silverstein, candidates
Tuesday. C.I. e-mailed me something and I shared it with Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz). We're both noting it and that may be it other than the snapshot. This is from Ken Silverstein's "The Press and the Campaign: Boosting Obama and McCain:"
Another factor in Obama's favor is (just as the Clinton campaign claims) that the media seems to be strongly in his corner. McCain gets great press too, far better than any of the other Republican contenders. In some accounts, his fourth place tie in Iowa was deemed to be as impressive as Mike Huckabee’s triumph. "Tonight is a fantastic night for John McCain," the XXXX's Mike Allen told Fox News. "Except for Barack Obama, there’s almost no one you’d rather be tonight than John McCain."
Painful as it is for me to cite Howard Kurtz, he wrote a good piece about the respective coverage last month, noting, "Journalists repeatedly described Obama as a 'rock star' when he jumped into the race in January. His missteps -- such as when his staff mocked Clinton’s position on the outsourcing of jobs overseas by referring to the Democrat not as representing a state but as 'D-Punjab' -- generated modest coverage, but rarely at the level surrounding Clinton’s mistakes."
Remember that big story about how "an Obama volunteer wearing a press pass asked the candidate a friendly question about tax policy at an Iowa event"? Neither do I. As Kurtz noted, citing an online posting by ABC, "[S]everal of the assembled reporters huddled and concluded that it was not a story, one of them said. Clinton faced a storm of media criticism over a similar planted question."
You may have also missed this good piece from last July by Justin Rood of ABC, "Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests," which got little pick up. I suspect it would have been far more widely circulated if the name "Clinton" appeared in the headline.)
In the piece Silverstein makes the point that the coverage is influenced by the reporters. And it is. But, let me point out, C.I. does not care for Dennis Kucinich. That dates back to at least 2004. And did anyone ever know that? I didn't. And I read everything that goes up at The Common Ills. I assumed, honestly, that C.I. didn't endorse Kucinich (when everyone was doing it at Kat's site [Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)]) because of the no-endorse policy. I assumed that C.I. was ga-ga over Kucinich and felt really bad about it because my mother (Trina's Kitchen) was and my girlfriend endorses him and if even C.I. loves him, what am I missing?
So when Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) brought it up in "Roundtable," I was floored. So my point there is you can hate someone and still be fair. Until Kucinich exposed himself as a fake by making a deal to 'give' Obama his supporters, Kucinich got noted constantly at The Common Ills and C.I. doesn't even like Kucinich. I bet if the media had done their job of presenting even some reality about Bambi, C.I. wouldn't have even written a word. But they didn't. They played favorites. And it really does come down to truth, are you going to tell it or not?
Do you have a standard you apply fairly or do you create one standard for one candidate and no standards for another?
We've seen that the Koo Koo Krowd (which includes Robert Parry these days), doesn't give a damn about standards. They'll have them for Hillary and they'll put them in a safe for Obama. They'll work so hard to ignore what he does that they're just LIARS.
And you really should be asking yourself why they're willing to lie for him?
As far as I'm concerned, it'll take Robert Parry some time to put what he's done behind him. He is now up there with Judith Miller when it comes to pushing lies. And I thought of him as a real journalist so it's all the more shocking when he does it. He's not the only one doing it.
I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for.
But I know I'm not going to vote for 'independent' media which isn't independent.
I think we've seen just about enough crap from independent media. I get now why Elaine refuses to give it money (she'll give to public radio -- that includes NPR). They really are just little liars with very few exceptions. They lie and lie and lie, over and over. And they never give a damn about it. Then they turn around and ask you to give them money.
Why would you give money to a liar so they can keep lying?
Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) is probably supporting Hillary Clinton. (He talked about it in "Roundtable on the media.") I don't know who I'm supporting yet. But Cedric and I have talked and talked about the Dem candidates. I know he was really searching for who to support (he knows I still am) and it wasn't a decision he made in one day, one week or one month. I wouldn't be surprised, with Kucinich revealing himself to be a fake, if Betty (Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man) didn't go back to supporting Hillary. And I know she follows reality -- as opposed to the LIES of independent media.
So I know a lot of people are doing more than taking in the non-stop hogwash being fed on Obama. We should all be sick of it and sick of independent media. They've disgraced themselves.
That's the real lesson in the last few years: Media LIES. All media. Whether they claim to tell the truth or not, they LIE.
Here's truth: Independent media on the left is just Democratic media.
They pretend otherwise. But that's really what it came down to.
When Robert Parry's joined the spin patrol, stick a fork in the ass of indymedia because it's over.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, January 8, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Thom Shanker flies his right-wing flag (and betrays his allegedly 'objective' profession), sexism is the last refuge to which the barely still Middle Aged Man clings, and more.
Starting with war resistance. In Canada the focus is on getting the Canadian Parliament to act when the judicial branch has thus far failed. 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.
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, Carla 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.
Don't you hate it when the right-wing puts out the false talking point that the US press and the US military are at odds? Does it go down any easier for you when it comes from the mainstream? Monday, Thom Shanker (New York Times) slimed journalists (his peers -- at least before he wrote the piece) with one lie after another such as this one: "At the start of the Iraq war, decades of open hostilities between the military and news media dating from Vietnam were forgotten". Decades, Shanker says in his best Ann Coulter. Decades? When has the press and the military not been in bed? When April Oliver was kicked off CNN (she would later be vindicated in a court of law) where did the pressure come from? The military. Now a truly "hostile" media wouldn't have given a damn. They would have noted Oliver's reporting stood up and that would be the end of that, no matter how many times Collie Powell came calling. But that's not what happened because -- and there are many more examples -- when the US military brass wants something, the US mainstream press puts on the red light and gets the money up front. Shanks the Clown may not bring in a lot of money, but he works the corner come rain or shine. Shanks tells readers that the US military is pleased as punch these days with the coverage. And why wouldn't they be? Flashing back to November when Project for Excellence in Journalism's report (PDF format here, our summary here) survey was released -- a survey of 111 US journalists (mainstream media) who have covered Iraq and found that 62 percent of respondents stated their "editors back home" had lost interest in reports of day-to-day violence. And the 'coverage' reflects that message sent down the chain. Which may be why Shank's reach-around-pals in the brass are so tickled these days. (Or maybe Shanks just has a light touch.) Shanks fails his now-former peers by refusing to ever note the point of journalism. Or maybe he just never learned it? Reporters are not public relations flacks. They are supposed to root around and unearth the truth. Reporters are not supposed to make the powerful comfortable. Shanks (maybe it's that light touch) seems bound and determined to make them comfortable and, in doing so, feeds right-wing lies from the news pages of the New York Times. He really worked for those five dollars.
Staying with the Times, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Mudhafer al-Husaini notice that the US collabortors ("Awakening" Council) are being targeted now. Now? Now they're being targeted? As noted in the June 25th snapshot, Baghdad's al-Mansour Melia was bombed and the targets were? The Sunni tribal leaders who were "Awakening" and collaborating. CNN reports that 8 of the 'Awakening' Council were kidnapped in Baghdad in an attack today that also led to 14 other people being killed: "The Shiite Awakening Council members were kidnapped Monday night in the northeastern Shiite neighborhood of Shaab, one of Baghdad's most dangerous areas and a center for outlawed Shiite Muslim fighters, the official said. Gunmen in at least three vehicles surrounded a checkpoint controlled by the Shiite Awakening Council in Shaab and seized their victims, said the official."
In other reality based news today, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) notes the p.r. push on the Iraqi army and reminds that "relying on Iraqi security forces has proved risky. In February, when Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. handed off command of U.S. troops in Iraq to Gen. David H. Petraeus, he predicted that Iraqi forces would be in charge of security nationwide by fall." Didn't happen, now did it? But they presumably run the checkpoints where a kidnapping took place today.
Turning to some of the reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the targeting of officials goes on in Baghdad where an bombing killed Dr. Falah Mansour Hussein ("head of Yarmouk council"), while a bomber in a vest killed his or herself and 1 police officer (with three more people wounded), a Medain district mortar attack wounded two people and a Diyala Province bombing clained the life of 1 woman. Reuters notes a Tikrit bombing that left three police officers injured and a Shura roadside bombing that claimed 1 life.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the targeting of officials goes on in Baghdad where Mohammad Aziz Al-Gatia was gunned down ("an officer of the minitary of interior") while "the deputy of Masnour taxes department" was also gunned down. Reuters notes an attorney was shot dead by police officers in Kut -- apparently by mistake.
Kidnappings?
In addition to CNN's report on the 8 members of the alleged 'Awakening' Council being kidnapped in Baghdad today, Reuters notes, "A police officer and his driver were kidnapped in their car at a checkpoint while travelling from Baghdad to Baquba in Diyala province, police said."
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpses were discovered in Mosul.
Turning to US politics. In his latest column, Robert Parry (Consortium News) makes it clear where he stands on the Clintons: "The Clintons rarely stood up for decent individuals who suffered for doing the right thing in Washington, usually those people got sold out as the Clintons sought out unprincipled characters on the other side who could be put to short-term use." Really? Seems at odds with key points of Parry's Secrecy & Privilege, doesn't it? If you've read it, you're aware of Spencer Oliver's complaint wasn't that the Clinton's "sought out unprincipled characters," it was that they "didn't even staff key offices with loyalists" and Parry quotes Oliver here, "They left a lot of people in place in the government who were hardcore Republican operatives. Their loyalties were not to Clinton at all. . . . The whole first three years of the Clinton administration, everything they did wrong was leaked, every, every peccadillo, every mistake, whether it was the White House Travel Office, Hillary's (health care) task force, whatever it was. They never really took control of the government." I believe that's page 266 (from memory, so anyone needing a citation check it out first). Having written repeatedly of Bill Clinton (and somewhat of Hillary) for years, Parry's only chosen to recently come out as a Clinton-hater. "The Clintons rarely stood up for decent individuals who suffered for doing the right thing in Washington, usually those people got sold out as the Clintons sought out unprincipled characters on the other side who could be put to short-term use."
Geez, how long has been holding that in? Was he in danger of exploding? You have to love that stylistic touch, "decent individuals" -- implying they would have stood up for the indecent? For those trying to figure out when Parry became a Clinton hater it appears to have been when a woman decided to run for president.
