Iraq snapshot

Rondi Adamson Lies

Rondi Adamson's "U.S. military deserters don't deserve refugee status" (Christian Science Monitor) is the usual string of lies from Adamson -- that, however, does not excuse the Christian Science Monitor for printing it. (Link provided for everyone to laugh at the under-educated, uninformed Adamson.) Rondi, a big mouth with no brain to back it up, starts from the premise that, during Vietnam, Canada welcomed "war resisters" which is defined as "draft dodgers." Wrong, Dumb Ass Rondi.

It's a real shame that you didn't value your education enough to actually learn but it's more shocking that the Christian Science Monitor would print your garbage. Canada welcomed draft dodgers and deserters. On the latter category, deserters were not required to have been drafted and many weren't. The draft was never an issue in Canada -- which didn't have a draft. The illegal war was the issue.

In fairness to Idiot Rondi, it's not like 'helpers' have made a point to get that fact out. A lot of 'helpers' have wasted everyone's time by talking about "draft dodgers" when there are no draft dodgers going to Canada today but there are deserters.

Since Rondi is such an idiot, let's drop back to January 23, 1977, Robert Trumbull's "Pardon Brings Cautious Response From Some War Exiles in Canada" (New York Times):


Jeff Enger, a deserter from the Army and therefore excluded from the Presidential pardon, will be sworn in as a Canadian citizen next Friday, one of the many self-exiled American war resisters who "want to make our lives here." However, like other deserters, Mr. Egner would like to be able to travel freely in the country of his birth.
The Presidential pardon covered nearly all draft evaders of the Vietnam War period. Mr. Carter postponed a decision on the men who entered but then deserted the armed forces.
Jack Colhoun, a leader in the Toronto exile community, is one of those deseters who insist that they would fight in a "just war," or "if the United States were attacked," as Mr. Colhoun put it.
The men interviewed, who rerpesent a cross section of the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 American war resisters living in Canada, have in common a yearning for recognition by Americans at home that their actions were an acceptable exercise of principle "in the American tradition," as one said.
"We don't expect to be congratulated or anything," said Mr. Egner, a law student at the University of Toronto, "but we believe we acted correctly."
They also share a deep conviction that the deserters, as well as the draft evaders, should be pardoned.

What do you know, Dumb Ass Rondi, deserters during Vietnam! In Canada! Welcomed! Again, it's not just Rondi's fault. The strongest argument for today's war resisters was always CANADA WELCOMED DESERTERS DURING VIETNAM AND NEEDS TO TODAY.

But there's no excuse for the Christian Science Monitor repeating THE LIE.

Someone help Rondi off the floor, it's just hit that there are US deserters from Vietnam in Canada.

Rondi scribbles:

In some cases, it's not clear what the deserters are seeking refuge from. Corey Glass, who faces deportation, was discharged from the US military some time ago, according to ABC News. In other words, he's free to go – but might he miss the sight of those antiwar protesters carrying placards in his defense?

Deserters have attempted the refugee path due to the fact that land immigrant status no longer exist. Corey Glass does not believe that ABC News report and he (and his lawyer) believe that he is (at least) now listed as IRR status and, should he return to the US, the military would seek retaliation that way.

Rondi scribbles, "Try to imagine the reaction to someone spitting on a soldier returning from Iraq . . ." Rondi, are you saying Canadians spit on US soldiers during Vietnam? You must be because that LIE has long been disproven in the US. So you must be declaring that Canadians spat on US soldiers coming back from Vietnam.

Right-wing Americans, Canadian Ambassador Rondi's just delivered you a huge nugget of (mis)information. Have at it. Demand that the Canadian government apologize. Scream at the disrespect they've shown.

The Christian Science Monitor practiced no journalism or oversight. Click here to request the correction that their shoddy practices demand. If you do, remember that they are responsible for the headline, not Rondi. That means it's their LIE that war resisters do not have support in Canada. From the July 1st snapshot: "The Angus Reid Poll finds: 'A majority of Canadians would agree with the decision to let American military deserters stay in Canada as permanent residents, a new Angus Reid Strategies survey reveals. . . In the online survey of a representative national sample, three-in-five Canadians (64%) say they would agree to give these U.S. soldiers the opportunity to remain in Canada as permanent residents. Quebec (70%) houses the highest proportion of respondents who agree with the motion, while Alberta (52%) has the fewest supporters. A gender breakdown reveals that while both males and females would agree to let U.S. military deserters remain in Canada, females are much more sympathetic (69% versus 57%)'." Click here for the polling results and below is AngusReid's summary:

Canadian communities, faith, social justice andpeace organizations, and support organizations for U.S. Iraq War resisters are celebrating the results of an AngusReid poll showing strong support for all Iraq War resisters seeking refuge in Canada.
Results show that three in five Canadians (64%) favour giving U.S. soldiers the opportunity to remain in Canada as permanent residents.
The national public opinion pollster noted that Quebec - at 70% - houses the highest proportion of respondents who agree.
With no word yet from the Government of Canada and only nine days remaining until U.S. war resister Corey Glass is scheduled for deportation, a broad spectrum of organizations including Parliamentary opposition parties and Amnesty International Canada are calling on the Prime Minister's office and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to take immediate action to stop all
deportations.
On June 3rd, the successful passage of a landmark parliamentary motion called on the federal government to allow U.S. war resisters and their immediate family members the opportunity to remain in Canada as permanent residents.

So the Christian Science Monitor needs to retract this sub-headline to Rondi's bad column: "They broke their contract. Even Canada gets that." Meanwhile, Tom Sandborn's "An ordinary house" (Vancouver Courier) reports on Vancouver's Catholic Workers:

Home to the city's Catholic Workers and their guests (and sometimes referred to as Samaritan House), the modest dwelling has offered shelter to the homeless and support to American war resisters for a decade. All this tireless activism is conducted in the name of an interpretation of Christian ethics first articulated by Dorothy Day, an ex-Communist newspaperwoman, and Peter Maurin, a French émigré and former Christian Brother, more than 75 years ago in the Depression-scalded slums of New York.
Inside the cluttered homey kitchen, the two women who opened this unusual experiment in practical spirituality a decade ago share multiple cups of strong coffee. Library worker Sarah Bjorknas and Vikki Marie opened the Vancouver Catholic Worker House literally on a wing and a prayer. Since then, they have provided hospitality to well over 125 homeless guests, some overnight, some for several years.
Since the beginning of the Iraq war, they have cheerfully housed young American soldiers fleeing combat service, and Bjorknas is a key figure in the local movement to support such war resisters and call on Canada to give them legal status.
"Generally, if someone shows up and we have a bed available, they can stay," says Bjorknas. "We have developed some instincts and discernment skills over time and use those when making decisions about guests. We don't take in families--it's not a good space for kids. We have only three rules that pretty much cover everything--no drugs, no alcohol, and respectful behaviour to everyone in the house."



Republican US Senator Ted Stevens is in the news (due to his indictment). NOW on PBS earlier probed the story of that corruption and return to it this Friday (Friday is when all three programs first being airing, some PBS stations air the programs on other days, check your local listings):

This week, NOW goes behind the breaking headlines to shine a bright light on the scandalous connection between VECO and Alaska's old-boy political network. Three state legislators have already been convicted in Federal court for accepting bribes from VECO, and the FBI has video and audio evidence that reveal VECO executives shockingly handing out cash to those legislators in exchange for promises to roll back a tax on the oil industry. And more lawmakers - including Senator Stevens' own son, former Alaska State Senate President Ben Stevens - are being eyed in the growing scandal.

Bill Moyers Journal have been exploring Capitol Crimes and this Friday on the program will continue their exploration of Capitol Crime:

The Wave of "Capitol Crimes" Continues

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

Like the largesse he spread so bountifully to members of Congress and the White House staff -- countless fancy meals, skybox tickets to basketball games and U2 concerts, golfing sprees in Scotland -- Jack Abramoff is the gift that keeps on giving.

The notorious lobbyist and his cohorts (including conservatives Tom Delay, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed) shook down Native American tribal councils and other clients for tens of millions of dollars, buying influence via a coalition of equally corrupt government officials and cronies dedicated to dismantling government by selling it off, making massive profits as they tore the principles of a representative democracy to shreds.

A report earlier this summer from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform builds on an earlier committee investigation that detailed some 485 contacts between Abramoff and the Bush administration. According to the new report, "Senior White House officials told the Committee that White House officials held Mr. Abramoff and members of his lobbying team in high regard and solicited recommendations from Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues on policy matters."

Now Abramoff's doing time in Maryland, at a minimum security Federal prison, serving five years and ten months for unrelated, fraudulent business practices involving a fake wire transfer he and a partner fabricated to secure a loan to buy SunCruz Casinos, a line of Florida cruise ships that ferried high and low rollers into international waters to gamble (its original owner, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, was gunned down, Mafia-style, in February 2001). But come September, Abramoff will be sentenced for his larger-than-life role in one of the biggest scandals in American history, a collection of outrages that has already sent one member of Congress to jail, others into retirement and dozens of accomplices running for cover.

Over the last couple of years he has been singing to the authorities, which is why he has been kept in a detention facility close to DC and the reason his sentencing for tax evasion, the defrauding of Indians and the bribing of Washington officials has been delayed -- the FBI is thought to be using Abramoff's testimony to build an ever-expanding case that may continue to shake those who live within the Beltway bubble for months and years to come.

