* One of the dumbest things I've seen was a panel with that chick from the Nation,
Kristen van Whatever, at Emily’s List. It was the day that Dean finally
-- FINALLY -- said something about the sexist media coverage, after
Hillary had conceded of course and when she referenced it as if this
was some great thing, Dean's name got booed. She seemed surprised by it
and asked if it was about Florida and Michigan. It clearly was not.
Finally, someone explained to her that it was because Dean had sat
silent until the primary was over and then acted like he suddenly
discovered the sexism. To her credit, Salon's Rebecca Traister knew
exactly why women were angry with Dean and the party and said that one
of the things that needed to be discussed was how not all of the
misogyny came from the media and the right and why it was only after
Hillary conceded that the sexism could be discussed at all.
The above is from BDBlue's "A New Agenda" (Corrente Wire)
and Katrinket vanden Heuvel continues to receive 'raves.' So Katrinket
couldn't grasp how offensive the sexism was? That's only surprising if
you haven't read the waste of time journal she is editor and publisher
of.
As Ava and C.I. noted in real time, and as Ruth noted this spring,
that is where you would find a book 'review' by centrist Peter Bergen
entitled "Waltzing With Warlords" which allegedly would address three
books: Sarah Chayes' The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After
the Taliban; Ann Jones' Kabul In Winter: Life Without Peace in
Afghanistan; and Rory Stewart's The Places in Between. Page wise, the
smallest of three was the one written by Rory Stewart in . . . 2004.
Reviewed for the January 2007 issue, a 2004 book. [An expanded version
was published in May of 2006. Still far too old to qualify for a review
in a January 2007 issue.] Why include a book that was three years old
at this point? One of the many puzzling questions pertaining males the
magazine has consistently raised in the last six months.
Our
guess is when you want to cook the book 'review' against women, you'll
go to any lengths. Centrist and pig Bergen opens his alleged book
review reflecting on the obvious image for a war-torn Afghanistan:
I
open it and step into a world far removed from the dust-blown avenues
of Kabul, where most women wear burqas and the vast majority of the
population live in grinding poverty.At one end of a long room is a
well-stocked bar tended by a Chinese madam who assesses us with a
practiced calculus. In front of her are more than a dozen scantily clad
smiling young Chinese women sprawled over a series of bar stools and
couches.
What does that
have to do with the three books? Not a damn thing. But Bergen wants his
jollies and apparently feels everyone needs to know that he visits
bordellos. How proud his parents must be! His former classmates,
probably not at all surprised.
Having
set the (low-brow) tone, Bergen quickly rushes to explain not all
women, apparently, know their place. No, apparently, some women reach
beyond their 'natural' abilities such as Chayes and Jones, both of whom
are too 'emotional' to write about Afghanistan.
Bergen
finds Chayes "angry," "disillusioned," prone to "a smidge of
self-congratulations" and not at all trust worthy (". . . we have to
take Chayes's word for it"). Bergen finds Jones even more of the text
book example of the female 'hysteria' noting that she fell for "trope,"
that she, too, is "angry" (we're guessing most women Bergen encounters
are angry and that Bergen can find the reason for that just by looking
in the mirror), that she suffers from a "tendency to see sinister
conspiracies where they don't exist" (so irrational, those women), and
much more! The funnin' never stops for Bergen.
Then
it's time to turn to the male writer and all the troubles with (women)
writers go out the window as Bergen informs us of "Stewart's
beautifully written book," offering "picaresque stories, of adventures
on the road is a critical point that is often overlooked by Westerners
with dreams of transforming Afghanistan into a place where women enjoy
equal rights" (killjoys!), "skeptical" (as opposed to the
"disillusioned" Chayes), "erudite" and so, so much more.
The
book 'review' is nothing but a pig going Oink-Oink-Oink! For those who
know no better, Sarah Chayes is a Harvard graduate and a professional
reporter who left NPR to live in Afghanistan and work to improve
conditions in that country. While she was doing that, Bill Moyers
didn't find her 'emotional' and, in fact, had her on as a guest for a lengthy segment of what was then Now with Bill Moyers where she spoke with David Branccacio. Journalists, including Amy Goodman, have interviewed Chayes since she has written her book and we're aware of no on air meltdowns.
In
fact, most feel Chayes, a professionally trained and respected
journalist, is a reliable source for what she observed with her own
eyes while in Afghanistan. To assist gas bag Bergen, what Chayes does
is considered reporting. That may be confusing in a new world disorder
where 'reporters' are encouraged to run with official statements and
give them complete weight -- even when they contradict with the
journalist's own observations. Who, what, where, when -- the journalism
basics -- are what Chayes covers and Bergen can't handle that kind of
reality (from a woman) so he has to point out that, in a first-hand
recounting, we [gasp!] are dependent upon the author's observations.
Ann
Jones has contributed to The Nation before and, we're sure, is quite
aware that there is no more damning phrase from that magazine than
being said to possess "a tendency to see conspiracy theories." That is
The Nation's equivalent of "Your mother!"
Not
only is Jones an author, she's also a journalist and photographer --
with a doctorate as opposed to Bergen's B.A. and, we're sure, the B.S.
he's more than earned from years of gas baggery. As for her alleged
conspiracy theories, Nation Books only bestsellers, both by Gore Vidal,
also argue the (true) narrative that, in the 90s, a proposed pipeline
in Afghanistan trumped all other concerns for the US government. That's
not a controversial theory to anyone but pigs who 'reported' for
commercial TV 'journalism' (which is where Bergen hails from -- the
lowest of all forms of journalism). Those not late to the party (that
would be feminists) were calling out Afghanistan in the 90s while paid
lobbyists were presenting PG-friendly versions of the country to
Americans. Jones knows what she's writing about. Gore Vidal knows what
he's writing about. The only one lost, intentionally or not, is Peter
Bergen. [The February 25, 2007 "The Nation Stats" notes that Jones weighed in with a letter and that Bergen elected to ignore the bulk of it.]
That
a three page plus book 'review' trafficking in the worst forms of
sexism raised no flags to those in charge of the magazine goes a long,
long way towards explaining how readers ended up with the first six
months of The Nation this year.
Katrinket vanden
Heuvel's magazine (that she edits and publishes) managed to make it
through the first six months of 2007 and it published 255 male bylines and 74 female ones during that time. The Nation
tried to pre-empt the article by rushing out an e-mail saying they were
aware of the problem and that they were fixing it. Oh really? Before
that article went up at all community sites, The Nation knew
of the problem and was fixing it? Well then the second half of 2007
should have found a marked improvement; however, that's not what
happened, now is it?
"The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones?" asked The Third Estate Sunday Review.
The answer: 149. This happened while Katrinket was trying to get credit
for being a female editor and publisher. And it was just as bad in 2006
which is why we ended up covering the issue to begin with.
It's not a minor issue. When Katrinket thinks she can get away with that crap, even after The Nation's
e-mailing mid-way through 2007 saying they know about the problem (and
trying to kill the article) and her magazine makes no effort to improve
the number of female bylines published, you're dealing with a Queen
Bee. A woman who defines "female success" as "I got mine."
So the hostility she and others at The Nation aimed at Hillary non-stop in 2008 shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone paying attention.
Katrinket
likes to pretend she gives a damn about other women in her writing
(when not using her writing to define testicles as the source of the
strength). So it's no surprise that uber trash Katrinket not only
encouraged the trashing of Hillary (never forget, she farmed out her
coffee-fetcher to Barack's campaign where he is the official campaign
blogger). She, Betsy Reed, Laura Flanders and other 'strong' women felt
the best way to attack Hillary was always to question her womanhood.
Let's break it down for Katrina who may be confused (she does think
testicles are the measure for strength -- any Crying Game secret you need to share, vanden Heuvel?): Hillary is a woman. She is not transgendered. She is 100% woman. Barack, whom The Nation
insisted repeatedly was "Black" is, in fact, bi-racial. And the divide
there is 50% Black and 50% White. They never questioned the role they
assigned him but they repeatedly questioned the gender of Hillary.
As
late as June 4th, Katrinket was wanting to insist, "The women of The
Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this
primary season". In what world? Katrinket started out 2007 printing a
'book review' that slammed two women in the most stereotypical terms
and the 'book review' opened with a trip by the male pig to a bordello.
That should have said a lot. But as for "the women of the Nation"
(yeah, Katrina makes it sound like they've just shot their Playboy spread -- her idea of 'classy') . . .
Self-loathing
lesbian Laura Flanders never called out Barack's use of homophobia in
South Carolina. What's a few gay bashing incidents that could arise
from that when she's found a man to love? It wasn't enough for her to
lust over Barack, she also had to rip apart Hillary. She did that by
lying and distorting Hillary's record. She did that by pretending
Hillary spoke out in the 90s for women and never said another word
when, in fact, Hillary was calling attention to what was being done to
Iraqi women in the first year of the illegal war. There's much more to
list but the point is Flanders whored for her man. As a lesbian, it may
have been a first for her. It was not a 'last.' She showed up on KPFA,
where she refused to inform listeners that she (like all other guests
on that two-hour 'analysis' of the Texas debate) had publicly endorsed
Barack Obama. But that 'woman of the Nation' did find time to twice
refer to Hillary's laugh as, yes, a "cackle." How very 'feminist' of
Laura Flanders. At what point does she plan to apologize? Vast Left is
calling Rachel Maddow out at Corrente and Maddow needs to be
called out. But Laura Flanders shamed herself. And thinks she can walk
unscathed. And thinks she can get away without taking accountablity for
her actions. And get away with being this century's Rose Marie. Good
news, America, Sally Rogers finally landed herself a man!
There's Betsy Reed,
Katrinket's jug-eared Queen Bee running mate. Bitsy showed up in May
with what will no doubt be the title of her own life story, "Race to
the Bottom." In it, Bits pulled Katrinket's trick of pretending to
acknowledge sexism briefly. Both women refused to call out Nation cover boy Keith Olbermann. Strange, wasn't it?
Like
the tired, musty relic that she is, Bits couldn't really acknowledge
sexism. She had to trash women who did (Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem --
Flanders also trashed Robin) and put forward the idea that an
"oppression sweepstake" was being played out. That would be by the
"Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves" at The Nation and many other outlets. But it was the "GTT" of The Nation
who started it with their non-stop claims of racism and, in fact, their
defining a bi-racial man as "Black" in order to forever play the race
card. Remember it was early 2007 when Professor Patti Williams tried to
lie on KPFA that Barack voted against the Iraq War and remember how
nasty and rude she got when she was pulled away from her non-stop
recitation of "First Black Man To Be President Of The Harvard Law
Review!" because a caller with a MidEastern accent dared to point out
that Barack wasn't in the US Senate in 2002. Remember how Professor
Patti snarled? They decided long before the election where they were
going. It was Katrinket that paired Barack's campaign with Facebook and
did so via the 'institute' she runs on.
Bits is nothing but a
liar. An unwanted liar, to be sure. (Ha, ha, Betsy, heard about it!
Laughed at you! Now passing it on to everyone I know!) But she is a
little liar, a little lying sack of s**t and that's all she ever be. So
of course, in her lie filled column, she felt the need to 'source'
herself via ULTIMATE LIE FACE Melissa Harris-Lacewell.
For those not in the know (click here), Amy Goodman invited her roll dog Melissa Harris-Lacewell on Democracy Now!
and some of you are saying, "Yes, she ripped into Gloria Steinem." Yes,
there was that set-up, where Amy and Melissa plotted ahead of time and
Amy flat-out lied to Gloria about what she was walking into (Gloria
does not participate in anything that can be viewed as a cat-fight --
sad news for Goody because when Gloria caught on to what was actually
going down, she remained calm and allowed Melissa to disgrace herself
even more than usual). But before Melissa showed up for that grudge
f**k, she had been the week prior. That's right, Melissa
Harris-Lacewell who would brag about being part of Obama's campaign
during her attempted attack on Gloria, was on Democracy Now!
the week prior. And, wouldn't you know it, she found time to praise
Barack. Understand, she just happened to catch his speech in New
Hampshire. Or that's the LIE Amy Goodman and Melissa wanted the
audience to believe. It is unethical for someone with a campaign to go
on a broadcast and talk up their candidate without revealing to the
audience that the person speaking is part of the campaign. But LIE FACE
LACEWELL thought she could get away with it and so did Amy Goodman.
That was a HUGE ethical breach. And it's what's harmed Goody's show
with NPR because that little stunt is against NPR guidelines -- NPR's
written, ethical guidelines. Goody tried to play like she didn't know
anything about it. But prior to having LIE FACE on the show the first
time, she'd joined LIE FACE on Jesse Jackson's show and she knew
Melissa.
So it's hilarious that Bits wants to cite Melissa Harris-Lacewell as reputable.
[For those late to the party, in March,
LIAR LACEWELL would top that moment. She'd go on PBS' Charlie Rose. All
other panelists would be reporters. Melissa was billed as a professor.
Not only did she never disclose -- nor did Charlie -- that she was with
Barack's campaign, not only did she float the treat of a 'brown-out' if
Barack didn't get the nomination, she also took it upon herself to talk
about how 'some people' were upset with Tavis Smiley. She left out the
part where she launched those attacks with her blog post "Who Died And
Made Tavis King?"]
But that's the lying crowd a jug-eared, sad
woman has to run with. She lies because she is so very pathetic. Which
is how she includes this:
A mere three days after
Obama spoke those words, Bill Clinton made this statement in North
Carolina about a potential Clinton-McCain general election matchup: "I
think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had
two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of
this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on
these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to
intrude itself on our politics." Whether or not this statement
constituted McCarthyism, as one Obama surrogate alleged [. . .]
Obama surrogate? I seem to remember Bill Ayers' brother screaming "McCarthyism!" from Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box. Do you really want to go there, Betsy? Do YOU really want to go there? Media Matters called out what Bitsy's floating nonsense when Chris Matthews floated it previously.
She also lies (and tries to play a race card) by doing what The Nation
did repeatedly -- claiming the only ones who supported Hillary were
White. Gary Younge couldn't tell the truth in The Nation (or at the
mag's website) but writing for the UK's Socialist Review in July, he could let a little slip out. From the July 29th snapshot:
"[Obama]
is being consumed as the embodiment of colour blindness," Angela Davis,
professor of history of consciousness at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, told me last year. "It's the notion that we have moved
beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him
conceivable as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of
diversity in this period... a model of diversity as the difference that
makes no difference. The change that brings no change." Finally, he did
not build a multi-racial coalition but a bi-racial one. Clinton's base
has been erroneously portrayed as simply the white working class and
older white women. But in California Latinos and Asian-Americans went
much more heavily for Clinton than whites did and made her victory
possible. The same was true with Latinos in Texas. Indeed the only
state where Obama won the Latino vote was his home state of Illinois.
And even then by just 1 percent.
Gary Younge, has it been erroneously reported? Yeah and you certainly did your part to PUSH THE LIE in your other two outlets.
The two outlets were The Nation and the Guardian of London -- both party organs. They couldn't tell the truth in The Nation.
Maybe that's a good thing? If you remember, Amy Goodman devoted a
lengthy segment to smearing Puerto Ricans as racists after Hillary won
the primary there. So maybe it's a good thing that The Nation just stuck with, "Hillary's support is all White!"?
Women of the Nation,
Katrinket? There's Katha Pollitt who found time to twice call out
sexism in the Democratic primaries. Twice. Katha must have worked up a
sweat on that. Poor thing. Twice she had to do her damn job. The job
that wrongly has her credited as a 'leading feminist' when all she is a
sad, sad woman, the Charlotte Rae den mother to the push-up bra
'feminist' set.
Which brings up back to Katrinket and her 'women
of the Nation' column which CBS re-posted and which, as Ava and I
pointed out, no surprise, got a lot of sexist pigs in the comments
cheering Katrinket on with lines like, "Maybe if she" Hillary "did a
Playboy spread she could get some votes." That is the audience for
Katrina's crap. It's the audience for the crap that all the women and
men produced at The Nation. Are we supposed to forget John
Nichols attempting to spread a fasle rumor and claiming he was
researching it and would have more soon? (Barack's campaign told Canada
not to worry about Barack's NAFTA talk. When caught, his groupies went
into overtime. John Nichols went to Canada and showed up on Democracy Now!
to smear Hillary with a false rumor that she was the one doing the
talking. Johnny Five-Cents never had a follow up because there was
none. He's never retracted nor apologized for his lie.)
Katrina
dispatched her minions to go after Hillary. The same way she used an
intern to scrub her Wikipedia entry of the references to her father's
past spying career. (Katrina, tell your interns not to use the same
handle they use on their MySpace page. It was very easy to track down
after friends at the magazine gave a heads up to how you were using the
interns.) She's a liar, she's a public liar. Her resume (that she
oversaw) includes the lie that she won an award from Planned
Parenthood. No, she did not. The award went to The Nation
magazine. She was not singled out on the ballot nor when the award was
handed out. She did not win an award from Planned Parenthood, the
magazine did. But she insists upon claiming she otherwise to this day.