Bill and Hillary are not as evil as some have made them out to be nor was the Clinton era as wonderful as some on the Democratic side (I wouldn't call it the left) have repeatedly maintained year after year this decade. Some of their problems were their own. Some of their problems were the result of the right-wing noise machine. It's not that Hillary is a saint that's the problem with some of these revisionary pieces showing up lately, it's that the things they're hammering her to the cross for are the same things evident in Barack Obama.
Parry leaves the world of reporting with the column and that may be most noticeable with this sentence about Bambi, "Indeed, he may be the only Democrat in the race who can transcend the expected dirty politics of the Right and achieve a victory that can trasnform American politics for the better." Before we go into that, the tired online, latter-day Dylan rushes that same nonsense out -- surprising considering all the threatening e-mails his putrid friend has bothered me with for over a year now as he maintained that Hillary Clinton would have the nomination despite people like me.
People like me? This community has called her out for Iraq. That is our focus here. But unlike the groupies, we've called Bambi out too. As Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) has noted of the two candidates, they are siamese twins. Hillary's crime for some is being a triangulator. What does that mean? She 'reaches across the aisle,' the same thing Bambi does. Bambi backed Joe Lieberman as an independent candidate against Ned Lamont. Backed him publicly with words and backed him with money from his slush fund a.k.a. political pac. Bambi takes pride in decrying "Tom Hayden Democrats" and rushes to the right as if he's in search of a veneral disease.
Parry, like too many of the Middle Aged Men providing cover for Bambi, likes to cite the youth. Bambi inspires the youth. Not all. Just the stupid. Just the ones dumb enough to believe the hype they've been fed. As Russell Mokhiber (writing at CounterPunch) points out, "While idealistic young people are swooning over Obama's message of hope, faith and change -- no one inside the beltway has any doubts about the corporate connections. The Hill reported earlier this year that three of Obama's top fundraisers were registered as lobbyists in 2006." Last week, Robert Parry appeared on Democracy Now! and Willie Safire never did such a hit job (he tried, he really tried, but Parry has intelligence and Willie doesn't). Parry made many claims:
*"One of the concerns, for instance, about Senator Hillary Clinton has been her ties to the Washington establishment, whether she is too much of a calculating politician."
This is a talking point for the Bambi campaign and, intentionally or not, Parry showed up to advance it. It was carried over to the Iowa night photos of the two speaking onstage. As Ava and I pointed out (though Parry plays dumb):
If you're one of the (lucky) few who missed the photos 'commentary' that was everywhere Friday morning, Hillary was pictured with Bill, Mad Maddie Albright and Wesley Clark among others. Barack Obama offered a White Bennington ad (though no one commented on the Whiteness of it all). Dr. Kathy saw symbolism in the photos, saw portents, saw . . . a load of crap. Here's the reality Dr. Kathy and others wouldn't tell you, Hillary's photo was your basic speech photo with the candidate surrounded by their team. Bambi's people, Technicolor by Deluxe wizards that they are, saw a chance to use the speech to send a false message. Now the reality is that Bambi's backed by Sammy Power, Sarah Sewer, Anthony Lake, Dennis Ross and Zbigniew Brzezinski among others. So a lot of garbage about how the photos say this or that ("Change!" "Break with tradition!" on Bambi's part) needs to note the reality of what's not said in the photos.
Parry was working all the Bambi talking points (intentionally or not) and went on to declare, "And one of the surprising issues that emerged early in the debates was her support of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which was a resolution to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. And she was seen as sort of playing to, again, this sense that she would be part of that Washington establishment of how these kinds of issues are approached. She seems to be playing into the hands, again, of the neoconservatives."
He went on to call Hillary out for statements Bill had made -- even Amy Goodman felt the need to note that ("Now, of course, this is not a comment about what his wife, the New York senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, would do if she were president.") But his talking points were pure Bambi campaign: "It again brings back issues of judgment by Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Biden, who supported the Iraq operation, and again, in this case, Senator Obama, who opposed the Iraq war, although not inside the Senate at the time, is able to point out that he did not make those kinds of judgments."
No, Bambi wasn't in the Senate. In 2002, he called the illegal war "dumb." And after? He gets a lot of mileage from that one lame speech (a legal expert calls the Iraq War "illegal," not "dumb") but what happened after? Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) points out that when Bully Boy was riding high in the polls with the May 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech, Obama's Senate campaign website disappeared the speech: "After calls to Obama's campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling Barack Obama out. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that the U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his web site and public statements. We noted with consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic Party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its '100 to Watch' that season. This is what real journalists are suppoed to do -- fact check candidates, investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and corporations to the fire." Dixon is correct, that is what real journalists are supposed to do -- but Bambi mania has revealed the US has damn few real journalists.
Bambi himself would tell the New York Times in 2004 and The New Yorker in 2006 that, if he had been in the Senate in 2002, he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution. But what does it matter, his groupies know how he would have voted. Based on his Senate record? Oh, that is funny. While Parry clobbered Hillary for voting on the Iran resolution, he failed to note that Bambi, then in the Senate, chose to skip that vote. While Parry trashes Hillary as someone who sells out and Bambi's "True Blue" ("Baby, Parry loves you"), Hillary Clinton voted against the Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn.org for the Betray Us ad. Bambi? Bambi skipped that vote too. On votes that mattered, in fact, Bambi either skipped out or he voted in an embarrassing manner. Such as his repeated votes to fund the illegal war. Real journalists would know Bambi's record. Real journalists would share Bambi's record. There aren't a lot of real journalists left. We do see a huge number of Bambi groupies. And they will lie freely. (One wonders if the "blotted" Colin Powell endorsing Bambi will lead to a Parry column noting -- yet again -- the crimes of Powell or whether that too can be spun feel-good?)
I don't care whether someone votes for Obama, Clinton, John Edwards, Green Party candidates or whomever. People are responsible for their own votes (or for not voting). What I do care is about the truth and it's been really interesting to find out how few do care about the truth.
Parry waits until the second paragraph of his column to get to the 'tears' -- I guess that's 'progressive' of him. Hillary Clinton was asked a question and, during the response, her eyes misted over. She did not tear up -- if she had, a tear would have ran. You can't start to cry and then stop the tears. You can end the crying immediately and be left with a tear or two but if you are 'tearing up,' you have a tear and it will fall. That's basic. Kat addressed the nonsense of the media yesterday (and we'll get back to a point Kat made in a minute). Katha Pollitt (And Another Thing, The Nation) continues her hot and sensible streak of late, observing, "John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not 'crying' as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of 'oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power." Katha misses something (or, maybe like the rest of us, she's had it with the sexim repeatedly on display and can only tackle so much). Yesterday, a man (you knew it was a man, right) showed up at one of Hillary's speeches holding a sign that read a 'slogan' he also 'helpfully' chanted, "Iron this shirt!" Kat (rightly) wondered which Little Boys of the Left would call that out? Answer? Not Parry. He can note the 'tear,' he just can't note the sexism -- maybe noting them would be exposing all the sexism involved. Air Berman (at The Nation, no link, you'll see why in a minute) does note it . . . in paragraph five of a six paragraph post. But credit to Berman for noting it, it puts him far ahead of the other Little Boys of the Left. Ruith Conniff (The Progressive) also shows some real strength today declaring, "Let's call the focus on Hillary's brief teary-eyed moment what it is: pure sexism."
(Caution Little Boys of the Left, Conniff also notes, "But on policy matters and fundraising, Barack and Hillary are actually not that far apart." Just warning you, before your viagra-ehanced boners shrink, we all know how you need those fantasies, trained as you were by the Playboy centerfolds.) So Ari Berman buries an ugly attack on Hillary in paragraph five and who else bothers to note it? Hey fellows, what's going on? What smear would the sign have had to offer on Obama to get you pounding furiously away at the keyboards?
Gloria Steinem (writing in the New York Times) sums up what's going on:
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
Here's why it matters in terms of Iraq: the 'boys' are giving Bambi a pass while beating Hillary over the head with Iraq. Bambi's not a damn bit different on Iraq. (He may be worse considering that he's got Sewer, et al backing him up.) And voters have a right to know that. Citizens have a right to know that. And journalists have an obligation to report that. Again, not a lot of journalism on display from the Little Boys of the Left. Sexism? It's overflowing. Bully Boy got a pass from the MSM and the right-wing. And Bully Boy provided us with the long planned Iraq War. If elected, what's Barack going to provide people with and how betrayed are they going to feel by independent media or alleged independent media?
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
amy goodmandemocracy now
gloria steinem
the new york times
katha pollitt
robert parry
ruth conniff
thom shanker
kats korner
tina susman
the los angeles times
richard a. oppel jr.
Another factor in Obama's favor is (just as the Clinton campaign claims) that the media seems to be strongly in his corner. McCain gets great press too, far better than any of the other Republican contenders. In some accounts, his fourth place tie in Iowa was deemed to be as impressive as Mike Huckabee’s triumph. "Tonight is a fantastic night for John McCain," the XXXX's Mike Allen told Fox News. "Except for Barack Obama, there’s almost no one you’d rather be tonight than John McCain."
Painful as it is for me to cite Howard Kurtz, he wrote a good piece about the respective coverage last month, noting, "Journalists repeatedly described Obama as a 'rock star' when he jumped into the race in January. His missteps -- such as when his staff mocked Clinton’s position on the outsourcing of jobs overseas by referring to the Democrat not as representing a state but as 'D-Punjab' -- generated modest coverage, but rarely at the level surrounding Clinton’s mistakes."
Remember that big story about how "an Obama volunteer wearing a press pass asked the candidate a friendly question about tax policy at an Iowa event"? Neither do I. As Kurtz noted, citing an online posting by ABC, "[S]everal of the assembled reporters huddled and concluded that it was not a story, one of them said. Clinton faced a storm of media criticism over a similar planted question."
You may have also missed this good piece from last July by Justin Rood of ABC, "Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists' Interests," which got little pick up. I suspect it would have been far more widely circulated if the name "Clinton" appeared in the headline.)
