Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier died of non-combat related injuries in Baghdad Sept. 5." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4155.
In today's New York Times, Stephen Farrell offers "U.S. Spied On Maliki, Book Says, Upsetting Iraq" (A8) which is about the advance publicity for Bob Woodward's new book (released this coming Monday) and the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, pretending to be surprised and outraged. Though not the US asset Chalabi was, al-Maliki is hardly clean and it's hilarious to watch his surrogates feign shock over this. Farrell quotes a number of them. The audience they are aiming for is not the US, they're trying to create an outrage in Iraq that will transfer into support for the puppet. Their weak ass statements thus far indicate the puppet doesn't even know how to handle that correctly. Farrell ignores Robert Wood's statement at the US State Dept yesterday and instead goes with Dana Perino's comments at the White House press briefing. That's an interesting choice.
We went with Wood's comments in yesterday's snapshot. Both press briefings are online now click here for text of Wood at the State Dept, here for video of the briefing, and here for Perino at the White House. And note that if you're going to quote Perino, you need to include the only real news in her comments (pay attention to her second sentence in the quote): "Okay. I haven't -- I don't have a copy of the book yet. We did receive one or two at the White House late yesterday evening, and they are working through it. So all I know is the coverage of the book that I've seen, and that I've read in news reports of it. " Did you catch it? The book comes out on Monday. Someone's decided to give the White House advance copies.
Really interesting when consider the attacks on The Price of Loyalty and how Woodward's book is allegedly critical of the White House. That's the only news in Perino's press briefing and Farrell, quoting from that briefing, can't even find it.
The paper also can't find the space to even note the assassination attempt on Chalabi yesterday. It's a curious form of 'reporting.' Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on some of today's violence 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad, a Baghdad mortar attack that left two people wounded, a Nineveh Province car bombing that claimed the lives of 6 bystanders and left thirty-two more wounded and a Baghdad assassination attempt on Lt Col Fasieh Ziboun (Ministry of Justice "commander") via car bombing that left Ziboun wounded.
No reduction in US forces in Iraq expected for the remainder of the year. Ann Scott Tyson and Karen DeYoung report in "Compromise Led to Iraq Troop Plan" (Washington Post) that Bully Boy is expected to announce the news on Tuesday and they report:
Senior military officials said the "consensus" proposal incorporated the final recommendation of Petraeus. He called for withdrawing 7,500 to 8,000 troops from Iraq by the end of January, including an 1,100-man Marine Corps battalion and a Marine aviation squadron of several hundred strong to depart this fall, an Army combat brigade of up to 4,000 soldiers to depart in mid-January, and more than 1,000 support troops, such as logisticians and forces, assigned to handle detainees.
The Pentagon plan also calls for bolstering the U.S. force in Afghanistan to counter a growing insurgency, deploying a Marine battalion there in November to replace one that is departing, and sending an Army brigade of 3,500 to 4,000 troops there early next year.
The following community sites have updated since Friday morning:
An e-mail to the public account asks . . . I don't know what. The heading is about Steve Featherstone's article in Harper's this month. The e-mail text didn't go through. If I can figure out where that issue is (we quoted it from it about three weeks ago for another article), I'll try to note something from the article. I will not be going online and reading the article online. Harper's really isn't online. They have blogs and that's it unless you're a subscriber. If you're a subscriber you can log in and read anything in the current issue or in past issues going back to the start of the magazine. There is no cost for their archives -- you subscribe, you can go through them and read. The way it goes here is the either Jess grabs it when it arrives in the mail or Ava and I do in which case we take it on the road and read it with Kat. When we get back, if Jess hasn't seen it already, we pass it over to him. If he has seen it, it may be passed on while we're on the road. I don't remember what happened with that issue (whether we got it first or second). Jess isn't remembering the article and I know I didn't read it. I did fax a copy to Elaine because it's the sort of topic she would cover at her site. If the person wants to e-mail an excerpt, we'll note it here. Otherwise, you're dependent upon my finding the issue and I've already looked everywhere I could think of. (And did find Kat's stash she hid in one of my backpacks last month. I'm not joking but, to clarify, Kat's stash is Hostess Ding Dongs. She was having sugar cravings as she was about to get her period and bought enough Ding Dongs for a first grade class. That's noted with Kat's permission and at her request because when she got here tonight I handed her the boxes and boxes of Ding Dongs. I carry two backpacks on the road and rotate out between ten backpacks and I'm not seeing the issue. It's not in the library and Jess doesn't have it so I have no idea where it was but it could have hit the recycle pile by accident. If that happened, it's gone. Jim does read online and he may read the article and find a section to note but I never read articles online at Harper's because I'm not big on staring at a screen when I've got paper. The articles are scanned in, by the way, so they are on PDF form. That's my plug for Harper's.) [I don't have it. Elaine was faxed a copy. That's because of the article on Jewish writers. We had mentioned it in one group we were speaking to and a student wanted to read the article. I went to the photo copier and copied Featherstone's article, handed the magazine to the student and had the hotel fax the copy to Elaine later that night. The issue was passed on. So the person e-mailing either needs to provide an excerpt to note or you're hoping Jim will go on at some point and read the article online.)
Barack Obama has now declared -- on Fox News, no less -- that George W. Bush's escalation of the flagrant war crime in Iraq has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." He also proclaimed his "absolute" belief in the "War on Terror," and pledged, once again, "never to take a military option off the table" (not even the nuclear option) against the "major threat" of Iran. In short, he continued his relentless campaign to purge himself of any of that weak-sister "anti-war" taint that got attached to him in the early days of his campaign -- which was, of course, responsible for his phenomenal rise in the first place. He rode that wave to national prominence -- trading on the desperate hopes of millions of Americans that the ungodly criminal nightmare in Iraq might finally end -- but it was obvious long ago that he was never going to dance with the ones that brung him. Once it was clear that he might really make it all the way to the top of the greasy pole, he began a dogged campaign to prove to our ruling elite that he would be a "safe pair of hands" for the imperial enterprise. We've seen this in, among other things, the shameful FISA vote, the bellicose threats to launch incursions into Pakistan (a policy which the Bush Administration is already implementing, with the usual deadly results for civilians), the ritual and repeated assertions of his willingness to attack Iran, and the foolhardy promise to shepherd Georgia's entry into NATO -- a mirror-image of Dick Cheney's stance, and a policy guaranteed to ratchet up tensions with Russia and quite possibly spark not only a new Cold War but a hot war of horrendous proportions if Georgia pulls its future NATO treaty partners into another conflict with Moscow. But it is Obama's surrender on the Iraq War front -- or rather, the anti-Iraq War front -- that is most striking, and most disheartening. On the very night that John McCain was putting the "success" of the surge at the center of his campaign, Obama was openly, cravenly laying down one of his chief weapons at the feet of Bill O'Reilly. Obama's cheerleading for the surge -- "beyond our wildest dreams!" -- surpassed anything that McCain himself has claimed for the escalation.
Barack didn't just declare the "surge" a success. He did that while on his attention-seeking world tour. He did that with Katie Couric. That's what the questions by Couric were getting at and what Barack refused to say flat out. His Cult is so deluded that if the words don't fall out of his mouth in simple, declarative statements, no one notices.
It's why he said, when running from the illegal war on July 4th, that people aren't listening to him. He was very clear in the interview with Couric where he stood on the "surge." Couric's questions were an attempt to get him to state directly what he was implying. He refused to do so. It's why Charlie Gibson and George Steph were attempting to pin down his answers in the debate they were called out for. Barack uses legal-ese and avoids direct answers. It's how many in this country have been able to write whatever they wanted onto him. (A point he was making publicly as early as late 2005.) He wanted that Fox interview, he met privately to get it (and to lay down concerns about it and parameters).
With Couric he refused to say directly what his comments added up to (support for the "surge"). She was attacked by the Cult for that interview. O'Reilly has no concerns about the Cult and Barack couldn't weasel out.
When Barack said people hadn't been listening to him (July 4th) he was correct. He is not left. He is not anti-war or even anti-Iraq War. He refuses to call the illegal war "illegal." A lot of people have 'listened' to him adding what they wanted to what he said and never grasping that reality.
You cannot be against the illegal war and shore up, as he did several times in 2004, the Iraq War. You cannot claim credit for a 2002 speech and say (as he has repeatedly until he started running for the Democratic nomination) that, had he been in the Senate in 2002, he doesn't know how he would have voted.
Barack told O'Reilly specifically that he believed the "surge" worked. He'd already said that on CBS but wouldn't do so specifically.
For all the complaints about Bill Clinton using legaleze during the _____ (let's not even put her name in) while he was president, the 'left' has been very happy to swallow legalese and even to add to it to justify Barack.
Allegedly, lessons were learned from 2004. Allegedly, the 'left' was never going to again set the illegal war aside to try to elect a candidate on the hopes of what he might do. Tongues were held when John Kerry was running. Sure he was making war noises, but didn't we all know John as the man who spoke out against Vietnam?
Whether he would have ended the illegal war or not will never be known. People can have their own opinions. (I believe Kerry would have and that may be my own delusion.) But two dangers were known from that process.
One was that you can't bury the peace movement and then, following an election, immediately dig it back up. You put ending the illegal war on hold, you're starting from scratch when you pick the issue back up again.
Another was that elections aren't decided by polling, aren't decided by wishes. Elections are decided by votes (and sometimes by the Supreme Court). And no one knows how people will vote (or if they will -- including if they will be allowed to). The lesson there is that anyone can win and that you don't put all your eggs in one candidate's basket.
John Kerry lost. He didn't make it into the White House. You can point to very real voter disenfranschisement to argue Kerry should have won (and you even invent very non-real suppression). But the reality is Kerry didn't end up in the White House and made no effort to question the results. So he lost.
Despite lies to the contrary, no one knows who will be elected in November. Anyone running -- including Ralph and Cynthia -- could have a push in their direction in the final days and end up the president. It's a crowded field and only one person will be declared president.
To make like Tom Hayden and insist that if Barack loses it is the end of the anti-war movement is to utter not just a lie but a lie that courts disaster.
Whatever does or does not happen to Barack, the movement to end the illegal war (like the illegal war itself) goes on. Barack has never been a part of the movement to end the illegal war. He was invited to the January 2007 DC rally. As with all other rallies to end the illegal war, he declined. It wasn't a fear of rallies, as we all know from watching his myth-making campaign.
He is not a part of the movement to end the illegal war. He did not show up -- even for a second -- at the House hearing where they took the testimonies of Iraq Veterans Against the War. He has done nothing.
He is neither a participant in the movement to end the illegal war nor its leader.
Tom Hayden's pathetic life is so small that he has nothing else to do but be a groupie for Barack. You get the feeling that, if invited, he would pack up everything to go on the road with Barack. (If invited? Barack has famously said that he has no fondness for "Tom Hayden Democrats.") Tom-Tom is not about ending the illegal war, he is not about empowering anyone. He is about electing Democratic men. That's really all he's ever been about.
He got some credit (and dserved some) for getting honest about how he tailored his own votes (in his monor legislative career) to the Israel lobby. He did that in the summer of 2006. How long after he left office? How long did it take him to get honest?
Honesty doesn't come naturally to Tom-Tom.
So when he scribbles (he may have already) his latest defense of Barack, people need to remember that it takes Tom-Tom at least six years to get even a little honest.
You can be frustrated every hour of the day by all the liars for Barack. Or you can look at it as a gift in that you now know who is incapable of honesty and who has so little respect for themselves and for you that they will lie over and over.
Along with being liars, they're very dumb. Barack needs the left right now. When he gets into office, like most past presidents, he's going to be courting Big Business exclusively until its time to run again. The only limited influence the left has on a candidate is when he or she needs them. With Barack in a dead heat right now with McCain, withdrawing support for Barack could panic him, could force some action on his part.