To make it as clear as possible, here is the lie still posted in her Nation bio: "She is a recipient of Planned Parenthood's Maggie Award for her article, 'Right-to-Lifers Hit Russia'." Here are the 1994 Maggie winners (from Planned Parenthood's site):
1994 The Nation magazine for "Eastward, Christian Soldiers! Right-to-Lifers Hit Russia" Concord Monitor (NH) for series "Sex Education -- Teen Realities" Chicago Tribune for series "Saving Our Children: When Kids Have Kids" Concentric Media and KTEH-TV for When Abortion Was Illegal: Untold Stories Home Box Office for Talking Sex: Making Love in the '90s KSBW-TV for Not Me: Innocence in the Time of AIDS WBBR 1130 AM for "Condom-Phobics"
Katrina did not win that award, The Nation magazine was given that award. When the Maggies want to note an individual, they do so. Such as:
1999-2000 Teen People magazine for coverage of our issues Mike Peters for cartoons supporting reproductive health and rights issues Natalie Marie Angier for Woman: An Intimate Geography Judy Mann for columns covering our issues NBC-TV for 3rd Rock from the Sun -- "Sex and the Sally" episode MTV/Kaiser Family Foundation for True Life: I Need Sex RX The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation for their website, http://www.kff.org/ NBC-TV for The West Wing -- pilot episode Ani DiFranco for "Hello Birmingham" Eve Ensler for The Vagina Monologues John Irving/Miramax Films for The Cider House Rules
Or,
in 1997: "The Washington Post for a series of cartoons on family
planning, legislation, and abortion rights by Herb Block." Or 1996,
"The Nation magazine for Katha Pollitt's columns on the abortion
issue." Or 1992: "The Washington Post for series of cartoons on family
planning and legislation by Herb Block." Or 1990, "San Francisco
Examiner for series of columns on reproductive rights issues by Suzanne
Salter." The 1995 award went to the magazine, not to Katrina vanden
Heuvel. By Katrina's logic, Sandra Bullock should begin billing herself
as an Oscar winning actress because Crash won the Oscar for Best Picture.
One of the biggest laughs on Bette Davis was her lie that she was nominated for Of Human Bondage.
She was not. But she managed to repeat that lie over and over and no
one bothered to check. After Bette repeated that lie for decades (as a
two time Best Actress winner, there was no need for her to repeat a lie
about a nomination), Joan Crawford finally got sick of it and began
correcting the record with reporters in the seventies. It was very
embarrassing to Bette but, like Katrina, she had no one to blame but
herself because there was never a reason to lie and, sooner of later,
someone was bound to check it out.
The award went to The Nation
magazine. It did not go to Katrina. It's a sad and telling lie about
someone who's ego runs wild and is so insecure that she must repeatedly
claim to have won an award that was awarded to the magazine.
Katrinket
vanden Heuvel is a Queen Bee. She's not going to make space for women
(when you run 491 male bylines in one year and only 149, it's very
obvious that you're not interested -- even remotely -- in equality).
That topic was dumped us and only after female writers had taken the
problem to a number of outlets in 2006 and all took a pass on covering
the issue. Katrina's got a vagina, it doesn't make her a feminist. She
took part in the pile on, she took part in demonizing Hillary. That's
only surprising if you're unaware of that infamous book review she
elected to run where two women were trashed in stereotypical, sexist
language by a reviewer who wanted to open his 'book review' by sharing
his 'fun' in bordellos. No one was done a favor by people refusing to
call out Katrinket. The Iraq War wasn't done a favor because it is
Katrinket who banned the term "war resister" from the print version of
the magazine, it is Katrinket who regularly turns down articles on "war
resisters" (which is why writers -- even male ones -- know to shop them
elsewhere -- if she's called out enough, she'll offer it as "an online
exclusive"). She's an immature school girl, even all these years later.
And the illegal war isn't a concern for her anymore than sexism is. Of
course she couldn't grasp that women were outraged, she only hangs with
Queen Bees and men.
Before she took the reigns as publisher
(she was already editor), The Nation could and did cover war resisters,
did have a few fine pieces on the illegal war. Since then? She even
destroyed the one article that should have won the writers awards in
2007. (Maybe she did so out of jealousy?) She demanded that it be
watered down and watered down until it was really nothing worth reading
(and angered everyone who participated in that article by speaking to
the reporters).
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 4141. Tonight? 4145.
That's seven more and, yes, M-NF only released four death announcements
(they let DoD 'make the announcements' for the others). Just Foreign Policy lists 1,252,595 as the number of Iraqis killed -- the same as last Thursday.
Can a fast-food business model save lives in Africa? Next on NOWSNEAK PREVIEW FOR BLOGGERS: See the entire show RIGHT NOW at: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/433/index.html Show
Description:Can the quality of healthcare in developing nations be
transformed by the same principle that makes fast food such a success
here? NOW travels to Kenya to continue ongoing coverage of an
enterprising idea: franchising not burger and donut shops, but health
services and drugs in rural Africa. American
businessmen have been teaming with African entrepreneurs to spread
for-profit clinics around the country in the hopes of providing
quality, affordable medical care to even Kenya's poorest people. In
this show, NOW chronicles how the Kenyan facilities weathered recent
violent unrest, as well as the program's expansion into Rwanda. Also
on the show, a massive program to dispense medicine for people with
HIV/AIDS in poor countries is changing lives and restoring hope. A
small team of photographers is capturing those amazing transformations
on film, hoping their compelling images will bring attention to the
importance of drug access in the developing world. The NOW on PBS website (www.pbs.org/now)
will feature personal stories and more photos from the front lines of
the fight for global health, including amazing photographs of those
suffering from HIV/AIDS and discovering hope.
Q: Isn’t . . . did you try to get the Green Party nomination . . .?
NADER: No, no. Right from the beginning, I didn’t. They have a convention in Chicago in July.
Q:
If you’re trying to build a movement that’s going to pick up steam over
time, why not do it within one party and if you win the nomination,
great . . . I mean, why not stay with the party that took you last time?
NADER:
The Green Party is not a functioning party. It doesn’t have any
discipline. And it doesn’t have any maturity. It drives out the best
Greens who come in, stay around, look around at all the bickering and
internal rivalry and say, “Let me out of here.” Even the green
candidate who was elected to the City Council in San Francisco is not
an active Green anymore. He’s supporting Obama. He’s one of the highest
elected officials . . . So it’s not a functional party. I left them
with almost 3 million votes in 2000. I went to dozens of states
afterwards to try to strengthen them. I went to 40 fundraisers at my
expense, and they frittered it away. So I really think you have to
start a citizen movement or independent movement first before you have
to start a party.
I wish we had politics without parties. I
really wish we had elections without parties. If you look at the
statements of Jefferson and Madison, George Washington and others, they
didn’t like parties. They were sucked into it finally, but they thought
parties were factions, bickering, inward-looking, selfish, driven by
pure ambition to grasp more control of power. But the system is such
that it almost requires parties after a while in order to gain any
order of magnitude. But you don’t want to go into a party that
basically collapses on the candidates, can’t even raise money.
Q:
Doesn’t that undermine your argument, though, from the start if you say
you’re going to start a movement and get this set of ideas. And it’s
not . . . you don’t want something that devolves into being just being
a fight over ambition, one person’s ambition. But then you move to
another party, and each time, the ideas that come in your breast pocket
with your list of issues that come just with you, doesn’t it kind of
undermine that argument about building a long-term movement and
sustaining a long-term movement if you do that?
NADER: It could
if you built the right kind of party, but to build the right kind of
party, one or two people can’t do it. I have my hands full being a
candidate and I haven’t seen people who can build a party, who’d do the
administrative work, the organizational work, the fundraising work, to
build the party that has its goal on the best interests of the American
people instead of perpetuating itself. So it’s really, those people are
few and far between, and my urgency is to put these issues on the table
in 2008 and hope that after 2008 we can have some momentum to start
Congress watchdog lobbies in congressional districts, which would turn
Congress around because there’s nothing really organized out there
other than economic interests and single-issue groups. There’s no
citizen organization out there, say, with a couple thousand people
willing to spend five hours a week on the average, put in 200 bucks,
have a full-time staff in each congressional district. You’d have a
remarkable impact on members of Congress with these kinds of issues.
But there’s nothing out there, it really is unbelievably non-organized.
The people are non-organized out there, except on things like some of
the civil rights issues and the economic interests: the auto dealers,
insurance agents . . . That’s why people on the Hill think they can
away with turning their backs on the people, because their people are
not focusing on them. They’re not getting the kind of energy that
bird-watchers in the district give, bowling league fans give. We’ve got
to watch Congress. I mean, members of Congress take 22 percent of your
income and can do a lot of things bad and good. And we’re not watching
them.
Q: So when you go to Denver this summer, whether you’re on
the street or at a symposium, what is your message going to be? And in
this election . . . what’s your highest point you think you could get
in this election . . .?
NADER: If you read this article two
weeks ago in Politico by Jeremy Lott, he thinks we’ve already had an
impact over the last eight years on the Democratic Party. It was quite
an eye-opener to me that he writes that way. I don’t even know him. He
didn’t even interview me. But he said “the Democratic Party is now
Ralph Nader’s party.” Of course, that’s a little ambitious. But he’s
reflecting a pull. They are talking more populist. For heaven’s sake,
they criticized WTO and NAFTA. Regardless of whether they’re going to
follow through, the first step of reform is lip service. (Laughing.)
And they’re giving a lot of lip service in a variety of areas — nowhere
near what I would hope them to do. So it’s a tugboat candidacy at a
minimum.
That’s what we’re hoping for. What the parties did in
the early 20th and the 19th century. I mean, Norman Thomas actually had
quite an impact on Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was, like, looking
over his shoulder even though Norman Thomas didn’t get that many votes.
Huey Long had an impact on Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Thought he was
going to challenge him in ’36. And certainly . . . there were other
parties that have gotten quite a few votes, really did have an impact.
Now, it’s tougher these days because parties are more cast in stone
than they ever have been, for all the reasons we’ve talked about and
more. But you have to keep trying.
See, I have a sense of
history about this. Every social justice movement was started by people
who didn’t win, didn’t win, didn’t win, didn’t win, didn’t win. Then
someday, they or others won. So they were willing to endure defeat.
It’s not easy to endure defeat, because we’re living in a country that
loves winners. But all I say to the people of this country is just be
as smart a voter as you are a sports fan. You do your homework, you
know the history, you know the statistics, you know the strengths and
weaknesses of the players, the coaches, the managers. You can, in a
sophisticated way, second-guess them. You can show how they made
serious mistakes, even though they get paid a lot more to run that game
than you do. But above all, you don’t just root for the winners, you
root for the team that’s closest to your heart and your mind, even if
that team loses again and again like the Chicago Cubs.
Be as
smart as a voter as you are a sports fan and we’d have a much more
throbbing and functional democracy solving a lot more problems.
Q:
Is your point really that if Democrats, if Barack Obama loses an
election or Al Gore loses an election, that they need to look at their
own house if they want to assign any blame?
NADER: Exactly.
They’ve got to look in the mirror and stop looking for scapegoats or
blaming it on Swift Boats. The Swift Boats did harm Kerry. Why didn’t
he turn it around and show the American people the vile way that Bush
was low-balling U.S. soldier injuries in Iraq in order not to arouse
the public against the war? So he was undercounting U.S. soldier
injuries, because the Pentagon had a criteria that the only injuries
that count are the ones that were experienced in actual combat. Well,
it’s not that kind of war, so the injuries are three times . . . I told
Kerry that. I even put it in a letter to him. And yet, no. Here’s a guy
who was in Vietnam and he’s the one who’s on the defensive, not the
sophisticated draft dodger who supported the Vietnam War, George W.
Bush.
So mistakes, when you don’t know who you are, when you
don’t have a sense of your identity or your tradition, when you engage
in protective imitation of your adversaries, when you define yourself
by how much worse your adversary is than you when you’re challenged by
liberals as a party, you’re going to make mistake after mistake after
mistake, and you’re going to lose.
I mean, it’s pretty hard, you
know, to lose this election for the Democrats. You know, George W. Bush
is an easy act to follow. But they may end up doing that. Look what
Obama has done in the last few weeks: pandered to AIPAC and the Israeli
lobby to a point where he offended even conventional politicians. Good
heavens, why did he have to do all that? There is an
Israeli-Palestinian peace movement, after all. The world is condemning
the blockade of Gaza from medicine, electricity, fuel, food, drinking
water. It’s against international law. Then he avoids public funding,
calling it a broken system, but by dropping out of it, he breaks it
even more. He’s following the same path of flip-flopping cowardliness
that his predecessors have followed and have lost. And the Democrats
have to work overtime to lose, but they could pull it off. They could
pull it off and lose.
Thursday,
August 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, there's no treaty (would
the press please calm down?), Robin Long due to be court-martialed
tomorrow, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Tim Richard is a US war resister. Courage to Resist interviewed him this month,
noting that he enlisted in the National Guard in 1999 and that his
service was supposed to end in 2005 but he was instead stop-lossed and
informed he would be deploying to Iraq.
Tim
Richard: After 9-11, I just like about any other American kind of
wanted a piece of somebody especially me being in the military. You
know, I had thought that, you know, I want to do the right thing. I
want to go get, you know, who ever did this to America. And then I
started doing some research and stuff. And I was behind the Iraq War
when it started because I had thought it was -- had to do with 9-11.
So, you know, but after the Iraq War dragged on for a bit, I realized
that there's no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there's nothing
but poor people and a lot of dead bodies. So I started doing some
research on the war and I realized that, well, it's basically a bunch
of bull that has been fed to us. So I thought maybe, I mean I'd been
thinking about becoming an officer, I'd been thinking about making a
career out of the military but I decided at the end of my six years I
would just get out of the military. I had to say, you know, six years
is enough. I'm not going to re-enlist, I don't want anything to do with
the Iraq War.
Courage to Resist: Tell me about the research that you did. Did you go to websites? Did you read books?
Tim
Richard: Yeah, I mean, Wikipedia is an excellent source --
non-academic, of course. But I started asking questions, I started
talking to people with different perspectives on things and I just
learned about the whole, you know, President Reagan - Donald Rumsfeld
connection to Iraq, the how Saddam Hussein was installed to counter the
Iranian revolution which came about because the US installed a puppet
shah in Iran. And once I started realizing what the root cause of all
these things were -- basically the US -- that really got me thinking
about what's the point of even being there? I also started thinking in
my mind: Is really military intervention and killing people in this
manner right?" I mean, it's one thing if you're defending yourself. But
morally, I just had problems with the idea of going into a foreign,
sovereign country, invading it, toppling the leadership, taking their
resources and killing people. To me that was a huge moral dilemma.
Courage to Resist: So you began to develop serious misgivings -- both politically and morally -- about what the US was doing in Iraq?
Tim
Richard: Yes, well I would say the moral misgivings were much stronger
than the political misgivings. Cause, like I said, I joined the
military with the idea of defending the United States and, you know, if
that had been the case, I might feel differently about the Iraq War.
But now I just felt like what they were asking me to do was just flat
wrong. Shooting somebody who is virtually defenseless is wrong and
that's something that I didn't think I could be any part of.
Courage to Resist:
Alright so you joined the National Guard, as you said, in 1999. And
your time was up in about November 2005. What happened then?
Tim
Richard: Well in about August of 2005, our unit got a warning saying
that some members would be going to Iraq. They had told us when we
joined that they don't break up units, they don't send individual
soldiers. If you go, you go with your unit. But it turned out, once the
Bush administration had got done with us, that was simply not true
because they kept basically using us to populate other units that were
going over to Iraq. And you know, I was a few months out of the
military when I got a warning order saying I would be deployed to Iraq.
I asked what about my contract and they said I was stop-lossed. I found
out later, after I had come to Canada and after I had gotten a hold of
my personnel file, they did not let me see this, but it turned out my
contract had been extended from November 23, 2005 to December 24, 2031.
Tim
Richard: I've got the paper work. You know, everyone says, "You signed
the contract, you'll just have to deal with it." That's not in the
contract. No one tells you about it when you sign up. So as far as I am
concerned, what they did is illegal but the Supreme Court of the the
United States held up that they are allowed to stop-loss. So I mean
there's really nothing you can do in that situation.
Tim
Richard: Well I decided that they weren't going to keep me -- I knew
they weren't going to keep me for that long, that's silly, they're not
going to keep me for 25 years, I don't think. Even -- well that was my
thinking at the time. So I decided that I will deploy to Iraq. I
decided that -- they pulled me out of my unit, which was a calvary
unit, in which I was fixing radios, and they started training me with
an infantry unit -- along with communications duties, they also started
training me in regular infantry duties such as house-to-house, like
house raids, and defending convoys and that sort of thing. And I
decided in around November of 2005, that, you know, this is just --
this is just ridiculous. I -- I -- I cannot morally, I cannot do what
they are asking me to do. If I were to deploy to Iraq I would basically
-- I felt like I would be a liability because there's no way I could
shoot somebody who was simply trying to defend their own home from a
foreign invader. They did all this mock training exercises in which we
were in full battle gear and we were raiding mock houses -- mock houses
with, you know, actors yelling out Arabic and that sort of thing. I had
like my rifles and everything. And during the exercise, I shot two
unarmed civilians with the blanks of my rifle and I -- and no one said
anything to me about it. I don't know if anyone even saw me. But I
realized at that time, you know, that if this was Iraq, those people
would be dead. All they were doing was trying to defend their home. So
I almost just threw away my rifle and just ran right there but, you
know, I sort of needed a plan so I decided that I'd wait a few days.