In the piece Silverstein makes the point that the coverage is influenced by the reporters. And it is. But, let me point out, C.I. does not care for Dennis Kucinich. That dates back to at least 2004. And did anyone ever know that? I didn't. And I read everything that goes up at The Common Ills. I assumed, honestly, that C.I. didn't endorse Kucinich (when everyone was doing it at Kat's site [Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)]) because of the no-endorse policy. I assumed that C.I. was ga-ga over Kucinich and felt really bad about it because my mother (Trina's Kitchen) was and my girlfriend endorses him and if even C.I. loves him, what am I missing?
So when Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) brought it up in "Roundtable," I was floored. So my point there is you can hate someone and still be fair. Until Kucinich exposed himself as a fake by making a deal to 'give' Obama his supporters, Kucinich got noted constantly at The Common Ills and C.I. doesn't even like Kucinich. I bet if the media had done their job of presenting even some reality about Bambi, C.I. wouldn't have even written a word. But they didn't. They played favorites. And it really does come down to truth, are you going to tell it or not?
Do you have a standard you apply fairly or do you create one standard for one candidate and no standards for another?
We've seen that the Koo Koo Krowd (which includes Robert Parry these days), doesn't give a damn about standards. They'll have them for Hillary and they'll put them in a safe for Obama. They'll work so hard to ignore what he does that they're just LIARS.
And you really should be asking yourself why they're willing to lie for him?
As far as I'm concerned, it'll take Robert Parry some time to put what he's done behind him. He is now up there with Judith Miller when it comes to pushing lies. And I thought of him as a real journalist so it's all the more shocking when he does it. He's not the only one doing it.
I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for.
But I know I'm not going to vote for 'independent' media which isn't independent.
I think we've seen just about enough crap from independent media. I get now why Elaine refuses to give it money (she'll give to public radio -- that includes NPR). They really are just little liars with very few exceptions. They lie and lie and lie, over and over. And they never give a damn about it. Then they turn around and ask you to give them money.
Why would you give money to a liar so they can keep lying?
Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) is probably supporting Hillary Clinton. (He talked about it in "Roundtable on the media.") I don't know who I'm supporting yet. But Cedric and I have talked and talked about the Dem candidates. I know he was really searching for who to support (he knows I still am) and it wasn't a decision he made in one day, one week or one month. I wouldn't be surprised, with Kucinich revealing himself to be a fake, if Betty (Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man) didn't go back to supporting Hillary. And I know she follows reality -- as opposed to the LIES of independent media.
So I know a lot of people are doing more than taking in the non-stop hogwash being fed on Obama. We should all be sick of it and sick of independent media. They've disgraced themselves.
That's the real lesson in the last few years: Media LIES. All media. Whether they claim to tell the truth or not, they LIE.
Here's truth: Independent media on the left is just Democratic media.
They pretend otherwise. But that's really what it came down to.
When Robert Parry's joined the spin patrol, stick a fork in the ass of indymedia because it's over.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, January 8, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Thom Shanker flies his right-wing flag (and betrays his allegedly 'objective' profession), sexism is the last refuge to which the barely still Middle Aged Man clings, and more.
Starting with war resistance. In Canada the focus is on getting the Canadian Parliament to act when the judicial branch has thus far failed. 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.
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, Carla 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.
Don't you hate it when the right-wing puts out the false talking point that the US press and the US military are at odds? Does it go down any easier for you when it comes from the mainstream? Monday, Thom Shanker (New York Times) slimed journalists (his peers -- at least before he wrote the piece) with one lie after another such as this one: "At the start of the Iraq war, decades of open hostilities between the military and news media dating from Vietnam were forgotten". Decades, Shanker says in his best Ann Coulter. Decades? When has the press and the military not been in bed? When April Oliver was kicked off CNN (she would later be vindicated in a court of law) where did the pressure come from? The military. Now a truly "hostile" media wouldn't have given a damn. They would have noted Oliver's reporting stood up and that would be the end of that, no matter how many times Collie Powell came calling. But that's not what happened because -- and there are many more examples -- when the US military brass wants something, the US mainstream press puts on the red light and gets the money up front. Shanks the Clown may not bring in a lot of money, but he works the corner come rain or shine. Shanks tells readers that the US military is pleased as punch these days with the coverage. And why wouldn't they be? Flashing back to November when Project for Excellence in Journalism's report (PDF format here, our summary here) survey was released -- a survey of 111 US journalists (mainstream media) who have covered Iraq and found that 62 percent of respondents stated their "editors back home" had lost interest in reports of day-to-day violence. And the 'coverage' reflects that message sent down the chain. Which may be why Shank's reach-around-pals in the brass are so tickled these days. (Or maybe Shanks just has a light touch.) Shanks fails his now-former peers by refusing to ever note the point of journalism. Or maybe he just never learned it? Reporters are not public relations flacks. They are supposed to root around and unearth the truth. Reporters are not supposed to make the powerful comfortable. Shanks (maybe it's that light touch) seems bound and determined to make them comfortable and, in doing so, feeds right-wing lies from the news pages of the New York Times. He really worked for those five dollars.
Staying with the Times, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Mudhafer al-Husaini notice that the US collabortors ("Awakening" Council) are being targeted now. Now? Now they're being targeted? As noted in the June 25th snapshot, Baghdad's al-Mansour Melia was bombed and the targets were? The Sunni tribal leaders who were "Awakening" and collaborating. CNN reports that 8 of the 'Awakening' Council were kidnapped in Baghdad in an attack today that also led to 14 other people being killed: "The Shiite Awakening Council members were kidnapped Monday night in the northeastern Shiite neighborhood of Shaab, one of Baghdad's most dangerous areas and a center for outlawed Shiite Muslim fighters, the official said. Gunmen in at least three vehicles surrounded a checkpoint controlled by the Shiite Awakening Council in Shaab and seized their victims, said the official."
In other reality based news today, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) notes the p.r. push on the Iraqi army and reminds that "relying on Iraqi security forces has proved risky. In February, when Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. handed off command of U.S. troops in Iraq to Gen. David H. Petraeus, he predicted that Iraqi forces would be in charge of security nationwide by fall." Didn't happen, now did it? But they presumably run the checkpoints where a kidnapping took place today.
Turning to some of the reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the targeting of officials goes on in Baghdad where an bombing killed Dr. Falah Mansour Hussein ("head of Yarmouk council"), while a bomber in a vest killed his or herself and 1 police officer (with three more people wounded), a Medain district mortar attack wounded two people and a Diyala Province bombing clained the life of 1 woman. Reuters notes a Tikrit bombing that left three police officers injured and a Shura roadside bombing that claimed 1 life.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the targeting of officials goes on in Baghdad where Mohammad Aziz Al-Gatia was gunned down ("an officer of the minitary of interior") while "the deputy of Masnour taxes department" was also gunned down. Reuters notes an attorney was shot dead by police officers in Kut -- apparently by mistake.
Kidnappings?
In addition to CNN's report on the 8 members of the alleged 'Awakening' Council being kidnapped in Baghdad today, Reuters notes, "A police officer and his driver were kidnapped in their car at a checkpoint while travelling from Baghdad to Baquba in Diyala province, police said."
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpses were discovered in Mosul.
Turning to US politics. In his latest column, Robert Parry (Consortium News) makes it clear where he stands on the Clintons: "The Clintons rarely stood up for decent individuals who suffered for doing the right thing in Washington, usually those people got sold out as the Clintons sought out unprincipled characters on the other side who could be put to short-term use." Really? Seems at odds with key points of Parry's Secrecy & Privilege, doesn't it? If you've read it, you're aware of Spencer Oliver's complaint wasn't that the Clinton's "sought out unprincipled characters," it was that they "didn't even staff key offices with loyalists" and Parry quotes Oliver here, "They left a lot of people in place in the government who were hardcore Republican operatives. Their loyalties were not to Clinton at all. . . . The whole first three years of the Clinton administration, everything they did wrong was leaked, every, every peccadillo, every mistake, whether it was the White House Travel Office, Hillary's (health care) task force, whatever it was. They never really took control of the government." I believe that's page 266 (from memory, so anyone needing a citation check it out first). Having written repeatedly of Bill Clinton (and somewhat of Hillary) for years, Parry's only chosen to recently come out as a Clinton-hater. "The Clintons rarely stood up for decent individuals who suffered for doing the right thing in Washington, usually those people got sold out as the Clintons sought out unprincipled characters on the other side who could be put to short-term use."
Geez, how long has been holding that in? Was he in danger of exploding? You have to love that stylistic touch, "decent individuals" -- implying they would have stood up for the indecent? For those trying to figure out when Parry became a Clinton hater it appears to have been when a woman decided to run for president.
Bill and Hillary are not as evil as some have made them out to be nor was the Clinton era as wonderful as some on the Democratic side (I wouldn't call it the left) have repeatedly maintained year after year this decade. Some of their problems were their own. Some of their problems were the result of the right-wing noise machine. It's not that Hillary is a saint that's the problem with some of these revisionary pieces showing up lately, it's that the things they're hammering her to the cross for are the same things evident in Barack Obama.
Parry leaves the world of reporting with the column and that may be most noticeable with this sentence about Bambi, "Indeed, he may be the only Democrat in the race who can transcend the expected dirty politics of the Right and achieve a victory that can trasnform American politics for the better." Before we go into that, the tired online, latter-day Dylan rushes that same nonsense out -- surprising considering all the threatening e-mails his putrid friend has bothered me with for over a year now as he maintained that Hillary Clinton would have the nomination despite people like me.
People like me? This community has called her out for Iraq. That is our focus here. But unlike the groupies, we've called Bambi out too. As Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) has noted of the two candidates, they are siamese twins. Hillary's crime for some is being a triangulator. What does that mean? She 'reaches across the aisle,' the same thing Bambi does. Bambi backed Joe Lieberman as an independent candidate against Ned Lamont. Backed him publicly with words and backed him with money from his slush fund a.k.a. political pac. Bambi takes pride in decrying "Tom Hayden Democrats" and rushes to the right as if he's in search of a veneral disease.