I wouldn't believe it because he revealed himself as a liar when running for the US Senate. (I'm referring to when Elaine and I spoke with him.) But if pleasing words is enough for the 'left,' they should be forcing him to make some right now. The only way to do that is to let him know that they know the race is close. It's an abdication of their power. They've already abdicated their role, now they're scared of their own power.
Pull support for him. Not tentatively. Pull it. Make it clear why.
Maybe he'll respond with some pleasing words as a result and the little kids can go back to fooling himself that he represents some sort of change. Instead they continue to support him no matter what -- a clear indication that, if elected, he would not be held accountable.
This isn't the only entry for today. But Floyd's written an important piece and I'll use that as my excuse to make this the only entry for today for many hours. I'm honestly going back to bed as soon as this posts. I'm really tired and it's been a long week. I'd planned to do both of today's entries but then saw Floyd's column in the e-mails (Mia, Brad and Kayla have noted it -- others may have as well, but those were the first ones I saw noting it -- I started at the most recent e-mails and have only read a little over fifty).
So focus on Floyd's article and think about it. Try to give it the attention it deserves. I'll post later today and that may be this evening.
Friday, September 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, no cutbacks (let alone withdrawals) is the word, al-Maliki pretends his feelings are hurt, Adam Kokesh shares his thoughts at a rally in Minn., and more.
Starting with the news of no 'cutback' (forget withdrawal). Tony Capaccio (Bloomberg News) explains, "Top U.S. military advisers have recommended that President George W. Bush delay futher combat-troop withdrawals from Iraq until early next year, according to two administration officials." Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reveals, "Under the recommendation, the current level of about 140,000 troops would remain in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency in January. Then a combat brigade of about 3,500 troops would be removed by February a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the recommendation has not been made public." Al Jazeera adds: "The recommendation that George Bush withdraw one combat brigade, or up to 5,000 soldiers, from Iraq only early next year was contrary to expectations that improved security in Iraq would allow for quicker cuts." At the White House today, Dana Perino declared, "I don't recall in the last few times when President Bush has worked with, or has gotten recommendations from General Petraeus, that we have gone too far outside. Of course we -- the President gets an update, as he did on Wednesday evening from Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates. They took Secretary -- I'm sorry -- General Petraeus' recommendation and ran that through the chain of command. And then they presented it to the President. He's obviously talking to his national security team, and we'll be consulting with members of Congress before we move forward." US forces aren't leaving. Two presidential candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) have no intention of withdrawing US troops. At what point does the Iraqi puppet face the wrath of the Iraqi people (many of whom have already figured out that Obama and McCain are the same on Iraq)?
UPI reports on yesterday's press conference held by Iraq's Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashimi. The press conference focused on the proposed treaties between the puppet government and the White House and al-Hashimi declared, "I think that we are not in need of an agreement that does not guarantee sovereignty and brings Iraq out from under Chapter VII, and also guarantees Iraqi law as a whole." Which would seem to put al-Hashimi in a better position with the Iraqi people than the puppet Nouri al-Maliki. However, al-Maliki was handed a gift today with advance publicity for Bob Woodward's latest book due out Monday. The book asserts that the White House spied on the puppet. Not a shocking or surprising claim. (A) He is there puppet and they don't trust him (as well as see him as inept). (B) This is the same White House that spied on the United Nations in the lead up to the illegal war. But al-Maliki's trying to turn it into a national pride issue. BBC reports that the puppet government is making noises about being shocked and how, gosh darn it, they think they maybe plan to ask the White House if this is true! Maybe.
At the US State Dept today, Robert Wood (Deputy Spokesperson) handled the press briefing and was asked about the charges made in Woodward's forthcoming book. He stated originally, "I don't have anything to say other than, you know, I read books, but I don't do book reviews, basically." Pressed later, he would state he hadn't read the book and "I'm not going to give you a review of it." The most Wood would offer was, "Well, again, I'm not going to get into the substance of this book and, you know, our characterization of it, except to say that, look, we have a good working relationship, a strong working relationship, with the Government of Iraq. We've worked very closely with Prime Minister Maliki. We'll continue to do so and -- in our efforts to strengthen Iraq's democracy."
Wood was more expansive on the issue of the "Awakening" Council members, stating, ". . . we believe transitioning some members of the Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi security forces, while providing the others with vocational training and other employment opportunities, will be key to sustaining the security gains that have been realized in Anbar and elsewhere in 2007. But I don't have anything beyond that." In other words, "Thank goodness the puppet government might soon start paying the thugs so we don't have to. Liability concerns, you understand." They certainly have the money to pay it since al-Maliki sits on millions and millions while Iraqis suffer. At Inside Iraq, one of McClatchy's Iraqi correspondents contributes "Why Does Iraq Need This Loan" which notes the central government in Baghdad issued a press release Wednesday proclaiming the Italian ambassador and Iraq's Minister of Finance addressed the topic of the "400 million euro" loan:
Until now, everything seems normal and logical. A third world country takes loan money from an industrial country. That would be completely acceptable if this third world country is a poor country but is it acceptable for a country that gained 32 billions dollars only as supplementary budget from the increasing of oil prices? Why does Iraq need this loan? Our government wastes millions of dollar everyday in putting more blast walls, renewing pavements and of course in buying new armored vehicles for the enormous and increasing number of Iraqi officials. We can buy thousands of agricultural machines with the millions that have been wasted for the faked projects. Of course I'm not talking about the millions that had been stolen by the former ministers or even by the contractors.
Puppet al-Maliki better hope he can get some traction with his mock outrage of "The White House Spied On Me! Who Could Have Guessed!" James Denselow (Guardian of London) contemplates al-Maliki, "So how has this situation come to pass and how are things likely to develop? Is Maliki going to detach from his perceived political masters in Washington and be allowed to show independence? Or will such posturing result in Maliki suffering a similar fate to his predecessor, who was replaced when he became too independent?"
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes Ahmed Chalabi was the target of an assassination in Baghdad today via a car bombing that claimed the lives of 2 and left seventeen injured (Chalabi was not among the dead or injured).
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier died of non-combat related injuries in Baghdad Sept. 5." The announcement brought to 4154 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
This as Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports, "Suicides among active-duty soldiers this year are on pace to exceed both last year's all-time record and, for the first time since the Vietnam War, the rate among the general U.S. population, Army officials said yesterday. Ninety-three active-duty soldiers had killed themselves through the end of August, the latest data show. A third of those cases are under investigation by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office. In 2007, 115 soldiers committed suicide." Pauline Jelinek (AP) adds, "As officials have said before, [Brig. Gen. Rhonda L.] Cornum said the main factors in soldier suicides continues to be problems with their personal relationships, legal and financial issues, work problems and the repeated deployments and longer tour lengths prompted by an Afghan war entering its eighth year and Iraq campaign in its sixth."
While the military does keep saying the same thing over and over, it really doesn't hold up. Take the case of Dustin Mark Tucker whom Mary Callahan (The Press Democrat) reported on Thursday. The doctors can't explain the death (kidney failure is suspected -- the cause, no one knows) and his family can't either:
"He has no family history or personal history of any kind of medical issues," said his mother, Cindy Tucker. "He didn't complain of not feeling well . . . He was happy. He was busy. He was excited for his vacation. He was on top of the world." Tucker, 22, was home for an 18-day leave, his first since his March deployment as a gunner with the Army's 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas. He was thrilled to be home, where his family had planned plenty of free time for golf, fishing and other activities. He was fatigued and jet-lagged after days of traveling from Baghdad to Kuwait, then Ireland, Atlanta and Los Angeles before finally flying into San Francisco and the embrace of his family. Despite the lengthy trip, he seemed ready for some fun, they said. Since arriving home Aug. 25, he had visited family and friends, played golf, bought a motorcycle and was looking forward to a family fishing trip at Clear Lake this week. He complained of no pain, discomfort or illness, but did mention being tired Aug. 27 when he decided to hang out with his two brothers rather than go out with friends, Cindy Tucker said.
Dustin Mark Tucker, apparently healthy, got on the couch and died there. And there are no answers. And there doesn't appear to be a great deal of interest in finding out what happened -- the same way they're not all that interested in the suicides. It's a pattern of pass-the-buck that hasn't been deal with despite the scandals of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Turning to the US presidential race. Yesterday's financial goal for the Ralph Nader campaign was to reach $100,000 in the donations for the Nader Media Fund which led to some mocking in the press. Not only did they reach $100,000, the campaign surpassed it, hitting $104,500 via donaors from around the country -- Texas, Wisconsin, Arizona, California, Oregon, Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii and elsewhere. Meanwhile Richard Winger's Ballot Access News reports Ralph Nader is currently on the ballot in 38 states (the Green Party in 31, the Constitution Party in 33 and the Libertarian Party in 42 -- see chart at the top of the page). Hamza Shaban (The Cavalier Daily) observes, "What Democrats have failed to realize is this: Nader is most dangerous when he is ignored. As a politician on the fringe, he does not seek the broadest coalition but makes new ones. If his platform is not integrated into the Democratic party's, then he will relentlessly go after the disaffected and carve out his own demographic. What loyal Democrats call "spoiling," Nader calls a systemic and deliberate boycott." Team Nader notes:
The revolution will not be televised - but thanks to your help, it will be on youtube.
We passed our media fund goal of $100,000 and brought in over $20,000 yesterday alone!
This video is our highlight reel from the "Open the Debates" super rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The rally took place on September 4, at the same time as the Republican National Convention in neighboring St. Paul. I flew to Minnesota to shoot video of this exciting event, then stayed up all night editing - I hope you enjoy the result. Also, because of your generous support, you will see much more coverage of future events.
Please forward this video to your friends & family. Also please help us - subscribe to our youtube channel and rate our videos and comments!
Adam Kokesh: Thanks to a few neocon, chicken-hawk draft dodgers I was sent to Falluja in 2004 with the Marine Corps Civil Affairs Team and I found out the hard way that the greatest enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America are not to be found in the sands of some far off land but rather right here at home. It's not enough to understand that the war in Iraq is simply unjust, illegal, unconstitutional, costing us a horrendous amount of money and destroying our military. The issues before us today are a matter of life and death. I continue to serve my country today as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and the Campaign for Liberty. It is through the Campaign for Liberty that we will take Ron Paul's message, we will take the torch of freedom that he has borne so well for us, we will take it back to our communities and set brushfires of freedom in the mind of every liberty loving man, woman and child in this great country. I'd like to take a second to recognize the veterans in the room -- if you would please stand -- and any active duty service members please stand. These are the brave men and women who swore an oath with their lives to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And while it is our responsibility now to resist tyranny civily while we still can, there may come a time when we will say to the powers that be "With your blood or ours, we have come to water the tree of liberty." And it is those veterans and myself, we will be on the frontlines. Who will stand with us? Thank you for taking that stand. To all of you loyal soldiers in this new revolutionary army, it is an honor to count myself among your ranks and I salute you. You want a revolution? You better be ready to fight for it. Now I want you all to get back on your feet, take that stance for liberty with me, with all the veterans in this room, make for yourself the same committment with your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor to our cause and make that pledge from your hearts where the fire of liberty burns that we will not rest 'till we achieve our goals and we get this new revolution in America. Now I want you to stay on your feet for just for just another minute -- you're going to want to stay on your feet for this -- because now I have the great pleaure of introducing on behalf of the Campaign for Liberty, someone you have all been waiting to see, Aimee Allen.
