US helicopter crashes in Iraq

Iraq snapshot

iraq
robert f. worth
the new york times
marie cocco
the washington post
howard kurtz

the los angeles times
tina susman

mikey likes it

Other Items

Since Sunday, when two US service members were announced dead there have been at least two more deaths. M-NF, tasked with announcing deaths, did not announce them. The Defense Department's job is to announce names after the families have been informed. 4159 is the current total of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

Robert F. Worth (New York Times) notes (in a brief) that Nawaf Fares is now Syria's ambassador to Iraq (Syria's first "since the early 1980s").

A number of e-mails note that yesterday's House Budget Committee doesn't appear to have gotten any press. I'm not interested in the second panel. We can go back to the first panel today. We covered some of it in yesterday's snapshot and Mike grabbed a section last night. It is interesting how little anyone seems to care about covering the issue of the tax payer moneys. For laughs, you can watch Nomi Prinz make a bigger fool of herself than usual on Democracy Now! today as she rushes to spin Barack's corruption as John McCain's only. Funniest one might be when she rips McCain apart in multi-sentences before adding as an after thought, 'Barack's the same.' A lot of liars passing themselves off as informed and honest. And just calling yourself a 'journalist' doesn't make you one. Prinz has no journalistic ethics and that's because she's not a journalist.

IRIN reports over 100 cases of cholera are now confirmed in Iraq. AP reports Baghdad bombings today have already claimed 8 lives and that a shooting last night in Kirkuk claimed 3 lives.


Susan notes this from Marie Cocco's "Sexism Again" (Washington Post Writers Group):

This has a lot to do with a graphic image of Palin I just saw in which she is dressed in a black bustier, adorned with long, black gloves and wielding a whip. The image appeared in the Internet magazine Salon to illustrate a column titled: "The dominatrix," by Gary Kamiya. Kamiya calls Palin a "pinup queen," and says she not only tantalized the Republican National Convention with political red meat, but that her "babalicious" presence hypercharged the place with sexual energy, and naughty energy at that. "You could practically feel the crowd getting a collective woody as Palin bent Obama and the Democrats over, shoved a leather gag in their mouths and flogged them as un-American wimps, appeasers and losers."
That's some sexual mother lode. Dare I point out that I have never -- ever -- in three decades of covering politics seen a male politician's style, even one with an earthy demeanor, described this way?
Salon editor Joan Walsh says she agrees the "dominatrix" piece had a "provocative cover,'' and that her columnists enjoy great freedom. "One day Gary (Kamiya) called Palin a dominatrix, the next day Camille Paglia called her a feminist." The magazine exists, Walsh says, to "push the envelope."
No sooner did Walsh give me this explanation than another Salon contributor, Cintra Wilson, pushed that envelope again. Wilson described Palin as follows: an "f---able ... Christian Stepford wife in a 'sexy librarian' costume" who is, for ideological Republicans, a "hardcore pornographic centerfold spread." That is, when Palin is not coming across as one of those "cutthroat Texas cheerleader stage moms."
What is it about a woman candidate that sends the media into weird Freudian frenzies?

For the record, Joan Walsh could say "Cut it out" any damn time she wanted to. The fact that she refuses to do so goes a long way towards explaining why she offered, at best, weak-ass calls against sexism while Hillary was in the race. Walsh should be ashamed of herself and maybe everyone should begin posting visuals of Joan Walsh online along the lines of what Walsh thinks is acceptable for Salon?

Speaking of pathetic, 'voices' in the Green Party. Find anyone tackling the insult to Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente from NOW PAC and Kim Gandy yesterday. If you do, it's not going to be a Green. They have the worst and most useless 'voices' and bloggers who seem to think that they can have a presidential candidate but never blog or write about her. If you're a Green and have a blog, it's your job every day to make Cynthia part of what you write about. They really are a pathetic party at the top. Disgusting, boring and do-nothing. And if someone outside the community doesn't like that call, prove me wrong. I'm looking at e-mails from Green Party members talking about this and saying over and over, 'This is why my party sucks.' Yes, that is exactly why. Your bloggers write dithering posts that read like bad Erma Bombeck and never find time to note the national ticket. They are unfocused and, honestly, they come off like self-rightetous prigs. "OH [website] IS CATCHING ON THAT WE ARE RIGHT!" Pathetic. Just disgusting. Cynthia deserved better. Bad enough that Kim Gandy stabbed her in the back, the Green Party 'voices' always have something else to do besides promote their candidate. When the campaign's over, hopefully Cynthia will write a blistering book about all the attacks and betrayals -- including the way she was begged to run and then shunned the minute some Green 'leaders' thought they could get Nader to run again. As Marcia pointed out yesterday, Green 'leaders' and 'voices' have spent more time promoting Barack this year than they have their own nominee. Again, Cynthia deserved better than this rag-tag group of freaks. There's a reason Ralph Nader refused to run as a Green and it goes straight to the all the problems at the top of the Green Party -- a political party whose motto at the top should be, "Others run, we dabble."