Parry, like too many of the Middle Aged Men providing cover for Bambi, likes to cite the youth. Bambi inspires the youth. Not all. Just the stupid. Just the ones dumb enough to believe the hype they've been fed. As Russell Mokhiber (writing at CounterPunch) points out, "While idealistic young people are swooning over Obama's message of hope, faith and change -- no one inside the beltway has any doubts about the corporate connections. The Hill reported earlier this year that three of Obama's top fundraisers were registered as lobbyists in 2006." Last week, Robert Parry appeared on Democracy Now! and Willie Safire never did such a hit job (he tried, he really tried, but Parry has intelligence and Willie doesn't). Parry made many claims:
*"One of the concerns, for instance, about Senator Hillary Clinton has been her ties to the Washington establishment, whether she is too much of a calculating politician."
This is a talking point for the Bambi campaign and, intentionally or not, Parry showed up to advance it. It was carried over to the Iowa night photos of the two speaking onstage. As Ava and I pointed out (though Parry plays dumb):
If you're one of the (lucky) few who missed the photos 'commentary' that was everywhere Friday morning, Hillary was pictured with Bill, Mad Maddie Albright and Wesley Clark among others. Barack Obama offered a White Bennington ad (though no one commented on the Whiteness of it all). Dr. Kathy saw symbolism in the photos, saw portents, saw . . . a load of crap. Here's the reality Dr. Kathy and others wouldn't tell you, Hillary's photo was your basic speech photo with the candidate surrounded by their team. Bambi's people, Technicolor by Deluxe wizards that they are, saw a chance to use the speech to send a false message. Now the reality is that Bambi's backed by Sammy Power, Sarah Sewer, Anthony Lake, Dennis Ross and Zbigniew Brzezinski among others. So a lot of garbage about how the photos say this or that ("Change!" "Break with tradition!" on Bambi's part) needs to note the reality of what's not said in the photos.
Parry was working all the Bambi talking points (intentionally or not) and went on to declare, "And one of the surprising issues that emerged early in the debates was her support of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which was a resolution to declare the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. And she was seen as sort of playing to, again, this sense that she would be part of that Washington establishment of how these kinds of issues are approached. She seems to be playing into the hands, again, of the neoconservatives."
He went on to call Hillary out for statements Bill had made -- even Amy Goodman felt the need to note that ("Now, of course, this is not a comment about what his wife, the New York senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, would do if she were president.") But his talking points were pure Bambi campaign: "It again brings back issues of judgment by Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Biden, who supported the Iraq operation, and again, in this case, Senator Obama, who opposed the Iraq war, although not inside the Senate at the time, is able to point out that he did not make those kinds of judgments."
No, Bambi wasn't in the Senate. In 2002, he called the illegal war "dumb." And after? He gets a lot of mileage from that one lame speech (a legal expert calls the Iraq War "illegal," not "dumb") but what happened after? Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) points out that when Bully Boy was riding high in the polls with the May 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech, Obama's Senate campaign website disappeared the speech: "After calls to Obama's campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling Barack Obama out. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that the U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his web site and public statements. We noted with consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic Party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its '100 to Watch' that season. This is what real journalists are suppoed to do -- fact check candidates, investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and corporations to the fire." Dixon is correct, that is what real journalists are supposed to do -- but Bambi mania has revealed the US has damn few real journalists.
Bambi himself would tell the New York Times in 2004 and The New Yorker in 2006 that, if he had been in the Senate in 2002, he didn't know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution. But what does it matter, his groupies know how he would have voted. Based on his Senate record? Oh, that is funny. While Parry clobbered Hillary for voting on the Iran resolution, he failed to note that Bambi, then in the Senate, chose to skip that vote. While Parry trashes Hillary as someone who sells out and Bambi's "True Blue" ("Baby, Parry loves you"), Hillary Clinton voted against the Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn.org for the Betray Us ad. Bambi? Bambi skipped that vote too. On votes that mattered, in fact, Bambi either skipped out or he voted in an embarrassing manner. Such as his repeated votes to fund the illegal war. Real journalists would know Bambi's record. Real journalists would share Bambi's record. There aren't a lot of real journalists left. We do see a huge number of Bambi groupies. And they will lie freely. (One wonders if the "blotted" Colin Powell endorsing Bambi will lead to a Parry column noting -- yet again -- the crimes of Powell or whether that too can be spun feel-good?)
I don't care whether someone votes for Obama, Clinton, John Edwards, Green Party candidates or whomever. People are responsible for their own votes (or for not voting). What I do care is about the truth and it's been really interesting to find out how few do care about the truth.
Parry waits until the second paragraph of his column to get to the 'tears' -- I guess that's 'progressive' of him. Hillary Clinton was asked a question and, during the response, her eyes misted over. She did not tear up -- if she had, a tear would have ran. You can't start to cry and then stop the tears. You can end the crying immediately and be left with a tear or two but if you are 'tearing up,' you have a tear and it will fall. That's basic. Kat addressed the nonsense of the media yesterday (and we'll get back to a point Kat made in a minute). Katha Pollitt (And Another Thing, The Nation) continues her hot and sensible streak of late, observing, "John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not 'crying' as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of 'oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power." Katha misses something (or, maybe like the rest of us, she's had it with the sexim repeatedly on display and can only tackle so much). Yesterday, a man (you knew it was a man, right) showed up at one of Hillary's speeches holding a sign that read a 'slogan' he also 'helpfully' chanted, "Iron this shirt!" Kat (rightly) wondered which Little Boys of the Left would call that out? Answer? Not Parry. He can note the 'tear,' he just can't note the sexism -- maybe noting them would be exposing all the sexism involved. Air Berman (at The Nation, no link, you'll see why in a minute) does note it . . . in paragraph five of a six paragraph post. But credit to Berman for noting it, it puts him far ahead of the other Little Boys of the Left. Ruith Conniff (The Progressive) also shows some real strength today declaring, "Let's call the focus on Hillary's brief teary-eyed moment what it is: pure sexism."
(Caution Little Boys of the Left, Conniff also notes, "But on policy matters and fundraising, Barack and Hillary are actually not that far apart." Just warning you, before your viagra-ehanced boners shrink, we all know how you need those fantasies, trained as you were by the Playboy centerfolds.) So Ari Berman buries an ugly attack on Hillary in paragraph five and who else bothers to note it? Hey fellows, what's going on? What smear would the sign have had to offer on Obama to get you pounding furiously away at the keyboards?
Gloria Steinem (writing in the New York Times) sums up what's going on:
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
Here's why it matters in terms of Iraq: the 'boys' are giving Bambi a pass while beating Hillary over the head with Iraq. Bambi's not a damn bit different on Iraq. (He may be worse considering that he's got Sewer, et al backing him up.) And voters have a right to know that. Citizens have a right to know that. And journalists have an obligation to report that. Again, not a lot of journalism on display from the Little Boys of the Left. Sexism? It's overflowing. Bully Boy got a pass from the MSM and the right-wing. And Bully Boy provided us with the long planned Iraq War. If elected, what's Barack going to provide people with and how betrayed are they going to feel by independent media or alleged independent media?
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
amy goodmandemocracy now
gloria steinem
the new york times
katha pollitt
robert parry
ruth conniff
thom shanker
kats korner
tina susman
the los angeles times
richard a. oppel jr.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Third & Bambi
Bah-da-bah-da-da-dah. :D Monday, Monday. Hope everyone had a great weekend. If you didn't catch it, Cedric's "They were stars" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! WHEN THE CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES VANISH!" -- the joint-post that went up Saturday. We missed this when picking highlights yesterday so you'll probably see it noted tonight. Saturday posts are the worst. Not in writing. But for most of us, Saturday's an off day. So when things go up then, we tend to miss them because we're already doing our day. Apologies to Wally and Cedric who did a great job with this comedy post about life in Iowa when the national press leaves.
If the Obama groupies haven't yet scared you, note this groupie on Democracy Now! today:
AMY GOODMAN: What most appeals to you about him? Are there positions he has taken that you deeply care about?
MELODY CHAN: Yeah. For example, I mean, I would say that my values and my ideas just align so closely with what he has to say, and I particularly like, you know, his approach, I'd say, to foreign policy, which is, you know, one of talking to everyone at the table and not just--you know, it's a very different approach probably than the one we’ve seen in the last four, eight years.
Hey! I'm like an airhead and like an idiot and I like love Obama! I'm like politically correct Drunk Girl from Saturday Night Live! Yea! He like talks and stuff. Like talking it like way important to like me. Yea!
What a dumb ass. Really, stop it, you embarass all of us who are thinking students.
It's not just the young groupies, it's the professional ones too. Take Gilligan who pens "An Obama Victory Would Symbolise a Great Deal and Change Very Little" (no link to trash) and the title makes you think Gilligan's going to be balanced. He wasn't. He's whoring himself out for Obama. Hope he made a few bucks for the campaign.
Gilligan writes for the Guardian AND The Nation. So let's check out what Obama's girlfriends at The Nation have to moan today. The Two Aris massage one another's prostate and ooh and aaah as they dream of fondling Bambi. Meanwhile The Dick Jon Wiener reveals his woman problem by contributing "Hillary's Man Problem." Three girlfriends hoping in search of a fourth to round out their Sex in the City tipsy-tipsy act. They'd go with Katrina vanden Heuvel, but she's too manly for the girls. Maybe they can invite The Pooper to their party? Meanwhile, let's not pretend The Three Sexist Pigs aren't huffing and puffing to blow Hillary's house down because she's a woman.
When I get time, I'll probably start thinning my permalinks. No offense to Rebecca, but Robert Parry will be among the ones ditched. I don't care for people who say, "She shouldn't have had orange juice!" while Bambi's got his own sippy cup out. I have no idea what Parry's problem with Hillary is but the fact that he's taken in by Bambi means he's not as smart as I thought he was. The fact that he has a double standard (calling Hillary out for her vote on the Iran resolution last year while praising Bambi who skipped the vote) means he's not someone on my go-to list now.
Let's talk The Third Estate Sunday Review where we keep it real:
Truest statement of the week -- This is Hillary Clinton. I was surprised as well. I'd missed the debate (Dad tivoed). Ava and C.I. watched it because they were including it in their TV commentary. Ava mentioned Hillary's statement -- not as a truest -- and Jim, Cedric, Ty and I all go, "That's it!"
Truest statement of the week II -- Kat got the other one. :D That's funny. If you know how Kat's phrase ended up in a candidate's campaign, you get why it's funny. If you don't, too bad.