Note, Adam is co-chair of IVAW. He was speaking for himself at the Ron Paul rally as do all IVAW members participating in political campaigns for candidates. IVAW does not endorse any single candidate, they do not belong to or serve one party. IVAW is a diverse group in all ways including politically. Their shared beliefs include an end to the illegal war, reperations for the Iraqi people and that US veterans' service is honored (and promises kept) by the US government.
Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has held multiple events in Wisconsin today and has more planned for tomorrow: Today she held a lunch (10:30 a.m.), a town hall (Walden III School, Racine) at one p.m., and a Park Six meet and greet starting at 4:30. Saturday she will be speaking at the Fighting Bob Festival (Baraboo, Wisconsin at 10:20 in the morning and will be hosting another meet and greet this time at High Noon Salloon in Madison beginning at 5:30 p.m.).
NOW on PBS begins airing tonight in most markets. (Check local listings.) On the program this weekend (the above is a web exclusive and not a part of the show), Brancaccio interviews Christine Todd Whitman (billed as a moderate Republican) about the state of the GOP. Bill Moyers Journal brings back Dr. Kathy -- no doubt because America doesn't have enough worthless gas bagging on TV. The program moves into reality with a look at the National Guard members serving in Iraq. Gwen and the gas bags reteam to scare America on the latest installment of Washington Week. The Washington Post's David Broder and Vanity Fair's Todd S. Purdum are the two names that can be mentioned with minimal shudders. The others would produce screaming. In terms of radio, The Next Hour airs on WBAI Sunday (eleven to noon EST) and this week Janet Coleman and David Dozer "appear with yarrow sticks and The Book of Changes." Bill Moyers Journal tackles protests (and, some would say attention getting) so we'll include this section:
Perhaps the most prominent arrest was that of journalist Amy Goodman, anchor of the daily television and radio news program, "Democracy Now!" Police had taken two of her producers into custody as they were trying to cover the news. Goodman went out looking for them, but didn't get very far. She was stopped, slapped into handcuffs, and hauled into a detention center, along with almost 200 hundred other people. They had come to demonstrate, she had come to report on them. Goodman was released a few hours later and back on the job anchoring her daily radio and TV show, a favorite of listeners and viewers who go to her for news they won't find in the mainstream or rightwing press.
Winship is very kind to attention seeking Goody and what she actually offers. The essay is available in full online at Bill Moyers Journal.
Suicides
among active-duty soldiers this year are on pace to exceed both last
year's all-time record and, for the first time since the Vietnam War,
the rate among the general U.S. population, Army officials said
yesterday. Ninety-three active-duty soldiers had killed themselves
through the end of August, the latest data show. A third of those cases
are under investigation by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office.
In 2007, 115 soldiers committed suicide. Failed relationships, legal
and financial troubles, and the high stress of wartime operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan are the leading factors linked to the suicides,
Army officials said.
As
officials have said before, [Brig. Gen. Rhonda L.] Cornum said the main
factors in soldier suicides continues to be problems with their
personal relationships, legal and financial issues, work problems and
the repeated deployments and longer tour lengths prompted by an Afghan
war entering its eighth year and Iraq campaign in its sixth.
Yeah,
the military does keep saying the same thing over and over. Whether it
makes any sense or not. Their claims make little sense when it comes to
Dustin Mark Tucker. From Mary Callahan's "Family, doctors mystified by Kenwood soldier's death" (The Press Democrat):
"He
has no family history or personal history of any kind of medical
issues," said his mother, Cindy Tucker. "He didn't complain of not
feeling well . . . He was happy. He was busy. He was excited for his
vacation. He was on top of the world." Tucker,
22, was home for an 18-day leave, his first since his March deployment
as a gunner with the Army's 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th
Infantry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas. He was thrilled to be home, where his family had planned plenty of free time for golf, fishing and other activities. He
was fatigued and jet-lagged after days of traveling from Baghdad to
Kuwait, then Ireland, Atlanta and Los Angeles before finally flying
into San Francisco and the embrace of his family. Despite the lengthy
trip, he seemed ready for some fun, they said. Since
arriving home Aug. 25, he had visited family and friends, played golf,
bought a motorcycle and was looking forward to a family fishing trip at
Clear Lake this week. He
complained of no pain, discomfort or illness, but did mention being
tired Aug. 27 when he decided to hang out with his two brothers rather
than go out with friends, Cindy Tucker said.
The US military is not the only one attempting to spin another wave of Operation Happy Talk. AP wants
the world to know, got to let it show, 520 Iraqis are coming, are
coming, are coming BACK! From Jordan. And that number might mean
something if it were even 10% of the number of Iraqi refugees in
Jordan. 700,000 was the number the International Red Cross utilized in 2007. The Jordanian government sometimes uses the number one million. Meanwhile China's Xinhau reports
that the US goal of 12,000 Iraqi refugees accepted in the US will only
be met if 1,002 refugees are accepted between now and September 30th
(end of the fiscal year). The US has never met its goal. 12,000 is an
embarrassing number to begin with and, obviously, the US State Dept
isn't interested in exceeding the goal.
Ralph Nader is the
independent presidential candidate and he and his running mate Matt
Gonzalez have two scheduled news conferences today. The first we noted
in the previous entry (Eau Claire) and the second is in Madison:
Nader and Gonzalez to Hold News Conference and Rally in Madison, Wisconsin, Friday September 5
News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org (national); Justin Richardson, 608-215-1342, justin@votenader.org (local)
NADER AND GONZALEZ TO HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE AND RALLY IN MADISON, WISCONSIN, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5
On
Friday, September 5, at 7 p.m., Ralph Nader and his VP running mate,
Matt Gonzalez, will host a news conference at the Orpheum Theatre in
Madison, Wis. Following the news conference, at 7:30 p.m., Mr. Nader
and Mr. Gonzalez will hold a rally at the same location. In addition to
speeches by Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez, special guest David Rovics,
"the musical voice of the progressive movement," will perform at the
rally. The theatre is located at: 216 State St., Madison, Wis., 53703.
For more information, call Justin Richardson at 608-215-1342, or email:
events@votenader.org.
Wisconsin
residents confront a growing list of crisis-level difficulties that
include a tanking economy, increasing environmental pollution and a
health care system broken beyond repair. The latest Census Bureau
figures reveal a falling median household income and a rise in the
poverty rate from 8.8 to 12 percent between 2000 and 2007--and that
does not reflect the impact of the current economic downturn.
According
to the Economic Policy Institute, as of 2004, Wisconsin was among the
10 states whose total employment was hardest hit by NAFTA-related job
losses, with a net loss of 25,403 jobs. Nader/Gonzalez would withdraw
and renegotiate NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
On
August 19 the Environmental Protection Agency designated six counties
-- Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Dane, Columbia and Brown -- as
violating federal standards for fine-particle pollution. Coal-fired
power plants (along with automobiles) are a primary source of
fine-particle pollution. As of 2005, 54 percent of Wisconsin electric
utility power came from coal, according to Wisconsin State Energy
Statistics.
"Wisconsin
faces a triple crisis in health care: the skyrocketing cost of health
insurance, increasing numbers of uninsured, and a severe deficit in the
state's Medicaid program," warns the Wisconsin Council of Churches on
its health care web page. The council adds that "employers now spend an
average of 15 percent of payroll for employees' health care premiums,
and health care costs are rising 9 percent per year, which hurts wages,
profits, job creation and new investment in Wisconsin. Over a half
million Wisconsinites - fully 10 percent of our population have no
health insurance coverage at some point during the year. Lack of
insurance is a significant factor in premature death and bankruptcy."
While
Obama and McCain offer health care plans that would enrich private
insurance companies at the expense of tax payers, the Nader/Gonzalez
Campaign favors a Canadian-style public health insurance system with
private delivery and free choice of hospital and doctor.
The
Nader/Gonzalez team would fix Wisconsin's drastic air pollution problem
and create many new jobs with its crash program to switch the nation to
a non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel, solar-based economy—which is "off the
table" for Obama/McCain. Enormous improvements in proven energy
efficiencies from consumer, home and building technologies can become
the norm if Washington overcomes the energy companies' lobbies that do
not want to see their sales diminish.
Also
"off the table" for Obama/McCain but on the table for Nader/Gonzalez is
a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild and repair the nation's crumbling schools,
clinics, roads, bridges and other vital public infrastructure, with
funds coming from cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget that
devours 50 percent of the federal government's operating expenditures.
Mr.
Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will address these and many other critical
issues the major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the
Nader/Gonzalez Campaign has put on the table, including:
- a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq; - a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act; - a carbon tax to deter global warming; -
an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted
in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax
dollars; and, - more direct
democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with
"we the people," and not "we the corporations."
About Ralph Nader Attorney,
author, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been named by Time
Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th
Century." For more than four decades he has exposed problems and
organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest
groups advocating solutions. He led the movement to establish the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and
was instrumental in enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and countless
other pieces of important consumer legislation. Because of Ralph Nader
we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink
cleaner water, and work in safer environments. Nader graduated from
Princeton University and received an LL.B from Harvard Law School.
About Matt Gonzalez Matt
Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000
representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005,
he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender,
Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney
practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations
in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state
and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia
University and received a JD from Stanford Law School. About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign The
Nader/Gonzalez independent presidential candidacy will be on the ballot
in 45 states, is polling at 5-6 percent nationally, and a new Time/CNN
poll shows Ralph Nader polling 8 percent in New Mexico, 7 percent in
Colorado, 7 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6 percent in Nevada -- all key
battleground states.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Cynthia Stumps Wisconsin, including Speaking to Fighting Bob Fest!
Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6
Green
Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to
the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday
September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest.
Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6
Green
Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to
the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday
September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest.
She will be in Milwaukee, Racine, Madison, & Baraboo over the two days.
Friday 9/5 - 1 p.m. - Racine, WI - Town Hall Forum at Walden III school
Green
Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to
the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday
September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest.
She will be in Milwaukee, Racine, Madison, & Baraboo over the two days.
Friday 9/5 - 4:30-6:00 p.m. - Racine, WI - Meet & Greet Fund raiser at Park Six (corner of Park & 6th St.)
Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6
Green
Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to
the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday
September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest.
Baraboo, WI - Fighting Bob Fest - Cynthia McKinney is scheduled to take the stage at 10:20 a.m
Cynthia McKinney brings campaign to Wisconsin Sept. 5-6
Green
Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will bring her Power to
the People Campaign to Wisconsin Friday September 5 and Saturday
September 6, including speaking on the Main Stage at Fighting Bob Fest.
She will be in Milwaukee, Racine, Madison, & Baraboo over the two days.
Saturday
9/6 - 5:30-8:00 p.m. - Madison, WI - Meet & Greet fund raiser at
High Noon Saloon, with special guest David Rovics.
NOW
on PBS Host David Brancaccio sits down with RedState's ErickErickson in
a web-exclusive interview shown only at NOW Online. The two talk about
Obama's bounce, Palin rumors, and whether or not political blogging
really counts as journalism. I think you and your audiences will find
it very intriguing.
NOW on PBS
begins airing tonight in most markets. (Check local listings.) On the
program this weekend (the above is a web exclusive and not a part of
the show), Brancaccio interviews Christine Todd Whitman (billed as a
moderate Republican) about the state of the GOP. Bill Moyers Journal
brings back Dr. Kathy -- no doubt because America doesn't have enough
worthless gas bagging on TV. The program moves into reality with a look
at the National Guard members serving in Iraq. Gwen and the gas bags
reteam to scare America on the latest installment of Washington Week. The Washington Post's David Broder and Vanity Fair's
Todd S. Purdum are the two names that can be mentioned with minimal
shudders. The others would produce screaming. In terms of radio, The Next Hour airs on WBAI
Sunday (eleven to noon EST) and this week Janet Coleman and David Dozer
"appear with yarrow sticks and The Book of Changes." (To be clear,
Coleman and Dozer are not gas bags. The program is listed after Washington Weak because we've move to radio. Coleman and Dozer are public radio's longest running comedy team.)