Bill Moyers Journal is airing an updated edition of "Capitol Crimes," a special that was first produced for public television two years ago, relating the entire sordid story of the Abramoff scandals. Produced by Sherry Jones, the rebroadcast comes at a moment of renewed interest, with not only Abramoff's sentencing imminent, but the most important national elections in decades little more than three months away and continuing, seemingly daily revelations of further, profligate abuses of power.

Monday saw the publication of a 140-page report from the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, confirming that, as the Washington Post recounted, "For nearly two years, a young political aide sought to cultivate a 'farm system' for Republicans at the Justice Department, hiring scores of prosecutors and immigration judges who espoused conservative priorities and Christian lifestyle choices.

"That aide, Monica M. Goodling, exercised what amounted to veto power over a wide range of critical jobs, asking candidates for their views on abortion and same-sex marriage and maneuvering around senior officials who outranked her, including the department's second-in-command... [The report] concluded yesterday that Goodling and others had broken civil service laws, run afoul of department policy and engaged in 'misconduct,' a finding that could expose them to further scrutiny and sanctions."

With the next day's sunrise came the indictment of Alaskan Republican Ted Stevens, the first sitting US Senator to face criminal charges in 15 years. Apparently, the senator was playing the home version of "The Price Is Right," for among the gifts a grand jury says were illegally rewarded him by the oil company VECO were a Viking gas grill, tool cabinet and a wraparound deck for his mountainside house in Anchorage. In fact, VECO allegedly gave the place an entire new first floor, with two bedrooms and a bath. How neighborly.

(By the way, just to round the circle, Senator Stevens received $1000 in campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff directly, which subsequently he donated to the Alaskan chapter of the Red Cross, and $16,500 from Native American tribes and others represented by Abramoff, which Stevens gave to other charities.)

Coincidentally, this week also marks the publication of a new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, written by Thomas Frank, the author of What's the Matter with Kansas? In an essay in the August issue of Harper's magazine, adapted from the book, Frank adroitly weaves the actions of Abramoff and his pals into a vastly larger ideological framework.

"Fantastic misgovernment is not an accident," he writes, "nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction; it believes in entrepreneurship not merely in commerce but in politics; and the inevitable results of its ascendance are, first, the capture of the state by business and, second, what follows from that: incompetence, graft, and all the other wretched flotsam that we've come to expect from Washington.

"... The conservatism that speaks to us through its actions in Washington is institutionally opposed to those baseline good intentions we learned about in elementary school. Its leaders laugh off the idea of the public interest as airy-fairy nonsense; they caution against bringing top-notch talent into government service; they declare war on public workers. They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis. The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job. Repairing it will require years of political action."
Have we the stamina, commitment -- or even the attention span -- to take such action? Abramoff may be cooling his heels in minimum security but his pals Delay, Norquist and Reed appear on television and radio whose hosts treat them as political savants with nary a nod to their past nefarious association with Abramoff. Few in the audience seem to notice or care. Former House majority leader Delay's awaiting trial on money laundering charges, and the incorrigible Ralph Reed, who played Christian pastors in Texas for suckers in enlisting their unwitting help for Abramoff's gambling clients, even has a political potboiler of a novel out -- Dark Horse, the story of a failed Democratic presidential candidate who finds God, then runs as an independent, funded, presumably, by the supreme being's political action committee.

"Do we Americans really want good government?" That's a question asked, not by Thomas Frank, but the muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens, writing more than a century ago in his book, The Shame of the Cities. He wrote, "We are a free and sovereign people, we govern ourselves and the government is ours. But that is the point. We are responsible, not our leaders, since we follow them. We let them divert our loyalty from the United States to some 'party;' we let them boss the party and turn our municipal democracies into autocracies and our republican nation into a plutocracy. We cheat our government and we let our leaders loot it, and we let them wheedle and bribe our sovereignty from us."

From more than a hundred years' distance, Steffens would recognize Abramoff & company for what they are. And we for who we are; a nation too easily distracted and looking the other way as everything rightfully ours is taken.
--30 --
Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

And on Washington Week, Gwen and the gas bags chews up this week's factoids and the scenery. Guest stars include: Time's Karen Tumulty and National Journal's James Barnes.

Devona notes this from Team Nader:

Urgent: Five Days Left in Ralph's Home State

We're up against it here in Ralph's home state --- Connecticut.

I'm Ken Krayeske, the state coordinator, and I promised Ralph I would get him on the ballot here.

We have only 7,000 signatures in hand. And we need to get to 15,000 in five days.

We have 30 to 40 people on the ground collecting in Connecticut and we need to pay for their gas, transportation, copying costs.

You get the picture.

To do that, we need your donations now -- $10, $20, $50, $100 -- whatever you can afford.

Why are we busting it so hard every day to get Ralph on the ballot here?

Because it's not just about Ralph.

It's about you and me and a young man named Derek O'Kanos. (Check out Derek's short video here about why he likes Ralph --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfltpogno6c)

Last Friday, Derek phoned me.

"I want to help petition," he said.

"How old are you?" I asked.

"Sixteen," he said.

"Wow! That's fantastic, but you need an adult to help you out, because you have to be a registered voter," I said. "But before we get into logistics, I don't often get calls from 16-year-olds. Can you tell me how you know about Ralph?"

"Two years ago, Mr. Nader came to my high school," Derek said.

"What school is that?" I asked.

"Enrico Fermi in Enfield," Derek said.

"No way," I said. "I helped organize that. There was a standing room only crowd. What did you think of Ralph's speech?"

"I didn't see it," Derek said. "I was a freshman, and I was in World History class, and my class didn't go. I guess they thought that Ralph didn't fit with world history."

"Bummer," I said.

"Yeah, but I've been interested in Mr. Nader since then, reading about him, and I want to help him," Derek said.

So we discussed strategies for him to convince adults in his life to go out and petition with him.

Derek recruited his uncle's girlfriend to transport him and witness signatures at grocery stores.

Next, he corralled his grandfather to drive him around neighborhoods in suburban northern Connecticut. (Above is a photo of Derek and his grandfather)

Shortly after, I got this email from Derek:

"Today was truly amazing. No more than a few days ago I felt an overwhelming feeling of worthlessness. I felt that there was nothing that I could do due to my age and transportation issue. Then we talked and I went out and did something. I truly felt like I was a part of something, that I was making history. I could have volunteered for many other political campaigns, but it was the Nader/Gonzalez campaign that truly inspired me. I can openly support every policy of the campaign and sleep at night. This is a campaign that puts national interest before personal interest. We the people -- not for sale! Gives me chills. It is truly amazing to see an entire organization of everyday people working towards one beautiful common goal and putting power back into the hands of the people."

Let's not let Ralph, Derek and all our supporters down in Connecticut.

Donate now whatever you can afford.

Hit the contribute button.

Together, we are making a difference --- in Ralph's home state and beyond.

Onward

Ken Krayeske, The Nader Team

Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

ShareThisShareThis

Be sure to read Martha's entry from last night. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
rondi adamson
tom sandborn
robert trumbull
washington week
pbs
bill moyer journal
now on pbs

When the cake falls flat

I Hate The War

Ludacris Gets an Earful From WomenCount
Group demands apology from artist and immediate action from Party leaders
(San Francisco, Wed., July 30, 2008) -- Responding to news that rap artist Ludacris released a song today in which he calls Hillary Clinton an "irrelavant bitch," WomenCount is calling for an apology as well as a blanket condemnation by the Party leadership.In his song entitled "Politics," Ludacris calls Hillary Clinton an "irrelevant bitch" and also attacks President Bush and Sen. McCain. These lyrics are outrageous, offensive, and unacceptable.
In an e-mail this afernoon to its membership, WomenCount states, "It is another example of hateful, sexist language being used on the campaign trail, and now is our moment to make it clear: not on our watch! The leadership of both parties must step up to condemn such hateful speech and demand apologies. The Obama campaign has criticized the lyrics, but we call on the presumptive party nominee, who is the celebrated subject of the new song, to go even further: Publicly condemn the song. Demand an apology on behalf of the targets. Now.
"This is not an issue of being PC," states Rosemary Camposano, communications director for WomenCount, "This is about beginning the grinding and painful process of rooting out this kind of hate language and behavior whenever and wherever it exists. The Democratic leadership have pledged to unhinge our nation from gender-bias, hate-language and misogyny and we are taking them at their word."
WomenCount (www.womencountpac.com) has embarked on a campaign called "Stop the Silence" in which they are promoting specific language be incorporated into the National Platform now being drafted for the Democratic National Convention. Through an e-mail petition campaign, driving content on the blogs, and direct contact with the Democratic Leadership, WomenCount is applying pressure to begin eliminating gender bias in the media and wherever it exists by condemning it "on the spot" going forward.

The above is from WomenCount PAC. We're focusing on sexism and if you don't get why, you must be a drive-by. Drive on by without comment, no one needs to hear from you.

Women paying attention (and those with self-respect) are outraged. And we're outraged for a number of reasons.

1) We're fully aware that our rights are always under attack.