A Note to Our Readers -- Jim breaks down the edition. And notes that Wally & Cedric's posts got posted as a special Iowa bonus. This edition really was about Iowa because so few will call it out and want to act like it's normal and acceptable that Iowa gets to use their puny pool of voters from their puny, overly-White (93% White) voters to determine who is the 'winner' for the nation.
Editorial: 2008 already doesn't look good -- I like this one. Dona suggested it. We had no idea what we were going to cover in the editorial. Jim wanted Iowa in it somehow due to the theme but no one wanted another word about Iowa. So Dona figured out how to make it a grab bag. It's really good.
TV: The Dead and Missing Persons -- Ava and C.I. are amazing. Damn, they're amazing. Ava told me it was "exhuasting" to write this. And I started thinking about that and how she and C.I. are speaking every week about the illegal war and all the stuff they both do. I can't wait until the writers' strike is over so they can go back to covering entertainment TV and not have to work so hard. Jim said, "They are the strongest, there's really no arguing it." And that's really true. That's within the community and outside. This is amazing.
Roundtable -- 2 things stand out most here. C.I. doesn't like Kucinich. I had no idea. That's cool with me. I didn't know if C.I. was for Kucinich or not but assumed C.I. liked Kucinich. Rebecca reveals the truth in this. And it's fine because Kucinich's campaign is over (he just doesn't seem to get that it is). But while it was still alive, think about how many times C.I. never said a word and kept noting Kucinich. The media is supposed to be objective. C.I. actually was.
2nd thing is this is already being called the "sex roundtable." Jim's working the e-mails for Third this week (working solo) and he says it's the "sex roundtable" in e-mail after e-mail (read C.I.'s comments, Kat's comments and Rebecca's because they are the most noted in e-mails according to Jim). But Jim did say that people are saying, "I never knew that about __" some war resister. So it served the purpose.
Roundtable on the media -- This focuses on the non-stop free pass that Obama always gets from the media. I love this roundtable. We weren't planning on two. But they're really strong, both roundtables, and different enough.
Wack job of the week -- I love this feature. And it was Elaine's idea.
2007 Archives -- This provides the archives for 2007, week by week, so that you can find them easily.
Theft of the week -- Koo Koo needed a topic so she borrowed it from Deliah Boyd.
When the circus leaves town -- This is a repost of Wally & Cedric's take on Iowa after the national press leaves. It is hilarious. C.I. thought it had been noted somewhere and realized it hadn't. So it was done Sunday night. It fits with the Iowa theme too.
Highlights -- Kat, Elaine, Betty, Rebecca, Wally, Cedric and I wrote this. We missed Wally and Cedric's Saturday post. Otherwise, I think we did a pretty good job.
Dallas helped and here's who else worked on the edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz
,and Wally of The Daily Jot
Okay, here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, January 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths over the weekend and also 'clarifies' deaths in December, Democratic presidential candidates rediscover the illegal war, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Urar reposts the Freedom Socialist Party's 2008 outline and summary which notes, But, as we enter the eighth year of the new millennium, opportunities exist to fight back and to make real change! To borrow from the Asian Zodiac, the coming Year of the Rat will be a time of hard work and constant activity." FSP applies that to the ability to "build on our victories in 2007 some of them tangible, some of them gains in consciousness" and notes, "Lt. Ehren Watada is a bright voice among GI resisters and their families who are telling the military that it's immoral and illegal to fight in Iraq." This time last year, Lance Holter's essay on Watada was published at Peace Corps Online:
I learned about the courage of conviction last week when I meat (as a guest during a family dinner in Honolulu) with a courageous young American patriot. A leader who lives by example. An individual, who out of a decision of moral conscience, refuses to participate in a war that he believes (after much personal research) violates the U.S. Constitution, Geneva accords, Nuremberg principals, and the United Nations Charter.
First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, a 28 year old U.S. Army artillery officer from Hawaii, has become the first active duty military officer publicly to oppose the war in Iraq. As a result of his act of conscience and challenging what we now know about the war in Iraq, Lt. Watada is facing military court martial at Ft. Lewis Washington this February 5, 2007.
[. . .]
Lt. Watada shared the following with me at our dinner, "I'm trying to send out to the American people of this country a message that the responsibility of ending this illegal and immoral war lies with the people of this country and holding their leader accountable because if they don't do anything nothing is going to happen."
Bringing it up to date since then, Monday, February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began. It continued on Tuesday when the prosecution argued their case. Wednesday the seventh, Watada was to take the stand in his semi-defense.Over defense objection, Judge Toilet ruled a mistrial thus ending the court-martial. As legal experts such as National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn immediately pointed out, Judge Toilet's ruling over defense objection meant that the Constitutional provision against double-jeopardy should prevent another court-martial. Last year, November 8th Judge Benjamin Settle, a US District Court judge, put Head's planned court-martial on hold where it currently remains. Watada's service contract ended in December 2006. He continues to report for assignments on base. The military should have released him long ago. He has now been extended over a year just to court-martial him. Only in a demented mind does the continued extension make sense.
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, Carla 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.
We'll come back to IVAW later in the snapshot. Over the weekend, Iraq sometimes made the news. On Saturday, the New York Times managed to 'cover' the ongoing illegal war by ignoring it. The same morning, CNN reported:, "Two U.S. soldiers who died last month in Iraq were apparently shot to death by an Iraqi soldier during a combined U.S. and Iraqi Army operation, the U.S. military said." The two killed were Rowdy Inman and Benjamin Portell and we'll come back to Inman in a moment. Sunday, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) covered the topic quoting that the US military's December statement that "small arms fire during dismounted combat operations" despite the fact that the suspect "tried to flee, but he was apprehended after being identified by other Iraqi soldiers" which tells you that even when the release was put out on the December 26th deaths, it was known what had happened. On Saturday, the US military released another statement -- repeating ON SATURDAY -- and it noted, "Two US Soldiers killed during a combined Iraqi Army and CF operation in Ninewah province on Dec. 26, were allegedly shot by an Iraqi Soldier. For reasons that are as yet unknown, at least one Iraqi Army Soldier allegedly opened fire killing Capt. Rowdy Inman and Sgt. Benjamin Portell, both of whom were assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment." That statement was released on Saturday.
Why stress Saturday repeatedly? Though the Times didn't tell you, Friday was rather significant: the memorial for Rowdy Inman. Amanda Kim Stairrett (Killeen Daily Herald) reports on the service at the Harper-Talasek Funeral Home in Killen, Texas attended by his widow Shannon and their children Casey, Gary and Keeley, his parents Ann Denny and Tony Inman "and numerous friends and relatives . . . who filled the standing-room-only funeral home." It was 'nice' of the military brass to play clean up the day after the memorial service -- on an incident they knew about from the start. Oh, they knew, the family knew. Really? Based on what? Louis Median (The Bakersfield California) reports, "The friends and family of Sgt. Benjamin B. Portell learned the shocking details of the decorated soldier's death only hours after his moving funeral. His family received word late Friday night about an Iraqi soldier's betrayal of Portell's patrol, according to the Rev. Brian Murphy, executive pastor of RiverLakes Community Church where Portell worshipped." His widow Michelle, his parents Susan and Matt Portell found out after Friday's funeral service. After.
On December 26th, the US military knew how Inman and Portell had died. Parents, surviving spouses and other loved ones have been repeatedly lied to by the US military and every time supposedly it won't happen again. It keeps happening. The realities they learned after the services should have been passed on to them before. This is really basic, on the 26th both men are shot dead. The US military has a suspect in custody. At the earliest, the families learn what happened on the evening or night of Friday, January 4th, after the services for both men have taken place.
Over the weekend, at least 18 corpses were discovered in Baghdad alone. The US military announced in a Saturday military press release: "A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died from injuries sustained from an improvised explosive device detonation near his vehicle while conducting operations in Diyala Province, Jan. 5." On Sunday [PDF format warning], they announced, "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed and three others wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations in southern Baghdad on Jan. 6." Among the non-stop violence reported was the Sunday Baghdad assassination of Sheik Ismael Abass who wanted to start an 'Awakening' Council and Solomon Moore and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) reported today on the Sunday Baquba assassination of Sheik Dhari Mandeel -- 'Awakening' Council leader in the region (the attack also resulted in his wife's death and the kidnapping of 10 people). Also on Sunday, Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported a Baghdad bombing in which a bomber killed his or herself outside the Iraqi Unity Association and also killed 3 Iraqi soldiers and 1 civilian. That one bombing (there were many others) received more attention from the media than any of the other many incidents of violence taking place over the weekend. And Hussein Kadhim reported many other incidents of violence. Very few others can make that claim. They can claim, unlike Kadhim, to have echoed and rewritten the US military press release (including the stressing of 'heorics'). Providing some common sense, Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) pointed out that various figures have been given for the death toll of Iraqis from the Baghdad bombing Sunday (as little as three people, as many as nine) and he also noted Sunday's bombings of Christian structures in Mosul: "Two churches, a convent and an orphanage were damaged, the officials said, but no one was injured, in large part because so many Christians have fled the city after repeated threats against them since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion." Jamie Gumbrecht and Hussein Khadim (McClatchy Newspapers) inform that "five people from one family were injured" in the Mosul bombings.
On Saturday, Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) noted life for US civilians working in the Green Zone and observed, "Inside the Green Zone, fear replaced enthusiasm as mortar shells rained from the sky during 2006 and 2007, and many hours were spent inside concrete bunkers. Over the past several months, the attacks have largely stopped, except for a burst of two dozen shells on Thanksgiving, but the walls grew higher and civilian trips outside the wire became infrequent." Well get in there money grubbers! DeYoung notes that the money grubbers opened "no fewer than six bars, a disco, a cafe, two Chinese restaurants and an outdoor shopping arcade." All 'necessary' projects -- life changing ones -- to be sure. On Saturday, puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki returned to Iraq from England. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers (Inside Iraq) noted of the return, "but the strange thing is to have blocked streets having some people raising the prime minister's pictures in hands and shouting for his long live welcoming his coming back home to show off the people's love of their beloved prime minister while the real Iraqi people were in some other blocked streets which are blocked for security reasons as they heard or to have celebrated people of the coming of their prime minister. The people in the blocked streets were upset to make them stuck without reaching their destination for no reasonable purpose, but for showing off a celebration or having the prime minister in Iraq. This thing reminds us of the former regime during Saddam's reign when that regime used to have demonstrations and celebrations of such kinds forcing people to be in streets to make the world see them trying to convince them that the government is from the people and for them. I think the Iraqi people are smart enough to know who made this small demonstration and for what reason. Also the Iraqi people fed up with celebrations and speeches having one thing to be achieved which is Iraq for Iraqis no more." Solomon Moore and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) noted that "exhaustion" is the official explanation for al-Maliki's sudden departure from Baghdad weeks ago and, presumably, the puppet got himself some rest.