At Inside Iraq, one of McClatchy's Iraqi correspondents contributes "Why Does Iraq Need This Loan"
which notes the central government in Baghdad issued a press release
Wednesday proclaiming the Italian ambassador and Iraq's Minister of
Finance addressed the topic of the "400 million euro" loan:
Until
now, everything seems normal and logical. A third world country takes
loan money from an industrial country. That would be completely
acceptable if this third world country is a poor country but is it
acceptable for a country that gained 32 billions dollars only as
supplementary budget from the increasing of oil prices? Why
does Iraq need this loan? Our government wastes millions of dollar
everyday in putting more blast walls, renewing pavements and of course
in buying new armored vehicles for the enormous and increasing number
of Iraqi officials. We can buy thousands of agricultural machines with
the millions that have been wasted for the faked projects. Of course
I'm not talking about the millions that had been stolen by the former
ministers or even by the contractors.
The New York Times offers NO article filed from Iraq. For those keeping track of the last few days:
Saturday: None Sunday: None Monday: None Tuesday: Two Wednesday: None Thursday: One Friday: None
Under
the recommendation, the current level of about 140,000 troops would
remain in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency in January. Then, a
combat brigade of about 3,500 troops would be removed by February, a
senior Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity
because the recommendation has not been made public.
On the same topic, Al Jazeera adds:
"The recommendation that George Bush withdraw one combat brigade, or up
to 5,000 soldiers, from Iraq only early next year was contrary to
expectations that improved security in Iraq would allow for quicker
cuts."
Meanwhile UPI reports
on yesterday's press conference held by Iraq's Sunni vice president
Tariq al-Hashimi. The press conference focused on the proposed treaties
between the puppet government and the White House and al-Hashimi
declared, "I think that we are not in need of an agreement that does
not guarantee sovereignty and brings Iraq out from under Chapter VII,
and also guarantees Iraqi law as a whole."
Ralph Nader is the independent candidate for president. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Eddie notes this from Team Nader:
News Advisory FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org (national); Aaron Brewster, 715-703-0353, brewstaj@uwec.edu (local)
RALPH NADER AND MATT GONZALEZ TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE AND RALLY IN EAU CLAIRE, WI, FRI. SEPT. 5
On
Friday September 5, at 12:30 p.m., Ralph Nader and running mate Matt
Gonzalez will host a news conference in the Alumni Room of the W.R.
Davies Center, at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Following the
news conference, at 1 p.m., Nader will hold a rally in the Council Fire
Room of the W.R. Davies Center. The university is located at: 105
Garfield Ave., Eau Claire, WI. For more information, call Aaron
Brewster at 715-703-0353, or email: events@votenader.org.
The
theme of the rally, "Open the Debates," reflects the Nader/Gonzalez
Campaign's call for inclusive, democratic Presidential debates. Right
now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties.
The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential
Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and
Republican Parties in 1987, which Walter Cronkite called an
"unconscionable fraud" because the CPD format "defies meaningful
discourse."
In addition,
the candidates will speak about the growing, multifarious crisis
Wisconsin residents confront, starting with a tanking economy,
increasing environmental pollution and a health care system broken
beyond repair. The latest Census Bureau figures for Wisconsin reveal a
falling median household income and a rise in the poverty rate from 8.8
to 12 percent between 2000 and 2007--and that does not include the
impact of the current economic downturn.
According
to the Economic Policy Institute, as of 2004, Wisconsin was among the
10 states whose total employment was hardest hit by NAFTA-related job
losses, with a net loss of 25,403 jobs. Nader/Gonzalez would withdraw
and renegotiate NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
On
August 19 the Environmental Protection Agency designated six counties
-- Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Dane, Columbia and Brown -- as
violating federal standards for fine-particle pollution. Coal-fired
power plants (along with automobiles) are a primary source of
fine-particle pollution. As of 2005, 54 percent of Wisconsin electric
utility power came from coal, according to Wisconsin State Energy
Statistics.
"Wisconsin
faces a triple crisis in health care: the skyrocketing cost of health
insurance, increasing numbers of uninsured, and a severe deficit in the
state's Medicaid program," warns the Wisconsin Council of Churches on
its health care web page. The council adds that "employers now spend an
average of 15 percent of payroll for employees' health care premiums,
and health care costs are rising 9 percent per year, which hurts wages,
profits, job creation and new investment in Wisconsin. Over a half
million Wisconsinites--fully 10 percent of our population have no
health insurance coverage at some point during the year. Lack of
insurance is a significant factor in premature death and bankruptcy."
While
Obama and McCain offer health care plans that would enrich private
insurance companies at the expense of tax payers, the Nader/Gonzalez
Campaign favors a Canadian-style public health insurance system with
private delivery and free choice of hospital and doctor.
The
Nader/Gonzalez team would fix Wisconsin's drastic air pollution problem
and create many new jobs with its crash program to switch the nation to
a non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel, solar-based economy--which is "off the
table" for Obama/McCain. Enormous improvements in proven energy
efficiencies from consumer, home and building technologies can become
the norm if Washington overcomes the energy companies' lobbies that do
not want to see their sales diminish.
Also
"off the table" for Obama/McCain but on the table for Nader/Gonzalez is
a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild and repair the Nation's crumbling schools,
clinics, roads, bridges and other vital public infrastructure, with
funds coming from cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget that
devours 50 percent of the federal government's operating expenditures.
Mr.
Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will address these and many other critical
issues the major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the
Nader/Gonzalez Campaign has put on the table, including:
- a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq; - a single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice public health insurance system for all; - a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act; - a no-nuke, solar-based energy policy supported by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources; - a carbon tax to deter global warming; -
an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted
in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax
dollars; and, - more direct
democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with
"we the people," and not "we the corporations."
WHO: Independent Presidential Candidates Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez
WHAT: News Conference and Rally
WHEN: 12:30 p.m., Friday, September 5, 2008
WHERE: W.R. Davies Center at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Ave., Eau Claire, WI
About Ralph Nader Attorney,
author, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been named by Time
Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th
Century." For more than four decades he has exposed problems and
organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest
groups advocating solutions. He led the movement to establish the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and
was instrumental in enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and countless
other pieces of important consumer legislation. Because of Ralph Nader
we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink
cleaner water, and work in safer environments. Nader graduated from
Princeton University and received an LL.B from Harvard Law School.
About Matt Gonzalez Matt
Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000
representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005,
he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender,
Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney
practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations
in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state
and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia
University and received a JD from Stanford Law School.
About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign According
to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted from July 27-29, Ralph
Nader is at 6 percent nationally (equivalent to about 10 million
eligible voters), higher than his highest major poll numbers during the
same time period in 2000 and approaching the 10 percent threshold
required for eligibility to participate in "America's Presidential
Debate in New Orleans," a Google-sponsored event scheduled for
September 18. In the key swing state of Michigan -- whose Democratic
voters were partially disenfranchised by the Democratic National
Committee -- an EPIC-MRA poll found Nader at 8-10 percent.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Who knew "woman" was a category like felon and that any "woman" was immediately suspect? As we continue to see, Gov Sarah Palin, GOP vice presidential nominee, is attacked for who she is.
It's not like she has positions you can't question. She supports the illegal war.
But better to focus on the real 'crime,' that she is, of course, a "she."
Instead of dealing with her issues, sexist pigs (of both genders) think they can smear her.
Where
there are piggies, there is Matthew Rotschild -- non-Democrat,
non-believer . . . What does he stand for? Sexism. That's really all he
has left to believe in and he grips it tightly at The Progressive.
Governor
Sarah Palin closed the GOP convention last night. Rothschild decides
"Palin can do long derision" is a headline. See, it's a slap at Sarah's
performance and it's a slap at all women because, HA HA, women aren't
supposed to be good at math.
That's the stereotype and what does
a tired, flacid Matthew Rothschild have to offer but tired stereotypes?
Strip him of those and . . . well he'd have nothing to offer.
"Palin
piled on" is a thread popping up and it popped up last night. Palin
didn't pile on. But it is amazing that so many see any woman doing the
job of a vice presidential nominee to be threatening, isn't it?
Matty's threatened by strong women and, probably, by strength period.
That's why he could air non-stop sexism at Hillary including recommending The Weekly Standard. If it's a ha-ha on Hillary, yes, The Progressive and and did recommend the right-wing Weekly Standard.
Matthew
believes he can drop principles and pick them back up later. No, like
his hair floating in the shower drain, when they're gone, they're gone.
"Sneered"
is what Sarah did. Or that's what Matty insists. And to really pile on,
guess who he says she sneered like? You guessed it, Hillary.
No
woman will be left standing if Matty has his way. Matt lies for his man
crush Barack (you sort of picture Matthew having endless wet dreams
night after night, don't you?) insisting "HAS TOO!" to questions of
Barack's qualifications. (Barack has no qualifications. Keep fighting
that losing battle, Rothschild.) He insists that "this line of attack
raises the obvious question: What have you done, governor, that
qualifies you to be vice president or president?" Uh, Pig Matt, I
believe the "governor" in your question is also partly an answer.
It's
amazing that he wants to defend Barack for president by going after
Sarah's qualifications for vice president. Yes, Matthew is that stupid.
He will gladly play the game the GOP wants played. He will smear and
rip apart Sarah, insisting that this woman is not qualified when
everyone watching from the outside will be thinking, "Uh, actually,
she's more qualified than the guy at the top of the Democratic ticket."
All Matthew has to offer is more sexism and more flacid writing.
"The women of The Nation," Katrina vanden Heuvel once intoned.
What
about those sexist, worthless, Queen Bees? They're in a tizzy and it's
time to send out the fembots! First up, or maybe she just always crowds
her way to the front, Katty-van-van. Katrina writes endlessly and the
only reason to read it is to laugh at the Immature School Girl who
still thinks that by citing males over and over, she's got a paper
teacher will love. Patrica J. Williams proves how deep into the gutter
she can go with her first sentence. The woman has no ethics -- which
should have been obvious by her going on KPFA early in 2007 and LYING
that Barack voted against the illegal war (only to then attack a
MidEastern woman who called in pointing out the obvious fact that
Barack was not in the US Senate in 2002) if not before that in 2004
when she was inventing mythical young boys in France with whom she
conversed about the state of the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Professor
Patti's been useless because she's made herself that way. Then we turn
to self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders. Barack's got homophobes on
stage in South Caroline and Laura choses to pen a column begging him to
. . . break with torture. If you won't stand up for yourself, Laura,
why should anyone else? In her post, Laura trots out Katherine Harris
because what could be more pro-woman than that? It's not pro-woman.
Neither's Laura.
And because those women have made repeatedly clear that The Nation
is about spitting on women (tip-off: publishing 149 female bylines in
2007 to 491 males), they attract their 'base.' Which is how
"leftofcenter" is able to comfortable post to Flanders' nonsense,
"Palin is a smirking cheerleader with a background that prepares her
more for a neighborhood back sale than a heartbeat from the POTUS." And
Barack's background prepapers him for what, leftofcenter? "Guanabana"
contributes this sexist comment, "Lady Sarah needs a nickname and I'm
here to give it to her: The Luv Guv."
And if you're not getting how anti-woman The Nation is, just check out their poll. "What previous VP nominee will Sarah Palin most resemble this fall?" they ask.
Eagleton. More scandals from her past will be revealed, leading to an ugly resignation. Quayle. Her inexperience will be a major drag on the ticket but won't prevent victory. LBJ. Untapped party regulars will rally behind her, turning out in huge numbers for McCain.