They really are pathetic. Cynthia or Rosa has a speaking engagement and maybe they have time to note it (once) and maybe they don't. And then they whine, "We're a party! We're better than the Dems! Why won't anyone vote for our pathetic asses!" Your last sentence answers your question.

Rosa does have an upcoming event. You can find out about it at a non-Green site (naturally). "Green Party Vice Presidential Candidate Rosa Clemente to Speak at Uhuru Convention" (Assata Speaks - Hands Off Assata):

In August, following its internationally televised protest at a Barack Obama rally, the International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement (InPDUM) invited all U.S. presidential candidates to participate in its annual Convention to address the question raised to Obama, "What About the Black Community?"
The Green Party presidential ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente accepted that invitation and will be represented by Clemente at the September 27-28 Convention in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Prior to entering this year's U.S. presidential race, Clemente has worked as a community organizer, journalist and Hip-Hop activist. Born and raised in the South Bronx, Rosa is a graduate of the University of Albany and Cornell University. Her academic work has been dedicated to researching national liberation struggles inside the United States, with a specific focus on the Young Lords Party and the Black Liberation Army.


I think Joy says it best in the morning e-mails, "Let's face, Cynthia was never going to try to be White or male and that's really all the Green Party wants." It would appear to be the case. But, hey, they couldn't prop up Barack as a community organizer and also push their own presidential candidate so it's toss Cynthia aside and rush to prop up the corporate candidate while pretending they are in some way better than anyone else. Again, self-righteous prigs. And Cynthia deserved so much better.

Lauren notes this from Team Nader:

Pass It On Invitation

Posted by Ashley Sanders on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM

ShareThisShareThis

The Nader Team is launching an exciting new e-mail campaign, called Pass It On, that will feature an important news article from the mainstream, Internet, or alternative media. These e-mails will give readers crucial information about important election issues and prepare them to make educated arguments to their friends, families, and news outlets.

With so much news happening out there, it can be difficult to sort through it all to find relevant information on important topics. This becomes increasingly frustrating in an election year, when there is more news than ever and a good knowledge of the issues is imperative to voters. In an election dominated by corporate media, it is vital for informed citizens to counteract misinformation with intelligent, articulate arguments.

But why do we need to do this ourselves? Aren't the mainstream media providing enough information in their round-the clock news programs?

Quite simply, no, they're not.

Here's an example. While stuck at a Greyhound bus station last month, I had the dubious fortune of watching fours hours of unrelenting election coverage on national television. A dozen different pundits, bloggers, and politicos came on, ostensibly to discuss pressing issues in the campaign. The strange thing was, not one of those speakers addressed a single substantive issue. Instead, they spouted strategy and traded in trivia: who had collected the most money, who was or wasn't wearing a flag pin, the effect smiling had on a candidate's electability.

This is the national network news, the place where millions of Americans get their information on critical issues. Yet in an election year when so much is at stake -- when we have to make decisions about war, recession, healthcare, poverty, and global warming -- we are being given virtually no valuable information that could help us make good decisions.

As Bill Moyers reminds us in "Moyers on America," the media aren't so much biased as they are plain bad. Not only do they commit egregious errors of omission -- refusing to cover third-party candidates and failing to convey the context of a situation -- they also fail to fact-check the information they present, choosing instead to quote from two equally vapid and opposing sources and then hastily ending their reports.

These media failures have a doubly negative effect on candidacies like Ralph Nader's. As a corporate critic and third-party candidate, Nader threatens both the two-party system and the media conglomerates -- which then prove him right by refusing to cover his campaign! As a candidate who tries to address the roots of problems, Nader is misrepresented by a sound-bite media that depends on bipartisan platitudes.

The result?