On Sunday, news broke of another arrest for a US military member who self-checked out. Amie McLain (NBC2) reported on the Friday arrest of Yesenia Marengo-Angelino who was the second army soldier to be arrested in the Southwest Florida region in two months (Matthew Fewox preceded her). As McLain observed, "According to the Army, soldiers are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980." (Text and video at the link.) No word is reported on how either was arrested -- traffic stop, military 'tip,' what?
Violence continued today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that wounded one person when the bomb went off in "his car" with another person wounded the same way in a Baghdad bombing outside the Saj al Reef restaurant and another similar bombing in Baghdad that claimed 1 life and left three more wounded; a Baghdad bombing outside the Technology University claimed 3 lives and left sixteen people wounded; two Baghdad bombings that left one person wounded; a Baghdad bombing that left three people wounded; a Baquba mortar attack that wounded one police officer "and a member of Sahwa"; and a person exploded themselves and took the lives of 14 others (eighteen more were wounded) "near the information department inside the Sunni endowment" in Baghdad -- among the dead was "the leader of the Sahwa council Reyadh Al Samarra'i". Sabah al-Bazee (Reuters) reports a fire "at Iraq's largest" oil "refinery on Monday" in Baiji and "[a] Reuters cameraman at the complex said he saw at least one dead body" while local police say they are aware of three deaths and an engineer tells Reuters at least four people are dead.
Kidnappings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "at least eigh members of Sahwa council" were kidnapped in Baghdad while 8 people kidnapped in Kut over a month ago were released.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one person shot dead in Buhorz village today (and "a husband and his wife and an Iraqi army soldier" shot dead last night outside of Kirkuk). Reuters notes "a member of a neighbourhood patrol" shot dead in his carpentry shop in Samarra, a couple and their child were all shot dead outside Hawija and "a neighbourhood patrol volunteer" was shot dead in Latifiya.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 7 corpses discovered in Baghdad, five in Qara Kitta. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Mosul.
Turning to war crimes, Frida Berrigan (In These Times) reviews some of the best known War Crimes of the Iraq War and notes that a few rank and file have been convicted (many haven't even been charged, as Berrigan points out) but no one high in rank has suffered serious punishment. Berringan points out that the Center for Constitutional Rights is pursuing war crimes on the part "of high-ranking U.S. officials" and that, "In March 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will convene new Winter Soldier hearings, modeled on the February 1971 meetings in a Detroit Howard Johnson's. In the shadow of the My Lai massacre revelations, the hearings provided a platform to more than 125 Vietnam veterans to describe the atrocities they participated in and witnessed. This effort could once again give the United States a chance to listen to soldiers and Marines as they break the silence, hold themselves and each other accountable and demand the same from the architects of the war."
IVAW also attempted to be in New Hampshire for the debates over the weekend. Carol Coakley (Gather) explains, "A contingent of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), and Mass. Peace Action activists from the Boston area went by bus and car to Manchester to drive home the peace message to the candidates. An Edwards/peace supporting friend and my Kucinich/peace-supporting self drove up to join them. After stopping by downtown Manchester and an Edwards rally on Elm St. and waving at the Kucinich bus that drove by, we headed up to St. Anselms College. Approaching the College was a little like driving into Vegas at night. The campus was buzzing with lights, people, and the media. As you drove up the hill towards the 400 acre campus signs directed you to parking for ticket-bearing-audience members, the press, and demonstrators. The American Friends Service Committee, and various campaign supporters lined the snowy sidewalks and embankments. Unbenounced to demonstrators with banners or signs over a certain size, they were not allowed on campus, so many AFSC and IVAW members stayed on the public road near the entrance." The debates? Glenn Thrush (Newsday) observes Iraq is back in the race for the White House following the debates with Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama being the main ones. Thrush notes Bambi hid behind his campaign as usual while Hillary made her own comments publicly (not whispered to reporters), "You [Obama] gave a speech, and a very good speech, against the war in Iraq and . . . then you voted to [fund the war] you were against."
On the Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Katha Pollitt (And Another Thing, The Nation) probably sums it up better than any noting of the Democratic candidates, "But what really got them excited were the vague competing mantras of 'change' and 'experience.' Obama says he stands for change. Edwards, siding with Obama against Clinton for some strategic reason too subtle for me to understand, says he stands for change too. Hillary Clinton, who casts herself as the candidate of experience but actually uttered the word 'change' more often than the other candidates." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, "One of the most heated moments of the debate came when Senator John Edwards teamed up with Senator Barack Obama and accused Senator Hillary Clinton of representing the status quo." Ava and I (The Third Estate Sunday Review) found it interesting to see who, with Dennis Kucinich excluded, would go for the role of clown -- answer: Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. Obama bombed but "Richardson provided one laugh-getter after another including, 'Well, I've been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this.' Possibly too much time has been spent with the lie that you learn everything you need to know in kindergarten? Certainly high school teaches its own lessons such as this one: The class clown rarely becomes the class president." Pollitt offers, "Hillary Clinton was fiery and funny and bore no resemblance to the candidate relentless attacked in the media as rigid, incompetent, Machiavellian and screccy. You can understand her obvious frustration with the ongoing lovefest for Obama: At one point she even compared his 'likeability' to that of George W. Bush. In real life, Obama has made the same sort of compromises she herself has made. As she pointed out, he said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it. He cast himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did." On the never ending lovefest for Bambi, Ralph Nader (at Common Dreams) examines the love-fest through the use of fiction [Nader has endorsed John Edwards for the Democratic primary] and demonstrates the hollow center of the Easter candy allowing "Obama" to snap at one point to a citizen calling for accountability, "You don't understand (testily), impeachment talk is just more of the same old Washington politics. I stand for change. No need to point fingers. We are one people." Meanwhile Missy Comley Beattie (at CounterPunch) attempts to make sense of the nonsense and notes Sy Hersh's laughable claim that the US' "only hope" for "a reconcislaition between the Muslim countries and the US" is Obama; concludes Comley Beattie, "It matters little to me that Barack Obama says he was against invading Iraq. After all, he votes to continue funding it. If this presidential candidate wanted to mend relations with Muslims, he could start by voting against additional war funding. And he could say no to AIPCAC -- but this would be political suicide." Of the GOP candidates, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained today, "In other campaign news, Republican Senator John McCain admitted he would be fine if the United States military stayed in Iraq for a hundred years. McCain said 'We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. . . As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me'." Vote Insane! Vote John McCain! In other news, Goodman noted that speculation continues that NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg will declare he is running for president as an independent candidate. Friday, PBS' Bill Moyers Journal offered interviews with a GOP candidate for president and a Democratic one: Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. On the latter, as Ava and I noted, it's over and citing his 2004 endorsement of John Edwards in Iowa (as he did to Moyers) should only remind people that not only did he ignore the candidate most like him in 2008 (which would be Edwards) but in 2004 he ignored Howard Dean. It's a pattern. Also on PBS (beginning Friday), NOW with David Branccacio examined voter ID laws and mudslinging. If you missed either broadcast, both Moyers and Branccacio stream video online, in addition Branccacio offers text excerpts while Moyers offers full transcripts and an audio only option (like Democracy Now!, Bill Moyers Journal is watch, listen or read). Today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman offered the voices of three students working to get their candidates (Kucinich, Obama and Clinton) elected. Lastly on US politics, next Sunday, January 13th, in the Green Party presidential debate in San Francisco (moderated by Cindy Sheehan) with Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, Jard Bell and Ralph Nader to participate. The Green Party notes, "The first, and only, live debate between candidates on the Green Party's California ballot for President of the United States - featuring a former Democratic Party member of Congress, consumer protection icon, professor and environmental engineer - is scheduled here January 13, said John Morton of the Green Party Presidential Debate Committee." The debate starts at two p.m., Herbst Theater in the Veterans Memorial Building on 401 Van Ness Avenue.
the common ills
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
iraq
ehren watada
marjorie cohn
the national lawyers guild
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
amy goodmandemocracy now
bill moyersbill moyers journalpbs
now with david branccacio
missy comley beattie
katha pollitt
the new york times
solomon moore
the washington post
amit r. paley
karen deyoung
Newsday
If the Obama groupies haven't yet scared you, note this groupie on Democracy Now! today:
AMY GOODMAN: What most appeals to you about him? Are there positions he has taken that you deeply care about?
MELODY CHAN: Yeah. For example, I mean, I would say that my values and my ideas just align so closely with what he has to say, and I particularly like, you know, his approach, I'd say, to foreign policy, which is, you know, one of talking to everyone at the table and not just--you know, it's a very different approach probably than the one we’ve seen in the last four, eight years.
Hey! I'm like an airhead and like an idiot and I like love Obama! I'm like politically correct Drunk Girl from Saturday Night Live! Yea! He like talks and stuff. Like talking it like way important to like me. Yea!
What a dumb ass. Really, stop it, you embarass all of us who are thinking students.
It's not just the young groupies, it's the professional ones too. Take Gilligan who pens "An Obama Victory Would Symbolise a Great Deal and Change Very Little" (no link to trash) and the title makes you think Gilligan's going to be balanced. He wasn't. He's whoring himself out for Obama. Hope he made a few bucks for the campaign.