You
may be thinking, so what? There's a positive choice in there, she can
be LBJ! (Does anyone other than Bill Moyers see LBJ as a positive?)
I
pulled the second choice from the list so you could really absorb it.
Here it is: "Ferraro. She will briefly inject energy into the campaign,
but will not hold up under scrutiny."
That's a decription of
Geraldine Ferraro? Who wrote that choice, Elizabeth Holtzman? Ferraro
didn't "briefly inject energy," she was the only energy in the
Mondale-Ferraro ticket. Tell it to the kiddies, Nation magazine, lie to them and know they'll never call you on your garbage because they don't know better.
Hillary
would not have been the victim of so much sexism if people had called
it out. When a woman who has been a mayor and a governor is running for
the vice-presidency any woman who says "Palin's inexperienced" is an
idiot and, yes, I read the papers today. That woman made herself an
idiot today. I'm sorry that she did. But who the hell is she to declare
Palin is "unqualified"? She needs to check herself.
This is how
the attacks on Hillary started. If a governor isn't qualified, what
woman is? That's what real feminists need to be asking themselves
today. Before they go to town on Palin, they need to realize it's not
Palin.
It wasn't Hillary.
It is about women.
Palin
walks on the stage at a time when all the garbage about Hillary still
hasn't been cleared off. You see the same men going after her and you
see women even more eager to join in.
Guess what 'leaders' in
the feminist movement, it's not about you. It wasn't about you because
the bulk of you were too useless to stand up. Bill Moyers is chuckling at Hillary Clinton on Bill Moyers Journal, "moisty".
And where are the feminist leaders? He wants to examine that moment, he
says. Only instead of playing that moment in New Hampshire, he chooses
to play Jesse Jackson Jr. sexist attack on Hillary. How were viewers at
home supposed to determine what happened? Someone needs to ask Bill
Moyers about that. And they need to ask the useless Dr. Kathy (Hall
Jamieson) about it as well because she never objected to it. But what
woman does?
What feminist 'leader' has called Bill Moyers out
all damn year? Step up, ladies. Don't be so reluctant. Claim your
prize, girls.
Oh, that's right. You didn't say a DAMN word. You made yourself useless. Over and over.
Oh, we can't call out Bill and we can't call out ___ or we can't call out him or him or him or . . .
How useless, how pathetic.
The feminist movement used to be about women and had leaders who understood that.
Now every damn week, CounterSpin
found racism -- even when they had to invent it. But sexism? Never.
They stayed silent. When loudly called out -- and, no, not from their
advisory board, not from feminist 'leaders' -- they finally rushed in
on May 23rd, as the primaries were ending, to declare "CNN viewers were
treated to one pundit explanation that people might call Hillary
Clinton a bitch because well isn't that just what some women are" --
and so began and ended CounterSpin's entire 'coverage' of the sexism in the 2008 primary.
When
did a feminist 'leader' lodge a complaint? When did a feminist 'leader'
complain? When did a feminist 'leader' insist, "Take my name off your
advisory board"? The answer to all three questions is: Never.
The
grassroots never fails feminism. The grassroots live it. It is their
daily life. It's not something to pick up and drop in between cocktail
parties. How did Katha Pollit put it when she finally decided to call
out a little, tiny bit of the sexism aimed at Hillary? Oh, yeah: "I
want to do my bit for Obama, so I vowed I would give up attacking
Obama-supporting progressives for the duration of the presidential
campaign." Well that's great Katha. Feminism is a faucet you turn on
and off!
It doesn't work that way and 'leaders' (Katha's no
leader) better grasp just how quickly the rage against the media can
turn against themselves. The grassroots are damn well aware of what
went down during the Democratic Party primary. And they're damn well
aware of how many got passes and how those passes came from 'leaders'
who made the decision not to call various people out. That's not your
decision to make if you're attempting to represent the movement to the
press.
And it is not your right to call any governor
"unqualified" to be president. That crap doesn't just hurt Sarah Palin.
It hurts Ruth Ann Minner, Jennifer Granholm, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen
Sebelius, Kathleen Blanco, Christine Gregoire and countless other women
who will become governors in the next years. It is not your right to
make the playing field even less level for women in order to advance a
men. It's not your right and it is not feminism.
Allison Stevens and Alison Bowen (Women's eNews) do something especially amazing
considering all the garbage feminist 'leadership' is currently offering
-- the two speak to Republican women. Republican Majority for Choice's
Jennifer Blei Stockman calls Palin being McCain's running mate "a risky
choice." Pro-choice Nancy Johnson (US House of Rep 1983 - 2007) calls
the choice "refersshing." Republicans for Choice's Ann Stone declares,
"We're happy about her. It shows the boys . . . that history will not
end if a woman is in that office." And their article points out what
'leadership' won't, there are Republican feminists. It's an election
year so apparently all those women can be tossed on a pyre by feminist
'leadership.' Lots of luck working with those women in the future when
you need their help. And way to disrespect their choices. Hate to break
it to the 'leaders' but while they might be able to convince young
feminists otherwise, there was never a partisan litmus test for
movement membership. Had there been, Republicans could have kept
Democrats (and others) out of the feminist movement because Republican
women were leaders early on. What was Margaret Chase Smith's political party? Republican. She was the first woman of a major party to run for president.
Not
all, but some, of the leaders trashing Palin today elected not to have
children. That is their choice. However, maybe that explains why they
fail to acknowledge the power of last night. Maybe if they'd had
children, they could have pictured themselves at the TV with their
daughters and sons, pointing to Sarah Palin, explaining she is running
for the vice presidency? If they had pictured that, they would have
grasped how powerful the moment was. As Elaine observed last night,
"Here's the reality feminist 'leaders' are ignoring: An eight-year-old
girl just knows a woman got to do something. She doesn't know the
woman's life story. Abortion? I'd be surprised if she had an opinion,
let alone knew what anyone else thought." That is reality.
Tearing
down Palin doesn't help any woman. Tearing down Palin doesn't help a
woman who runs for office. Tearing down Palin, after the trashing
Hillary already endured, may well discourage some young girls and women
from running for office. Feminist 'leaders' need to grasp they don't
own the movement. They need to grasp that the movement's first duty is
and always has been to women. It's not the "man's movement." It's not
the "masculinist movement." It's the feminist movement and it's past
time 'leaders' indicated they grasped that.
No woman 'owes'
Sarah Palin her vote. Some may feel she's the best choice and that is
their right. Some will not. You can make a case for or against Sarah
without resorting to sexism, without fostering sexism and without
making the world a little more difficult for all women. The feminist
movement's first concern is supposed to be women and there's been
little indication that's the case in the Sarah 'coverage.'
This
community is against the illegal war. There's not one member that's
planning to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. That's not the issue. The
issue is that sexism isn't acceptable. That the same feminist 'leaders'
who were calling for the destruction of an edition of The New Yorker
now think they can use sexism to go after Sarah Palin is a sign of just
how crazy things have gotten and how sad a candidate Barack Obama
makes. Here's another reality, Barack's not promised to end the illegal
war either.
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!)
August 21st, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4145. Tonight? 4154.
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.
NOW
on PBS Host David Brancaccio sits down with RedState's ErickErickson in
a web-exclusive interview shown only at NOW Online. The two talk about
Obama's bounce, Palin rumors, and whether or not political blogging
really counts as journalism. I think you and your audiences will find
it very intriguing.
Thursday,
September 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military
announces more deaths, we're back to Waiting on Petraeus, the 'dodgy
dossier,' and more.
Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) reports
that the US Congress still wants Gen David Petraeus to testify before
Congress about Iraq while the US Defense Dept continues to refuse "that
request, ostensibly because of scheduling issues. But as the Pentagon
struggles to muster more troops for Afghanistan, officials worry that
the general's testimony on Iraq will upstage other needs." Dropping
back to the August 27th snapshot:
At
the US Pentagon today Gen James Conway declared that there might be a
drawdown of some marines because "to do more in Afghanistan, our
marines have got to see relief elsewhere". No, that would not be
withdrawal, no that would not be troops home. Now or later. It is an
acknowledgement -- public -- by a marine commander ("The Commandant of
the Marine Corps," says the Defense Dept) that the US military is
stretched to the limit fighting two illegal wars that neither the White
House nor the Congress has the guts or desire to end.
Lubold notes
that "public plea" and quotes "one official close to the debate on
troop levels within the government" stating of Conway, "He's the first
four-star who ha sopenly challenged Dave Petraeus's view of Iraq."
Meanwhile Thomas Harding (Telegraph of London) quotes
Petraeus stating "Conditions permitting, yeah," to the question of
whether 16,000 US service members could be withdrawn by July 2008.
There are approximately 146,000 US service members currently in Iraq.
16,000 is supposed to pass for something? Apparently the press is too
excited lining up their final interviews with Petraeus as commander in
Iraq (he becomes CENTCOM Commander this month). Patrick Walters (The Australian) lands
"an exclusive hour-long farewell interview" -- why, it's like Carson's
last show. (Johnny Carson.) Petraeus tells Walters, "We will see in
the coming week that we can get to the point where we have the
confidence to make some additional recommendations." Is that what 'we'
will see?
"I believe that we have marched as
far as we can go; signed as many petitions as we can; knocked on too
many Congressional office doors; and sang too many verses of 'We shall
overcome.' This campaign is the most significant action an anti-war
person can be involved in until November 4th." That's Cindy Sheehan explaining why she's running for the US Congress from California's 8th district. Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) interviews
her about her decision to run for the seat currently occupied by US
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Cindy explains, "I decided to target
Pelosi because she is the number one Democrat in Congress and she was
the number one obstacle to ending the occupations of Iraq and
Afghanistan. My reasoning was and is that if she refused to hold Bush
accountable, then someone needed to hold her accountable. I am not the
kind of person to wait for someone else to do something that needs to
be done. So here I am." In other elections news, Iraq's Shi'ite vice
president, Adel Abdul-Mahdi has declared that even if the Iraqi
Parliament does not pass a law for provincial elections this year, they
will take place. Reuters quotes
him stating, "The elections will take place at the end of this year.
If the parliament doesn't approve the (new) elections law, there is an
old law. The government cannot delay the elections." That would mean
ignoring the issue of oil-rich Kirkuk, as well as the United Nations
which has stated they were working on a proposal that would be released
shortly. Deborah Haynes (Times of London, link has video) reminded
everyone of the realities of Kirkuk at the end of last month, "Yet
there is no sewerage system, the roads are cracked, rubbish is strewn
all over the pavements, unemployment is as high as 40 per cent and
there is no sign of any improvement. Even more worrying - to the
Government as well as to the US-led coalition - is that the city is
being pulled between different ethnic groups, making it the most
dangerous issue facing Iraq." How the Kurds would respond to a move to
push through elections with Kirkuk unresolved is not an issue raised in
today's reports.
In England the focus is on the recent past. Though the New Statesman
has nothing up thus far, they'll probably be hitting the topic in the
coming days. For background we'll drop back to Chris Ames' "Secret Iraq dossier published" (New Statesman) from February:
The
secret first draft of the Iraq WMD dossier written by Foreign Office
spin doctor John Williams has finally been published after a ruling
back in January under the Freedom of Information Act. The
document contains an early version of the executive summary of the next
draft, which was attributed to Intelligence chief John Scarlett. The
document places a spin doctor at the heart of the process of drafting
the dossier and blows a hole in the government's evidence to the Hutton
Inquiry. Last month the Foreign Office was ordered by the
Information Tribunal to hand over the Williams draft, which I first
requested under the Freedom of Information Act in February 2005. From
the time that the row first erupted over Andrew Gilligan's allegations
that the dossier had been sexed-up, the government has claimed that
Scarlett's draft, produced on 10 September 2002, was the first full
draft and produced without interference from spin doctors. But the
Williams draft, dated a day earlier, shows that spin doctors were
sexing up the dossier at the time the notorious 45 minutes claim was
included.