Millions of voters don't know Ralph Nader is running and don't understand the significance of the critiques he is making. Without a responsible media articulating the cause and effects of the different crises we are facing, we will continue to throw $500 rebate checks at a failing economy and ethanol at oil.

With that in mind, we are pleased to introduce our Pass It On campaign. On a regular basis, we will send you a compelling, well-researched article about a pressing election issue -- something you won't get from the sound-bite media. Reading the article will help you stay informed. But the next step is most important -- and this is where you come in. You become the alternative media by passing the article on to your friends, family, and co-workers. Think of it as information's pay-it-forward movement: regular people circulating good articles until they go viral. With this kind of concerted grassroots media effort, we can change the conversation, educate the electorate, and pass along Ralph Nader's ideas.

Sign up now to become the new media!

Yes, I’m in! (Fill in your e-mail address in the form below.)

No, I'll trust the mainstream corporate media to provide all the info I need.

Onward to November!

Ashley Sanders
The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

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


iraq
robert f. worth
the new york times
marie cocco
mikey likes it
sickofitradlz

Iraq

To Be or Not to Be

Cardoso, my feathered friend, you've come from flying over the Amazon jungle to a cage in Utah--albeit an open-door cage with a fine master. Do not feel alone, Cardoso. Millions of voters have also been put into a cage. It is a corporate-dominated, two-party cage with no open door unless they break out and vote for Nader/Gonzalez. This ticket stands tall for justice, peace and freedom within a competitive democracy.