And on November 23, 2005, the date my original contract was set to
expire, that's when I went AWOL.
Tim
Richard: Well, uh, they were training us in Mississippi and this is
kind of -- this is kind of strange because we were under lock-down.
Lock-down means that, you know, you can't go anywhere without someone
knowing, not even to the bathroom. You had your rifle with you, you had
your uniform on at all times. But because November 23rd was
Thanksgiving, they decided to cancel training for the day, they let us
wear civilian clothes and lock up our rifles. And they decided that
they were going to bus us into town to go to Wal-Mart so we could pick
stuff up. And they said, "Oh, by the way, we'll just drop you off in
town. Have fun. Come back in 9 hours and we'll pick you up." So I
figured, you know what, if this isn't a sign, I didn't know what was.
So I got onto the first bus I could, snuck away from the main group. I
called a cab. Meanwhile my mom's on the other end. I didn't tell her
exactly what all was going on but she bought me a plane ticket from New
Orleans to Seattle. So the plan was to get to New Orleans, take the
plane to Seattle, cross the border in Seattle to Vancouver then meet my
mom where she was living in Nanaimo, BC at the time. And, well that's
the short version, that's what I did.
Tim
Richard: Oh I was. My heart was pounding the whole time. I was
sweating. You know, I was so paranoid, you know, because it really only
takes one phone call, one person to realize what you're up to, and your
name goes on like every computer, like every single military, FBI,
local police, everything. You know, it doesn't take that much these
days for them to put a looking out for you. So, I mean, I tried to
alter the way I walked. As soon as I got to New Orleans, I threw away
my dog tags. I threw away my military ID. I tried to, you know, act
normal. You know, I tried to the best I can to just sort of blend in.
Of course, you know, the haircut and walk just sort of gave it away.
So, you know, I just tried my best to blend in and, you know, when I
got to the Canadian border, I basically had a one-way car rental, I had
out-of-country driver's license, you know, from the US, $400 cash. So
I'm thinking, "Okay, I'm busted." My plan was to get out of the car and
start screaming, "I'm a Canadian citizen!" and let them not kick me out
until they figure out that I'm not. Which I was a Canadian citizen so
they wouldn't kick me out. But, you know, the border guard was just
really nice and said, "Alright, have fun. Welcome to Canada." And that
was pretty much it.
Courage to Resist: You said you were a Canadian citizen. It's possible to have dual citizenship? Canada and the US?
Tim
Richard: According to the United States, no. But according to Canada,
yes. I, because my father's Canadian, when I came to Canada -- and I'm
glad I did not claim my Canadian citizenship earlier because if I had
claimed my Canadian citizenship as a child, I wouldn't have been able,
the US military would have made me forfeit it upon joining the
military. Because when I came to Canada, I was able to go ahead, fill
out all the paperwork, everything, basically sit on my hands for eight
months and wait for the citizenship card to come in. And now I'm a
full-fledged Canadian citizen and I've got the rights and privileges of
every other Canadian citizen.
Courage to Resist: We know a few hundred other GIs up there who would like to have those same rights and privileges.
Tim Richard: And that's why I'm up here with the War Resisters Support Campaign. Here in London, Ontario, we've got a London chapter
and we care for, I know, four war resisters here and we've had ten
others pass through. We do several fundraisers, a lot of political
lobbying, a lot of talking to the public. That sort of thing. And I try
and be as active as I can with the group in order to -- because I feel
these guys are up here, in some ways I feel really guilty because, you
know, just because I'm a Canadian citizen, just because my dad was born
in New Brunswick, I somehow have a privilege they don't and I don't
think that's right that I have a privilege that they don't simply
because of where my father was born. I've done the same thing they did.
In fact, I think what they've done is a little bit more courageous
because I came up here knowing that I had Canadian citizenship. These
guys that come up now, they've got no claim to Canadian citizenship.
They don't know what's going to happen to them. So that's why I try and
work and try and be as outspoken as I can about the war resisters
support group.
Regarding the stop-loss, as Chris Hedges explains in the afterword to Camilo Mejia's Road to Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia,
Camilo was also stop-lossed and given the 2031 year. Last month, Robin
Long was extradited from Canada. As expected, his court-martial is this
month. Scheduled for tomorrow. From Courage to Resist:
Ft. Carson court martial Friday, August 22.
7:30am - Supporters are encouraged to attend the trial Arrive
at the Ft. Carson Main Gate at 7:30 am to ensure you can get to Bldg.
6221 in time. You will need to provide a drivers license, registration,
and proof of insurance if driving. Do not wear any political buttons,
t-shirts, etc.
5:00 pm - Main Gate vigil and press conference Join Robin's lawyer James Branum and supporters for a vigil and press conference at the Main Gate
The
Canadian government has announced that US war resister will be deported
if he does not leave their country by September 23rd. Whether he would
be deported or "deported" is an unanswered question. Actions are taking
place to make the Stephen Harper government respect the will of the
people and let Jeremy remain in Canada. Jeremy is being highly
pro-active and has already taped a video, which you can find at the War Resisters Support Campaign, where he speaks directly to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:
Jeremy
Hinzman: Hello, Mr. Harper. This is my family Nga, Liam and Meghan.
We've been in Canada for the last four and a 1/2 years. I was a
specialist in the 82nd Air borne division of the United States Army and
served honorably in Afghanistan. In 2004, my family and I came to
Canada because we would not participate in the Iraqi War, a war which
Canada also refused to participate in because it was condemned by the
international community. One of your predecessors, Pierre Trudeau, once
said that Canada should be have from militarism and we took him at this
word. On June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion saying
that United States war resisters should be able to remain in Canada.
We're asking you to abide by this motion and allow us to stay in
Canada. Thank you.
Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.
Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.
Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca
Courage to Resist alerts,
"Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War
also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or
email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca."
There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei
Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste,
Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano
Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal,
Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn,
Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross
Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique,
Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez,
Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Daniel Baker, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing,
Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk,
Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum.
US
Secretary of State Condi Rice snuck into Baghdad. She held a press
conference there with Hoshyar Zebari (Green Zone spokesmodel for Jenny
Craig as well as the country's foreign minister) to discuss the treaty
they're attempting to pass off as a SOFA. Jonathan S. Landy (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes
Rice relaxing at Nouri al-Maliki's palatial digs declaring, "Nothing
will be signed today." Of course not. Even Gordon Johndroe was
attempting to slowly explain that to the press via the traveling White
House (in Crawford, TX) on Tuesday. ("Drafts aren't final until they're
final," Johndroe declared. "So there are drafts and there have been
drafts for the last few weeks.") For those who still can't grasp it,
Condi and Hoshy held a joint-press conference in the Green Zone. It was
cute the way Hoshy thanked her (repeatedly) for dropping by as he
pointed out that "you have so many other preoccupations, but thank you
for making the time to visit us." Yes, Condi, "thank you for making the
time" despite your "many other preoccupations." She's just the
Secretary of State. How nice of her to make time for a war that the US
launched. As the White House announced Tuesday: "Secretary Rice was
scheduled to lead a delegation to the closing ceremonies of the
Olympics in Beijing this coming weekend. Because of ongoing events
around the world she is no longer going to be leading that delegation."
Landay was at the press confernece and asked
Hoshy, "You have to put it" SOFA "through your political and national
security committee, your Parliament, and Ramadan falls early this year.
What will you do if you can't get this done by December 31st." Hoshy's
optimistic but also noted that the draft of the agreement has to go to
the Executive Council as well ("an important body").
Stephen Farrell and Thom Shanker (New York Times) reported this morning:
"The main sticking points, in fact, are also the most delicate: setting
a timeline for American troops to leave and declaring whether American
forces would be granted immunity from Iraqi prosecution." Today at the
White House, Gordon Johndroe again tried to stress the obvious:
"Discussions are ongoing. We have made some progress in the recent days
on an agreement with the Iraqis, but there is no final agreement yet.
We will continue to have these discussions with the Iraqis." Johdnroe
danced around Senate ratification at first when asked about the US
Congress' role by saying certain members had been consulted but then,
pressed, stated, "So it's not a treaty, so it would not require Senate
ratification or anything like that." At the Pentagon, Bryan Whitman
explained that "it's very premature at this point to say that we have
an agreement." And it's premature to assume the US Congress is going to
go along with being shut out of any process. Among the House members on
record publicly raising objection to ignoring the Constituation are US
House Rep Susan Davis, US Senators Russ Feingold and Hillary Clinton
and US Senator and chair of the Committee of Foreign Relations Joe
Biden. And for those confused about the basics, US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro explained it in a column for the Washington Post last month explained how "congressional approval of the agreement" is required and urged an alternative to the treaty:
We
should extend the U.N. mandate for a short period to maintain the
status quo and ultimately turn this issue over to the next president
and Congress, who must implement any agreement. Rather than dictating
the terms of our long-term relationship with Iraq, such a policy would
allow us to work with Iraqis to craft an agreement that includes the
carefully coordinated withdrawal of U.S. combat forces that majorities
in both countries support. Doing so would also solidify the type of
sustainable partnership that the people of the United States and Iraq
need and deserve.
As so many in the press corps rush to gush and pretend a treaty has been finalized, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) appears
to be the only one who looked beyond the arranged press briefings who
notes that "a flying visit to Baghdad by Dr Rice, which drew a scathing
reaction from the anti-US cleric Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr. He
accused Washington of trying to pressure the Iraqi authorities to bend
to its will."
Meanwhile, Campbell Robertson and James Glanz (New York Times) explore
the Iraqi Finance Ministry claims (in figures they handed over to the
Times as well as in statements to the paper) that they are spending 57%
"of their annual reconstruction budget" and the paper's examination of
the figures finds that 18% is the better number and if monies for the
Kudistan region (which have not been spent, only allocated) is removed,
the figure "drops to 8.7 percent." Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reports
that Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora followed "in the footsteps
of King AbdullahII of Jordan" by visiting Baghdad yesterday where he
held a joint-press conference with Nouri al-Maliki "about an agreement
to export oil to Lebanon." China's Xinhua quotes
Sinora stating that "we advise the Arab leaders that Iraq should return
to the Arab group. The return of Iraq is an essential goal." CNN adds:
" Saad Hariri, the leader of Lebanon's parliamentary majority, visited
Iraq last month. Lebanon named an ambassador to Iraq two years ago, but
he died, and a replacement has not yet been chosen. There is an Iraqi
Embassy in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon." And Dexy's back in Iraq. And apparently hasn't learned a damn thing while gone as he rushes to write a 'peace in the valley' piece for the New York Times today. In some sort of a Karmic Smackdown, his fluff runs the same day the paper editorializes "Afghanistan On Fire"
(A22) which should serve to remind everyone that Kandahar is where the
puppet of Afghanistan can semi-freely roam and the Green Zone in
Baghdad is where the puppet of Iraq can semi-freely roam. There is no
peace in either country. Turning to some of today's reported violence .
. .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 1 life and left four more people
wounded and a Baghdad "sound bomb" resulted in three people being
injured.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
Maj Gen Ahmed Rasheed ("director of the government office that issues
identification cards") was shot in Baghdad today and is "injured
seriously," in another Baghdad shooting 1 person was killed and another
wounded and, in seperate incidents, 2 police officers were shot dead in
Mosul.
In
the US, Congressional opponent of the Iraq War Stephanie Tubbs Jones is
dead. Tubbs Jones was a courageous member of the House who stood up for
the voters and for the vote in January 2005 (along with US Senator
Barbara Boxer). The New York Times
had long ridiculed questions of voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004
elections. Tubbs Jones and Boxer's stand meant the press had to take it
a little more seriously. Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a judge, a
prosecutor and, following the November 1998 elections, a member of the
House of Representatives. The Clintons -- Bill, Hillary and Chelsea -- issued the following joint-statement:
There
are few words to express the shock we feel at this time our deepest
condolences are with Stephanie's son, Mervyn, her family, and her many
loved ones, friends, and supporters. Stephanie's friendship meant the
world to us, a friendship that deepened through every trial and
challenge. We could always count on her to be a shoulder on which to
lean, an ear to bend, a voice to reassure. Over the course of many
years, with many ups and many downs, Stephanie was right by our side --
unwavering, indefatigable. It was that fighting spirit -- safely stowed
behind her disarming smile, backed by so much integrity and fiery
intelligence -- that allowed Stephanie to rise from modest beginings,
to succeed in public service, to become a one-woman force for progress
in our country. All of us who were lucky to know her and love her can
only hope now to live like her -- to be as passionate, loyal, hard
charging, and joyful in life's pursuits. Stephanie was one of a kind.
We will miss our friend always.
Stephanie
Tubbs Jones was a strong foe against the Iraq War so her passing is
included for that reason. There are many other reasons. As 2005
community members will recall, there's the White Man who refused to
highlight Tubbs Jones' continued work on the Ohio vote and dismissed it
(and her) in what we will just call here 'far from left' comments. No,
we don't link to that trash. Among the many other reasons to note
Stephanie Tubbs Jones' passing is Ruth Conniff. Apparenly Ruth's
unaware that Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a friend of and super delegate
for Hillary. When she does find out, she will, no doubt embarrass
herself again -- as she did earlier this month by using the murder of
Bill Gwatney -- a friend of Bill and Hillary's -- as an excuse to trash
the Clintons. A man was shot dead in Arkansas and, for Ruth Conniff,
his friendship with the Clintons provided her the perfect opportunity
to scribble some more garbage attacking them. How proud she must be so
have sunk so far into the gutter. Kat called Conniff out here.
Turning to the US presidential race, independent candidate Ralph Nader is providing audio commentaries at Ralph's Daily Audio and the one below is "Debates Declaration:"
This
is Ralph Nader. The two major parties -- Republican and Democratic
Parties -- and their candidates seem to want to ration debates in this
country. Why do we allow presidential debates to be rationed? We
don't allow weather reports to be rationed, entertainment to be
rationed, sporting events to be rationed. But when it comes to the
future of our country and it's place in the world, when it comes to the
livelihoods and the necessities of the American people, we're left with
three debates, so-called, in the fall with only Barack Obama and John
McCain on the stage. Their own debate commission/corporation ensures
that no one else on the stage and they're really not debates, they're
like parallel interviews. So we want people to open up the debates and to support the following declaration: "We
call for opening up the debates. The scope of discussion must be as
broad and deep as the serious challenges we face as a nation. We agree
that vibrant debate is the heart beat of our democracy and our First
Amendment especially during an election year. We recognize that smaller
third parties and independents have traditionally played a vital role
in our democracy including leading the charge for the abolition of
slavery, the women's right to vote and economic justice for workers and
farmers. We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and
the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates -- which is a private
corporation, co-chaired by former chairman of the Republican and
Democratic Parties -- it's time for our presidential debates to once
again be hosted by truly non-partisan, civic minded associations." If you support this declaration, let's hear from you.
The
U.S. military on Wednesday denounced a chaotic raid conducted by an
Iraqi special forces unit Tuesday morning that killed an Iraqi
government employee and sparked a gunfight with police in Diyala
province, northeast of Baghdad. "It
was what appears to be a rogue operation," said Brig. Gen. James C.
Boozer, the deputy commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, which
oversee Diyala. The Iraqi
Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party in the country, has condemned
that raid and another in which a local university president was
arrested, describing them as part of a Shiite sectarian campaign.
The above is from Washington Post's "Around the World" -- their global briefs section. And no, the New York Times has still not reported on it. Even with four articles from Iraq today. Three already discussed, what we were saving?
But the US military has good news! "Attacks down except roadside bombs, rigged houses"!
So attacks are down . . . if you eliminate some of the attacks. The
opening sentence: "The numbers of houses rigged with explosives and
roadside bombs have increased since the beginning of the Iraqi
offensive in Diyala, while other attack trends have been decreasing."
Guess this wave of Operation Happy Talk should be dubbed "win some,
lose some."
Now we all know Dexy knows how to read press releases from the Green Zone.
But somehow he forgot to include that in his article. He just notes
Davy Petraeus whispering to him that car and suicide bombings dropped
"last month." It was a rough report for Dexy. He looked over (in the
morning) and he saw his David "looking drawn, exhausted, and more than
a few years older than when he took command" of Dexy's heart? "18
months ago." Thank goodness Dexy is back in the Green Zone to sing:
Love woke me up this morning Feeling fine I had you on my mind Love woke me up this morning And I haven't had a heart ache today And all my little tears have gone away Skies are blue Because of you. -- "Love Woke Me Up This Morning," written by Nickolas Ashford & Valerie Simpson, recorded by the Temptations on the album All Directions
Happily, Dexy woke up singing that song. Sadly, Davy whispered to Dexy, "There is not much in the tank at the end of the day."