That was February. Today's development? Sky News reports,
"The Government has been ordered to release more detail relating to the
'dodgy dossier' that may have exaggerated the case for the Iraq war.
The ruling by the Information Commissioner follows a three-year battle
by journalist Chris Ames to obtain drafts of the dossier, as well as
comments made about them by officials and spy chiefs in the run-up to
its publication in September 2002." James Macintyre (Independent of London) adds,
"Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, has told civil servants
to release undisclosed material which could provide 'evidence that the
dossier was deliberately manipulated in order to present an exaggerated
case for military actions'." Jon Swaine (Telegraph of London) reminds,
"The dossier, which detailed claims that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction, was published on 24 September 2002 and set
out the Government's case for the war commenced the following March.
Its production was overseen by the then head of the Joint Intelligence
Committee, Sir John Scarlett." Nicholas Cecil (Evening Standard) gets a bit more specific
than Swaine, "The dossier, which included the claim that the Iraqi
dictator could launch WMDs within 45 minutes, sparked a huge row
between the BBC and the Government over claims that it had been 'sexed
up'. Dr Kelly, a biological weapons expert, committed suicide in July
2003 after being named as a source of a BBC story about the document.
He was questioned by the Commons foreign affairs select committee over
his role." Cecil also quotes journalist Chris Ames stating, "The
commissioner has laid bare the Government's farcical cover-up, which
included shamelessly playing the national security card. He has also
given a strong hint that the Government has concealed evidence of
sexing-up to save political embarrassment."
Today, Erica Goode (New York Times) reports
on "Awakening" Council 'commander' Ali Abdul Jabbar who fretted
throughout Wednesday that Iraqi forces would arrest him. Left
unexplored was the issue of 'warrants' and how the Iraqi 'government'
appears to have a host of warrants already drawn up and ready to be
issued at a moment's notice. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (NPR's Morning Edition) reports
that "Awakening" Council member Mullah Shihab also worrieds that he'll
be arrested. and that his "name, along with hundreds of his fighters,
is on an arrest warrant -- and the only ones safeguarding them now are
the very people they used to fight against." Again, this seems to be a
pattern in the Iraqi 'government,' always have a warrent at the ready
for anyone who might become a political enemy. Ask Moqtada al-Sadr or
Ahmed Chalabi. Tina Susman and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) note
that yesterday's 'friendly fire' incident claimed 7 Iraqi lives and
observe, "Wednesday's deaths were likely to rev up debate among Iraq's
leaders about the issue of immunity for U.S. forces in this country.
Though soldiers are immune from prosecution for incidents that occur on
combat missions or that are deemed not the result of negligence or
wrongdoing, friendly fire incidents invariably arouse anger among
Iraqis who feel that American forces don't do enough to prevent such
mistakes."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
2 Iraqi troops wounded in a Baghdad shooting, a Mosul shooting that
claimed the life of 1 police officer and, dropping back to yesterday, a
"Kurdish child" shot dead in Mosul late Wednesday in Mosul and Nabeel
Abdul Hasan Muhsin ("general director of the projected department in
the ministry of transporation") in Baghdad.
Today the US military announced:
"Two Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldiers were killed while on
patrol as a result of a terrorist attack using an improvised explosive
device in eastern Baghdad at approximately 12:15 p.m. Sept. 4."
Turning
to US presidential politics, Ralph Nader makes an ill informed remark
to John Nichols ("My Running-Mat is More Qualified," The Nation) that
Matt Gonzalez is more qualified than Sarah Palin. Matt Gonzalez was
not the mayor of San Francisco -- he did run for it, he did lose to
Gavin Newsom. Gonzalez has many strong qualities, being mayor is not
one of them and to imply that mayor and Board of Supervisors President
is the same thing is to ignore that we elect different people to those
posts and we decided not to elect Matt. That is the way it went. While
president of the board is an important position, it is not mayor. And
it's a real shame Ralph allowed himself to be put in the position of
doing Team Obama's work for them. It scores no points for Nader to get
into that conversation. It allows the attacks to be launched on him --
attacks people like Kim Gandy are more than willing to make. He put
himself in a very bad position and shouldn't have done so. Repeating,
since the issue was raised elsewhere, we could have voted Matt Gonzalez
mayor of San Francisco, we chose to vote Gavin Newsom into that
office. Those of us who voted in that election made the decision. When
Ralph makes the comment, "San Francisco is a lot bigger than Wasilla,"
he takes it into a penis measuring contest whether he intends to do so
or not. And he does it over someone (Gonzalez) who has never been
mayor. It's not the same thing and all the boys need to stick their
privates back into their pants before they do more damage to their
images. If you get sick of the whose-is-bigger commentary that the
mainstream and panhandle media traffic in, Catherine Morgan has and is compiling a resource list for women bloggers. She explains, "Answering the question…Where are all the women political bloggers?
I decided to take some time today and surf the Internet for as many
women blogging on politics that I could find. The refreshing thing
about women political bloggers is their diversity…and here are 100300 500 of them."
Remember,
if you give $100 or more now, we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver
rally, the Minneapolis rally, and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD
offer ends tonight at 11:59 p.m.) Onward to November
The Nader Team
Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has multiple events tomorrow and Saturday in Wisconsin including
a lunch (10:30 a.m.), a town hall (Walden III School, Racine) at one
p.m., and a Park Six meet and greet starting at 4:30. Saturday she
will be speaking at the Fighting Bob Festival (Baraboo, Wisconsin at
10:20 in the morning and will be hosting another meet and greet this
time at High Noon Salloon in Madison beginning at 5:30 p.m.).
Ava and C.I. here. Below is GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin closing last night's session of the Republican convention.
Palin is on the ticket with John McCain. Last night was historic.
Some feminists miss that point.
They miss is because they see their mission statement as: Prostitute for the Democratic Party.
It's why the country's longest running movement has accomplished so damn little at the top.
Sarah Palin gave an incredible speech last night.
She
walked out on stage with most of America not knowing her. She walked
out on that stage after a year of some of the most vile sexism the
country's seen. She held her head high and had she merely given a so-so
speech, some might have called it a win.
Sarah gave an amazing speech.
She had the audience cheering, she had them laughing.
Pay attention alleged feminist 'leaders,' she commanded the stage. COMMANDED the convention.
She walked out there and demonstrated that a woman can do it.
There are some very embarrassing things being said and written by feminists today.
Those women need to hold their tongues long enough to self-reflect on what they've done to publicly applaud Cynthia McKinney's historic run this year as the Green Party presidential nominee?
The answer is they haven't done s**t.
See, all this garbage about Sarah's politics is revealed as garbage.
Sarah's
not pro-choice. Sarah's not a lot of things. But it's not about that.
It's about the feminist 'establishment' prostituting themselves for the
Democratic Party males yet again.
Many years ago, one of today's
tongue waggers, promised Sondra Locke that she was going to personally
speak to Steve Ross and she was going to take care of this and that and
. . . She never took care of s**t. But it was time to shore up Clint
Eastwood's 'feminist' credentials shortly after, wasn't it? And didn't
the bad up shoot-em-up In The Line of Fire get (wrongly) praised as a feminist statement?
That moment says a great deal about feminist 'leaders.' Clint or Sondra? They chose Clint.
Applaud
Sarah today for the wonderful job she did or hiss in the most
stereotypical tones? Hiss. Because the feminist movement has
demonstrated little interest in women. It has a lot of interest in
helping out men in the Democratic Party.
Women in this country are not idiots. We're certainly not the idiots our 'leaders' think we are.
We
can take pride in Sarah's moment and that doesn't mean that those of us
who wouldn't normally vote the GOP ticket is suddenly going to.
Sarah's
nomination is a feminist moment. Sarah claims feminist status
(Feminists for Life) which we'll let someone else judge and someone
else bicker over whether or not she qualifies as a feminist. But it was
a feminist moment and it was a very important feminist movement.
Women
shared power in the Republican party up through the seventies (at least
on par with women in the Democratic Party, though some would argue that
women held more power in the GOP than in the DNC). Then came the
assaults on women's rights. Republican feminists would repeatedly tell
non-Republican feminists throughout the 80s and well into the 90s that
they think about leaving their party but they're fighting to reclaim it.
Sarah presents that opportunity.
It may or may not happen.
But women just took a step back up the ladder in the Republican Party.
When
the possibilities for women rise in the most conservative element of
the country, the possibilities for women across the country rise.
That's not an argument to vote for her, that's not an argument to vote against her.
That's
acknowledging that without the centuries old feminist movement, last
night wouldn't have happened and that's acknowledging that, after last
night, a huge shift took place that will register for many years to
come.
Sarah Palin walked across the Xcel Energy Center last night and into history.
If you didn't grasp it, Rudy G had to argue a feminist point last night.
"How
dare they question whether Palin will have enough time to spend with
her children while vice president?" asked Rudy. "When do they ever ask
a man that question?"
That's a feminist movement success. Did Giuliani mean it? Who the hell cares?
Did you hear the roar when he said it?
Help us out, because the actions of some 'leaders' today are confusing us: Olympia Snowe, friend or foe?
We
kind of thought the women's liberation movement had decided Snowe was a
friend or a 'friendly.' Palin's nomination doesn't help Snowe? Doesn't
help other Republican women like Snowe?
We're not voting for
McCain and intend that to be the last time we have to include that
statement. We've said it over, we've made it clear.
Guess
what, doesn't mean we can't applaud the historical moment. Doesn't mean
we can't enjoy portions -- many in fact -- of Sarah's speech.
A
leader feels the need to bring shoes into the matter today and we have
to ask why the hell that happened? We can think of many serious issues
to discuss and many ways to address Sarah Palin. But if 'shoes' is how
we reach 'leaders,' take a breath, hon, and take a seat. See, women can
admire another woman's shoes. We can applaud them. We can say they look
great. We can speak of the slimming nature and other healing powers.
Doesn't mean we're going to rush off and buy a pair, doesn't mean we'd
ever want to wear one.
See, we decide what we put on our feet.
We decide what feels comfortable. But just because we'll never wear a
certain pair of heels, just because we would never feel comfortable in,
doesn't mean we can't enjoy them on someone else.
We're
pro-choice. We're always going to be pro-choice. With our votes, we
don't support those who attack abortion rights. (Among the reasons we
won't vote for the sexist Barack Obama.) But we can applaud Sarah for a
wonderful speech, for owning that convention last night and for all the
messages she sent about what women can do both last night and
throughout history.
It's a damn shame feminist 'leaders' can't do the same.
But
it's a damn shame feminist 'leaders' think American women are stupid --
not just stupid, mind you, but damn stupid. That's why this garbage is
showing up today in newspaper column after newspaper column.
'Leaders,' why don't you f**king get honest.
CounterSpin and FAIR practiced non-stop sexism. So did The Nation. Want to get honest about how many of you NOT only refused to call them out but also gave cover for them?
Bill
Moyers wouldn't have been able to avoid honoring gender (or booking so
damn few women) without a lot of feminist 'leaders' declaring him a
'friend' and off-limits.
In fact, there's this whole social networking going on at the top that has NOT ONE DAMN THING to do with feminism.
'Leaders,'
you're out of touch with the grassroots feminists. Want to be a
Democratic Party prostitute? Go for it. Just don't expect to be
listened to. The grassroots have had it with a number of you. They have
had it with the repeated selling out of feminism by our 'leadership'
and they have had it with 'leaders' showing up after the latest
sell-out to put a cherry on top and insist, "Eat up, girls."