Gilligan writes for the Guardian AND The Nation. So let's check out what Obama's girlfriends at The Nation have to moan today. The Two Aris massage one another's prostate and ooh and aaah as they dream of fondling Bambi. Meanwhile The Dick Jon Wiener reveals his woman problem by contributing "Hillary's Man Problem." Three girlfriends hoping in search of a fourth to round out their Sex in the City tipsy-tipsy act. They'd go with Katrina vanden Heuvel, but she's too manly for the girls. Maybe they can invite The Pooper to their party? Meanwhile, let's not pretend The Three Sexist Pigs aren't huffing and puffing to blow Hillary's house down because she's a woman.
When I get time, I'll probably start thinning my permalinks. No offense to Rebecca, but Robert Parry will be among the ones ditched. I don't care for people who say, "She shouldn't have had orange juice!" while Bambi's got his own sippy cup out. I have no idea what Parry's problem with Hillary is but the fact that he's taken in by Bambi means he's not as smart as I thought he was. The fact that he has a double standard (calling Hillary out for her vote on the Iran resolution last year while praising Bambi who skipped the vote) means he's not someone on my go-to list now.
Let's talk The Third Estate Sunday Review where we keep it real:
Truest statement of the week -- This is Hillary Clinton. I was surprised as well. I'd missed the debate (Dad tivoed). Ava and C.I. watched it because they were including it in their TV commentary. Ava mentioned Hillary's statement -- not as a truest -- and Jim, Cedric, Ty and I all go, "That's it!"
Truest statement of the week II -- Kat got the other one. :D That's funny. If you know how Kat's phrase ended up in a candidate's campaign, you get why it's funny. If you don't, too bad.
A Note to Our Readers -- Jim breaks down the edition. And notes that Wally & Cedric's posts got posted as a special Iowa bonus. This edition really was about Iowa because so few will call it out and want to act like it's normal and acceptable that Iowa gets to use their puny pool of voters from their puny, overly-White (93% White) voters to determine who is the 'winner' for the nation.
Editorial: 2008 already doesn't look good -- I like this one. Dona suggested it. We had no idea what we were going to cover in the editorial. Jim wanted Iowa in it somehow due to the theme but no one wanted another word about Iowa. So Dona figured out how to make it a grab bag. It's really good.
TV: The Dead and Missing Persons -- Ava and C.I. are amazing. Damn, they're amazing. Ava told me it was "exhuasting" to write this. And I started thinking about that and how she and C.I. are speaking every week about the illegal war and all the stuff they both do. I can't wait until the writers' strike is over so they can go back to covering entertainment TV and not have to work so hard. Jim said, "They are the strongest, there's really no arguing it." And that's really true. That's within the community and outside. This is amazing.
Roundtable -- 2 things stand out most here. C.I. doesn't like Kucinich. I had no idea. That's cool with me. I didn't know if C.I. was for Kucinich or not but assumed C.I. liked Kucinich. Rebecca reveals the truth in this. And it's fine because Kucinich's campaign is over (he just doesn't seem to get that it is). But while it was still alive, think about how many times C.I. never said a word and kept noting Kucinich. The media is supposed to be objective. C.I. actually was.
2nd thing is this is already being called the "sex roundtable." Jim's working the e-mails for Third this week (working solo) and he says it's the "sex roundtable" in e-mail after e-mail (read C.I.'s comments, Kat's comments and Rebecca's because they are the most noted in e-mails according to Jim). But Jim did say that people are saying, "I never knew that about __" some war resister. So it served the purpose.
Roundtable on the media -- This focuses on the non-stop free pass that Obama always gets from the media. I love this roundtable. We weren't planning on two. But they're really strong, both roundtables, and different enough.
Wack job of the week -- I love this feature. And it was Elaine's idea.
2007 Archives -- This provides the archives for 2007, week by week, so that you can find them easily.
Theft of the week -- Koo Koo needed a topic so she borrowed it from Deliah Boyd.
When the circus leaves town -- This is a repost of Wally & Cedric's take on Iowa after the national press leaves. It is hilarious. C.I. thought it had been noted somewhere and realized it hadn't. So it was done Sunday night. It fits with the Iowa theme too.
Highlights -- Kat, Elaine, Betty, Rebecca, Wally, Cedric and I wrote this. We missed Wally and Cedric's Saturday post. Otherwise, I think we did a pretty good job.
Dallas helped and here's who else worked on the edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz
,and Wally of The Daily Jot
Okay, here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, January 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths over the weekend and also 'clarifies' deaths in December, Democratic presidential candidates rediscover the illegal war, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Urar reposts the Freedom Socialist Party's 2008 outline and summary which notes, But, as we enter the eighth year of the new millennium, opportunities exist to fight back and to make real change! To borrow from the Asian Zodiac, the coming Year of the Rat will be a time of hard work and constant activity." FSP applies that to the ability to "build on our victories in 2007 some of them tangible, some of them gains in consciousness" and notes, "Lt. Ehren Watada is a bright voice among GI resisters and their families who are telling the military that it's immoral and illegal to fight in Iraq." This time last year, Lance Holter's essay on Watada was published at Peace Corps Online:
I learned about the courage of conviction last week when I meat (as a guest during a family dinner in Honolulu) with a courageous young American patriot. A leader who lives by example. An individual, who out of a decision of moral conscience, refuses to participate in a war that he believes (after much personal research) violates the U.S. Constitution, Geneva accords, Nuremberg principals, and the United Nations Charter.
First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, a 28 year old U.S. Army artillery officer from Hawaii, has become the first active duty military officer publicly to oppose the war in Iraq. As a result of his act of conscience and challenging what we now know about the war in Iraq, Lt. Watada is facing military court martial at Ft. Lewis Washington this February 5, 2007.
[. . .]
Lt. Watada shared the following with me at our dinner, "I'm trying to send out to the American people of this country a message that the responsibility of ending this illegal and immoral war lies with the people of this country and holding their leader accountable because if they don't do anything nothing is going to happen."
Bringing it up to date since then, Monday, February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began. It continued on Tuesday when the prosecution argued their case. Wednesday the seventh, Watada was to take the stand in his semi-defense.Over defense objection, Judge Toilet ruled a mistrial thus ending the court-martial. As legal experts such as National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn immediately pointed out, Judge Toilet's ruling over defense objection meant that the Constitutional provision against double-jeopardy should prevent another court-martial. Last year, November 8th Judge Benjamin Settle, a US District Court judge, put Head's planned court-martial on hold where it currently remains. Watada's service contract ended in December 2006. He continues to report for assignments on base. The military should have released him long ago. He has now been extended over a year just to court-martial him. Only in a demented mind does the continued extension make sense.
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, Carla 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.
We'll come back to IVAW later in the snapshot. Over the weekend, Iraq sometimes made the news. On Saturday, the New York Times managed to 'cover' the ongoing illegal war by ignoring it. The same morning, CNN reported:, "Two U.S. soldiers who died last month in Iraq were apparently shot to death by an Iraqi soldier during a combined U.S. and Iraqi Army operation, the U.S. military said." The two killed were Rowdy Inman and Benjamin Portell and we'll come back to Inman in a moment. Sunday, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) covered the topic quoting that the US military's December statement that "small arms fire during dismounted combat operations" despite the fact that the suspect "tried to flee, but he was apprehended after being identified by other Iraqi soldiers" which tells you that even when the release was put out on the December 26th deaths, it was known what had happened. On Saturday, the US military released another statement -- repeating ON SATURDAY -- and it noted, "Two US Soldiers killed during a combined Iraqi Army and CF operation in Ninewah province on Dec. 26, were allegedly shot by an Iraqi Soldier. For reasons that are as yet unknown, at least one Iraqi Army Soldier allegedly opened fire killing Capt. Rowdy Inman and Sgt. Benjamin Portell, both of whom were assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment." That statement was released on Saturday.
Why stress Saturday repeatedly? Though the Times didn't tell you, Friday was rather significant: the memorial for Rowdy Inman. Amanda Kim Stairrett (Killeen Daily Herald) reports on the service at the Harper-Talasek Funeral Home in Killen, Texas attended by his widow Shannon and their children Casey, Gary and Keeley, his parents Ann Denny and Tony Inman "and numerous friends and relatives . . . who filled the standing-room-only funeral home." It was 'nice' of the military brass to play clean up the day after the memorial service -- on an incident they knew about from the start. Oh, they knew, the family knew. Really? Based on what? Louis Median (The Bakersfield California) reports, "The friends and family of Sgt. Benjamin B. Portell learned the shocking details of the decorated soldier's death only hours after his moving funeral. His family received word late Friday night about an Iraqi soldier's betrayal of Portell's patrol, according to the Rev. Brian Murphy, executive pastor of RiverLakes Community Church where Portell worshipped." His widow Michelle, his parents Susan and Matt Portell found out after Friday's funeral service. After.
On December 26th, the US military knew how Inman and Portell had died. Parents, surviving spouses and other loved ones have been repeatedly lied to by the US military and every time supposedly it won't happen again. It keeps happening. The realities they learned after the services should have been passed on to them before. This is really basic, on the 26th both men are shot dead. The US military has a suspect in custody. At the earliest, the families learn what happened on the evening or night of Friday, January 4th, after the services for both men have taken place.
Over the weekend, at least 18 corpses were discovered in Baghdad alone. The US military announced in a Saturday military press release: "A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died from injuries sustained from an improvised explosive device detonation near his vehicle while conducting operations in Diyala Province, Jan. 5." On Sunday [PDF format warning], they announced, "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed and three others wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations in southern Baghdad on Jan. 6." Among the non-stop violence reported was the Sunday Baghdad assassination of Sheik Ismael Abass who wanted to start an 'Awakening' Council and Solomon Moore and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) reported today on the Sunday Baquba assassination of Sheik Dhari Mandeel -- 'Awakening' Council leader in the region (the attack also resulted in his wife's death and the kidnapping of 10 people). Also on Sunday, Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported a Baghdad bombing in which a bomber killed his or herself outside the Iraqi Unity Association and also killed 3 Iraqi soldiers and 1 civilian. That one bombing (there were many others) received more attention from the media than any of the other many incidents of violence taking place over the weekend. And Hussein Kadhim reported many other incidents of violence. Very few others can make that claim. They can claim, unlike Kadhim, to have echoed and rewritten the US military press release (including the stressing of 'heorics'). Providing some common sense, Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) pointed out that various figures have been given for the death toll of Iraqis from the Baghdad bombing Sunday (as little as three people, as many as nine) and he also noted Sunday's bombings of Christian structures in Mosul: "Two churches, a convent and an orphanage were damaged, the officials said, but no one was injured, in large part because so many Christians have fled the city after repeated threats against them since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion." Jamie Gumbrecht and Hussein Khadim (McClatchy Newspapers) inform that "five people from one family were injured" in the Mosul bombings.