Don't
lose hope, Dexy, just switch to another Ashford & Simpson lyric and
sing "you've got to lay it brick by brick, to make it stick, you've got
to use all of you, 'cause that's the glue." But wait, he already did: "
. . . in the general's exhaustion comes the glimmer of hope . . ." Not
the Hope Diamond, mind you, but some day, Dexy, some day.
Let's not even go there on that seventh paragraph.
Forever
and ever the story seems to drag on (A&S: "It seems to hang on . .
.") until finally it ends. Every thing Davy spits out, Dexy swallows.
And hasn't it always been that way?
If Dexy's back in the Green
Zone, he may not get the pass he got before. Judith Miller blocked a
lot of attention that could have gone Dexy's way. He was fortunate in
that regard. Iraq was less so. Some day his tombstone may read: "He was
had for a Hershey bar."
Turning to the US presidential race. This is from Ralph's Daily Audio and it is entitled "Debates Declaration:"
This
is Ralph Nader. The two major parties -- Republican and Democratic
Parties -- and their candidates seem to want to ration debates in this
country. Why do we allow presidential debates to be rationed? We
don't allow weather reports to be rationed, entertainment to be
rationed, sporting events to be rationed. But when it comes to the
future of our country and it's place in the world, when it comes to the
livelihoods and the necessities of the American people, we're left with
three debates, so-called, in the fall with only Barack Obama and John
McCain on the stage. Their own debate commission/corporation ensures
that no one else on the stage and they're really not debates, they're
like parallel interviews. So we want people to open up the debates and to support the following declaration: "We
call for opening up the debates. The scope of discussion must be as
broad and deep as the serious challenges we face as a nation. We agree
that vibrant debate is the heart beat of our democracy and our First
Amendment especially during an election year. We recognize that smaller
third parties and independents have traditionally played a vital role
in our democracy including leading the charge for the abolition of
slavery, the women's right to vote and economic justice for workers and
farmers. We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and
the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates -- which is a private
corporation, co-chaired by former chairman of the Republican and
Democratic Parties -- it's time for our presidential debates to once
again be hosted by truly non-partisan, civic minded associations." If you support this declaration, let's hear from you.
Yesterday evening and night time community posts revolved around the theme of 80s music so be sure to check out Rebecca's "corey hart's 'never surrender'," Ruth's "Stevie Nicks' 'Edge of Seventeen'," Kat's "Tracey Chapman's 'Fast Car'," Marcia's "Ashford & Simpson 'High Rise'," Elaine's "Cyndi Lauper" and Mike's "Tina Turner, Bangles, R.E.M.." Cedric's "Barack tells people what he thinks there problem is" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HE JUST CAN'T CONNECT!"
joint-post addresses Barack. In response to the order people are listed
in for Wed. theme posts, listing them in the order Wally and Cedric do
which allows them to grab all the links easily without going site to
site (their order is: Rebecca, Ruth, Kat, Marcia, Elaine and Mike). As
for an e-mail asking why Rebecca used '' around a song title, (a)
everyone did and (b) Rebecca always does that. Rebecca always does that
(using the British music writing version). Everyone did last night in
their titles (only Rebecca used '' in the text of the post) because of
Wally and Cedric grabbing the post headings to link to. Trina's "Split Pea Soup in the Kitchen" went up this weekend as did Betty's latest chapter "Betsy and Valda come calling" and we'll note those here as well.
This is Ralph Nader. The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a problem. He's
written numerous columns complaining about presidential candidates and
their campaigns ignoring serious policy issues. It's as if no one else
is running for president in Bob Herbert's world other than Barack Obama
and John McCain. In a recent article that he wrote in the New York Times,
he complains about how the two major candidates and their campaigns are
ignoring the problems of the cities: the poverty, the transportaion
problems, the lack of repair and expansion of public works and
facilities, the crime. He complains that the mayors have been
complaining that they have been abandoned by Washington, citing a
recent gathering of city mayors that he attended. In
one of these gatherings he cites the mayor of Meridian, Mississippi,
John Robert Smith saying that he believes the nation should devote the
same level of commitment to developing a first-rate passenger rail
system as was marshalled for the interstate highway system in the
Eisenhower era. Well, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign has taken a strong
stand for the expansion and modernization of passenger rail as a way to
save energy, to reduce casualties on the highway and to provide more
immediate evacuation of the cities in case of a calamity or a natural
disaster. But to Bob
Herbert, the Nader Gonzalez campaign which supports almost one-for-one
so many of the issues that he advances and champions doesn't exist. To
him, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign or any progressive third party
campaign doesn't exist in his column so I say to Bob Herbert, "At least
level with your readers, Mr. Herbert, tell them that you think the two
major parties, Republican and Democrat, own all the voters and there's
no one else on the ballot. At least level with them." This is Ralph Nader.
"Part
of what I’d like to do is talk to the prime minister and see what still
remains to be done, what still needs to be closed," Rice said before
meeting with Maliki at his home in the fortified Green Zone here.
"Nothing will be signed today." American and Iraqi negotiators have
been saying for weeks that they are close to an agreement, but that
Maliki has held up the process over his concern that the agreement
doesn't give Iraq enough authority over U.S. troop conduct. The
agreement foresees U.S. combat troops leaving Iraq by 2011, Iraqi
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has said. Other Iraqi officials have
told McClatchy that the agreement also calls for U.S. forces to pull
out of Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009. One senior Iraqi official said
Maliki has been the primary obstacle to completing the agreement. Every
time negotiators seem close to conlucding the talks, Maliki raises a
new issue, the official said.
The above is from Jonathan S. Landy's "Rice meets with Iraq's Maliki on U.S. troop agreement" (McClatchy Newspapers). Before we get to anything else, US House Representative Stephanie Tubb Jones has died. Pictured below
with Senator Hillary Clinton for the "Count Every Vote" initiative,
Tubbs Jones was a courageous member of the House who stood up for the
voters and for the vote in January 2005 (along with US Senator Barbara
Boxer). The New York Times
had long ridiculed questions of voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004
elections. Tubbs Jones and Boxer's stand meant the press had to take it
a little more seriously.
Congresswoman Tubbs Jones and Senator Clinton reintroduce their Count Every Vote Legislation.
Stephanie
Tubbs Jones was a judge, a prosecutor and, following the November 1998
elections, a member of the House of Representatives.
Back to Iraq, Alexandra Zavis reports on Baquba in "Grooming a female suicide bomber" (Los Angeles Times): The
ethnically and religiously mixed province east of Baghdad has long been
a center of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which formed alliances here with Sunni
tribesmen and nationalist political groups against Shiite militants.
This is a world in which few women are educated, loyalty to family and
tribe are paramount, and fear permeates relations with outsiders. Al
Qaeda in Iraq leaders, known as emirs, managed to recruit entire clans
to their cause by marrying into the families here. The women forced
into these marriages are often passed around among emirs, said Saja
Quadouri, who sits on the provincial council's security committee and
is its only female member. "They will get married to more than one
man and get pregnant without knowing who the father is," she said.
"Eventually, due to despair, hopelessness and fear, they get exploited
to commit such crimes, as they become unwanted by society." Other
women are persuaded to perform a suicide mission to avenge the loss of
a father, husband or brother, said a U.S. intelligence analyst, who
asked not to be identified for security reasons. In tribal societies,
the loss of male relatives typically leaves women without protection or
means of survival. Asma's marriage collapsed shortly before her
husband died in a shootout; she says she does not know who killed him.
Her father has spent the last three years in a U.S. detention facility
on terrorism charges.
The article makes sweeping
generalizations and suffers from what is basically an admission that
guilt or innocence doesn't matter. It damn well does. When women are
being imprisoned, guilt or innocence damn well matters. (I'm referring
to the entire approach of the article but specifically this sentence:
"Although it remains far from clear whether the women committed the
crimes of which they were accused, the tale they shared from their
barren cell offers a peek into the violent and claustrophobic world in
which women are groomed to become suicide bombers.")
The New York Times files four articles from Iraq. The strongest is Campbell Robertson and James Glanz' "Iraqi Figures Back U.S. View on Low Spending for Reconstruction"
(A7) which tells you that the Iraqi Finance Ministry claims (in figures
they handed over to the Times as well as in statements to the paper)
that they are spending 57% "of their annual reconstruction budget";
however, the paper's examination of the figures finds that 18% is the
better number and if monies for the Kudistan region (which have not
been spent, only allocated) is removed, the figure "drops to 8.7
percent." Stephen Farrell offers "U.N. Readies 'Grand Deal' to Resolve Iraq's Dispute Over Kirkuk" (A8) and the main topic was covered in yesterday's snapshot so we'll focus on the more interesting section buried at the end:
Meanwhile
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora of Lebanon arrived in Baghdad on
Wednesday, in the footsteps of King Abdullah II of Jordan, who earlier
this month became the first Arab leader to visit Iraq since the
American-led 2003 invasion. Mr.
Siniora appeared with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki at a news
conference about an agreement to export oil to Lebanon. Iraqi oil was
also prominent on King Abdullah's agenda.
The
difficulty in reaching a final agreement reflects its importance to
Iraq and the United States. Technically, the document will provide the
legal basis for American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2008. But it
will also amount to a political document, spelling out for the people
of each nation the most difficult issues of this war, notably how long
American troops will remain. The
main sticking points, in fact, are also the most delicate: setting a
timeline for American troops to leave and declaring whether American
forces would be granted immunity from Iraqi prosecution. In
Baghdad, Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, said that the text of
a draft had been agreed upon by negotiators on the technical and legal
teams who had worked on it since March 11. But he cautioned that this
fell short of a final agreement because it had yet to be approved by
the political leadership in either country, including Prime Minister
Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
Anything that comes out will be a
draft. (A point even the White House has made this week -- on Tuesday
-- but is somehow lost by the press.) The fourth article? We'll address
it in the next entry.
As late as yesterday, we didn't think we had a chance.
For the first time in this campaign, we were at serious risk of missing a self-imposed financial goal.
Then, yesterday, you came through.
And now, we're back in it.
Now, we're just shy of $42,000.
And we have a chance to hit our goal of $50,000 by 11:59 pm tonight.
But we're going to have to bust a gut to get there.
All out.
All day.
All night.
So, we are calling on 900 of you -- our most loyal supporters -- to donate $10 each now to push us over the top.
(900 times $10 equals $9,000, right?)
And
for every $10 contribution you donate today, we will give free
admission to a needy student who wants to come to hear Ralph Nader at
our Open the Debates Super Rally at the University of Denver's Magness
Arena. ($10 in advance, $12 at the door.)
Ralph will be joined by his running mate Matt Gonzalez.
And -- breaking news -- a star studded line-up will join Ralph and Matt in a call to open up the Presidential debates.
Featuring -- Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan and Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello, Jello Biafra, Nellie McKay, and Ike Reilly.
So, please -- give a student a chance to attend this historic event.
Donate
$10 now -- or whatever you can afford -- and send a student to raise
the banner in Denver -- Open the Presidential Debates, More Voices,
More Choices.
PS: Last chance to get our two DVD Sicko/Awake from Your Slumber package. If you donate $100 or more by tomorrow night, we will send you the best argument yet made for single payer Medicare for all health insurance -- the DVD Sicko. Plus, we'll send Awake from Your Slumber -- the DVD starring Ralph Nader and Patti Smith -- autographed by Ralph.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008. Choas and violence continue, another US service member is dead, Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s reporting has the UN and US in damage control, Bully Boy lies to the VFW, lies surround yesterday's assaults in Diyala Province, and more.
Starting with war resistance. US war resister Tim Richard could not take part in the illegal war in Iraq for legal and ethical reasons so he went to Canada. At the London War Resisters Support Campaign, he notesJ.M. Branum's response to the ridiculous Rondi Adams. James Branum, a member of the National Lawyers Guild and co-chair of their Military Law Task Force, is representing US war resister Robin Long expected to face a court-martial shortly after being extradited from Canada last month.
By mail: Make checks out to "Courage to Resist / IHC" and note "Robin Long" in the memo field. Mail to:
Courage to Resist 484 Lake Park Ave #41 Oakland CA 94610
Courage to Resist is committed to covering Robin's legal and related defense expenses. Thank you for helping make that possible.
Also: You are also welcome to contribute directly to Robin's legal expenses via his civilian lawyer James Branum. Visit girightslawyer.com, select "Pay Online via PayPal" (lower left), and in the comments field note "Robin Long". Note that this type of donation is not tax-deductible.
2. Send letters of support to Robin
Robin Long, CJC
2739 East Las Vegas
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Robin's pre-trial confinement has been outsourced by Fort Carson military authorities to the local county jail.
Robin is allowed to receive hand-written or typed letters only. Do NOT include postage stamps, drawings, stickers, copied photos or print articles. Robin cannot receive packages of any type (with the book exception as described below).
3. Send Robin a money order for commissary items
Anything Robin gets (postage stamps, toothbrush, shirts, paper, snacks, supplements, etc.) must be ordered through the commissary. Each inmate has an account to which friends may make deposits. To do so, a money order in U.S. funds must be sent to the address above made out to "Robin Long, EPSO". The sender's name must be written on the money order.
4. Send Robin a book
Robin is allowed to receive books which are ordered online and sent directly to him at the county jail from Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble. These two companies know the procedure to follow for delivering books for inmates.
Robin Long was extradited. It was done under the cloak of deportation because Judge Anne Mactavish knew that if she openly instituted extradition proceedings, there would be higher checks on her actions which could have prevented Robin from being forced out of Canada. It is not a minor point and it's one that's all the important as US war resister Jeremy Hinzman has been informed he has until September 23rd to leave Canada. In Robin's case, Mactavish was willing to ignore the law as well as guidelines covering refugees and immigrants (most obvious in her decision to extradite Robin and break up a family -- Robin is the father of a Canadian child) and willing to oversee the handover of Robin Long to US authorities (that's what makes it extradition and not deportation). Hopefully, Jeremy's expulsion from Canada will be stopped. But people need to pay attention to what happens if it is not. Robin was locked away for weeks and kept from contact with those who could have advised and offered support. He went from a Canadian jail to being handed over to US authorities. Judge Mactavish argued that Robin had to be imprisoned because he was a "flight risk." A "flight risk"? If someone you are debating expelling is a "flight risk," you don't lock them away. You hope they decide to leave on their own to avoid your government paying the costs of a hearing. Mactavish got a way with a lot. If Jeremy is expelled, all eyes should be watching to ensure that laws are not broken. Jeremy is being highly pro-active and has already taped a video, which you can find at the War Resisters Support Campaign, where he speaks directly to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:
Jeremy Hinzman: Hello, Mr. Harper. This is my family Nga, Liam and Meghan. We've been in Canada for the last four and a 1/2 years. I was a specialist in the 82nd Air borne division of the United States Army and served honorably in Afghanistan. In 2004, my family and I came to Canada because we would not participate in the Iraqi War, a war which Canada also refused to participate in because it was condemned by the international community. One of your predecessors, Pierre Trudeau, once said that Canada should be have from militarism and we took him at this word. On June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion saying that United States war resisters should be able to remain in Canada. We're asking you to abide by this motion and allow us to stay in Canada. Thank you.
Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.
Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.
Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca
Courage to Resist alerts, "Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca." In addition to that, Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign is staging an emergency meeting this week (August 20th, Wednesday, 7:00 pm, Steelworkers Hall at 25 Cecil St.) and planning a day of action (September 13th) where
"[a]ctions, demonstrations and pickets will take place in cities and towns all across Canada."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Daniel Baker, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Turning to Iraq where Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "A key pillar of the U.S. strategy to pacify Iraq is in danger of collapsing" and she's referring to the counter-insurgency 'strategy' of putting thugs on the US payroll so that they will, as US Ambassador to Iraq outlined to Congress repeatedly in April, stop attacking Americans (the 'strategy' is: Fork over your lunch money and you'll be safe on the playground). Call them "Awakening" Council or "Sons of Iraq" or whatever, they're thugs paid to play nice. Fadel notes that the Shi'ite dominated government of puppet Nouri al-Maliki refuses to bring these Sunni militias into the government and quotes "one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad" explaining, "We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently." That part is no surprise. The next part of the quote? "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida" can be seen as the cover explanation that will be offered (and has been offered) for not bringing them in. One group of thugs in power doesn't want to share with another. The US installed one group and then, "counter-insurgency" (brought to Iraq by such 'great' minds as Sarah Sewall and Monty McFate) decided paying off the other dominant (in the population) group of thugs was just the thing to . . . throw the whole country off balance. Which it has. Let's hear it for the quackery of Sidewalk Social Scientists. Fadel quotes one thug leader of the "Awakening" Council, Mullah Shahab al Aafi, declaring, "If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go bacck to zero. I will not give up my weapons. I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again. If it is useless to talk to the government, I will be forced to carry my weapons and my pistol."