We're fully aware that, as Susan Faludi noted in The Terror Dream, this decade's been dominated by sexism and it's come from the White House and it's come from a compliant media. One that picked and choosed heroes for 9-11 and women didn't get to be heroes. (Mark Bingham was briefly a media hero -- until the media figured out, shocking, he was gay. Gay men, like women, are always suspect 'transgressors.')

2) We're fully aware that an advanced society is one with rights for women. We didn't discover Afghanistan after 9-11. Feminists were calling out the abuses of the Taliban regime (but not calling for the country to be bombed or targeted with war) a decade prior. We're fully aware that when women's rights go out the window, other abuses join them or quickly follow.

3) We know about terror because we live with it. We fend off the "clumsy passes" that are, let's be honest, attempted rape. That's not, "Would you like to sleep with me?" That's a man who doesn't get what "no" means and thinks he can paw and claw you until you set him right with a knee to groin. We're fully aware that the woman mugged or raped could have been us if bad timing or bad luck had placed in that location. We're fully aware that, even today, a number of men think they have a right to hit a woman -- and not only to hit but to hit in order to control. (And 'Christian Dominance' seems to be the new 'trend' story. Hopefully, like all trend stories, it's media created and baseless.) We try to raise capable children (our own or the children of others because, yes, it does take a village) and we worry about them. And we worry about the world they're living in, being raised in. We're worried about the lowered bars for going to war (potential threat someday!). We're worried about the refusal of Congress to hold anyone accountable for the lies that led to the illegal war.

4) And, yeah, straight or gay, we worry about men.

On a good day, we like to hope that men worry about our rights and advances. But then along comes MoveOn last week and those 'progressives' feel the person they should stand with is Nas -- infamous for a hundred verbal attacks on women not limited to his infamous "P**sy Kills." And we realize that we are always the first ones kicked off the ship (unless it's sinking). We realize that even these 'progressive' men and their female lackeys will sell out women without giving it a second thought.

Because in the end, what it really boils down to is a number of men -- including a number of 'progressive' men -- don't think women matter at all. (A lot of Queen Bees don't either. And they're too worried about being the 'exception' to help another woman out.)

We never broke into the club. We weren't welcomed in, we weren't made members. It's still the old boys club. They'll invite in different skin tones but they're not interested in opening it up to the female half of the population. We're always in on a pass. And that's why some women are Queen Bees. They finally made it in and they know that one wrong word and they'll be ejected. So they stay silent and they add to the abuse of women.

It's all about the demonization of women and that demonization is centuries old.

Some decades we're "witches" (with powers that must be killed off) and sometimes we're "bitches" (powerless but we still need to be called off). Despite being the majority of the population, we're still treated as oddities and our concerns are the "other." Mathematical statistics alone dictate that we are the norm but we're never supposed to notice that fact and certainly the bulk of the 'progressive' men don't rush to point that fact out unless it's in a, "Well you're the majority so how could you be discriminated against!"

We're discriminated against because we haven't held the power in centuries. We had to be attacked and vilified in order to reduce us to 'helplessness' and that actually says a great deal more about the lack of masculine strength than it does about women's strength.

In the New York Times this morning, Barack being called a celebrity by the McCain campaign was front page news (in the paper's 'judgment') while the thing WomenCount is calling out gets reduced to a gossip item buried at the bottom of A15. And given the headline "Rapper Praises Obama." Because, in their minds, that is the news. The attack on women -- it's not just an attack on Hillary -- shows up in the second paragraph, as one portion of a sentence ". . . calls Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton "irrelevant" and also a nasty name common in hip-hop lyrics but not in the remarks of presidential candidates." Mike Nizza probably feels really proud of that little write-up. His gossip item runs under Micheal Luo's slam at Hillary (campaign debt turned into a joke -- apparently Hillary's the first one to ever have campaign debt -- is everyone still so outraged that John Kerry had money after the November election that they've forgotten most Democrats go into campaign debt?) and Michael Falcone's item likening the Clinton's to the mafia. How proud the Michaels must be -- today they got to pretend that they were Page Six writers for the New York Post.

Sexism paraded past the media without being called out and, in fact, the media frequently joined in. And who called them out? Not a lot of people.

MediaChannel reposts Carol Jenkins' "Katie Couric & Sexism In The Media" (Women's Media Center):

I was there at the annual NOW conference, participating in a plenary session on sexism in the media, and we certainly had much to talk about. Katie's June 11th Notebook blog post caused a stir in journalistic circles when she said that sexism had a play in the primaries: "It isn't just Hillary Clinton who needs to learn a lesson from this primary season -- it's all the people who crossed the line, and all the women and men who let them get away with it."
Those are rare words coming from inside corporate media. Katie was almost a single voice from within, joining those of us on the outside--on a strictly non-partisan basis--who took the pundits to task for traversing many the line in their analysis of Clinton. If people were coming to the conclusion that Couric's outspokenness is due to her planned departure from her duties at the CBS news desk, that seemed to be cleared up this week. The first woman network anchor/managing editor said she's staying. So did her bosses.

Two other women deserve credit in the MSM: Bonnie Erbe and Cokie Roberts. I'm no fan of the latter. But Cokie Roberts noted history in her brief moments on ABC's primary results coverage. No one else wanted to do that. Many still aren't aware of it. But Cokie deserves credit for talking about history and not just in the sense of "Hillary's a woman so it's historic!" That was historic and certainly Bill Moyers, et al. never felt the need to explore that. But Cokie was addressing the historical electoral realities. (Only one example would be the huge shift for the Latino community in twenty years of voting -- as Cokie noted, female candidates did not do well in the eighties with the Latino community.) Bonnie Erbe was Bonnie Erbe. Her PBS show is called To The Contrary and that's her life's motto. (Saying she was being who she was is not in any way meant to take away what she contributed. A lot of women couldn't be themselves. The Gail Collins and Maureen Dowds seemed to take delight in proving just how destructive they could be to other women.)

Despite the fact that Cokie was talking about the sexism and doing so at the end of the primaries and that Bonnie was as well, when it was time for the New York Times to do their one and only article about sexism in the Democratic primaries, they couldn't find those two women, they couldn't quote them. They couldn't call them for a quote and they couldn't refer to remarks the two women had already made. Doing so would have taken sexism from the maybe-it-happened-maybe-it-didn't plane into the reality of what went down.

MediaChannel is supposed to be a media watchdog and it ignored the sexism throughout the primary. It's good that they reposted the article and, hopefully, this is a topic they will return to often. I could think of a dozen little slams for them but what's the point? Sexism is still being ignored and MediaChannel's one reposting is a hell of a lot more than most outlets have done. I'm not being sarcastic.

Katha Pollitt gets a lot of credit as a feminist. But where was she? Oh, that's right. Like Minnie Mouse and others, she was signing the "Feminists" For Barack petition. How could any feminist have been for Barack? He didn't address reproductive rights (as Marie Cocco has noted, since he became the presumed nominee, he's gone out of his way to echo right-wing talking points). What was he offering women? What programs were going to address the issues that women face? Hillary's healthcare plan -- as Paul Krugman repeatedly documented -- was better for families because it included more than children. It was better for single women because it included adults. Hillary's campaign was better for women because it employed them in larger numbers than the boys-boys-boys Barack campaign. Hillary had a breakthrough proposal for breast cancer research. And most of all, pay attention Katha, Hillary didn't use homophobia. Homophobia is not feminism. This was covered long ago. It's one reason The Ego Of Us All got kicked to the curb -- her constant attacks on lesbians and her constant refrain of how they were the "lavender menace."

Barack put homophobes on stage at a campaign event in South Carolina, he used homophobia as a campaign strategy and no one was supposed to notice. There were no front page articles wondering when America could get beyond homophobia. Bill Moyers didn't do week after week segments on homophobia and how it was ripping the country apart (he didn't even do one segment). Homophobia was a-okay.

That was the message. And Barack sent it loud and clear when Anderson Cooper pointed out that Barack was a product of an interracial relationship, raised Loving v. Virginia and asked Barack how anyone could deny same-sex marriage. (Loving v. Virginia is the Supreme Court case that ended bans on interracial marriages.) Barack -- the Constitutional lawyer -- gave a pathetic response. And it just sailed over heads. Barack claimed that it was a matter for churches to decide. Had the Surpeme Court taken Barack's "Constitutional" approach, interracial marriages might still be against the law in many states. Loving v. Virginia -- a landmark case -- didn't involve churches. It was a couple (Loving) suing a state (Virginia). No one was supposed to notice that Barack was saying races have a right to marry but gays and lesbians don't. The best they can hope for, now or ever, is some form of government sanction that's less than marriage and that marriage should be the church's domain.

That's not Constitutional law. That's flat out offensive. And it's not Loving v. Virginia. The Court did not say, "We'll create a new sanction for interracial couples and leave the marriage issue to the churches." The marriage issue did not belong to the churches and if Barack doesn't grasp that than he's a bigger idiot than I already think he is. In the US, the government controls marriage, not churches. You can have a ceremony in a church but if you don't take out a license (with the government), it's not a marriage (unless the state recognizes common law). He gave an idiotic and insulting answer and, as usual, he got away with it.

Just like he got away with the South Carolina event. So, no, Katha, there were no "feminists" for Barack. There were just a bunch of sad dupes. Now women who are feminists might have wanted to support Barack for other reasons. That's their right. But don't claim it has anything to do with feminism. It doesn't.