On Saturday, Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) noted life for US civilians working in the Green Zone and observed, "Inside the Green Zone, fear replaced enthusiasm as mortar shells rained from the sky during 2006 and 2007, and many hours were spent inside concrete bunkers. Over the past several months, the attacks have largely stopped, except for a burst of two dozen shells on Thanksgiving, but the walls grew higher and civilian trips outside the wire became infrequent." Well get in there money grubbers! DeYoung notes that the money grubbers opened "no fewer than six bars, a disco, a cafe, two Chinese restaurants and an outdoor shopping arcade." All 'necessary' projects -- life changing ones -- to be sure. On Saturday, puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki returned to Iraq from England. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers (Inside Iraq) noted of the return, "but the strange thing is to have blocked streets having some people raising the prime minister's pictures in hands and shouting for his long live welcoming his coming back home to show off the people's love of their beloved prime minister while the real Iraqi people were in some other blocked streets which are blocked for security reasons as they heard or to have celebrated people of the coming of their prime minister. The people in the blocked streets were upset to make them stuck without reaching their destination for no reasonable purpose, but for showing off a celebration or having the prime minister in Iraq. This thing reminds us of the former regime during Saddam's reign when that regime used to have demonstrations and celebrations of such kinds forcing people to be in streets to make the world see them trying to convince them that the government is from the people and for them. I think the Iraqi people are smart enough to know who made this small demonstration and for what reason. Also the Iraqi people fed up with celebrations and speeches having one thing to be achieved which is Iraq for Iraqis no more." Solomon Moore and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) noted that "exhaustion" is the official explanation for al-Maliki's sudden departure from Baghdad weeks ago and, presumably, the puppet got himself some rest.
On Sunday, news broke of another arrest for a US military member who self-checked out. Amie McLain (NBC2) reported on the Friday arrest of Yesenia Marengo-Angelino who was the second army soldier to be arrested in the Southwest Florida region in two months (Matthew Fewox preceded her). As McLain observed, "According to the Army, soldiers are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980." (Text and video at the link.) No word is reported on how either was arrested -- traffic stop, military 'tip,' what?
Violence continued today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that wounded one person when the bomb went off in "his car" with another person wounded the same way in a Baghdad bombing outside the Saj al Reef restaurant and another similar bombing in Baghdad that claimed 1 life and left three more wounded; a Baghdad bombing outside the Technology University claimed 3 lives and left sixteen people wounded; two Baghdad bombings that left one person wounded; a Baghdad bombing that left three people wounded; a Baquba mortar attack that wounded one police officer "and a member of Sahwa"; and a person exploded themselves and took the lives of 14 others (eighteen more were wounded) "near the information department inside the Sunni endowment" in Baghdad -- among the dead was "the leader of the Sahwa council Reyadh Al Samarra'i". Sabah al-Bazee (Reuters) reports a fire "at Iraq's largest" oil "refinery on Monday" in Baiji and "[a] Reuters cameraman at the complex said he saw at least one dead body" while local police say they are aware of three deaths and an engineer tells Reuters at least four people are dead.
Kidnappings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "at least eigh members of Sahwa council" were kidnapped in Baghdad while 8 people kidnapped in Kut over a month ago were released.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one person shot dead in Buhorz village today (and "a husband and his wife and an Iraqi army soldier" shot dead last night outside of Kirkuk). Reuters notes "a member of a neighbourhood patrol" shot dead in his carpentry shop in Samarra, a couple and their child were all shot dead outside Hawija and "a neighbourhood patrol volunteer" was shot dead in Latifiya.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 7 corpses discovered in Baghdad, five in Qara Kitta. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Mosul.
Turning to war crimes, Frida Berrigan (In These Times) reviews some of the best known War Crimes of the Iraq War and notes that a few rank and file have been convicted (many haven't even been charged, as Berrigan points out) but no one high in rank has suffered serious punishment. Berringan points out that the Center for Constitutional Rights is pursuing war crimes on the part "of high-ranking U.S. officials" and that, "In March 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will convene new Winter Soldier hearings, modeled on the February 1971 meetings in a Detroit Howard Johnson's. In the shadow of the My Lai massacre revelations, the hearings provided a platform to more than 125 Vietnam veterans to describe the atrocities they participated in and witnessed. This effort could once again give the United States a chance to listen to soldiers and Marines as they break the silence, hold themselves and each other accountable and demand the same from the architects of the war."
IVAW also attempted to be in New Hampshire for the debates over the weekend. Carol Coakley (Gather) explains, "A contingent of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), and Mass. Peace Action activists from the Boston area went by bus and car to Manchester to drive home the peace message to the candidates. An Edwards/peace supporting friend and my Kucinich/peace-supporting self drove up to join them. After stopping by downtown Manchester and an Edwards rally on Elm St. and waving at the Kucinich bus that drove by, we headed up to St. Anselms College. Approaching the College was a little like driving into Vegas at night. The campus was buzzing with lights, people, and the media. As you drove up the hill towards the 400 acre campus signs directed you to parking for ticket-bearing-audience members, the press, and demonstrators. The American Friends Service Committee, and various campaign supporters lined the snowy sidewalks and embankments. Unbenounced to demonstrators with banners or signs over a certain size, they were not allowed on campus, so many AFSC and IVAW members stayed on the public road near the entrance." The debates? Glenn Thrush (Newsday) observes Iraq is back in the race for the White House following the debates with Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama being the main ones. Thrush notes Bambi hid behind his campaign as usual while Hillary made her own comments publicly (not whispered to reporters), "You [Obama] gave a speech, and a very good speech, against the war in Iraq and . . . then you voted to [fund the war] you were against."
On the Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Katha Pollitt (And Another Thing, The Nation) probably sums it up better than any noting of the Democratic candidates, "But what really got them excited were the vague competing mantras of 'change' and 'experience.' Obama says he stands for change. Edwards, siding with Obama against Clinton for some strategic reason too subtle for me to understand, says he stands for change too. Hillary Clinton, who casts herself as the candidate of experience but actually uttered the word 'change' more often than the other candidates." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, "One of the most heated moments of the debate came when Senator John Edwards teamed up with Senator Barack Obama and accused Senator Hillary Clinton of representing the status quo." Ava and I (The Third Estate Sunday Review) found it interesting to see who, with Dennis Kucinich excluded, would go for the role of clown -- answer: Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. Obama bombed but "Richardson provided one laugh-getter after another including, 'Well, I've been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this.' Possibly too much time has been spent with the lie that you learn everything you need to know in kindergarten? Certainly high school teaches its own lessons such as this one: The class clown rarely becomes the class president." Pollitt offers, "Hillary Clinton was fiery and funny and bore no resemblance to the candidate relentless attacked in the media as rigid, incompetent, Machiavellian and screccy. You can understand her obvious frustration with the ongoing lovefest for Obama: At one point she even compared his 'likeability' to that of George W. Bush. In real life, Obama has made the same sort of compromises she herself has made. As she pointed out, he said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it. He cast himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did." On the never ending lovefest for Bambi, Ralph Nader (at Common Dreams) examines the love-fest through the use of fiction [Nader has endorsed John Edwards for the Democratic primary] and demonstrates the hollow center of the Easter candy allowing "Obama" to snap at one point to a citizen calling for accountability, "You don't understand (testily), impeachment talk is just more of the same old Washington politics. I stand for change. No need to point fingers. We are one people." Meanwhile Missy Comley Beattie (at CounterPunch) attempts to make sense of the nonsense and notes Sy Hersh's laughable claim that the US' "only hope" for "a reconcislaition between the Muslim countries and the US" is Obama; concludes Comley Beattie, "It matters little to me that Barack Obama says he was against invading Iraq. After all, he votes to continue funding it. If this presidential candidate wanted to mend relations with Muslims, he could start by voting against additional war funding. And he could say no to AIPCAC -- but this would be political suicide." Of the GOP candidates, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained today, "In other campaign news, Republican Senator John McCain admitted he would be fine if the United States military stayed in Iraq for a hundred years. McCain said 'We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. . . As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me'." Vote Insane! Vote John McCain! In other news, Goodman noted that speculation continues that NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg will declare he is running for president as an independent candidate. Friday, PBS' Bill Moyers Journal offered interviews with a GOP candidate for president and a Democratic one: Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. On the latter, as Ava and I noted, it's over and citing his 2004 endorsement of John Edwards in Iowa (as he did to Moyers) should only remind people that not only did he ignore the candidate most like him in 2008 (which would be Edwards) but in 2004 he ignored Howard Dean. It's a pattern. Also on PBS (beginning Friday), NOW with David Branccacio examined voter ID laws and mudslinging. If you missed either broadcast, both Moyers and Branccacio stream video online, in addition Branccacio offers text excerpts while Moyers offers full transcripts and an audio only option (like Democracy Now!, Bill Moyers Journal is watch, listen or read). Today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman offered the voices of three students working to get their candidates (Kucinich, Obama and Clinton) elected. Lastly on US politics, next Sunday, January 13th, in the Green Party presidential debate in San Francisco (moderated by Cindy Sheehan) with Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, Jard Bell and Ralph Nader to participate. The Green Party notes, "The first, and only, live debate between candidates on the Green Party's California ballot for President of the United States - featuring a former Democratic Party member of Congress, consumer protection icon, professor and environmental engineer - is scheduled here January 13, said John Morton of the Green Party Presidential Debate Committee." The debate starts at two p.m., Herbst Theater in the Veterans Memorial Building on 401 Van Ness Avenue.
the common ills
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
the third estate sunday review
iraq
ehren watada
marjorie cohn
the national lawyers guild
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
amy goodmandemocracy now
bill moyersbill moyers journalpbs
now with david branccacio
missy comley beattie
katha pollitt
the new york times
solomon moore
the washington post
amit r. paley
karen deyoung
Newsday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)