As Fadel notes the White House has repeatedly sold the "Awakening" Councils as a success story. So let's drop back to April for some basics. From April 8th, when US Amassador Crocker and US General David Petraeus brought their variety show to Congress:
How much lunch money is the US forking over? Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars). By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month. $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost". Again, in this morning's hearings, the top commander in Iraq explained that the US strategy is forking over the lunch money to school yard bullies. [. . .] Crocker's entire testimony can be boiled down to a statement he made in his opening statements, "What has been achieved is substantial, but it is also reversible." Which would translate in the real world as nothing has really changed. During questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Crocker would rush to shore up the "Awakening" Council members as well. He would say there were about 90,000 of them and, pay attention, the transitioning of them is delayed due to "illliteracy and physical disabilities."
That afternon, the Senate Foreign Affairs committe chair would outline the three reasons violence was "down" (but had not ceased), Joe Biden: "First, the Sunni Awakening, which preceded the surge. Second, the Sadr cease-fire. Third, sectarian cleansing that left much of Baghdad segregated, with fewer targets to shoot or bomb. These tactical gains are relative. Violence is now where it was in 2005 and spiking up again. Iraq is still incredibly dangerous and, despite what the President says, very far from normal. And these gains are fragile. Awakening members frustrated at the government's refusal to integrate them into the national security forces could turn their guns back on us." What if the "Awakening" Council members turned their guns? It's not pie-in-the-sky, it's a question that should have been answered back in April. The frustrations are boiling over as al-Maliki continues to refuse to fold them into the government forces. Back to that snapshot and focusing on Senator Barbara Boxer's time:
She then turned to the issue of monies and the militias, "You are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them" and wouldn't put them into the forces because he doubts their loyalty. She noted that $182 million a year was being paid, $18 million a month, to these "Awakening" Council members and "why don't you ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that progam" because as Senator Lugar pointed out, "It could be an opportunity" for the Iraqi government "to turn it into something more long term." This is a point, she declared, that she intends to bring up when it's time to vote on the next spending supplamental. Crocker tried to split hairs.
Boxer: I asked you why they couldn't pay for it. . . . I don't want to argue a point. . . I'm just asking you why we would object to asking them to pay for that entire program giving all that we are giving them in blood and everything else?
Crocker declared that he'd take that point back to Iraq when he returned.
Now we're flipping over to the April 10th snapshot and bringing in the topic of the treaties:
Senator Joe Biden: We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq. One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.
The treaties are back in the news but before we get to them, April 10th, Biden was calling out the "internal threat" aspect and explaining that it required the US "to support the Iraqi government in its battle with all 'outlaw groups' -- that's a pretty expansive commitment," and one that requires the US "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" when "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out. . . . We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." Senator Russ Feingold would add, "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true coalition, won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for a withdrawal of troops?" All of the issues raised in today's news cycle were not only known some time ago, they were raised by the US Congress repeatedly in April (and brushed aside by those sent before them to offer talking points). AP reports that US sources are saying the treaties (both of them) have been worked out and will soon be formalized. Yesterday, US White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe confirmed that the White House had been sent a draft.
On December 31st of this year, the United Nations authorization for the occupation of Iraq (there was never any authorization for the illegal war itself) expires. Nouri al-Maliki has already angered the Iraqi Parliament by twice ignoring it and renewing the mandate. But nothing is preventing the UN from offering a stop-gap measure of some form to briefly cover the occupation while the US presidency switches hand (Bully Boy has had his two terms and on his way out the door). Even better, no extension -- even a brief one -- would end the illegal war because foreign forces would have to leave Iraq. Instated, the White House is pushing long-term treaties that they attempt to call by other names to avoid the US Constitutional requirement that requires Senate authorization of all treaties. (al-Maliki has stated that, on Iraq's ends, the Iraqi Parliament will follow their own Constitution to some degree and the Parliament will have some form of approval.)
The United Nations raised Iraq yesterday in their daily press briefing where a spokesperson (Farhan Haq) spoke for Ban Ki-moon and asserted "that, over the past five years, the United Nations has continued to help the people of Iraq -- and others throughout the world -- who suffer from violence, disease and want." It is the fourth anniversary of the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad (22 UN staffers died) and the spokesperson declared, "This work is often dangerous, but it must go on. Those who died on August 18th, 2003 would have it no other way." When you're arguing for continued actions on the backs of the dead, you're arguing from a position of weakness and "position of weakness" describes the UN's role throughout the Iraq War. Naturally Bloody War Hawk Samantha Power (taking time out from praising counter-insurgency) took to the New York Times yesterday to satisfy her blood lust with a column. Despite providing a cloak for the ongoing illegal war, the anniversary of the UN bombing yesterday resulted in no 'shout out' from the White House with Gordon Johndroe not even acknowledging it in his press briefing.
Today in Florida, the Bully Boy of the United States addressed the VFW. Gordon Johndroe had explained in yesterday's White House press briefing that the speech would be "a look-back on significant moments in the war on terror," and indeed Bully Boy attempted to use the 'war on terror' to justify everything but daughter Jenna's wedding expenses. If he could fold it into the so-called war on terror, he obviously would have. On Iraq he referenced Saddam Hussein as "a brutal dictator who murdered his own people" leaving out the fact that he was installed by the US and took most of his actions with US approval. "Because we acted, the dicator is gone," he declared striving really hard to sound like a munchkin in The Wizard of Oz, "and 25 million Iraqis are free." Bully Boy is wrong, approximately 2 million Iraqis are 'free' -- the external refugees who face new tragedies in other countries. No one in Iraq is 'free.' Not checking out the news cycle, Bully Boy complained that Iraq's suitation was once criticized and that some "were willing to give up on the mission." Bully Boy made clear he would never apologize for the illegal war he started. He did make time to lie about "political and economic progress . . . taking place". Lying is all the rage in front of the VFW this month. Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama lied this week. He hailed presumptive Republican candidate John McCain's ("served this nation honorably") and then used his speech to attack McCain claiming that he (Barack) had always been consistent in his opposition to the illegal war. A lie. Another was hailing Nouri al-Maliki as "democratically-elected." al-Maliki wasn't even the first choice of the US in the spring of 2006 (nor was he the first choice of the Iraqi parliament). al-Maliki was installed. It's that kind of lie -- one that comes so easily to Barack -- which goes a long, long way towards explaining how he's not vested in ending the illegal war. Attempting to dispell his 'stranger' quality to the VFW, he ignored speaking of his father and his many wives and instead emphasized the American side of his family. He also claimed wife Michelle had been speaking to veterans knowing no one would check into that (she's not sought out veterans) and knowing few would dare point out that Barack's refused a request for debate by, yes, veterans. He repeatedly went nasty on McCain (including on the GI Rights Bill) knowing that as the darling of the press corps he can continue to attack and only McCain's attacks on him will ever be noted. The only improvement for Barack is that someone has tutored him enough that he now no longer speaks of "the bomb" dropped on Pearl Harbor and appears aware that it was multiple bombs. Yes, he truly is that stupid.
Yesterday's snapshot noted Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Kurdish Control of City Creates Political Powderkeg in North Iraq" (New York Times) on what Kurds are boasting as their takeover of oil-rich Kirkuk. Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports today that US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker is insisting that Iraqi MPs must not be "bitter" over events in Kirkuk and that It's important that the elections law focus on elections, not on attempting to use this legislation to solve a difficult and much more complicated problem." Had the US government wanted to stop it, Kirkuk's fate would not appear sealed today. Crocker sanctimonously added, "It is important to remember what brings you together, not only the differences." Economically, one difference is that Kirkuk is oil-rich and it's not as simple as Crocker wants to portray it. Peter Graff (Reuters) reports that the UN's Staffan de Mistura declared at a press conference today that the UN was working on a "grand deal" to be revealed in September or October that would hopefully "resolve a looming row without fresh bloodshed" and, regarding Kirkuk, the UN would not advocate a referendrum but would instead attempt "to negotiate a broad political deal which could then be put to a 'confirmatory referendum', backed by all sides."
Yesterday, Iraqi security forces raided Sunni politicians, killed and arrested. Nicholas Spangler and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report four police officers were wounded in the Diyala actions, the governor's secretary was shot dead, Hussein al Zubaidi ("provincial council member and head of security committee") was arrested, computers were seized and "Taha Dria, a Shiite lawmaker from Diyala who was not in the government compound during the raid, said the armed forces were from Iraq's Emergency Response Unit, an American-trained unit similar to U.S. Special Forces" quoting him explaining that, "They were wearing khaki. Their weapons were American. The Humvees they used looked American. They didn't have any ranks on their shoulders. They didn't talk." They also report eye witnesses saw two US helicopters and that the helicopters fired on the Iraqi people. The US military issued a denial on accusations yesterday and maintained that one helicopter was in the area but for other reasons and it was not involved in actions. Ned Parker and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) note the US military's denial and also explain that "a prominet Sunni university dean" was also arrested, that the Iraqi forces involved "reports to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's counter-terrorism office" but al-Maliki claims he was unaware and his office insists, "These special forces work with the Americans. They are not associated with the Ministry of Defense. They have goals, and they didn't inform anyone else." Nichoals Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the US continues to deny any involvement in yesterday's lawless activities with US Big Gen James Boozer insisting, "It was what appears to be a rogue operations." If true, it would reflect poorly on Bully Boy's declarations today, wouldn't it? Spangler notes, "Both men arrested are Sunni Muslims, and the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party in the country, immediately condemned the raids as part of a sectarian campaign by the largely Shiite Muslim security forces." So busy spinning, M-NF apparently was too busy to announce a death which is how the death toll for the month thus far reached 18 US service members with no one noticing (4145 since the start of the illegal war). Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Iraqi soldiers were wounded in a Baghdad shooting and a Nozad Sirwan ("engineer") was shot dead in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 1 person shot dead and two more wounded in Tuzkhurmato, 1 person shot dead by the US military in Abu Alapa, .
Corpses?
Reuters notes 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 2 corpses were discovered in Hilla.
Indpendent presidential candidate Ralph Nader continues his campaign for ballot access. Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez' independent presidential bid has set the goal of appearing on 45 states' ballots and Ryan J. Foley (AP) reports that the Nader campaign in Wisconsin is 100 signatures away from the required number of signatures to gain access to the state's ballot and that they expect to more than exceed the required number by the September 2nd deadline. In other news, Team Nader notes:
As late as yesterday, we didn't think we had a chance. For the first time in this campaign, we were at serious risk of missing a self-imposed financial goal. Then, yesterday, you came through. And now, we're back in it. Now, we're just shy of $42,000. And we have a chance to hit our goal of $50,000 by 11:59 pm tonight. But we're going to have to bust a gut to get there. All out. All day. All night. So, we are calling on 900 of you -- our most loyal supporters -- to donate $10 each now to push us over the top. (900 times $10 equals $9,000, right?) And for every $10 contribution you donate today, we will give free admission to a needy student who wants to come to hear Ralph Nader at our Open the Debates Super Rally at the University of Denver's Magness Arena. ($10 in advance, $12 at the door.) Ralph will be joined by his running mate Matt Gonzalez. And -- breaking news -- a star studded line-up will join Ralph and Matt in a call to open up the Presidential debates. Featuring -- Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan and Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello, Jello Biafra, Nellie McKay, and Ike Reilly. So, please -- give a student a chance to attend this historic event. Donate $10 now -- or whatever you can afford -- and send a student to raise the banner in Denver -- Open the Presidential Debates, More Voices, More Choices. Keep an eye on our widget throughout the day. Watch your name go up in lights. And see if we blast through our goal. Donate now. And let's get it done. Together, we will not be denied. Onward.
Monday's snapshot noted Justice Robert Barnes' July 4th ruling in Joshua Key's case. Which resulted in X repeatedly e-mailing the public account. X explains repeatedly that he hasn't read the decision which is probably what should stop him before he feels the need to e-mail again. It's a 23-page decision. If you can't read a 23-page decision, you really have no right to disagree. You've got no standing to disagree. But X thinks that "military deserters and evaders" (Barnes) is "no big thing and just something written in passing." Yeah, that makes sense.
Of course Barnes was just writing in passing. He didn't mean for his ruling to matter, he didn't take it all seriously, and, no doubt, cobbled it together with little thought, intent or perspective.
If that's what you believe the only reason for believing that is you haven't read the decision.
Barnes is not practicing Anais Nin's symphonic writing (or Hannah Arendt's in her longer pieces -- not an insult to either writer) where the words twist and turn inward and outward so that the pace itself and the rhythm becomes as important as any thought expressed. He chooses his words very precisely. He is not going for symphonic writing nor is he redundant. It's a meticulous, carefully considered ruling.
"Military deserters and evaders" is not a classification he invented for that ruling. Those terms have been in use for a long time and, for present day purposes, they cover both a Joshua Key (who served in Iraq, "military deserter") and a Jeremy Hinzman (who did not serve in Iraq, "military evader").
Judge Barnes took the case before him very seriously. His ruling is rooted in Canadian law, in international law and contains careful citations. To dismiss his use of the phrase "military deserters and evaders" is to assume otherwise or to convince yourself, "Well, he was tired there and just rushing to finish writing it."
The Cliff Notes version is that Barnes explained why the 'board's' ruling in Key's case was too narrow. But the full decision explains why the rulings by the 'board' have been too narrow. That's why he bring in international law and non-governmental bodies (such as the International Red Cross). The entire ruling is an argument against the simplistic findings that the 'board' has repeatedly reached. (Canada's Refugee and Immigration Board does not make the decision, one member does. That's why I say 'board.') Joshua Key's case was the one before him. He was not required to mention Jeremy Hinzman by name; however, he does mention Jeremy by name. There's a reason for that.
To assume otherwise is to assume that Barnes' decision wasn't carefully considered. The only way you can reach that conclusion is to avoid reading the actual decision. Barnes' decision is a present day landmark. When you have a landmark decision, it gets built on. Barnes isn't an idiot, he full well knew that. He knew his decision would get attention and he knew it would come under scrutiny. So he sourced it throughout. There's not one section that's based on conjecture. It is a solid legal ruling in which every section is backed up and grounded in the law.
To insist that Jeremy Hinzman is just tossed out in passing and that Barnes didn't know what he was doing by mentioning Hinzman or that he was being redundant with the phrase "military deserters and evaders" is to argue something that the ruling (in it's 23 pages) does not back up.
X copies and pastes coverage from a daily paper when news of the ruling broke. Few journalists have any legal background or understanding. Even those who do have the constraints of deadlines. There is nothing in the article that suggests the reporter read the decision (in part or in full), let alone grasped it. There is no quote from the decision and the 'analysis' comes from quoting others. In the US (which is where X is from), when a government report is released and is covered, it's covered immediately. It may be over 100 pages. The reporters covering it out of the gate have not read the full report. And that's true, even in the next day's papers. Linda Greenhouse has left the New York Times and is now a college professor so it will be interesting to watch out how the New York Times' coverage of Supreme Court rulings is in the future. Greenhouse had a gift but she also had tremendous skill and training. The reporter highlighted by X covers a number of 'beats' and the legal beat is not usually one of them.
If we had a functioning press, Big or Small, Barnes' legal ruling would have been explored at length in magazines. (The daily press, by its nature, is about highlights.) We don't and Small Media has no real interest in war resisters period. (In These Times being the exception.) Before Katrina vanden Heuvel put her 'mark' on The Nation (which will come out with a little club soda), many lawyers did appear in the magazine. (Don't throw out Professor Patti inventing mythical French boys who tell her John Kerry's life story or combing through issues of People magazine to offer the racist and offensive comparison of African-American to black dogs. That's not a trained legal mind working, that's someone suffering from severe pop cultural damage.) That said, a number of attorneys have websites where they blog and there ws nothing preventing any of them from combing through the decision and writing about it. If you know one who did, by all means e-mail.
I don't know why you would go to the trouble of getting a law degree, starting a website and then deciding your 'contribution' would be to gas bag over election talking points. Which brings up another e-mail. James Branum is an attorney and he has a website. This entry is dictated around what I put in earlier this morning. I forgot to put in a link to the National Lawyers Guild and the person I'm dictating too is unfamiliar with links. So no link in this for the National Lawyers Guild for that reason. But a visitor suggested we link to Branum on the permalinks to the left. We'll highlight Branum in entries (with links in entries). We won't link to him on the permalinks.
That's nothing against him but has to do with a stunt someone pulled which enraged the community. When that happened, all the NLG links were pulled. There's an entry (probably a Thursday night "I Hate The War" entry) where it's written about. I support the NLG but I know the community and when the community turns it's a waste of their time and my time to try to 'override' that. A NLG person did a STUPID thing. Surprising because the person is so smart. But at a time when emotions were already charged across the country, the person decided to wade into electoral issues (no reason at all for that) and wrote an embarrassing column ("embarrassing" is my call). It destroyed support for the NLG in this community.