African-American women were in a special bind because, for the first time, they were choosing between the first bi-racial candidate and the first woman candidate that had a real chance at the White House. If they made a decision on race (or on race plus other reasons), I've never faulted them for that.

I have faulted the media for repeatedly pushing the lie that minority women (and all minorities) were supporting Barack. Asian-Americans overwhelmingly (male and female) went with Hillary as did Latinos. And Ava and I have pointed that out since the primary season started. Race isn't just Black and White and it's insulting to the country to imply that it is. It's especially important to people of color who do not fall into either category.

Here's another feminist issue that Katha should be familiar with. On the whole, women have less money to toss around. So when Barack started charging to attend events (helped create the myth of those 'small donors') that wasn't a feminist move.

Katha, to her credit, did call out Tom Hayden's sexist column after she decided Barack was her 'girl.' And prior to deciding on Barack, she did do one column calling out the sexism. Many months passed between the two columns and we're all supposed to ignore that?

We're all supposed to ignore that it wasn't just okay, it was encouraged for African-Americans to support the bi-racial candidate but women were constantly lectured (by Mark Karlin and many others) after Hillary won in New Hampshire. We needed to think beyond gender. But no column from that same crowd ever suggested that African-Americans needed to think beyond race.

There's nothing wrong with an African-American or bi- or multi-racial person looking at Barack's campaign or even just the candidate himself and saying, "I'm going to support him." If that provided a sense of pride, that's a valid reason to support a candidate. (There are other reasons, but that is alone is a valid reason. Some supporting Barack did so for that reason alone, some did it for that reason and many others. No one ever needed to explain or justify it.) But women -- of all races -- were never given that same message. Instead they were lectured to (by men) and they were insulted.

Racial pride was okay, gender pride was a sign of a 'defect.'

At MediaChannel's post a "Cord;ey Coit" leaves a comment that's nonsense. First off, he or she cites a 'feminist' that is not a feminist (she was a media creation). S/he then offers this garbage, "Clinton is a woman far from feminism, her covering and being a beard for Billy the Goat had nothing to do for feminism that I can see. Of course there is sexism that is differnt than being sexually oppressive." That's offensive. We'll set Bill aside (a defense could be mounted but he's not the issue). Hillary's far from feminism? Who told you that? Laura Flanders -- the self-loathing lesbian who stayed silent about Barack's use of homophobia -- but did find time to write back then, a dumb ass column calling for him to break with someone she didn't grasp was his political mentor and Michelle's former boss (and friend -- then and now). Laura and Betsy Reed loved to say Hillary wasn't really a feminism. Laura stayed silent during homophobia so she's the last to judge anyone and her own feminist credentials are in doubt. Betsy Reed shares with Katrina vanden Heuvel the fact that The Nation magazine published only 149 female bylines in 2007. While publishing 491 men. That alone calls into question any judgment Betsy Reed might want to offer on any other women's feminism.

These are not minor issues. And while Laura and Betsy lied and tried to say Hillary only did one thing and that was back in the 90s, that was never reality. Hillary has worked on many feminist issues in the US Senate. That both women were willing to lie or else confess their own stupidity was not Hillary's problem. Hillary was calling out what was going to happen to Iraqi women before it started -- before the US started installing puppets. That's only one example. Feminist actions and actions to support women do not get headlines. Laura should damn well know that because she was calling attention to what was happening to the women of Afghanistan in the nineties and she damn well knows she was a lone voice in the media. (And it continues today. Michelle Obama is not a feminist but, as Martha notes, feminists are being ripped apart for not calling out . . . well it's not sexism. Not the examples the man lists. And he's such a 'sweetie' using "Motherf**kers" in his title. He knows how to sweet talk a girl, no? Or maybe he's trying to say all feminists are lesbians? And apparently also into incest if they're "Motherf**kers"?)

The primaries ended in June. Where's The Progressive's examination of sexism? Where's The Nation's?

Neither periodical can stop gas bagging over elections but somehow that topic is never judged worthy for examination. It's why Ellen Willis called out the 'progressives' of the New Left all those decades ago.

It's not as if the 'progressive' community has stopped talking about Hillary. They still need to demonize her. It's not enough for them that Barack's the persumed nominee. They still need to lie and flaunt their sexism. You heard it on KPFA this morning judging from the e-mails. (Ava and I are covering it Sunday.)

But they can't cover the sexism. That attitude, long entrenched in the 'progressive' community, is why the second wave of feminism took off -- and had to.

Katie Couric called it out and got slammed for it. But, if you were paying attention, you saw just how sexist the 'progressive' community was long before this year. You saw it when Katie Couric was named anchor of The CBS Evening News.

Sexist attacks were launched on Katie Couric. She was not judged by how she performed the job and anyone trying to push that lie is not just a liar, they're a bad liar. Ava and I wrote about the attacks on Couric in "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader." Don't lie and say those attacks were based on what she did as anchor of the evening news because we wrote that article in April of 2006 -- months before she ever anchored her first evening newscast.

Couric was torn apart and ridiculed for being from Today. But Charlie Gibson -- taking the jobs of a reporter wounded in Iraq and a woman who was pregnant -- going from Good Morning America to evening news never raised an eyebrow. It was always about Katie's gender. CounterSpin, after Couric was anchor, decided to 'critique' as a 'media watchdog.' It was a strange sort of media criticism: they sited her ratings. Something they never did with a man. But remember, in 2008, CounterSpin offered non-stop examples of racism (some real, some that were a stretch) and for sexism? One lousy sentence in a headline. The entire primary season. One lousy sentence where they neither identified the CNN program or the participants.

And if you're having trouble connecting it, a culture that repeatedly degrades and devalues over half the population is always going to need to turn that anger onto another country at some point. It's all part of demonizing "the other" and 'proving' how 'wonderful' and 'amazing' you are.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4124. Tonight? 4127. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,251,944 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from 1,245,538.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
bonnie erbe
cokie roberts
katie couric
mediachannel
carole jenkins
womencount pac
susan faludi

Martha tells VIBE to f**k the hell off

[Community member Martha asked that the following be posted in full. She's responding to this crap -- not worksafe due to language -- here. I've added some links to back up Martha's points. Title was written by Martha.]

Martha: Vibe's a sewer of ignorance. I saw "The Nappy Diatribe," "One man's throat-chopping reportage" and you knew it was a man, didn't you? I wanted to leave a comment objecting to the non-stop lies, so I registered. I still can't leave a comment even after registering. It shows me logged in. I considered sending them an e-mail but I figure they'd blow it off.

So let me salute the LIARS at Vibe for LYING and promoting HATRED OF WOMEN. This Black woman won't stand for it.

Who the hell told you that you were a journalist?

You're nothing but a LIAR who can't even do research before putting out your LIES.

Ignorance is an ugly think so you're obviously a very ugly man.

He wastes three paragraphs dissin' various rappers and showing off that his mouth is actually a gutter.

Then he gets to his big lies.

I'm reminded of my mid-concert petulance this election season by the deafening silence of all the feminist activists concerning the treatment of Michelle Obama, especially considering how forcefully vocal they were every time Hillary was the victim of sexism both real and imagined. A few months ago you couldn't throw a rock without hitting some scathing article by a pen-wielding woman concerning the legitimate concerns about insensitive comments made by a few knuckle dragging pundits, or some passionate supporter of womens rights arguing their case on some garden variety cable news show. [. . .] I just knew that if Obama became the Democratic Nominee that Michelle could count on that same passion and unwavering support from those same feminist activists who so forcefully had Hillary's back. Unfortunately, there has been nothing but cricket sounds thus far, proverbial tumbleweeds if you will.


Let's deal with the LIES first and I'll just call the man "PIG" since he doesn't put his name to his garbage post.

Pig, Feminist Wire Daily (of the Feminist Majority Foundation) did two items on sexism against Hillary starting in January and ending in May. They've done more than that on Michelle Obama this month alone. [C.I.: Such as here, here, and here.] Why don't you try reading, you stupid idiot? NOW has called out the sexism. [C.I.: Such as here and here.] The Women's Media Center has called it out.

If you're hearing "cricket sounds," it's because you're a SEXIST PIG who doesn't pay any attention to women to begin with. You're a disgusting piece of trash, posting lies to protect Barack Obama. I've seen this game play out and you are played out, PIG. No one's buying it anymore. Everyone's caught on that Barack got to where he is by using sexism. So you can LIE and claim that Michelle got no support. You're a LIAR.

You're an IDIOT.

You're a FOOL.

And you're played out.

As a Black woman who is a feminist, let me further add that Michelle Obama doesn't deserve s**t from the feminist movement and I think they should let her deal with whatever comes down all on her own. Gender doesn't make someone a feminist.

Hillary Clinton is a feminist. Feminists should have defended her. The reality was most were silent. And the reason was because of THUGS like you. Slapping 'em down, trashing 'em. Making them afraid to call your s**t out.

Get it, Two Cents, I ain't scared of your lying, thug ass.

I'll be damned if you're going to attack feminsim and think your hate's going to sell.

I'm reminded yet again that one of my biggest problems as a Black woman is the small but vocal segment of Black men who work overtime to hold a sista down.