WATCH THE VIDEO

ShareThisShareThis

the new york times
thom shanker
stephen farrell

the los angeles times

tina susman

julian e. barnes

nancy a. youssef

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, September 16, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, the Congress discussed the spending in Iraq, NOW PAC made an endorsement but even Kim Gandy unwisely keeps insisting NOW made the endorsement, and more.     Today the House Committee on the Budget held a hearing on Iraq's Budget Surplus.  Some background.  April 8th the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus offered testimony.  Senator Barbara Boxer raised the issue of the "Awakening" Council and how "you are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them".  Boxer noted that the US was spending $182 million each year ($18 million a month) to "Awakening" Council members and "why don't we ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that program"?  As Sam Dagher (New York Times) noted Monday, the puppet government in Baghdad "is expected" to take over payment on October 1st.  Iraq has yet another outbreak of cholera currently.  Friday a press conference was held in Baghdad that offered blame for everyone but the Iraqi government which sits on billions that Nouri al-Maliki refuses to spend on reconstruction or rebuilding.  This at a time when trash piles up, when electricity continues to be largely unavailable and when fuel costs soar. Monday Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) reported that the puppet government was stating, via spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh, that "we are in a position now not to ask for financial aid from anybody, even the United States.  I think we have enough money to spend and we are not in need of any money in the future."   US House Rep John Spratt Jr. chairs the Budget Committee (Paul Ryan is the Ranking Member of the Republican Party). Appearing before the committee were (first panel) the GAO's Joseph A. Christoff, (second panel) Congressional Research Service's Christopher M. Blanchard, AEI's Frederick Kagan and the Center for American Progress' Lawrence J. Korb.   We'll focus on some of the first panel only.   Spratt called the hearing to order and noted:   This hearing will be the first opportunity for the Congress to receive testimony on this report, the GAO report, since the Government Accountability Office released it several weeks ago.  GAO reports that Iraq is now running a substantial budget surplus -- it may reach $79 billion.   At the same time the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] reported last week that in contrast to Iraq's growing surplus, the budget deficit for the United States. is expected to exceed $400 billion for the current fiscal year.  That's the second largest deficit in our history.  Even bigger deficits are projected next year. This hearing will give the Budget Committee the chance to develop some insight into Iraq's fiscal situation and its ability to help pay for its own reconstruction.  So far the United States has provided more than $650 billion dollars for efforts in Iraq, $50 billion of which were for reconstruction and security forces training.  We're spending today at the rate of more than $10 billion a month which is by anybody's calculus a significant sum of money.  Given our budget deficits here at home, some find it difficult to understand why American tax payers are still funding Iraqi reconstruction and security training.  In funding the Gulf War, the first President Bush was able to secure much critical sharing from allies which greatly reduced the bill that the tax payers ultimately had to pay.  Let me say at the outset that this hearing is not a debate on the war, not a debate on the surge or plans for redeploying any troops we may have.  In fact, even the strictly budgetary issue of the total cost of the war -- military and reconstruction -- is larger than today's topic. We invited the Department of Defense to address a broader budgetary issue in our hearing this fall.  They declined to appear.  Thus today's hearing is called to examine the issue of the Iraqi budget surplus.  We on the Budget Committee want to asses for the purpose of projecting the bottom line whether the burden of Iraq's reconstruction can finally begin to shift from the United States to Iraq itself given the surplus they're currently enjoying.   Following the ranking Republican speaking, a cry of "End the occupation by defunding the occupation!" was chanted by one woman.  "You gonna call 'em?" asked Ryan leading Spratt to bang the gavel and declare to the woman, "I'm sorry you're out of order and you'll be removed from the room if you persist in doing what you're doing."  Ryan chuckled at that.   "Iraq has an estimated 115 billion barrels of crude oil reserves," declared Christoff at the start of his testimony.  "It's the third largest in the world.  And oil revenues are critical to Iraq's economy accounting for over half of the country's GDP [Gross Domestic Product] and over 90% of its revenues.  My statement today is based on the report we issued last month on Iraq's revenues, expenditures and surpluses from 2005 to 2008."   Christoff then reviewed some findings. From 2005 to 2007, $96 billion was generated in revenues (oil accounting for more than 90% of that money) and in 2008 $73 to $86 billion is the estimate for revenues "nearly as much as it generated in the prior three years."  By contrast, 2005 to 2007 saw the puppet government spent "$67 billion on operating expenses and investments.  Operating expenses such as salaries and goods and services consumed 90% of that total.  The remaining 10% was spent on investments such as structures and vehicles. In general, Iraq has spent less on investments than operating expenses."  Christoff estimates the surplus will be between $67 billion and $79 billion for this year.  He noted the claim that this would all be spent and how "a similar claim" was made from 2005 to 2007 but that never happened and instead "ended each of these years with budget surpluses."   John Spratt: If the will was there they could be spending it at a faster rate than they are?   Joseph Christoff: Well they can spend it on their operating budget with no difficulties.  They spent a large percent -- almost 80 percent -- on their operating budget. They can pay salaries.  They can buy certain operating goods and services but when it comes to the actual investment side to reconsruct bridges, roads, electricity and water facilities they fall short.   