When people are in a position where they are the face of the organization, they need to think about how to build the organization and how to build recognition and support for it in the larger world. Political candidates? That's not really worth their commenting on and it kind of cheapens the organizations when they do. There was no reason nor need for that column and its opinions expressed were uninformed. I heard about the column from a friend and dreaded going into the e-mails because I knew there would be a severe backlash to the NLG. And there was a severe backlash from the community. As there should have been.
A lawyer knows the term "charged language" and that column was nothing but "charged language." I have no idea what was in it for ____ personally but I doubt the fallout was worth it. In the position ____ holds, the column clearly became in the eyes of many an endorsement of a candidate (and a screed against another). That's not why office holders of an organization are elected. The column's subtext was all 'decent' people support Barack and all 'indecent' people support Hillary. That would not be reflected in a polling of NLG's own membership which includes a number who do not believe in party politics, a number who are not impressed with Barack, a number who belong to a third party (including an increasingly vocal segment that's asking why the hell some in leadership of the NLG -- an independent body -- is working overtime to prop up the Democratic Party to begin with) and some that, yes, supported Hillary.
It was a stupid decision to write that column. It was extreme stupidity to post it.
It has caused more fallout -- not just within this community -- than was ever expected. And it is exactly the reason that the NLG should stay out of party politics.
Katrina vanden Heuvel has destroyed The Nation magazine to the point that unless you're addicted to the text version of the cable chat & chews, the fact-free, water cooler gas bagging, you no longer have use for that periodical. That same easy, immature mindset has now taken hold at The Progressive as well. It is among the reasons that we can't get discussions of war resisters, let alone of other real issues. Everything must be filtered through so that it does not have a negative impact on Barack.
I have no idea why so many people want to prostitute themselves for any candidate -- regardless of whom he or she is. But the facile musings being offered do not challenge, do not inform and do not help the left. That was obvious long before ____ wrote the column attacking Hillary. There was no reason for the column and all it did was cause fallout.
For that reason, all of the NLG links were pulled from the permalinks.
My guess is that had the same person championed a candidate in a third party or an independent candidate (regardless of right or left), it would have been viewed differently. But the idea that the NLG is attacking Hillary, distorting her, to promote a corporate candidate offended just as many non-Hillary supporters as it did Hillary-supporters.
And when you hold the office ___ does in the NLG and you are insisting that Hillary was calling for someone to be murdered, you are seen as writing for the NLG. That's a serious charge and, as an attorney (one highly placed in the NLG), you give that impression.
A whiner attorney e-mailed to complain we didn't note his (non NLG) event. In Los Angeles, at the same time people were going to town on Hillary and accusing her of murderous desires for noting the fact that Robert Kennedy was assassinated, a symposium was being held on the RFK assassination. Hillary mentioning historical fact is calling/hoping for murder? Noting history is that? But this organization can stage their event without any fallout?
The organization's website featured a column -- while they were holding their conspiracy convention -- saying that Hillary noting RFK's assassination was a 'threat' to Barack. If they honestly felt that way, then maybe the organization should have cancelled their convention? If Hillary mentioning history is a 'threat' to Barack, then surely a conspiracy convention is a great deal more.
It was always insane to argue Hillary was suggesting or rooting for something to happen to Barack but it was never as insane as coming from the organization that was holding their kook convention which no one fretted over, no one called out. But the kooks could call out Hillary?
No, we didn't promote that organization's event. I never said we would. (A reply went out noting that Ruth probably would and that, they assumed, I might.) When there was all the high drama over Hillary's remarks, the promotion of that event became iffy. When I visited their website and saw that they were declaring Hillary's mentioning of previous candidates who were in campaigns for months was seen as a threat, there was no way we were going to note the convention.
Referencing history is a threat? But a bunch of kooks getting together to jerk off over conspiracy theories was fine and dandy?
I don't usually call people 'kooks' or toss around 'conspiracy' as a pejorative; however, if your organization wants to offer theories that are counter to the accepted history for days and days at a public convention and you also want to attack Hillary for mentioning historical facts, you're a kook. You're a crazy. You're a nut job.
Due to the climate that the left created over Hillary's remarks, the convention being noted here was always going to be 'iffy' but what got them blocked out was that they joined that climate with the story on the front page of their website. If you think Hillary noting an assassination in a sentence is a threat to Barack, then your multi-day convention covering the same assassination (IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR! as the idiots loved to scream at Hillary) shouldn't have been scheduled for an election year and should have been called off by your own reasoning. You can't apply a standard to her brief comments and act as if your multi-day event is somehow immune to the same (false) charges.
That makes you a kook and a nut job.
We don't have time for crazy. We're focused on the Iraq War. (And that illegal war is enough insanity and then some.)
The presidential election will come and go. Unless the election results in Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader (alphabetical order -- and no links because I didn't plan to mention them in this) taking office, there's not going to be an end to the Iraq War because of whomever is installed in the White House. I'm not really sure how much power the gas bags have (individually they have none, collectively they may have some) but they will have wasted perceived or real power by making an election their focus. It's not a topic that isn't already gas bagged over by a multitude. There is no gas bag shortage I'm aware of. It's a damn shame so many who actually have an education of value or experiences of value (or both) elected not to use their strengths and write about topics that could have increased understanding because they instead wanted to pretend they'd been invited on Meet The Press. You sort of picture all of them, at the end of the day, sitting on their sofas by themselves, taking part in imaginary roundtables where, no doubt, Tim Russert is still the moderator.
2004 saw the destruction of the peace movement in the United States. That happened because ending the illegal war took a back seat and John Kerry called "shotgun!" Suddenly, the peace movement was supposed to exist to drive a candidate (one who was not promising an end to the illegal war -- anymore than Barack is today) to victory. Picking up the pieces after Kerry lost (yes, gas bags, sometimes even with you all acting as a cheering section, your candidate will lose) was beyond difficult. You had MoveOn . . . moving on from the illegal war and they were far from alone. You had left 'voices' floating that the Iraq War wasn't such a bad thing (Tom Hayden -- in an increasingly rare, brave moment -- called one such 'voice' out). Cindy Sheehan single handedly brought the peace movement back to life. She can't do that again. (And she also got infected with election madness -- I'm not referring to her own campaign, I'm referring to her comments left on articles at Common Dremas.) And no mother similar to Cindy can. The press attitude will be, "Oh, we've reported that already."
So what does The Cult of Barack really think is going to happen after the November election? Their candidate may win the White House. If so, he's not promised an end to the illegal war. He refused to promise that all troops would be out of Iraq, if he was elected, by 2012. His 'promise' was that he would withdraw 'combat' troops in 16 months. That's not all troops and we've long noted here how the phrase 'combat' can be manipulated. And Samantha Power revealed to the BBC and Barack himself revealed to CNN that his 'promise' wasn't binding and he'd decide what to do about Iraq if he got elected. So what does The Cult plan to do after? I wouldn't recommend a mass suicide but haven't they already committed 'voice' suicide by repeatedly prostituting themselves out to pretend he's promising the end of the illegal war? Equally true is that Barack may lose. Kerry did. (Had he fought the Ohio count, he likely would have won. But he didn't fight by his own choice so he lost.) The peace movement does what then?
"Nothing" to those who pay attention to Tom Hayden's increasingly ridiculous writings. According to Hayden, if Barack doesn't win, it's over. (Yes, he did write that. He's become that foolish. Again.) For those who remember 2004, the template seems to suggest that for months and months, the peace movement 'leaders' will be inactive and 'voices' will suggest that we can learn to love the illegal war. And, at some point, if we're really lucky, a genuine leader will emerge to respark the peace movement and we can start all over rebuilding what we tore down for a War Hawk candidate.
In either scenario the illegal war continues. Foreign fighters (including US service members) continuing dying in an illegal war as do Iraqis. Iraqis continue being refugees within and outside their own country. So where's the big pay-off?
The Cult gets to say, "We got Barack into office!" Is that supposed to lessen the death of an Iraqi child's parents? Is that supposed to allow an illegal war to go down the throat a little easier?
In 2004, The Nation couldn't stop hyping the election to the point that they declared it the 'Torture election,' decreed it was a referendum on torture. They made that declaration so, by their own 'logic,' 2004 was the year that Americans embraced torture. By their 'logic,' the electorate (they're never concerned with the people, just the electorate), torture is now embraced by the people and has been since November 2004.
The November election will come and go. Some people will be happy with the results, some people won't be. That's how it's always been and how it always will be barring some mutation in humanity. The same Cult that couldn't persuade Barack to stick to an actual promise (FISA) won't be in any stronger position if he's elected. They've never demanded anything of him, they've never held him accountable. They've excused him and begged from him. He's not royalty. You make demands on politicians. You hold them accountable. They work for you.
2008 has been so-called 'alternative' media acting like some stereotypical slutty wallflower, so desperate to land the quarterback (even for one night), that s/he will do anything. Well, Panhandle Media 'put out' and I'm not seeing a damn thing they have to show for it. Not even a preganancy scare/AIDS test, so let's all assume that, if nothing else, they practiced safe sex.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is holding Super Rallies to put issues on the table and to call for opening the debates. If the debates are not opened, no issue will be on the table. We might get 'musings' by this year's John Edwards and John Kerry of whether or not Dick Cheney loves his gay daughter. (Tricky Dick loved both of his daughters, there's no reason to have ever doubted that Dick Cheney loved his children. But somehow that passed for an 'issue.' By two candidates -- Kerry and Edwards -- who didn't have the guts to come out in support of same-sex marriage.) That's the sort of thing that will pass for 'issues' and for an 'informed discourse' if the debates again invite only two candidates. The debates need to be opened to all candidates. August 27th is the Super Rally in Denver and the html on this is just going to be pasted in (again, the person I'm dictating this too is not familiar with linking):
Home Nader 2008 Blog Kilmer, Sheehan, Morello with Nader in Denver Posted by The Nader Team on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 02:43:00 AM ShareThis As late as yesterday, we didn't think we had a chance. For the first time in this campaign, we were at serious risk of missing a self-imposed financial goal. Then, yesterday, you came through. And now, we're back in it. Now, we're just shy of $42,000. And we have a chance to hit our goal of $50,000 by 11:59 pm tonight. But we're going to have to bust a gut to get there. All out. All day. All night. So, we are calling on 900 of you -- our most loyal supporters -- to donate $10 each now to push us over the top. (900 times $10 equals $9,000, right?) And for every $10 contribution you donate today, we will give free admission to a needy student who wants to come to hear Ralph Nader at our Open the Debates Super Rally at the University of Denver's Magness Arena. ($10 in advance, $12 at the door.) Ralph will be joined by his running mate Matt Gonzalez. And -- breaking news -- a star studded line-up will join Ralph and Matt in a call to open up the Presidential debates. Featuring -- Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan and Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello, Jello Biafra, Nellie McKay, and Ike Reilly. So, please -- give a student a chance to attend this historic event. Donate $10 now -- or whatever you can afford -- and send a student to raise the banner in Denver -- Open the Presidential Debates, More Voices, More Choices. Keep an eye on our widget throughout the day. Watch your name go up in lights. And see if we blast through our goal. Donate now. And let's get it done. Together, we will not be denied. Onward. The Nader Team. PS: Last chance to get our two DVD Sicko/Awake from Your Slumber package. If you donate $100 or more by tomorrow night, we will send you the best argument yet made for single payer Medicare for all health insurance -- the DVD Sicko. Plus, we'll send Awake from Your Slumber -- the DVD starring Ralph Nader and Patti Smith -- autographed by Ralph. ShareThis
Micah wants a video highlighted and that can't happen today. Embedding the code can be a problem for even those who are familiar with links. We'll note that Nader campaign video tomorrow morning.
Iraqi forces raided the provincial government compound in Diyala early Tuesday morning, killing the governor's secretary and confiscating computers and cars before local police engaged them in a two-hour gun battle, police and local officials said. Four policemen were wounded, according to a police source. Forces arrested Hussein al Zubaidi, provincial council member and head of the security committee. A nearby raid conducted almost simultaneously by unidentified armed forces arrested the president of Diyala University. Taha Dria, a Shiite lawmaker from Diyala who was not in the government compound during the raid, said the armed forces were from Iraq's Emergency Response Unit, an American-trained unit similar to U.S. Special Forces. "They were wearing khaki. Their weapons were American. The Humvees they used looked American," said the governor's surviving secretary, Abbas Adnan, who was in the government compound when it was raided. "They didn’t have any ranks on their shoulders. They didn't talk."
The above is from Nicholas Spangler and Laith Hammoudi's "Iraqi army raid in Diyala leaves provincial official dead" (McClatchy Newspapers) which also includes eye witnesses stating that two American helicopters were present and that the helicopters fired on Iraqis. The US military, for those who have forgotten, issued a denial yesterday that the one helicopter they claimed was present was in any way involved. Already that denial begins crumbling as the US military admits that there were two -- and not one -- helicopters present.
Another raid led to the arrest of a prominent Sunni university dean.Questions swirled around who deployed the troops. The special forces unit, referred to by detractors as the dirty squad, reports to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's counter-terrorism office. Spokesmen for Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, and the Defense Ministry said the prime minister had not ordered the raids. "These special forces work with the Americans. They are not associated with the Ministry of Defense," ministry spokesman Mohammed Askari said. "They have goals, and they didn't inform anyone else." The unit, long considered Iraq's most effective, generally operates with U.S. military advisors and has been sent on missions targeting the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq as well as the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia. The U.S. military denied involvement in the operation.
Meanwhile the New York Times dummies up on yesterday's events and instead offers Campbell Robertson's "Iraq Poised To Revive Oil Contract With China" (A12) which offers little information but continues to suggest (by their own focus) that the illegal war was about oil.
Turning to US politics, the independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez has created a page at their website entitled Ralph's Daily Audio. Here is yesterday's "The Bloated Defense Budget:"
This is Ralph Nader. Remember reading or hearing the farewell address of President Dwight Eisenhower? 1960, when he warned Americans about what he called "the military industrial complex." Well, just a few words about where we are in the military budget. It's now 1/2 of the entire federal government's operating expenditures. It's way over $700 billion and that's not counting the money for helping our veterans. Both Obama and McCain want to increase the military budget. The Government Accountability Office yearly describes the gigantic Pentagon contracting budget unaduitable. Just imagine, half of what the federal government spends in operating expenditures can't even be audited. For example, people inside the Defense Department think that the F-22 should never have been contract for, built wasn't necessary. The Osprey helicopter -- defective, killed quite a few marines in test flights, shouldn't have been built in their judgment. Hundreds of billions of dollars are in the pipeline for weapons systems that were designed for the Soviet Union-era of hostility. They no longer have any strategic value and many of them are redundant. We've got to cut the waste out of the huge military budget and put that money back into repairing America's public works and cities, towns and rural areas all over the country. If we cut out the expenditures of keeping our soldiers out of Japan and Western Europe -- 60-plus years after WWII -- a portion of that money could give free education to all students in public universities in the United States. Think about it. Think about who stands for a lean defense -- not a wasteful defense; who stands for respecting your tax payer dollar and returning it to you to improve the public facilities, schools and clinics, libraries, drinking water systems, sewage stream and plant upgrades among some of the deferred maintenance that's reducing the facilities that are necessary for a thriving community.
Tuesday,
August 19, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military
announces another death, Iraqi forces raid the office of the governor
of Diyala Province and shoot dead his secretary but no one knows how?,
the issue of the oil-rich Kirkuk may have already been 'settled,' and
more.
Starting with war resistance. US war resister Jeremy Hinzman has been told he has until September 23rd to leave Canada. John Mackay (WSWS) explains,
"Hinzman joined the US Army in early 2001, partly out of a sense of
patriotism and adventure. However, he was primarily attracted by the
promise of financial support for a university education. He says that
more than a year after joining, he realized that he could not become a
killer. He felt he could not dehumanize the people he was supposed to
shoot. He applied for conscientious objector (CO) status in August
2002, but his command threw his application away. Hinzman subsequently
reapplied while serving in Afghanistan, only to have his application
turned down. In Afghanistan, while his CO application was being
processed, Hinzman played a non-combatant role as an assistant to
Haliburton employees serving meals to soldiers. Upon denial of his
application for CO status, Hinzman was ordered to return to active
duty. When his unit returned to the US with the understanding that
they would soon be sent to Iraq, Hinzman deserted, crossing the
Canadian border in January 2004 with his wife and young son and
claiming refugee status." Nga Nguyen, Jeremy's wife, just gave birth
to a daughter (Meghan) in July. We'll note again that the four are in
a video at the War Resisters Support Campaign where Jeremy speaks to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:
Jeremy
Hinzman: Hello, Mr. Harper. This is my family Nga, Liam and Meghan.
We've been in Canada for the last four and a 1/2 years. I was a
specialist in the 82nd Air borne division of the United States Army and
served honorably in Afghanistan. In 2004, my family and I came to
Canada because we would not participate in the Iraqi War, a war which
Canada also refused to participate in because it was condemned by the
international community. One of your predecessors, Pierre Trudeau,
once said that Canada should be have from militarism and we took him at
this word. On June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion
saying that United States war resisters should be able to remain in
Canada. We're asking you to abide by this motion and allow us to stay
in Canada. Thank you.
Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.
Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.
Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca
Courage to Resist alerts,
"Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War
also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or
email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca." In addition to that, Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign
is staging an emergency meeting this week (August 20th, Wednesday, 7:00
pm, Steelworkers Hall at 25 Cecil St.) and planning a day of action
(September 13th) where
"[a]ctions, demonstrations and pickets will take place in cities and towns all across Canada."
A new documentary, The Path of Most Resistance,
addresses war resistance. Directed by Gareth Keogh, the film traces two
US service members attempts to receive CO status. One receives it, one
doesn't. Susannah Tarbush (Saudi Gazette) reports
on the film noting that Daniel Baker and Robert Weiss are the two CO
applicants. Anyone paying attention knows who was successful and who
wasn't:
Daniel Baker joined the US Navy
in 2004, but soon after being deployed in Qatar as a communications
officer in 2006 he made a successful application for CO status. He now
works for the Catholic Peace Fellowship, one of the organizations that
advise CO applicants. In contrast, soldier Robert Weiss's
application for CO status was turned down in December 2007. He said: "I
feel that at this point I have no legal avenue for pursuing recognition
of my beliefs, so therefore I have no choice but to leave the military
rather than do something I feel is immoral." On December 22 he was due
to fly back to Iraq, but saw no alternative but to go absent without
leave (AWOL) for 30 days, the minimum time necessary to be classified
as a deserter. He would then turn himself in and face the inevitable
court martial and imprisonment. During his period of being AWOL,
he was given refuge by a family with pacifist sympathies. In February
he turned himself in, and on May 13 was court martialled. He is serving
a seven-month sentence in a military prison in Mannheim, Germany.
.
There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei
Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste,
Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano
Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal,
Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn,
Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross
Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique,
Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez,
Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Daniel Baker, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing,
Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk,
Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum.
Turning to Iraq, Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) sketches out
how oil-rich Kirkuk's fate already appears determined and how that took
place because the central government (puppet) in Baghdad didn't do
anything to mediate between Arabs, Kurds and Turkomans. Oppel writes,
"Kurdish authority is visible everywhere in the city. In addition to
the provincial government and command of the police, the Kurds control
the Asaish, the feared undercover security service that works with the
American military and, according to Asaish commanders, United States
intelligence agencies." Oppel doesn't pursue that aspect which is a
shame because the puppet government was controlled by the White House
so the stand-down on Kirkuk was no acident. And US Col David Paschal
can brag about how he made the call last month (as Turkmen and Kurds
battled) not to send in the Iraqi forces but that call came from higher
up. Mohammed Khalil ("leader of the Arab bloc on the provincial
council") explains, "There is much fear. The Asaish are saying they
will annex Kirkuk by force and that is terrifying people." For more
realities on Kirkuk, see Stephen Farrell's "As Iraqis Vie for Kirkuk's Oil, Refugee Kurds Becomes Pawns" (December 9, 2007). Meanwhile the United Nation's IRIN advises
today of how volatile the situation in Kirkuk remains and sites Baghdad
University's Amer Hassan al-Fayadh explaining, "I do believe the best
solution for Kirkk is that it be run as a separate region -- after
resolving all pending issues between its segments, conducting a census
and then letting its population determine its fate through a
referendum, instead of one party imposing a solution." IRIN notes that
the Iraqi Parliament attempts to impose a solution (in regular session
last July and in special session early this month) have resulted "in
daily demonstrations in favour of, or against, the new legislation."
Meanwhile the Associated Press has an article all over the place today (here at Los Angeles Times, here at Washington Post,
etc.) that is just rah-rah-rah about the US taking in Iraqi refugees
and how the State Dept might meet their announced quota ("for the first
time" is left unstated by Samantha Henry). But at Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers) Sahar Issa explains,
"For the second time now in one month Iraqi newspapers have published
articles stating the U.S will not accept any more Iraqi refugees." And
before some idiot says, "Well it's the 2008 quota and it's been met!"
Fiscal year. Which ends September 30th. Meaning October 1st starts the
next (fiscal) year. Zaineb Naji (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) examines the changing policies on Iraqi refugees for surrounding countries:
Last
year, Syria announced new rules for Iraqis coming to Syria and for the
first time, required us to get visas. But only academics, merchants,
and taxi and truck drivers would qualify for visas. You can also get
permission to travel to Syria if you are going there for medical
treatment.
[. . .]
This
time as we went through customs, two Iraqi soldiers came up to us and
used a scanning device to check us. Then American soldiers took our
biometrics information, including an eye scan. The people who passed
got an "OK" written on their right hand with a black marker.
"Just
like sheep" a young woman said to the American soldier when she got the
"OK" mark on her hand. The soldier said "sorry" several times and
explained that this was the procedure.
Two
hours later, we were on the Syrian side of the border and again we had
to line up to get our passports checked. In the arrival hall, people
were shouting and pushing each other to reach the immigration desk. I
was told to step aside by one of the customs officers, who said I was
blocking his view of the television set.
In
the hall, there was an extra "fee" for each kind of visa. Merchants
were asked to pay $10, while for the sick, the price was $5. For our
transit visas, the fee was $4 each. Everyone got a stamp that allowed
them to stay in Syria for one month and then we were on the bus
again.
At the end of the trip, I realized that Iraqis are always suffering, whether it's inside their country or outside of it.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad attack in which 1 police officer was shot dead and three were
left wounded and, in Kirkuk, a police shooting is under examination as
a result of the deaths of a man and his father. Reuters notes
a raid conducted by "Iraqi security forces" in Baquba on "the office of
the governor of Diyala province" which resulted in the death of "his
secetary". Reuters notes
the name of the dead is Abbas Ali Hmoud and that Raad Rasheed Mulla
Jawad (the governor of the province) has stated, "The body of the
martyr [Abbas Ali Hmoud] will stay in the building until the iillers
are captured." Though the US military admits at least 1 US helicopter
was present they deny that the US military had any knowledge or
participation in the raid. Maybe they were just jumping the gun on the
August 22nd National Airborne Day? Also playing dumb is the puppet government in Baghdad which is ordering an investigation. AFP reports
that Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, "ordered the formation
of a committee to find out how Iraqi forces came to fight each other in
Baquba" and notes that, in addition to the secretary being murdered, a
bodyguard was also shot dead. CNN notes,
"Hussein al-Zubaidi, a provincial council member, and Nazar al-Khafaji,
the Diyala University dean, were arrested during the raid, the official
said."
Today the US military announced:
"A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier was killed as a result of a
rocket attack on a forward operating base near Amarah Aug. 19." ICCC's
count is 4144 for the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war and 17 for the month.
Turning to the US presidential race. The Democratic Party holds its convention in Denver shortly. AP notes,
"Independent Ralph Nader planned to attend a rally at Denver University
on Aug. 27, the night before Obama accepts his party's nomination. And
Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney was scheduled to address
supporters after an anti-war march through downtown Denver on Sunday,
the day before the convention opens." Christopher Keating (Hartford Courant) notes
that independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's campaign was set
to turn in petitions today in New York and Alabama making them the 31st
and 32nd states the Ralph Nader - Matt Gonzalez ticket will be on the
ballots of. Foon Rhee (Boston Globe) adds that the Nader campaign is set to submit their signatures to be on the Massachusetts ballot. The Nader campaign states
it has around 17,000 signatures gathered, that Massachusetts would be
the 34th state they'd be on the ballot of and that "Michael Richardson,
Massachusetts Nader/Gonzalez 2008 Coordinator, will hold a Weds. Aug.
20, 10 a.m. news conference at the Elections Division office, McCormack
Bulding, Room 1705, One Ashburton Place, Boston, Mass. 02108"..
This
is Ralph Nader. Just how different are the two major parties? Well
I've often said that the towering similarities between the two parties
are far greater than the dwindling differences they're really willing
to fight over. It's clear that the Democrats are better than
Republicans on Social Security, civil justice, the right to go to court
if you're wrongfully injured, civil rights and a number of other
issues. But consider the similarities. As I've said when it comes to
the overriding issue of the corporate takeover of our federal
government department by department, agency by agency, the two parties
differ in the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when
corporations pound on their door.
The
two parties are pretty similar on foreign and military policy. In
recent weeks the leading foreign affairs reporters for the Washington Post and the New York Times
said that Obama would be similar in his foreign and military policy to
the second term of George W. Bush. They're both pushing for more
military budget. They haven't singled out a single weapons system that
they think is obsolete, redundant or not needed.
They
both are not doing anything about cracking down on corporate crimes
commensurate with the violations of health and safety laws by the
corporations in the looting and draining of trillions of dollars of
mutual fund savings and pension funds they both are furthering the
perforation of the tax code corporate loopholes and offshore
havens. They both have put the regulatory agencies under anesthesia.
They both are in a race to get more and more private special interest
money into elections corrupting our election process. You ever hear
them mention in any specifics what they're going to do about consumer
protection or what they're going to do about repealing anti-worker,
anti-union laws like Taft-Hartley? No way. Similarly silent.
The
Democrats took over the Congress in January 2007, they haven't rolled
back any of the legislation or even made a major college try to roll
back the bad legislation that Bush and his Congressional Republicans
have passed So we can go and on but just think about it, how necessary
it is to have somewhere else on the ballot line to cast your vote.
Nader-Gonzalez. Thank you.
Wednesday,
August 20th McKinney will make 3 stops in Memphis. That evening she
will be in Jackson, Tennessee for a fundraiser hosted by the Madison
County Green Party. Thursday, August 21st McKinney's first stop is
in Dickson to meet with representatives of the community who have been
affected by the dumping of toxic waste in their community. Then to
Nashville for an 11:00 AM Press Conference in Room 31, Legislative
Plaza speaking to the press about her campaign. This event is open to
the public. Following the press conference Ms McKinney will speak
directly to the public and take questions. This will also be in
Legislative Plaza, Room 31. That morning Greens will turn in their
nominating petitions to secure her position on the general election
ballot in Tennessee. "Due to Tennessee's oppressive election access
laws Ms McKinney will be listed on the ballot as an independent
candidate which we can achieve with 275 valid signatures. It would take
over 45,000 valid signatures to get her listed with the "Green"
affiliation. The Green Party is currently a litigant against the state
seeking ballot access laws that are fair", said John Miglietta a
delegate to the Green Party of the US and a Green Candidate for US
House District 5. Following the Press Conference she is scheduled to
visit Tennessee State University, Fisk University and Carver Food Park
where Sizwe Herring of EarthMatters Tennessee teaches children and
community members about the value of composting and principles of
ecology.
Those appearances start tomorrow and the Geen Party website still has nothing up.
Long
and Key have much in common. Both joined the U.S. Army looking to
better their lives; both deserted their posts and fled to Canada; both
sought refugee status. But
Long, currently in custody at Fort Carlson military base in Colorado,
is the first U.S. conscientious objector to be sent back from Canada,
while Key sits at home in Saskatchewan, awaiting a new hearing on his
claim for refugee status. "It didn't sit right in my stomach," Long told the Boise Weekly in May 2006, about going to Iraq. "I morally couldn't do it." Long,
25, fled to Canada in June 2005 after being ordered to Iraq earlier
that year. He told the media and Canada's Federal Court that despite
joining the Army at age 19 and planning on a career in the military, he
decided, based on conversations with soldiers returning from Iraq, that
"when these people came back and were telling these horrific stories
and our superiors were egging people on, some people were actually
volunteering to go over there and it just seemed like justified
homicide. It didn't seem right to me." Long
argued that if Canada returned him to the United States, he would be
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and be denied justice.
Hinzman
was handed a deportation order after a Citizenship and Immigration
officer decided his application, filed under the pre-removal risk
assessment program, didn’t qualify. The program evaluates the risk a
claimant will face if he or she is sent back to the country of origin.
Hinzman's final appeal of the rejection of his application for refugee
status had previously been denied. It
was deemed that the US had a fair justice system and Hinzman's First
Amendment right to free speech was protected. Citizenship and
Immigration also judged that President Bush's "no child left behind"
program assured that his son would be able to get a good education. Upon
returning to the US, Hinzman will likely be detained and face court
martial and a similar fate to that of Robin Long, which could include a
five-year prison term for desertion. While his attorneys plan to appeal
the deportation order, Hinzman is not hopeful. In an interview with the
"Democracy Now" program, Hinzman said, "This turns our lives upside
down."
ACT NOW! Tell Stephen Harper: don't deport Hinzman family! U.S. Iraq War resister Jeremy Hinzman and his wife and two children have been ordered to leave Canada by September 23rd.
In
spite of Hinzman’s four and a half years living, working and raising a
family in Canada, the Harper government plans to deport him to the
United States where he will likely face a court martial and a potential
military jail sentence and felony conviction. This flies in the face of
democracy and the will of Canadians: Parliament passed a motion in
support of war resisters June 3rd, 82% of Canadians oppose the Iraq war
(Strategic Counsel poll), and 64% of Canadians support war resisters
(Angus Reid poll).
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW: IN TORONTO: Attend the Emergency Meeting to Stop the Deportation of Jeremy Hinzman and his family, Wednesday August 20th at 7 p.m. at the Steelworkers Hall, 25 Cecil Street – Read the War Resisters Support Campaign press release and circulate it widely http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2008/13/c3830.html –
Tell Immigration Minister Diane Finley to use her power to stop
deportation of war resisters and allow them to stay in Canada. Tell
Prime Minister Stephen Harper to Let the War Resisters Stay!
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper Phone: (613) 992-4211 E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca
Make these points when you contact them – - respect Parliament and implement the June 3rd motion in support of war resisters staying in Canada - 82% of Canadians oppose the Iraq war - 64% of Canadians in an Angus Reid national poll want war resisters to stay in Canada -
Jeremy Hinzman and his family have lived and worked here for over 4
years and made a real contribution; they should not be deported because
they oppose the Iraq war.
A CALL TO ACTION ON SEPTEMBER 13: Get involved!!!
September
13th is a pan-Canadian Day of Action to support war resisters and to
demand that the Harper government stop the deportations. Actions,
demonstrations, and pickets will take place in cities and towns all
across Canada.
Organize a local action for September 13th. Let the War Resisters Support Campaign know what you are planning. http://www.resisters.ca Phone: (416) 598-1222 E-mail: resisters@sympatico.ca
Daniel
Baker joined the US Navy in 2004, but soon after being deployed in
Qatar as a communications officer in 2006 he made a successful
application for CO status. He now works for the Catholic Peace
Fellowship, one of the organizations that advise CO applicants. In
contrast, soldier Robert Weiss's application for CO status was turned
down in December 2007. He said: "I feel that at this point I have no
legal avenue for pursuing recognition of my beliefs, so therefore I
have no choice but to leave the military rather than do something I
feel is immoral." On December 22 he was due to fly back to Iraq, but
saw no alternative but to go absent without leave (AWOL) for 30 days,
the minimum time necessary to be classified as a deserter. He would
then turn himself in and face the inevitable court martial and
imprisonment. During his
period of being AWOL, he was given refuge by a family with pacifist
sympathies. In February he turned himself in, and on May 13 was court
martialled. He is serving a seven-month sentence in a military prison
in Mannheim, Germany. [. . .] In
the process of applying for CO status, applicants have to identify the
moment of the "crystallization" of conscience. A member of a CO support
organization says: "For many it is when they're pointing a weapon at
someone and seeing the person, or being confronted with taking the
lives of very innocent people" When
Daniel Baker joined the Navy, he saw it as "a chance to make something
out of myself -- a chance to really succeed in life and have an
honorable profession to help those in need." But
his career did not provide the hoped-for sense of meaning and purpose
in his life. He started to look at philosophy and stumbled across the
writings of Buddhist philosopher Thich Nhat Hanh. "This was my first
introduction to the theory and practice of non-violence." A
main point of "crystallization" came when he was flying at 300 feet
over the Gulf on a reconnaissance mission tracking an Iranian
submarine. "I heard over the radio set an Iranian voice saying
'Coalition aircraft, maintain five nautical miles' and as we kept
making passes over this submarine the voice got more and more nervous." Baker
realized that "this man, human being, in the submarine, Iranian or not,
was just a human being like me who's my brother." This was to be his
final mission: before his next mission Baker told his instructor that
he was a CO. Weiss describes
the circumstances that at the age of 16 led him to enlist. "I had
nowhere to live, I had no money, I don't have a car, I don’t have a
driver’s license, so really the only possibility I had for having a
place to live and a means to get by would be to join the military." After
he joined up, his sister's boyfriend was stabbed to death at a New
Year's Eve party. "That was a huge turning point in my life, because it
really made me think I am not guaranteed another day. I thought that if
I did die right now I would have to stand before God and it wouldn't be
good enough for me to say, well hey I had fun, I got drunk, I went to
the strip club." He started taking religion seriously and brought God
back into his life.