As usual, Black women are just supposed to shut up and take this abuse. We're supposed to pretend that we're not women. I'm not playing that game and I'm not selling out my gender for some bi-racial man that's not even Black. I've had it with Hop on the Bandwagon for Barack.

I've had it with women being disrespected and dissed and trashed and slimed. I've had it with that coming from some Black men. Kiss my ass, Vibe, I've had it with you.

This is PIG oink-oinking some more:

Their telling silence when it comes to defending Michelle is deafening, and it is going to make it hard for me to reward them with my undivided attention the next time they are addressing substantive issues on my television screen. I'll be tempted to give them a spirited "Hell NO!" as if I was asked a pretty pedestrian question during a lackluster performance, and proceed to waive my middle finger in the air like I just don't care.

There hasn't been silence. There should be. Michelle Obama is not a feminist. The feminist movement needs to focus their energies on feminist issues. Barack got the nomination by using sexism.

The feminist movement is not all White but a number of the leaders are. I want to make it real clear to them that they are not helping this Black woman by wasting energies to defend Michelle so that Barack can get into the White House.

Not after he used sexism, not after he put those homophobes onstage in South Carolina.

The feminist movement cannot educate or reach men like PIG. They won't admit but they are sexists and they are brothas that will sleep with White women and still be the first to trash White women. Which is why PIG's trashing feminists now. To him, it must be a White plot by White women. He really is that sick.

The feminist movement has let feminists down. Continuing to defend Michelle lets feminism down. She's not a feminist. She never defended Hillary. She added to it. I don't give a damn whether she's becomes First Lady or not.

Glad you got a job, PIG. Hope you don't have a wife and/or kids. If you do, you'll no doubt be fired at some point when you tell a LIE about something someone cares about and, let's face it, PIGS like you and your employer go out of your way not to give a damn about the Black women who get stuck holding the communities together. For that we get called names. For that we get attacked. As Betty so wisely put it back in May, "When Bud Johnson writes or quotes a slam on Black women, when he questions our Blackness, you better believe Black women have every right to scream, 'Enough!' And we should. We're the ones holding the Black community together. And the thanks we get for that is cheap little smears. Our mothers, our grandmothers, our great-grandmothers and on and on got the same thing as well. We haven't had the luxury of 'dropping out' of the larger culture to avoid discrimination. We've faced discrimination in our communities, faced abuse in our own families. We've overcome very real odds and still have a long, long way to go. But we don't get thanked for that. Instead we get questioned. It's tired, it's old (centuries old) and it needs to stop."

We're all supposed to be Michelle -- the little woman behind the man. If we did that, a lot of Black children would be starving because, let's get honest, it's the Black mothers putting the food on the table in most households. I'm real sorry that PIG's ego is so tiny because he's worth so little but this Black woman isn't going to inflate his ego and make him feel good.

He's a LIAR. He's an IDIOT. And I'm sick of having to deal with this in my community. The feminist movement would help me out by realizing that Michelle is not one, does not claim to be one and needs to be left on her own. We're not electing a First Lady, we're electing a president. She can live her life however she wants but there's no need for the feminist movement to equate her with Hillary who is a feminist and who was running for president.

That's something PIG doesn't grasp. He thinks, "Oh, they're both women!" One's a feminist, one's not. One was running for president. It's a whole other level and until the feminist movement grasps that, I get stuck having to live with this crap. The two women are not the same.

To PIG, it's all the same because he reduces us to nothing but vaginas though I doubt he'd use that term. Feminists know better. It's time they demonstrated it.

vibe
sexism
feminism
thomas friedman is a great man

Iraq snapshot

Other Items

Jan Slakov examines the current situation in Canada and comes up with a few suggestions in "Lessons in how to prepare for peace" (BCLocalNews). We'll note the second one and include the fifth since it's an upcoming action:

2) Welcome war resisters: Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy once said: "War will exist until that distant day when the CO [conscientious objector] enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” A majority of Canadian MPs understand this, and voted on June 3 to allow U.S. soldiers who object to the “war on terror" on conscientious grounds to stay in Canada. However, the Conservative government is ignoring the will of the majority and allowing these deserters to be deported to face punishment in the U.S.
[. . .]
5) Join us for this year's Hiroshima Day commemoration at the Peace Park across from ArtSpring, beginning at 5 p.m. on Aug. 6. This is a family-friendly event; all are welcome.

June 3rd, the House of Commons voted on a measure to provide safe harbor to US war resisters in Canada. The decision to extradite Robin Long and the continued efforts to deport other US war resisters (whose 'deportations' might also turn out to be extraditions) ignores that vote as the NDP has pointed out repeatedly. In an attempt to make it clear just how much support the measure has, the War Resisters Support Campaign has posted video of the vote.



Turning to Iraq, Nicholas Spangler and Mohammed Al Dulaimy's "Firebrand cleric tells followers not to attack Iraqi government forces" (McClatchy Newspapers) report actual news:

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr on Wednesday offered full support for Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government if it refuses to sign an agreement President Bush has sought to allow semi-permanent stationing of U.S. troops in Iraq. Sadr warned at the same time that he would oppose any agreement between Iraq and the United States.
Sadr's followers have abandoned active resistance in recent months, as Maliki's government has asserted its authority in military offensives around the country. Sadr's statement, posted Wednesday on his Web site, said that elements of his insurgency had erred in targeting fellow Iraqis and called for a centralized resistance directed only against U.S. occupiers.
Declaring that resistance to an occupier "is a legitimate right by human reason and in Islamic and human law," he called on Shiite clerics to "issue their fatwas against signing any agreement between the government and the occupier, even if it is for friendship or any other purpose."

McClatchy Newspaper's Leila Fadel has a blog post entitled "A Deadly Fate" (Baghdad Observer) that is must read.

Cedric's "Gutter Trash you can smell" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! THE LEADER TRIES TO CONTROL THE CULT!" (joint-post) covers the latest gutter trash from the Cult of St. Barack. There was no reason to get in bed with Ludacris but Barack chose to. Now he wants to play like Ludacris doesn't speak for the campaign? After praising the sexist repeatedly? To bring you up to date, Ludacris rapped a campaign song. It's insulting to Rev. Jesse Jackson. It may be seen as wishing violence on John McCain. It uses "bitch" to describe Hillary -- insulting her and all women. But that term (which the New York Times plays cute and won't name today) is a 'hallmark' of Ludacris' 'art.' And has been for years.

So the Barack campaign -- realizing that they have huge problems (a) with women voters and (b) with Hillary supporters -- rushes out a campaign statement trying to distance themselves from the 'song.' It's not a statement from Barack. And the campaign thinks that's enough. They think they can get away with this gutter trash -- more gutter trash from the campaign that offers nothing but. Barack's not calling it out but everyone's supposed to look the other way? Again?

Jake Tapper's "Comedian Jokes About 'Hos' at Obama Fundraiser; Obama Condemns" (ABC News, July 12):

Now this'll surely help Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., with all those still-angry supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., not to mention the feminists confused by his recent remarks on abortion.

ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports that at a Chicago fundraiser last night, comedian Bernie Mac said his "little nephew came to me and he said, 'Uncle, what's the difference between a hypothetical question and a realistic question?' "I said, ‘I don't know,’ but I said, 'I'll tell you what you do. Go upstairs and ask your mother if she'd make love to the mailman for $50,000.’"

Mac's wife, in the joke, said she sleep "with anyone" for $50,000, and Mac's daughter said the same.

Explained Mac: "Hypothetically speaking, we should have $100,000. But realistically speaking we live with two hos."

Obama addressed the issue in his remarks, saying, "We can't afford to be divided by race. We can't afford to be divided by religion, or by region or class. Or by gender. That means, by the way, Bernie, you got to clean up your act. This is a family affair. ... I'm just messing with you."

That should have been the BIG NEWS the Monday after but PATHETIC Feminist Majority Foundation (via Feminist Wire) and NOW decided to betray women and instead carry Barack's water one more time (they focused that Monday instead on a political cartoon). So "girls," you going to do a damn thing today?

'Leadership' better grasp real damn quick how out of touch they now are with the grassroots. 'Leadership' does not lead feminists around by the nose to a polling booth. 'Leadership' is supposed to speak out. Learn to do it or accept how useless you are now being seen.

After what Tapper reported, there should have been outrage. Both that it took place at an official campaign event -- with the candidate present! -- and that the candidate made a 'joke' out of the offense. Now Barack thinks he can yet again get away without addressing the latest sexism? It's not that easy. (Pay attention Kim and Eleanor, it's not that easy as "Feminist History: Learn it or repeat" documents.)

On a related front, the New York Times works themselves into a lather with Jim Rutenberg (who once went to town on Whoopi Golberg and other 'Bush haters') whining from the front page about John McCain's efforts to portray Barack as a celebrity. Well, golly, when your buddy Ludacris is utilizing his offensive mouth to 'drive up support' (bully) for you, most may feel McCain's point was made.

I said this was related, it is. Those visiting Barack's website this morning will find "Obama Campaign Releases Response to Misleading McCain Ad: 'Low Road'." They will find nothing (because there is nothing) on Barack's campaign calling out Ludacris.