During his time, US House Rep Chet Edwards asked that Paul Wolfowitz ' statements be put up from 2003 when he was then Deputy Secretary of Defense and testified to the House Appropriations Subcommittee (March 27, 2003): "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."   Chet Edwards: Given the GAO report, I guess I rank that administration prediction right up there with some of the predictions that we would be greeted as liberators, the war would be short-lived, it would cost the American tax payers less than a hundred billion dollars and we're turning the corner.  We've turned so many corners in Iraq I think we're all dizzy from that. Every time we turn one corner we find another roadbloc down the way.  I would like to ask you, just again, to get the facts on the table, in fact, let me ask staff to put up the chart on how much Iraq has spent and how much less it has spent than the US.  I just want to verify, Mr. Christoff, that according to this chart, the United States tax payers that are now facing historic deficits of over $400 billion this coming year, US tax payers have spent $23.2 billion on Iraq reconstruction.  Is that correct, Mr. Christoff?   Joseph Christoff: That's for four sectors that we looked at.   Chet Edwards: Okay.   Joseph Christoff: Security, oil, electricity and water.   Chet Edwards: Okay.  So reconstruction in those four sectors.  And the Iraqi government which I think now has an approximately $79 billion surplus has spent only $4.3 billion.  Is that fact --   Joseph Christoff: That's correct.   Chet Edwards: -- correct?   Joseph Christoff: Yes.   Chet Edwards: So the US tax payers -- in addition to something you can't put a dollar value on, we've sacrificed over 4,000 of our young men and women in combat there -- we've then also spent five times what the Iraqis have spent on reconstruction despite Secretary Wolfowitz' prediction that Iraq would very quickly be able to pay for its own reconstruction.  Let me ask you about this.  Am I correct in understanding from your report that the same Iraq for which we have sacrificed over 4,000 American lives has just signed a $3 billion agreement with the Communist Chinese National Petroleum Corporation to develop the Ahdab  oil field, is that correct?   Joseph Christoff: I don't have any first-hand information on it, sir.  It's just what I've read in the paper as perhaps you have as well.   Chet Edwards: Okay. Well for the record, I think that is, Mr. Chairman, correct. The Iraqi government, the same one that's building up a $79 billion surplus while American tax payers are paying for most of their reconstruction efforts has just signed a $3 billion agreement with the Communist Chinese National Petroleum Corporation.  And Mr. Chairman, it just boggles my mind to think that there would be any evidence that the Communist Chinese ability to develop oil fields is better than US corporations ability to do so.  So once again, we turn a corner and we're hit in the face with something I consider to be insulting.     Edwards is correct re: CNP's contract.  August 29th snapshot: "Meanwhile, China scores big!  Erica Goode and Riyadh Mohammed (New York Times) announce that China National Petroleum signed a contract with the puppet government in Baghdad. With the DNC speeches this week repeatedly hitting on the borrowing from China, that will probably not go over well in this country."  Sept 3rd snapshot: " 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."   US House Rep Lloyd Doggett was among the other Democrats asking questions and we'll note this exchange. Lloyd Doggett: Do I understand from your testimony to Mr. Edwards a moment ago that a time when we were squandering our money and the Iraqis were saving their's that Iraqi citizens were paying about four cents a gallon for gasoline?   Joseph Christoff: Two years ago that's correct.   Lloyd Doggett: It's risen some since then?   Joseph Christoff: It's up to about $1.18 per gallon.   Lloyd Doggett: I think there are probably a lot of Americans who are paying for this so-called reconstruction in Iraq that would be mighty glad if they could get $1.18 gasoline. Did you play a role in the analysis of the benchmarks that the Government Accountability Office provided last year?   Joseph Christoff: Yes, sir.   Lloyd Doggett: What was that role?   Joseph Christoff: I was the director in charge of that report.   Lloyd Doggett: And have you also played the same role in responding to questions about the benchmarks from [House Armed Services Committee] Chairman [Ike] Skelton this year with the report that you just did in the last few weeks?   Joseph Christoff: Yes, I was the director on the progress report as well.   Lloyd Dogget: All of us remember, except maybe President Bush, that in January of 2007, he selected the benchmarks, the guidelines by which to measure success, by which to measure victory in Iraq and when we sought an analysis so we would have an objective information instead of just the propaganda from the administration about whether those benchmarks had been met the Congress turned to the Government Accountability Office. And my recollection is that when you came out with your report on August the 30th of last year that you determined that . . . 11 of the 18 benchmarks that President Bush had set were not met. Is that correct?   Joseph Christoff: Based on that prior report correct.   Lloyd Doggett: Yes, sir.  And you found that of the 18 benchmarks the president set himself to measure success in Iraq that only three had been met as of August 30, 2007. Now this year, a year later, you did some evaluation again.  You did not evaluate every single benchmark but you really found that there had been very little progress in the year.  We know that fortunately fewer Americans are being killed there. But in terms of the objective of the Bush policy in Iraq, you had a grand amount of success in that they met one more benchmark than they had the year before, isn't that correct?   Joseph Christoff: Well we didn't go through a benchmark by benchmark analysis but we did provide a report that talked about progess on the security front, the legislative front and the economic front in our June report.     Lloyd Doggett: Right and I believe you found one more benchmark met than the year before.   Joseph Christoff: Again we didn't do a benchmark by benchmark analysis, sir.   Lloyd Doggett: Well if you look at the -- it may not have been called a benchmark analysis -- but you looked at some of the same factors you had the year before.  Just to begin to go through them, on the Constitutional Review Committee, you found that they'd formed the committee but the committee hadn't done anything.  Right?   