Repeating, had any of you brave 'leaders' bothered to cover Cynthia McKinney
(no, Feminist Wire Daily running ONE brief is not covering) then you
might not seem like old, tired, peddlers for the Democratic Party. But
that's how you look today. So Sarah's not worth your applause and
Cynthia (and Rosa Brooks) and . . . Golly. The only one worthy of your
praise is a bi-racial man.
It's really funny that the feminist
movement argued women should be able to make their own decisions but so
many feminist and women's geared outlets refuse to trust women enough
to make those decisions. Apparently covering Cynthia McKinney for
instance (a woman whose historic run deserves coverage) is nixed
because women might vote for her? Is that how it's working out?
So
'leaders' have decided their job is to play gatekeeper on basic
information? 'Leaders' have decided that women must be sheltered from
infomration? Wow. What will the 'leaders' offer next? A revival of the
sleep cure?
We laughed frequently during Sarah Palin's speech.
(All in places she intended to garner laughs.) We thought she did an
amazing job. And yet we weren't at all surprised by the sexist that
immediately followed as male gas bags weighed in. We were saddened to
open newspapers this morning and see women joining in. You'd think
they'd find the time to call out the rank sexism on TV last night but
that would require them being useful to women and too many 'leaders'
are serving the Democratic Party and not the feminist movement.
Now
we know the argument. "If the Dems lose imagine what will happen!!!"
Guess what, gals, women will rise up or they won't. And that's how it
has to be. You're attempted to run the movement on training wheels for
the last few years. Kick off the training wheels. Start trusting the
grassroots. They don't need to be protected. They need to see leaders
willing to fight.
The feminist movement is not the Democratic
Party. It's past time leaders grasped that. It might lower their own
profiles to a degree if they admitted it, but it's past time they got
honest or else left the feminist movement.
Women are strong.
Women are smart. We can make up our minds. We can applaud Sarah Palin
loudly. Some applauding will vote for her, some won't. But it's
dishonest to act as if Palin didn't change the structure last night.
I
arrived in St. Paul, Minnesota this afternoon, home of the Republican
National Convention. I am in town to shoot video of tomorrow's Open the Debates rally.
In
the midst of riot gear-clad police officers and flag-waving grim
reapers mourning the demise of our democracy, I came across a ray of
sunshine.
While visiting the offices of The Uptake, I met a woman named Citizen Kate,
also known as Kate Soglin of Chicago, Illinois. When she learned that I
work with Ralph Nader, Citizen Kate mentioned to me she had recently
interviewed Ralph at the Democratic National Convention.
Here is her tongue-in-cheek interview. Thanks for brightening up my trip, Citizen Kate!
When: Thursday, Sept 4th 6.30pm start Call Toby Heaps (202-441-6795) or Rob Socket (267-974-6097) for bookings
Fresh
from a 4000-person super rally in Denver, the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
team has hit the ground in Minneapolis and will be out in full force
over the weekend to focus attention on the need for opening up the
Presidential Debates for third party and independent candidates,
working towards the crescendo: a star-studded open the debates
super-rally on Thursday.
Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez, Jesse
Ventura, Cindy Sheehan, Rosa Clemente, 98 Degrees band members Justin
Jeffre and Jeff Timmons, singer-songwriters Nellie McKay, David Rovics,
Tom Neilson and other surprise guests soon to be announced will all
appear at the Nader/Gonzalez "Open the Debates" Super Rally September 4
at 7.30 p.m. at the Orchestra Hall in Minneapolis.
The
Nader/Gonzalez independent presidential candidacy will be on the ballot
in 45 states, is polling at 5-6 per cent nationally, and a new Time/CNN
poll shows Ralph Nader polling 8 percent in New Mexico, 7 percent in
Colorado, 7 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6 percent in Nevada -- all key
battleground states. Results of a recent MPR News/U of M Humphrey
Institute poll found 77 percent of the state's likely voters say they
would consider voting for an independent or third-party candidate
Mr.
Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered
for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.
I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through
much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows
how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States,
John S. McCain.
It
was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our
nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of
the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was
no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an
election than see his country lose a war.
But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.
They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination,
resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.
And maybe that's
because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for
leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.
He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and
refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought
victory within sight.
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of
man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say
an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's
way.
Our son Track is 19.
And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women
serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five
children.
In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.
And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the
world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no
family ever seems typical.
That's how it is with us.
Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.
And children with special needs inspire a special love.
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I
have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming
place for your sons and daughters.
I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and
advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the
oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United
Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's
still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in
our small town.
And
among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is
America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of
Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from
Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.
A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with
honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that
writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people.
They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.
They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always
proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a
small town.
I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.
When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter
profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down
on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer,"
except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small
towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes
praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about
how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people
aren't listening.
We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and
whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of
the permanent political establishment.<>
And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a
member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media
consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and
commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion -
I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans
expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to
mingle with the right people.
Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as
vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought
me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual
in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists,
big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.
Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests
and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.
And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office
that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.
That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
I also drive myself to work.
And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal
chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her.
I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible
and by veto if necessary.
Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the
public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.
I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas
prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a
large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the
people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of
liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and
resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar
natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened,
will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous
foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher.
When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not
be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to
divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon,
we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth
of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at
the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut
off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own
oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of
America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to
lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with
clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other
alternative sources.
We need American energy resources, brought to you by American
ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern
with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.
We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who
has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not
even in the state senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is
fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking
about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ...
when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go
out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio
lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek
to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the
planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your
money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the
strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ...
our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America
... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government
is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are
the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income
taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ...
raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax
burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My
sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's
now opened for business - like millions of others who run small
businesses.
How are
they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying
to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with
clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm
in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax
burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice
Americans face in this election.
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not
just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in
which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who
actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than
talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and
defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and
reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and
comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of
a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very
day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.
He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.
A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one
either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing
Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.
He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen,
perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen
the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that
he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take
the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow
citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of
"personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a
community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on
lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us
face the matter squarely.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for
you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death
... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily
shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which
this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their
country.
It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.
It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow
whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this
country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion
that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes
even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of
those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow
prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls
looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander
John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.
As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous
interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and
thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My
fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us
through these next four years.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.
For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ...
and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join
our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of
the United States.
The New York Times discovers Iraq for one article, Erica Goode's "Handshake Defuses a Standoff in Baghdad"
which makes the third story filed from Iraq in the paper since
Saturday's edition (two of those ran on Tuesday). If you're not paying
attention, you might miss Iraq slipping out of the news. Goode's
article starts on A6 and focuses on "Awakening" Council 'commander' Ali
Abdul Jabbar who fretted throughout Wednesday that Iraqi forces would
arrest him.
A stronger article would have gone beyond the drama
(he's not arrested and a warrant might or might not have been issued)
to focus on the continued perception that the Iraqi 'government' has
all of these warrants just floating out there and ready to issue them
whenever someone displeases them. We've seen similar things with Ahmed
Chalabi and Moqtada al-Sadr to name but two. A stronger article would
have explored just how many warrants are out there or thought to be and
exactly what action is required for them to be issued? What is the
trigger?
We noted Reuters' journalist Ibrahim Jassam Mohammed's imprisonment yesterday. CNN notes that Ibrahim is one of two journalists imprisoned this week:
U.S.
forces detained a cameraman employed by Baghdad TV -- a Sunni station
-- early Thursday, after raiding his home in northern Baghdad's
predominantly Sunni Adhamiya district around 2am local time, according
to a Baghdad TV official. He
was detained along with several family members, including his father
and two brothers, the official said. The U.S. military said it was
looking into the report. Baghdad
TV is owned by the Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), the party of
the country's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi.
Yesterday
US forces were responsible for killing Iraq forces in an incident being
dubbed "friendly fire." Tina Susman and Ned Parker's "Iraq reports 7 killed by U.S. friendly fire" (Los Angeles Times) reports:
Wednesday's
deaths were likely to rev up debate among Iraq's leaders about the
issue of immunity for U.S. forces in this country. Though soldiers are
immune from prosecution for incidents that occur on combat missions or
that are deemed not the result of negligence or wrongdoing, friendly
fire incidents invariably arouse anger among Iraqis who feel that
American forces don't do enough to prevent such mistakes. The
immunity question has figured prominently in negotiations between the
United States and Iraq over a deal that would allow U.S. troops to stay
in the country after this year. The Iraqis are proposing that the
Americans retain immunity on their bases and on combat missions
authorized by the Iraqi government. But they would be brought before an
Iraqi court in other circumstances, Iraqi officials said. "Iraq
cannot be expected to undervalue the lives of the Iraqis to give
immunity to American soldiers working here in Iraq," Sheik Jalaluddin
Saghir, a senior Shiite Muslim lawmaker, told The Times in an interview
last weekend.
I've
just arrived in Minneapolis to document events on the ground here --
from the police crackdown on dissent to the Nader/Gonzalez Minneapolis
Super Rally on Thursday.
I'm on the Nader/Gonzalez media team.
You
are making our campaign coverage possible, by contributing to the Nader
Media Fund. We've just passed $70,000 and -- if the pace keeps up -- we
will meet our goal of $100,000 by tomorrow night!
So, if you haven't donated yet to Nader/Gonzalez media -- now is the time. If just 3,000 of you -- our loyal supporters -- drop $10 each, we'll cruise to our goal.
In
Minneapolis, smack dab in Republican territory, we will speak the words
loud and clear that they cannot silence: Open up the Presidential
Debates.
The shotgun mike and the video camera are mightier than the policeman's baton.
This
is one lesson we've taken to heart again in recent days, as police in
Minneapolis continue to violate the rights of citizens to free speech
and assembly.
We're taking the story to you -- so that you can broadcast it far and wide.
So, if you haven't contributed yet, please donate now to the Nader Media Fund.
Your contribution will allow us to continue to document this campaign through the coming weeks.
Right
now, members of our media crew are busy editing video of the speeches
and performances from last week's very exciting Super Rally in Denver.
And
soon, we will be taking our cameras to Washington, D.C., and then out
across America with you to spread the word -- and the video -- on the
Nader/Gonzalez get out the vote effort.
Remember, if you give $100 or more now, we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver rally, the Minneapolis rally, and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD offer ends September 4 at 11:59 p.m.)
The first one -- the DVD of the Super Rally in Denver -- featuring Sean Penn, Tom Morello, and Cindy Sheehan -- will be shipping next week.
You've done it every time and I'm sure you'll make that last push to get us over the top for the Nader Media Fund.
Wednesday,
September 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, China gets a windfall,
US forces and Iraqi forces clash, reporters remain targeted and more.
Starting with Monday's 'handover' of Al Anbar Province. The Los Angeles Times filed an interesting report . . . at the paper's blog Babylon & Beyond.
The byline-less article (16 paragraphs) talks about the very clear
tensions evident in the for-show ceremony itself with Abdul-Salam Ani
("head of the Anbar provincial council") stating the tribal leaders
were "trying to stir up sedition with their claims that the Islamic
Party leaders ar corrupt" and Sheik Ahmed B. Abu Risha, a tribal leader
and "Awakening" Movement 'fellow' who claimed it was the other way
around. The article reminds, "The sharp words at the podium highlight
the reason that the original handover date, in late June, was delayed.
There are concerns among locals and officials that the political
animosity could lead to an unraveling of the security here. Despite
the tribes' actions since 2006, they remain politically disadvantaged
in Anbar because they did not take part in provincial elections in
2005. Hence, the Islamic Party holds 36 of the provincial council's 41
seats."