He again wants to have it both ways. He wants to run his sexist campaign and have his staff offer statements to the press. This crap, this UGLY SEXISM, has been coming from the campaign and from Barack. He wants it to stop, he needs to address it. But you'll notice HE NEVER DOES AT HIS OWN WEBSITE. Not today, not ever.

Without sexism, he wouldn't be the presumed nominee. He knows it, everyone knows it. Let's all stop kidding otherwise.

Dropping back to Monday's snapshot:

Ava and I covered the travelogue and Barack's alarming statements (alarming to those who played fool or were fools) re: Iraq, Syria, Israel and more. We will come back to that later in the week but for now check out Katie Couric's interview with Barack (CBS Evening News -- links has video and transcript). Now we're turning to Peggy Simpson's report (WMC) on the NOW convention (July 18-20) which took place in Bethesda and featured Marie Cocco, Patricia Ireland, Carol Jenkins, Carolyn Maloney, Irshad Manji, Monica Aleman and others. Simpson reports NOW president Kim Gandy announced to one and all that "sister" (I'm being sarcastic) Barack sends greetings. From prison, Kim? Do we need to mount a Free Barack action? He sends his greetings? That lousy pig who used sexism non-stop sends his greetings? Let's drop back to June, to Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman (New York Times) reporting on the media finally maybe noticing the sexism targeted at Hillary:

In response, the Obama campaign directed a reporter to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who supported [Ms.] Clinton but who is now speaking for the Obama campaign. She said Mr. Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he already incorporated themes of discrimination as a societal problem in his speeches.

No specific plans -- now or ever. He could travel all over the globe but he couldn't show up for the NOW convention? No feminist wants to hear his garbage. Which is obvious from Simpson's report. She notes that Gandy's message from Sister Barack resulted in "a minor ripple of applause." Simpson focuses on one organizer who spoke to the conference, Jehmu "Green spoke last weekend at the national NOW convention, one that was subdued rather than boisterous, in the wake of Hillary Clinton's primary defeat by Barack Obama. Some NOW delegates wore Hillary tee-shirts. There was minimal talk of Obama and loud cheers whenever someone mentioned Clinton." She quotes Green explaining, "We increased [women's] turnout by 200 percent in the [Democratic] primaries -- gosh, we came really close to nominating Hillary. . . I also was disheartened when I saw young women vilify Senator Clinton and vilify being a feminist."

It is not acceptable. Nor is sending Michelle Obama out to toss out sop (Marcia called that crap out in "No sale, Michelle" Tuesday). Shame on any 'womens' organization or outlet that doesn't call this continued sexism out. Shame on any outlet (geared to women primarily or not). A lot of 'leaders' are yet again (as in 1976) setting their own asses up and betraying ALL WOMEN. It needs to stop. But it won't as long as we all stay silent or play stupid -- and sadly 'leaders' have done their share and then some of both. It's time to stop it.

Radio: Naomi Klein will be on KPFA's The Morning Show this morning (starts at 10:00 a.m. EST, 9:00 a.m. Central, 7:00 a.m. PST).

Staying on presidential politics, the independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader visits Salt Lake City today:

RALPH NADER AND ROCKY ANDERSON WILL ADDRESS CAMPAIGN RALLY IN SALT LAKE CITY THURSDAY EVENING

Who: Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader with former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson
What: Nader/Gonzalez Campaign Rally
When: Thursday July 31, 7:30 p.m.
Where: Libby Gardner Concert Hall, 1375 E President Circle, Salt Lake City, UT 84112



Dana suggests we provide the original Nader announcement on the dinner contest with the announcement from yesterday that provides more bonuses. First, the original:

Win Dinner with Ralph Nader

Yes, indeed.

You read that right.

You can win the grand prize -- a dinner with our main man -- Ralph Nader (at a mutually agreed time and place.)

How?

We're looking to build our e-mail list, to expand our grassroots support, and to spread the bedrock Nader/Gonzalez campaign message -- shift the power from the corporate controlled political parties back into the hands of the people.

So, we're having a contest.

The person who brings in the most e-mail sign-ups by August 7 at midnight to votenader.org wins.

Open to legal U.S. residents, 18 years or older at time of entry.

You invite your friends, family, neighbors and anyone else to sign up for Nader/Gonzalez updates.

The person who brings us the most e-mails wins the grand prize -- dinner with Ralph Nader.

(Check out our privacy policy here.)

During the course of the contest, you can keep track of how you are doing on our "Win Dinner With Ralph E-mail Contest Leaderboard."

It's sort of like kicking back on a Sunday afternoon and watching the PGA leaderboard.

Except that this isn't golf.

It's democracy.

And even if you don't grab the grand prize, there are a whole bunch of other prizes too.

Second prize is dinner with Ralph's VP running mate Matt Gonzalez (also at a mutually agreed time and place.)

Third prize is an invitation to our election night party in Washington, D.C.

Then the next seventeen people get an autographed copy of Unsafe at Any Speed and an autographed copy of the DVD An Unreasonable Man

Everyone who brings in at least 25 email sign-ups will receive a copy of the Declaration of Independence.

Are you ready to play?

You are?

Okay.

Get out your address book.

Start your e-mail engine.

And let 'er rip.

Click here to get started.

Remember, you can keep track of who's winning on our leaderboard.

(For the complete set of rules, click here.)

May the person who brings in the most e-mails to votenader.org win.

Onward

Sally Soriano,
Campaign Manager
Nader for President 2008

ShareThisShareThis

And this is the update with additional incentives:

Join an invite-only call with Ralph and Matt

Dear supporter,

We've just finished another hectic day here in the D.C. office and I wanted to dash off a quick udpate about the "Dinner with Ralph" e-mail contest. The whole team (including Ralph, who came up with the idea!) is blown away to see so many people sign-up as contestants, and even more as participants and supporters.

Over the last five days, over 200 of our supporters have reached out to more than 10,000 of their friends -- clearly there's nothing like a little of the good ol' competitive spirit!

So -- quickly -- I want to remind you that it's not to late to participate in the contest. The contest doesn't end until August 7th, so there's lots of time left to win dinner with Ralph, or Matt, or to win one of the many other prizes that are available.

And, we've just added two new prizes:

• For anyone who enters and recruits at least five friends: take part in an invitation-only conference call with Ralph and Matt. That's right -- just recruit five friends to join our movement and you're in on the conference call, and a chance to ask your questions to Matt or Ralph.

• And, if you recruit 20 friends to join our "people fighting back" campaign: your choice of a t-shirt from our Web store (and we have lots of new designs on the way). People who reach 25 friends will get a t-shirt and a copy of the Declaration of Independence.

Reach out to friends. Win prizes. It's really that easy. And we make it even easier by providing a way for you to invite up to 30 friends at a time from your address book -- you can go back and invite more friends as often as you'd like.

The people who are currently in the lead -- Ramy Mousa of Baton Rouge, LA; Anna Chambers of Fort Payne, AL; Scott Keddy of Cambridge, MA -- all got there in just five days. Not only is there enough time to catch up, but with over 10 days left in the contest, there's time to be queen (of king) of the hill. (The contest leader board is one of the most popular pages on our site right now!)

We really need more people to get in on the competition. Why? Because this is our chance to reach out beyond "the choir" and to speak to the people you know who may not even be aware of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign. They may not realize that Nader/Gonzalez is ready to stand up for the issues that matter in this election; issues like single payer health care, reversal of U.S. policy in the Middle East, and military withdrawal from Iraq. These are issues that need to be on the table this year.

That's about it for today. Remember:

• It's not too late to enter the contest
• Anyone who recruits at least five friends wins
• There's lots of time left (contest ends on August 7th -- that's 10 days away!)
• The current contest leaders got there in JUST FIVE DAYS
• We want more people to participate so our message can reach beyond the choir

Onward,

Jason.

--
Jason Kafoury,
National Coordinator
Nader for President 2008
P.O. Box 34103
Washington, D.C. 20043
www.votenader.org

ShareThisShareThis

Lastly, earlier this month John Murphy's "Something's Rotten in the State of Pennsylvania" (Dissident Voice) contributed a HUGE amount to the discussion of BonusGate (and would have done so even if the scandal was widely covered). He is running for office and Martha asked that we note this:

JOHN MURPHY FILES 5,000 SIGNATURES
INDEPENDENT CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE
SECURES POSITION ON NOVEMBER BALLOT
EGREGIOUS BALLOT ACCESS LAWS IN PENNSYLVANIA MUST BE ABOLISHED
For Immediate Release: July 28, 2008
For Further Information: John Murphy (610) 384-4460

HARRISBURG, PA -- John Murphy the independent Congressional Candidate in the 16th district filed close to 5,000 signatures with the Department of the Commonwealth on Friday morning. Pennsylvania's egregious ballot access laws required Murphy to submit 2,300 signatures but, as the press has been reporting under the topic of "Bonus Gate", independent and third-party candidates have to collect at least twice as many signatures as required by law because the Democrat Party will even use state employees, on taxpayer time, to ensure that independent and third-party candidates never make it onto the ballot unchallenged or at all.