Wednesday,
August 20th McKinney will make 3 stops in Memphis. That evening she
will be in Jackson, Tennessee for a fundraiser hosted by the Madison
County Green Party. Thursday, August 21st McKinney's first stop is
in Dickson to meet with representatives of the community who have been
affected by the dumping of toxic waste in their community. Then to
Nashville for an 11:00 AM Press Conference in Room 31, Legislative
Plaza speaking to the press about her campaign. This event is open to
the public. Following the press conference Ms McKinney will speak
directly to the public and take questions. This will also be in
Legislative Plaza, Room 31. That morning Greens will turn in their
nominating petitions to secure her position on the general election
ballot in Tennessee. "Due to Tennessee's oppressive election access
laws Ms McKinney will be listed on the ballot as an independent
candidate which we can achieve with 275 valid signatures. It would take
over 45,000 valid signatures to get her listed with the "Green"
affiliation. The Green Party is currently a litigant against the state
seeking ballot access laws that are fair", said John Miglietta a
delegate to the Green Party of the US and a Green Candidate for US
House District 5. Following the Press Conference she is scheduled to
visit Tennessee State University, Fisk University and Carver Food Park
where Sizwe Herring of EarthMatters Tennessee teaches children and
community members about the value of composting and principles of
ecology.
On the presidential issue, I haven't said who
I'm voting for and don't intend to. (I've said who I am not voting for:
Barack or John McCain.)***SEE NOTE AT END*** The community voted and the community is behind Ralph Nader. We're mainly including Cynthia's appearance today because the Green Party's website
doesn't. That should be THE LARGEST HEADLINE EVERY WEEK. Cynthia is
their nominee and they should be getting the word out. Instead, they're
still stuck in July (their convention). The first thing anyone coming
to a political party website needs to see (especially a third-party) is
any events that week with the candidate.
As
the United States activated Navy ships and the Air Force to begin an
airlift of non-specified goods into the former Soviet state of Georgia,
and military exercises began in the Persian Gulf near Iran, I received
communications from certain individuals among the Colorado Greens who
were organizing campaign support events there, suggesting that I not
participate in an anti-war program being organized by other individuals
in Colorado.
Perplexed, I began to do my research to understand
the nature of the fissure that I seemed to be placing myself in the
middle of. The communications to me about not participating in one of
the scheduled events became more and more shrill. The events ran
through August 26th. When the lineup of speakers, including Rosa and
me, was announced for the events in question, I received multiple
communications stating in various ways that the sender from the Green
Party of Colorado, was on the verge of desperation over the latter.
Within
a few hours, I was reading messages stating that the Green Party of
Colorado would be ruined if I participated in the End the
Occupations/End the War march and rally slated to take place on the
morning of August 24th on the steps of the Colorado State Capitol, or
if Rosa participated in a Freedom March and Rally for Human Rights and
Political Prisoners at Civic Center Park the following day.
An
article appeared in a local Colorado newspaper stating that Rosa and I
would not appear at the events for which we had been scheduled. Rosa
responded to our Colorado Green Party contact that yes, indeed, we were
appearing at the two events. Both Rosa and I then received messages
demanding to know by a time certain what our plans were, and asserting
that the Green Party of Colorado would be totally ruined if we
associated with the group sponsoring the events. In addition, we were
told that at least one resignation and sustaining membership would be
tendered to the Party, and that Rosa and I could expect no support on
the ground in Denver from the Green Party of Colorado, including a
planned fundraiser and a place to stay.
Without receiving any
additional response or information from either Rosa or I, the
correspondent sent a message informing us that all Green Party of
Colorado events previously scheduled for us had been canceled. Further,
the message stated that ballot access petitioning by Green Party of
Colorado would cease in neighboring Wyoming and that all efforts would
be made to remove Rosa’s and my names from the ballot in Colorado. The
message also noted that the Colorado delegation overwhelmingly
supported Elaine Brown at the Green Party Convention.
With the
e-mail messages flying “fast and furious,” I hope I have mentioned the
highlights of this episode in somewhat chronological order. What Rosa
and I would like to address now, is the ideological and rational order
that produced this outcome. At the very first Green Party debate held
in San Francisco earlier this year, I pleaded for unity of action and
purpose as we face the challenges that confront us as a country. Rosa
and I are proud to join with others who are sick and tired of war,
occupation, human rights abuses, and the continued incarceration of our
political prisoners. We are proud to join with others who are willing
to do something about it. In the context of activities in Denver, that
means cooperating with some organizations new to us and others with
which Rosa and I have had a long-standing relationship. Let me explain
some of those relationships.
I am proud to have received a
Backbone Award from the Backbone Campaign, one of the co-participants
of the anti-war, anti-occupation events in question, according to the
organizers.
Rosa and I are pleased to have received the
endorsement of M-1 of Dead Prez, who put out a video of endorsement and
is rallying other conscious Hip Hop, Generation X voters to the Green
Party with Rosa and I as its nominees. Rebel Diaz was on the stage with
Rosa as she accepted her Green Party nomination for Vice President.
Both Dead Prez and Rebel Diaz are participating in the events in
question, according to the organizers.
Fred Hampton, Jr.’s
mother, a victim of COINTELPRO, came to Georgia in the mid-1990s to
help me gain reelection after a malicious redistricting case that went
all the way up to the Supreme Court. Ward Churchill has traveled to my
Congressional district to educate my former constituents on the
COINTELPRO of yesterday and the COINTELPRO of today. Natsu Saito
introduced me to other victims of COINTELPRO. I asked Kathleen Cleaver
to co-author a report that was submitted to Mary Robinson, the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights at the time of the World
Conference Against Racism, on the unsolved murders of Black Panther
Party members who were victims of COINTELPRO. Fred Hampton, Jr., Ward
Churchill, Natsu Saito, and Kathleen Cleaver are all participating in
the events in question, according to the organizers.
As a Member
of Congress, I supported the release of all political prisoners and
welcomed information from the American Indian Movement about Leonard
Peltier. I have at many times in my political career been allied with
the ACLU, and have always supported Pam and Ramona Africa and the MOVE
Organization. The American Indian Movement of Colorado, King Downing of
the ACLU, and Pam and Ramona Africa of MOVE are all participating in
the events in question, according to the organizers.
Mumia Abu
Jamal has endorsed the Power to the People Campaign and my Green Party
candidacy. According to the organizers, Mumia will transmit a message
to all of us participating in the events in question.
Finally, I
have appeared on various stages with many Palestinians; I have proudly
spoken at rallies organized by Larry Holmes. Debra Sweet with World
Can’t Wait was among the very first to my knowledge to organize around
impeachment as an imperative and I support hers and all other
impeachment groups in their efforts. And finally, I have known Ben
Manski for a long time as a socially conscious activist who is also a
member of the Green Party. According to the organizers, a Palestinian
refugee is slated to speak at the events in question, as well as Larry
Holmes, Debra Sweet, and Ben Manski.
Rosa and I have not been
given any rational, ideological, or strategically-acceptable reason by
the Green Party of Colorado to dissociate ourselves from the movement
that this country so desperately needs and that these individuals and
organizations participating represent, as we all attempt to hold the
Democratic Party accountable for its complicity in all of the crimes of
the Bush Administration. Therefore Rosa and I will keep our
appointments in Denver and we hope that the members of the Green Party
of Colorado will attend our sessions and listen to what we have to say.
I have faith that by taking principled stands against war and
occupation, human rights abuse, the prison-industrial complex, and in
support of freedom for political prisoners, the Green party will emerge
stronger.
Cynthia McKinney Green Party Nominee for President of the United States
Rosa Clemente Green Party Nominee for Vice President of the United States
Nader's
supporters will deliver the petitions to the New York State Board of
Elections in Albany on Tuesday and will hold a press conference to
announce the submission. Also on Tuesday, another group of supporters
will submit petitions in Washington, D.C. - pushing the overall ballot
access to 31 states and D.C.
After
running for President every four years since 1996, Nader is one of the
nation's best-known figures. But his runningmate, Matt Gonzalez, is
little known on the national stage. A graduate of Columbia University
and Stanford Law School, Gonzalez is the former president of the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors and is currently a partner in a
seven-attorney firm in San Francisco.
31 out of the planned 45 states. The campaign continues meeting its ballot access goals. Billie notes this from Team Nader:
Batman, Huey Long and the Anti-Pelosi
Posted by The Nader Team on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 08:16:00 AM
PS: If you donate $100
or more by tomorrow night, we will send you the best argument yet made
for single payer Medicare for all health insurance -- the DVD Sicko. Plus, we’ll send Awake from Your Slumber -- the DVD starring Ralph Nader and Patti Smith -- autographed by Ralph.
This
is Ralph Nader. Remember reading or hearing the farewell address of
President Dwight Eisenhower? 1960, when he warned Americans about what
he called "the military industrial complex"? Well, just a few words
about where we are in the military budget. It's
now 1/2 of the entire federal government's operating expenditures. It's
way over $700 billion and that's not counting the money for helping our
veterans. Both Obama and McCain want to increase the military budget.
The Government Accountability Office yearly describes the gigantic
Pentagon contracting budget unauditable. Just imagine, half of what the federal government spends in operating expenditures can't even be audited. For
example, people inside the Defense Department think that the F-22
should never have been contract for, built wasn't necessary. The Osprey
helicopter -- defective, killed quite a few marines in test flights,
shouldn't have been built in their judgment. Hundreds of billions of
dollars are in the pipeline for weapons systems that were designed for
the Soviet Union-era of hostility. They no longer have any strategic
value and many of them are redundant. We've
got to cut the waste out of the huge military budget and put that money
back into repairing America's public works and cities, towns and rural
areas all over the country. If we cut out the expenditures of keeping
our soldiers out of Japan and Western Europe -- 60-plus years after
WWII -- a portion of that money could give free education to all
students in public universities in the United States. Think about it. Think
about who stands for a lean defense -- not a wasteful defense; who
stands for respecting your tax payer dollar and returning it to you to
improve the public facilities, schools and clinics, libraries, drinking
water systems, sewage stream and plant upgrades among some of the
deferred maintenance that's reducing the facilities that are necessary
for a thriving community.
---------- Added:
****NOTE**** Jim
adding this to C.I.'s piece above. The point of that comment, already
resulting in e-mails (I'm working the public account) is to make clear,
The Common Ills
will cover Ralph. It is not C.I.'s job to cover all campaigns. This
isn't a campaign site. My guess is C.I. will promote Cynthia's two days
of events in the snapshot because the Green Party isn't. But the point
is, "This isn't McKinney central. Don't come here for that and don't
swamp the public account with your e-mails asking for this and that.
The community voted on Ralph." (I did vote in that poll. As far as I
know, Ava
and C.I. were the only ones who did not in the community. Check with
Gina and Krista though because it was their poll.) C.I. would be
covering Nader regardless and that was noted all the way back in 2004.
(One reason TCI was the site Jess
and I could both agree on!) But the focus is Iraq. Those notes are to
make clear, "Don't expect me to start providing where Cynthia's going,
what she's doing, who's covering her, etc." There's not enough time.
Ralph was going to get a fair shake regardless. The fact that the
community (back in April) voted to support him (some, like me, were
supporting Hillary and made Ralph our choice if the nomination was
stolen) means he gets noticed even more. But there's not time to do
Iraq and Ralph and everything else.
The front page of this morning's New York Times features Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Kurdish Control of City Creates Political Powderkeg in North Iraq" which, along with Stephen Farrell's "As Iraqis Vie for Kirkuk's Oil, Refugee Kurds Becomes Pawns"
(December 9, 2007) stands as the best domestic coverage of Kirkuk by
any US outlet. Oppel sketches out how Kirkuk's fate already appears
determined and how that took place because the central government
(puppet) in Baghdad didn't do anything. Oppel writes, "Kurdish
authority is visible everywhere in the city. In addition to the
provincial government and command of the police, the Kurds control the
Asaish, the feared undercover security service that works with the
American military and, according to Asaish commanders, United States
intelligence agencies." Oppel doesn't pursue that aspect which is a
shame because the puppet government was controlled by the White House
so the stand-down on Kirkuk was no acident. And US Col David Paschal
can brag about how he made the call last month (as Turkmen and Kurds
battled) not to send in the Iraqi forces but that call came from higher
up. Mohammed Khalil ("leader of the Arab bloc on the provincial
council") explains, "There is much fear. The Asaish are saying they
will annex Kirkuk by force and that is terrifying people."
Leila Fadel's "He Paid the Price" (Bagdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) covers the death of "Awakening" Council member Farouk Abd al Sattar al Obeidi who died in Sunday's Baghdad bombing:
I
could see that Al Obeidi was proud of the small office the group rented
in a strip mall in Adhamiyah. He sat behind a large desk and pulled out
the pictures of the men they had helped catch. He helped pay for the
uniforms his men wore, military uniforms although they were not in the
army. On the floor green and red lights danced from a light projector
attached to the wall to jazz up the drab room. But
he also lamented that the government was sectarian and would not take
in the young men who fought for the neighborhood into their forces.
They had no respect for the movement, he said. This was a movement that
brought down violence in Iraq when U.S. forces and the Iraqi government
could not, he said. "We are an oppressed people," he said. "Our leaders are oppressors." Personally
he had no interest in joining the security forces. He rolled up his
pant leg to show me why. He had a scarred pink whole in his leg. It was
a reminder of the day he'd survived a grenade attack, he said. He'd
helped a Shiite man leave the neighborhood of Adhamiyah after he was
threatened by Sunni extremists in the once insurgent-dominated
neighborhood. He took the
man out of Sunni Adhamiyah and returned home, he knew what it was to be
displaced. He'd been displaced by Shiite militants.
AP has an article all over the place (here at Los Angeles Times, here at Washington Post,
etc.) just rah-rah-rah about the US taking in Iraqi refugees and how
the State Dept might meet their announced quota ("for the first time"
is left unstated by Samantha Henry). Now go to Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers)
where you'll find an Iraqi journalist, "For the second time now in one
month Iraqi newspapers have published articles stating the U.S will not
accept any more Iraqi refugees." And before some idiot says, "Well it's
the 2008 quota and it's been met!" Fiscal year. Which ends September
30th. Meaning October 1st starts the next (fiscal) year.
Thousands of you have already donated very generously to Nader/Gonzalez.
Thank you.
But tens of thousands of you have not.
So, today is your day.
Our Nader/Gonzalez team in Denver (pictured here) needs your help.
If you haven't given to Nader/Gonzalez yet, please donate $5 now.
We are a grassroots campaign in need of some serious grassroots support.
And
we are busting it in Denver preparing for our first Super Rally --
August 27 at the Magness Arena at the University of Denver.
We
have a lineup of national figures on board to stand with us and demand
open debates during the DNC in Denver (watch for speaker/performer
announcement this week).
This will be a powerful start to our Open the Debates campaign and will mark the end of our drive for ballot access.
After
spending over 90 days and 90 nights on the road collecting signatures
to get Ralph on the ballot in New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming,
Alaska, and California, a dedicated road tripper, Junue Millan, is in
Colorado helping prepare for Ralph's first Super Rally of the season.
He
worked with a road trip team that collected more than 30,000 signatures
in 10 states, and after doing a couple of back of the napkin
calculations, we figure that means our team has spoken with over
300,000 people about Ralph Nader and his candidacy.
Multiply
those by the number of dedicated road tripping teams across the
country, and our supporters have spoken to nearly 3 million people
across the country.
Talk about a grassroots campaign!
Without
the help of those of you who can’t be on the road but who are in a
position to provide us with much needed resources, this would have been
impossible.
Thank you so much for your support during the last five months.
Although
we have talked to our first three million people, we still have 297
million people to still reach before the election on November 4th.
We all know that mainstream media isn't helping our cause, so we have decided to take matters into our own hands.
We
have printed 7,000 tickets, 100,000 flyers, secured an office, have a
strong volunteer movement, and we are ready to appeal directly to
people really ready for some change.
Many dedicated volunteers are putting in 70 hour weeks to make this event an awesome kick-off to the campaign season.
We
need to print more fliers to get the word out from Ft. Collins to
Colorado Springs, from Denver to Boulder, and all over Colorado.
We
need tape for the posters, we need office supplies to keep things
running smoothly, gas money to get around Colorado. We need lighting
equipment, sound equipment, and so much more to get this Super Rally
together.
We have amazing volunteers dedicating every hour of their weekend spreading the word.
We just finished handing out fliers at the New West Fest in Ft. Collins and at the Farmer's Markets in Boulder and Littleton.
We'll put in the hours and the miles - but we need your contributions to help fuel this rally effort.
jeremy hinzman
tim richard
jonathan s. landay
mcclatchy newspapers
stephen farrell
the new york times
thom shanker
campbell robertson
james glanz
the washington post
bill delahunt
rosa delauro
deborah haynes
dexter filkins
ashford & simpson
alexandra zavis
the los angeles times
leila fadel
richard a. oppel jr.
john mackay
daniel baker
robert weiss
susannah tarbush
christopher keating
peter kavanagh
joshua key
skylar james
steven argue