The provincial elections will most
likely not take place in 2008. Time is running out to put them in
place in what remains of this year. Over the weekend Leila Fadel (McClathy Newspapers) reported
that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was said to be "on a
roll, and American officials are getting worried." al-Maliki is the
White House puppet. He wasn't the choice of Iraq. (He wasn't even the
first-round pick in the puppet pageant.) But most puppets have some
form of brain. Bully Boy's on the way out. Bully Boy can't protect
him. The puppet does not the "Awakening" Council members in the Iraqi
military or the Iraqi police. He controls both and has staffed them
with Shi'ite thugs so he doesn't want to allow in Sunni thugs. Since
the start of the illegal war the US has repeatedly sided with thugs
within Iraq because it was hoped that a thug could 'snap' the people
into 'order' quickly. So they leaned towards Shia extremists early on
and the Sunni extremists came into play only after reports on the
Interior Ministry's 'security' guards' actions and other issues became
news. That leaves the "Awakening" Council as a very real threat to
al-Maliki. They may be more of a threat currently than the White
House. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported
over the weekend that al-Maliki had tossed out the "negotiating team"
that was representing his interests in the treaty with the US. So
al-Maliki has a new team advising him? B-b-but we were told it was all
taken care of! (Told by the press rushing to create a story where
there was none and ignoring repeated remarks by the US State Dept that
no agreement had been reached).
So al-Maliki has a new team. Where's the team fighting for Iraqis. Sarmad Ali (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) observes
the US concerns over oil prices but has "a harder time understanding
why Iraqis -- with their oases of crude oil reserves and untapped
oilfields in the south and the north -- have had to put up with high
oil prices and severe shortages of gasoline, diesel and cooking gas."
Ali explains that "ordinary Iraqis still face fueld shortage and high
rates . . . three-hour lines of cars queued up for gas . . ." Nouri
al-Maliki (my point, not Ali's) sits on millions and refuses to use
them to make life better for the Iraqis. And the money just keeps
rolling in. Eric Watkins (Oil & Gas Journal) states the oil contract to China National Petroleum Co (CNPC) has been approved by the Iraqi Oil Ministry today. Today's Azzaman sees an exclusion of the US from the oil deals and insists this is due to pressure from Iran. David Berman (Globe & Mail) dismisses "the concern about China cornering Iraqi oil, it's nonsense". BBC via redOrbit documents the press conference in Baghdad today, presided over by Husayn al-Shahrastani
Reuters new photographer Ibrahim Jassam Mohammed has been held by the US since the first of the month. Reporters Without Borders is calling for Ibrahim's immediate release and notes:
"Ibrahim Jassam was picked up from his home in the capital and soldiers
took him to an unknown location after checking the ID of members of his
family and seizing four cameras along with his phone and laptop
computer. His family still do not know why he was arrested. Jassam
had worked for Reuters for four years and had received a
number of anonymous death threats. More than 20 journalists have been
arrested in Iraq in similar circumstances since 1st January 2008, all
of whom have been released after spending days or even months in
custody without any charges being made against them." Reuters quotes
their Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger, "We are concerned to hear
about Jassam's detention, and urge the U.S. military to either charge
or release him once an initial investigatory stage is concluded. Any
accusation against a journalist should be aired publicly and dealt with
fairly and swiftly, with the journalist having the right to counsel and
present a defense. Iraqi journalists llike Jassam play a vital role in
telling this story in the world."
Anna Johnson (AP) reports
on a shootout between the US and Iraqi forces -- yes, "between" the two
-- that resulted in the deaths of at least 6 Iraqis and involved US
boats, US helicopters (two) and who knows what else. Johnson reports
the dead includes 2 Iraqi police officers, 2 Iraqi soldiers and 2
"Awakening" Council members. Reuters reports 10 more Iraqis were wounded. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) contacted
M-NF and received this comment, "We have initial reports that while
coalition forces were conducting operations against suspected AQI there
was an incident involving weapons fire between Coalition and Iraqi
Security Forces north of Tarmiyah, Baghdad. Reports indicate ISF
sustained casualties. Coalition aircraft were involved in this
incident. It is always regrettable when incidents of mistaken fire
occur on the battlefield; a review of the circumstances is under way."
In other of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing that left two people wounded, a Diyala
Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi solider with
four more wounded, 2 Mosul roadside bombings which claimed 1 life and
left seven wounded and a Tikrit roadside bombing that left "[s]ome
policemen injured".
Shootings?
Reuters reports 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul yesterday (as well as 1 civilian shot dead in Mosul). Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a US house raid in Salahuddin province that resulted in student Tahseen Mikhlif being shot dead.
Ralph's Daily Audio
is a segment of the Nader-Gonzalez presidential campaign that offers
audio commentaries. This is "Nixon and Ford Now Seem Progressive:"
This
is Ralph Nader. In recent weeks, I've been making the point that if
voters don't condition their vote on some response by the candidates to
the priority issues on the voter's minds, every four years both parties
will become worse. Because, twenty-four seven, the corporate lobbies
are pulling on both parties and if voters who are liberal or
progressive are not pulling in the other way to make the least worse
candidate accord with the important priorities favored by a majority of
the American people, then the corporate interests have a pull without
any pull in the other direction and you know where that leads. I was
reading the other day some of the policies by Richard Nixon and Gerald
Ford in the 1970s. Richard Nixon, for example, besides signing into
law with enthusiastic statements, the EPA Bill, the OSHA Bill, the
Product Safety Bill, among other legislation we pressed through
Congress in those heady days. He offered a policy on drugs in the
streets and addiction that emphasized rehabilitation of drug addicts,
not incarceration and imprisonment. He proposed a health insurance plan
that observers say was better than the Clinton plan, He supported and
articulated a minimum income plan to move the country toward abolishing
poverty No other president has done that since. And he favored vocally
the voting rights for the disenfranchised citizens of the District of
Columbia.
Can you imagine a president
today demanding an excess profit tax on the oil companies and demanding
higher fuel efficiency for motor vehicles in no uncertain terms? Well
that's what President Gerald Ford did following Richard Nixon in the
1970s.
See what I mean about both
parties getting worse when we as voters freak out, vote for the least
worst and let the least worst be pulled by the corporate interest
closer to the worst every four years? This is Ralph Nader.
And this is "Corporate Hands in Your Pockets:"
This is Ralph Nader. I was watching the CBS national Evening News with Katie Couric on Friday. And she came on with an interesting segment
about how people are charged for services they never receive. She
highlighted one woman who had a back operation and She was billed about
$60,000 and it turned out $40,000 of that $60,000 were for phantom
charges -- things she never received, were never treated with. Well
that's just the tip of the iceberg. The General Accounting Office
years ago estimated that billing fraud in the health care industry is
10% the entire health care bill of the whole nation. This year that
would mean $230 billion.
Imagine $230
billion dollars. Malcom Sparrow the applied mathametician at Harvard
who specialises in health care billing fraud thinks that that is the
most conservative estimate. Have you ever heard any of the
presidential candidates talk about billing fraud phenomena year after
year that costs more than the war in Iraq?
Have
you ever heard any of the presidential candidates -- John McCain,
Barack Obama, or the primary candidates for that matter in the
Republican-Democratic Party ever mention or pay attention to a rip-off
phenomon that is costing more than the Iraq War at least in dollas --
Well
that's why the Nader - Gonzales is so necessary to provide the
contrast, the alternative to focus on the need to crack down on
corporate crime, fraud and abuse that is looting or draining trillions
of dollars from consumers, worker-pensions, savers, mutual funds
It's
all reported in the mainstream press except this billing fraud that I
just mentioned from Enron to Wall St. and yet John McCain and Barack
Obama have no program to engage in the necessary resources and
willpower to crack down and prevent corporate crime fraud and abuse
including corporate crime ripping off Medicare in the billions of
dollars.
Just another difference between Nader-Gonzalez and McCain-Obama the corporate candidate. Thank you.
GSR: How do you seek to redefine sources of electoral power come November?
CM:
My political career started in the state of Georgia as a member of the
Georgia Legislature. When I ran for that particular position, the
corporate press all touted the fact that I was not going to win and yet
we were able to win. We won because of people power. We went outside
the existing electorate. We brought new people in. That is, of course,
one of the hopes that we have with this campaign. We hope we are going
to bring new people into the political process and let them see the
efficacy of their vote. Now how is it that we can do that? We have to
talk about the fact that we are operating in a political environment
that lacks election integrity. One of the things I have been able to
say quite convincingly because of the precedent set four years ago by
the Green Party and David Cobb is that the day after the election when
there are reports of disfranchisement and fraud, the Green Party is
going to be there when the Democratic Party capitulates. It was in 2000
that we know that the voters of this country gave the Democrats the
White House and instead they didn't even fight for the victory that the
voters gave them. They capitulated to the Republicans and allowed
George W. Bush to assume the presidency. Again in 2004, John Kerry
promised that we would not see this kind of action on behalf of the
Democratic Party that took place in 2000. In 2004, on the very next
day, even as the reports were coming in from Ohio, John Kerry conceded.
He gave up once again. He gave up the White House, so that George W.
Bush could continue this reign of terror on people inside of this
country and outside this country.
So
now comes 2008. We understand that there are already efforts afoot to
disenfranchise certain populations through the Voter ID laws that have
been passed in various legislatures as well as with voter caging. Voter
caging is just a fancy way of saying you show up at the polls on
election day and you find out that your name is not on the voter list.
What is your recourse? You have none. You don't get to vote. If you
have the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot, there's no guarantee
that the provisional ballot will be counted. We still have to deal with
the electronic voting machines. The ills of the 2000 election remain
with us. The ills of the 2004 election remain with us. New ills have
been placed on top of those ills for the 2008 election. It will be the
Green Party and activists across this country who will demand election
integrity and who will move from protest to resistance. That is what we
have to do now.
GSR:
You mentioned protest. Define a vote for Cynthia McKinney in this
election. Is it a protest vote or something more substantive?
CM:
It's a values vote. What we are asking people to do is vote their
values. I am so proud to say that at a recent meeting with Rosanne Barr
she said, "I'm sick and tired of being put in a box. I'm going to vote
my values. I'm going to vote Green." We invite people to join the Power
to the People campaign. This is a campaign that seeks to include
everyone. We want to draw from every population that feels that somehow
their values are not represented by the powers that be. They are not
represented by the two corporate parties. They are not represented by
any other way, shape, fashion or form. And so perhaps the Power to the
People campaign and the Green Party can express the views and the
values of people who want peace for a change. They want ecological
wisdom for a change. They want social justice for a change. They want
real democracy for a change. That's what the Green Party vote
represents and so I invite everyone to vote your values and vote Green.
Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) explains,
"Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are running for president and
vice-president on the Green Party ticket, but their larger goal is to
reignite a mass movement based on principles that are anathema to the
financiers that call the shots in the Obama campaign. They are among
the voices that have not been silenced in this deformed election
cycle." Meanwhile Chris Hedges encourages
people to examine the health care plan Barack is proposing and to show
spine, "We on the left, those who should be out there fighting for
universal health care and total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and
Afghanistan, sit like lap dogs on the short leashes of our Democratic
(read corporate) masters. We yap now and then, but we have forgotten
how to snarl and bite. We have been domesticated. And until we punish
the two main parties the way big corporations do, by withdrawing
support and funding when our issues are ignored, we will remain
irrelevant and impotent. I detest Bill O'Reilly, but he is right on one
thing-we liberals are a spineless lot. . . . We need to throw our
support behind alternative candidates who champion what we care about,
whether Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader."
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
julian e. barnes
the washington post
ann scott tyson
mary callahan
the next hour
janet coleman
david dozer
wbai
washington week
bill moyers journal
chris ames
joshua frank
the new york times
erica goode
ned parker
tina susman
deborah haynes
sarah palin
iraq
david bacon
john pilger
sarmad ali
the wall st. journal
cbs evening news
katie couric