"While the Democrat and Republican candidates were able to spend the last four months campaigning and raising funds, our resources were completely absorbed in securing my position on the ballot" explained John Murphy. "It's bad enough that we have the most anti-democratic state in the union, singled out even by the Helsinki Accords Group, but the Democrat Party has taken these already draconian ballot access laws and exacerbated the situation by making use of the minutia embedded in those laws. It's one thing to remove the signature of a person who is clearly not a citizen of Pennsylvania, it is quite another to remove a signature because ‘Lucinda’ signed her name as ‘Cindy’ or somebody printed their name in the column where you're supposed to sign your name. That’s how the Democrats removed the independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2004 and the Green Party’s Senatorial candidate Carl Romanelli in 2006."

John Murphy further explained that there may be some good news on the horizon for the citizens of Pennsylvania. "There are two ways you can defeat democracy" said John Murphy. "One way is by preventing people from voting, the other is by preventing worthy candidates from ever appearing on the ballot. In Pennsylvania the Democrat Party has chosen the latter method. Fortunately State Senator Mike Folmer has introduced legislation into the Pennsylvania Senate entitled the ‘Voters’ Choice Act’ which would redefine minor party's requirements by lowering the threshold to .05% of the registered voters and then allowing the minor parties to nominate their candidates by convention and, like the candidates of the two older parties, have no signature collection requirements for the General Election.

"Independent candidates like me would simply have to collect the same number of signatures that candidates from the two older parties have to collect for their Primary Election ballot. I hope everyone urges their state senators and representatives to support this important piece of legislation by Senator Folmer. If we can accomplish this in Pennsylvania we will be at last in compliance with the Pennsylvania Constitution which mandates 'free and equal' elections and on our way to fighting for Instant Runoff Voting", concluded John Murphy.

###


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
jan slakov
mohammed al dulaimy
mcclatchy newspapers
nicholas spangler
leila fadel
naomi klein
kpfa
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
jake tapper
katharine q. seelye
the new york times
julie bosman
sickofitradlz
john murphy

The silences on Iraq

Iraq snapshot

Wednesday, July 30, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, Parliament takes their summer recess, a war resister tells his story, for-show actions continue in Iraq, a new report on waste in Iraq is released, and more.

 

Starting with war resistance.  Alex Atamanenko is a Canadian MP from the New Democratic Party. He writes a letter to the editor of Arrow Lake News:

 

Tuesday, July 15th will go down as a black day in Canadian history. The first Iraqi War Resister from the American military was deported from Canada for refusing to fight in a war that Canada refused to get involved in, that the United Nations has called illegal, and that much of the world sees as an invasion of a sovereign country for oil resources.       
Robin Long, 25, was one of hundreds of U.S. men and women who have struggled with the decision to risk life-long separation from their families, friends and their country to stay in Canada. If they return to the U.S. they can face arrest, court martial, prison sentences, deployment to Iraq and being blacklisted from employment and education opportunities for the rest of their lives. Many of these youth have been targeted by an 'economic draft', a US recruitment effort that targets the poor with offers of employment, health care for family members, higher education and more if they sign up. These promises are not always kept.  
Our country has a history once known for peacekeeping, for the art of diplomatic negotiation, for refuge in times of war, for welcoming conscientious objectors like the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Doukhobors, and the Vietnam draft dodgers. These immigrants have made huge contributions to the life of their communities and to our country.          
Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government chose to direct the deportation of Mr. Long DESPITE the June 3rd House of Commons vote in favour of a resolution introduced by my colleague, Olivia Chow, Federal NDP Immigration Critic. This motion called on our Government to cease any removal or deportation actions against conscientious objectors who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the UN. It called for the government to immediately set up programs to allow their application for permanent residency status, so that they can remain in Canada.     
Further, on June 27th Angus Reid released a poll showing that 64% of Canadians believe that US War Resisters should be allowed to stay in Canada, re-enforcing the fact that the vote in Parliament was reflecting the will of the Canadian people.
On July 4th the Federal Court of Canada acted, and ruled that war resister Joshua Key should have his denied refugee claim reviewed by the Refugee Board of Canada. The court found that someone who refuses to take part in military action which "systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates" combatants or non-combatants might qualify as a refugee.      
On July 9th, the Federal Court further ruled that war resister Corey Glass's order for deportation the next day should be stayed for an indefinite period of time.
The Canadian people and the Parliament of Canada have spoken.  
I call upon Minister Day, Minister Finley and Prime Minister Harper to respect the will of Parliament and the Canadian people and to stand up to President Bush to ensure that American soldiers who oppose that war receive a welcome in Canada.
Alex Atamanenko, MP BC Southern Interior      

 

And, of course, "draft dodgers" and "deserters" were both welcomed into Canada during Vietnam.  On Robin Long, the War Resisters Support Campaign states:

 

Against the wishes of Canadians and Canada's Parliament, the federal government deported U.S. Iraq war resister Robin Long to the United States, where he faces punishment for refusing to participate in the Iraq War.          
Robin is currently being held at Fort Carson, Colorado. People can send letters of support to Robin at the following address:        

Robin Long, CJC 
2739 East Las Vegas 
Colorado Springs, Colorado     
USA 80906     

Robin is allowed to receive hand or type-written letters. They must not include anything like drawings made with markers, lipstick, crayons, stickers etc. or print articles. There can be no enclosures, with the exception of standard size photographs (ie. up to 4x6 inches). These must be printed at a photo developing place (i.e. not photocopies, or from a home printer, or Polaroids), and there must be LESS than ten photos, otherwise they will get put in lockup with his personal belongings and he won't see them.   
The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do.

 

War resisters in Canada need your help. To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").  Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote.  Now they've started a new letter you can use online here.  The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.  Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do." 

 

Thank goodness for The Canadian Press.  Were it not for their article, the CBC, the Welland Tribune, the Globe and Mail and the Buffalo News (among others) might have blank spaces. Instead, all work from the same TCP article to tell you that Deltona, Florida's 23-year-old Tyrone Pachauer was arrested by US Customs and Border officers as he attempted to enter the US following a self-checkout while on leave (December 19th through January 1st).  He was reportedly living with relatives in Brampton, Ontario while AWOL.  Precious Yutango (Toronto Star) is the only one filing a report and cites US Customs and Border Protection's Kevin Corsaro stating, "Supposedly, he had left boot camp in December for Christmas break.  I guess he decided he didn't want to be in the army anymore so he fled to Brampton."  Meanwhile AP reports Casey Anne Hardt (18-years-old, from Chiloquin, Oregon) was arrested in . . . Louisiana -- which may hold the record for the most arrests of AWOLs during the Iraq War.  She was arrested at a traffic stop in Bossier City (right next to Shreveport).  AP states she had a desertion warrant and was now awaiting "extradition to Fort Leonard Wood", MO.

 

Courage to Resist speaks with Michael Thurman (audio interview) about how he signed up, at seventeen-years-old, for the delayed entry program in 2005 while in high school, "I was really interested in aviation and having a career in aviation. . . . One day the air force recruiter came to school and I was talking to her about joining the military as an air force maintenance technician and eventually working to become a pilot."  He described himself at that time as "indifferent," "young," "motivated by self-interests" and in "a conservative right-wing household."

 

In his senior year he "found some new friends" who provided him with "more of a liberal lean towards politics. So I started seeing it through those eyes and that's when I started becoming a little discontent with the war and the government. . . .  But I was still ready to go."

 

Thurman was then sent to Lackland Air Force Base for basic training where, "I just questioned a lot of things I was being taught."  In one class the training was videos of violence -- people being shot, people being blown up -- which led Thurman to questioning.  As did "one of the chants was about killing people" which all indicated that "it just seemed like a really hateful, angry situation I didn't want to be in."

 

Michael Thurman: I didn't really want to be part of killing people but I was already in and I didn't really have a choice so I just advanced and kept telling myself it might get better.  So I went through tech school with that . . . with that kind of -- I was a little bit angry about my situation and I got depressed about it a lot.  And from there -- It was actually  during tech school that I started studying a lot of Eastern philosophy and thought and Buddhism and Taoism and that kind of changed my perspective in a spiritual way towards humanity and towards existence.  So . . . I guess I could say at that point I could say I was totally opposed to the situation I was in.

 

Eventually, he ended up at Beale Air Force Base:

 

Michael Thurman: I started working out on the flight lines.  And every day I was out there I just thought of all the indirect killing I was contributing to and I just couldn't take it anymore. So one day I told my supervisor that I didn't agree with any of it and I didn't want to be in the military anymore.  And I told him, if there was any way I could get out, I'd like to get out. They took me off of flight run.  He's actually the one who told me about consientious objector.  I actually didn't know about the term until I was introduced to it by him. So I looked into it and I read down the criteria and I thought, "Wow, yeah, this is what I am, this is what I'm going to apply for so I can get out of the military."  So I applied for consientious. objector status and it took me a long time to it was a really arduous process.  They put me in -- they put me in the office.  They took me off of flight line and put me in an office.  And I was just doing personnel work just pushing paper and filing.  I was like a file clerk and that sort of stuff which I was still contributing to it.  So every day that I was in, I was in constant turmoil about even the little, the little stuff -- like mopping or taking out the trash.  It still contributed to this huge system that I was totally opposed to being.

 

Courage to Resist: So from the time you first asked to get out until you were discharged, how long was it?

 

Michael Thurman: It took a very long time, eight months for me to get discharged by the time I applied for conscientious objector status.  What happened was, when I applied I had to write a huge paper about what I believe and how it came to be and why I couldn't contribute to war anymore. And at that point, I had to talk to a psychiatrist to make sure I was still sane.  I guess they thought I might have been crazy . . .  I talked to a lawyer at the legal office and she's actually the one that processed all my legal stuff and determined whether or not  I was actually a  cons obj and she recommended me to my base commander and it basically went up the chain of command so that's why it took a long time.  Oh and I also had to talk to a chaplain and the chaplain gave me a report about my religious and spiritual beliefs. And, so yeah, from that, from those interviews it goes to legal office on base and then it just goes up the chain of command.  And it went all the way up to the Secretary of the Air Force and it took eight months for that to happen.

 

 

 

In the US today, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstuction issued a report. Stuart Bowen Jr. issued a note to the report [PDF format warning] explaining, "The United States has now appropriated more than $50 billion in taxpayer dollars for Iraq's reconstruction."  The report notes its basis is "seven new audit products" between May 1st and June 30th of this year.  The US has outsourced and done so badly if that's not redundant.  As is well known, the US government has provided no oversight.  Most recently, Dana Hedgpeth and Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported Monday on a finding from the Officie of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, "The U.S. government paid a California contractor $142 million to build prisons, fire stations and police facilities in Iraq that is has nver built or finished".  The report released today notes these oversight problems on the part of the US government:

 

* Inappropriate payment of award fees. 

* Insufficiently defined scope of work.

* Inadequate preparation of detailed and independent cost estimates.

* Not initiating timely action to close out task orders.

 

Of course a key problem was the awarding of no-bid contracts on what appears to be a crony system.  Parsons is always in the news . . . when it comes to corruption.  The report is not different and notes Parsons re: fire houses, "SIGIR reviewed the largest task order, Task Order 51, which called for Parsons to design and construct 21 fire stations in Anbar and Baghdad.  Because of multiple delays and cost increases, the U.S. government reduced the number of stations to be constructed to 100.  Later another fire station was eliminated before construction began because of land ownership issues, and a second was terminated for the convenience of the government after it was bombed twice during construction leaving nine.  In 2006, Parsons completed the nine fire stations and transferred them to the GOI.  The award fee paid to Parsons for wok on this tark order was $296,294 -- 23% of the total available award fee."

 

Parsons bills itself as "a leader in many diverse markets such as infrastructure, transportation, water, telecommunications, aviation, commerical, environmental, industrial manufacturing, education, healthcare, life scienes and homeland security."  The company was formed in 1944 and moved to Pasadena in 1992 -- a move James F. McNulty instituted four years prior to be coming CEO and President of the company.  McNulty is currently the Chair of the Board (and has been since 1998) and he joined Parsons upon retiring from the US army (Col.) in 1988.  What a ride it's been for McNulty.  Griff Witte (Washington Post) reported at the end of the 2006 that Parsons and McNulty felt under attack from Congress and McNulty was blaming others and that he "suggested the government needed to rethink its heavy dependence on the private sector for reconstruction, security and support in a combat environment.  The comments are unusual for the leader of a firm that makes much of its money doing work for the government.  Then again, few have been battered as badly as Parsons, an employee-owned, California-base compnay with a six-decade track record.  Since the spring, when news of the stumbling health clinic program first broke, the company's preformance has been derided in the press and upt under the microscope at congressional hearings.  At a hearing in September, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) spoke of a $75 million police academy that Parsons was responsible for but that wend badly awry: 'This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America.  Incompetence.  Profiteering.  Arrogance.  And human waste oozing out of ceilings as a result'."  On a June 23, 2004 broadcast of PBS' NewsHour, Waxman called it what it was: "It is looked at as profiteering.  And we shouldn't have that go on a time when we've got brave.  American men and women who are facing the possibility of giving their lives to help the U.S. effort."  McNulty rejected that and insisted that there was no way "we are somehow taking advantage of either the Iraqi people or our government."  In January of last year, KCET's Life & Times was returning to the difference of opinions between Waxman and McNulty with Waxman arguing, "I don't think anybody ought to get paid and be able to keep the money if they didn't do what they were supposed to do.  Then they found that the Iraqi subcontractors didn't do the work, so why should the United States taxpayers pay for that?  We should get our money back."  To which McNulty responded, "There is nothing wrong with our firm having made a profit on that work that we did over there in Iraq.  It was legitimately earned.  It was honestly earned and none of our employees nor our firm should feel the least bit bad about that."  That 'honest' work that McNulty's so proud of is best evaluated by Jackie Northam (NPR) reporting in May of 2007: "Getting a definitive answer on the number of clinics completed by Parsons is not easy.  Of the original 151 promised, the construction company says it handed over 20 fully equipped, completed health-care centers.  The Army Corps of Engineers disputes that number, saying it received only six completed clinics.  Some of those needed additional work, the Corps says."

 

The SIGIR report notes that "Iraq's oil revenues will crest $70 billion by the end of the year."  meanwhile approximately $40 million in US tax dollars was wasted on a prison outside Baquba (Kahn Bani Sa'ad) which was turned over to the central government in Baghdad (to finish).This prison was a Parson's 'effort'.  The report notes, "About $142 million was spent on various Parsons projects that were ultimately canceled or not completed, including Kahn Bani Sa'ad. The report notes Iraq's deputy prime minister (Barham Salih) stating, "Iraq does not need financial assistance."  BBC explains, "This . . . meant the government was capable of fundign reconstruction projects itself.  The report also criticised the Iraqi authorities for failing to improve sewage and drainage facilities. . . . Roger Hardy, the BBC's Middle East analyst, said the report was the latest in a string of criticisms by the watchdog of the way in which American taxpayers' money is being spent in Iraq"  Click here for HTML folder containing links to the -- PDF format warning -- sections of the report.  Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) points out, "Democratic leaders in Congress are pushing the administration to pressure the Iraqi government to fund its own infrastructure projects through rising oil revenue."

 

Meanwhile, the pagentry of puppety . . . Diyala Province.  Campbell Robertson (New York Times) reports, "Military officers, both Iraqi and Americans, said the insurgents had probably fled the are after news media reports that the sweep was to begin soon, though officials had been saying publicly that it would be likely to begin in early August."  Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explained, "Iraqi soldiers and national police encountered no resistance as they knock in Baqubah and the town of Khan Bani Saad, about 15 miles south.  But this is well-trod ground for the Iraqi forces and their U.S. counterparts, who have conducted repeated operations in the area since last year."  It's a for-show effort that (a) props up the puppet Nouri al-Maliki and (b) makes the war seem 'winnable.'  In the real world, Reuters reports that Moqtada al-Sadr has "called on Iraq's leaders not to sign a security deal with the United States, offering to throw his support behind the government if the talks were scrapped."  Iraq's parliament is out of session now (for one month); however, Reuters reports that Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani has called a special session for Sunday to address the electoral issues.

 

In some of today's reported violence . . .

 

Bombings?

 

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left three more wounded as well as "3 policemen and 4 civilians" injured.

 

Shootings?

 

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul and 1 judge shot (wounded not killed) in Mosul (as well as the judge's bodyguard).

 

Corpses?

 

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Dora.

 

Turning to the US presidential race, Jonathan Duckles of Team Nader notes:

 

Last Friday on Capitol Hill, the House Judiciary Committee weighed in on "executive power and its constitutional limits" in an inconsequential discussion of King George's imperial presidency.

There would be no vote on impeachment, no discussion of the dereliction of Congressional duty, and no Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader, who has long championed the necessity of impeachment for W's repeated, defiant high crimes and misdemeanors, was not invited to testify at the Rayburn Building on Friday morning. Writer DC Larson summed the situation up, proclaiming that the "Democrat-led Congress are as unconcerned about political justice as is any neo-con in Rupert Murdoch's Rolodex."

The Nader campaign was there to observe, along with hundreds of other concerned citizens, but couldn't crack the guest-list, despite a run-in with Ms. Kucinich . Only 16 individuals were granted admission into the hall to observe testimony from the following witnesses:

Panel I:

Hon. Dennis Kucinich
U.S. House of Representatives
10th District, OH

Hon. Maurice Hinchey
U.S. House of Representatives
22nd District, NY

Hon. Walter Jones
U.S. House of Representatives
3rd District, NC

Hon. Brad Miller
U.S. House of Representatives
13th District, NC

Panel II:

Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman
Former U.S. House of Representatives
16th District, NY
Department of Justice

Hon. Bob Barr
Former U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
7th District, GA

Hon. Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson
Founder and President
High Roads for Human Rights

Stephen Presser
Raoul Berer Professor of Legal History
Northwestern University School of Law

Bruce Fein
Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82
Chairman, American Freedom Agenda

Vincent Bugliosi
Author and Former Los Angeles County Prosecutor

Jeremy A. Rabkin
Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law

Elliott Adams
President of the Board
Veterans for Peace

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr.
Senior Counsel
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Said Chairman John Conyers with regard to his committee's inaction, "we are not done yet, and we do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that Congress is entitled to and the American people deserve."

Let's hold Congress to this.

Let's reclaim the Constitution.

Let's start now.

Onward.

 

iraq
tyrone pachauer
alex atamanenko

mcclatchy newspapers
amit r. paley
the washington post
dana hedgpeth

 alexandra zavis
the los angeles times
the new york times
campbell robertson

Other Items