Joseph Christoff: And that's still true.   Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met that.  On enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification you found that they had enacted the legislation but they hadn't implemented and of it, right?   Joseph Christoff: That's correct.   Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met the second benchmark.  On the question of enacting the hydrocarbon or oil legislation, you concluded that they had not met that again this year, did you not?   Joseph Christoff: Correct, and no progess this year either.   Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions -- that was the fourth benchmark President Bush had -- you found that that was only partially met.  Again they passed a law to allow the provinces to act but it hadn't been implemented.   Joseph Christoff: Well on that one it will be implemented when provinces come together to form regions so that's  an open --   Lloyd Doggett: Right, but we're not there yet.   Joseph Christoff: Well no provinces have voted to form regions other than the KRG originally.   Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation for an Independent High Electoral Commission you found only partially meeting it.  Again, they passed a law but hadn't implemented it.   Joseph Christoff: The commission was established.  The provincial election law -- the date was established for October 1 but the implementing laws have not been enacted.   Lloyd Doggett: Right. And they won't have the elections they've been promising us they'd have for a year in October.   Joseph Christoff: October 1, they will not meet that date.   Lloyd Doggett: On the enacting and implementing legislation for a strong militia disarmament program --   Joseph Christoff: That's not met.   Lloyd Doggett: That's not met.  And I see my time's up but, Mr. Chairman, we can keep going down the objectives that President Bush set himself for success, for victory in Iraq, and you'll find that it continues to fail.  That this policy has been a failure, American tax payers are having to fund the failure while the Iraqis pay a fraction of the price we pay for a gallon of gasoline.  Thank you.   In Iraq today, Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that the handover from Petraeus to Gen Ray Odierno took place, "With Defense Secretary Robert Gates presiding at the ceremony in a cavernous rotunda of a former Saddam Hussein palace outside Baghdad, Petraeus handed over the flag of his command, known as Multi-National Force Iraq, to Odierno and then bade farewell."  Thom Shanker and Stephen Farrell (New York Times, A13) report that Monday's hijinx included a Gates' 'joke' that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus have alternated playing "good cop, bad cop" in Iraq. The reporters fail to inform how many (if any) Iraqis laughed at the 'joke.'  Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports one Odierno change already -- he wants to be called "Ray" and not "Raymond".  Susman also notes, "Odierno gained a star but lost a syllable in his first name. He was promoted to a full four-star general moments before the event took place. No reason was given for the change in his preferred first name, which must have happened suddenly. The press packet provided to the media included a biography of Odierno that introduced him as Gen. Raymond Odierno."  A dust storm hit Iraq, she reports, for the second day in a row.  Some of today's violence . . .   Bombings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 2 lives with thirteen left wounded and a Baghdad roadside bombing that left eight people wounded.  Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officers and injured seven people.   Shootings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Sheikh Omar Raddam Getan was assassinated today in Diyala Province.   Corpses?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.       Today NOW PAC (not NOW as ABC and others are reporting -- the National Organization for Women CANNOT endorse, it's a violation of their tax status) endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket and Kim Gandy (NOW president) explains in several paragraph: 'Lesbians, go screw yourself.'  There's no other way to put it after Barack's use of homophobia in South Carolina to scare up votes which NOW (or NOW PAC) never bothered to call out.  For years The Ego of Us All tried to chase lesbians out of NOW and Kim Gandy's apparently decided to follow in Red Betty's footsteps.  Lesbians really don't have abortions.  The main reason would be rape.  Pregnancies are planned by lesbian couples.  So outside of rape, abortion rights isn't one of the biggest concerns on their lists.  Nor did his mentor or pastor for 20 years who compared likened gay sex to rape, murder and lynching.  Jeremiah Wright made that comparison not in some unearthed sermon but on national television (Bill Moyers' embarrassing interview with Wright back in April -- and no, Moyers didn't question him on that call). They do care about self-respect.  Barack showed no respect to the LGBT community.  Most laughable is Gandy's claim that "Sen. Obama opposed the nominations of George Bush's extreme right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court, who have consistently ruled against women's rights," -- Kim ends her sentence with a comma and not a period.  Cass Sunstein is one of Barack's advisors.  Sunstein endorsed John Roberts appointment to the Court.  chicago dyke (Corrente) takes on Sunstein's latest stupidity, "Is the man really that dumb? That is, does he truly fail to understand that naming a post 'trimmers' that discusses reproductive and sexual rights places him squarely in the ass of many a joke? What a fool. The argument he makes there too is stupid. I guess young pregnant women don't deserve any rights because you know, they're too young to have sex but when they do and they get pregnant they can't be trusted to decide for themselves what to do about it, and anyway if Daddy's the Father he deserves to have another say in how to use her body Maturely, or something…"   As for Barack and abortion rights, Marie Cocco (Washington Post Writers Group) noted of Barack, "One thing is certain: Obama has backhandedly given credibility to the right-wing narrative that women who have abortions -- even those who go through the physically and mentally wrenching experience of a late-term abortion -- are frivolous and selfish creatures who might perhaps undergo this ordeal because they are 'feeling blue'." A point Kim chooses to ignore.  If Gandy's going to rail against Bully Boy's appointees (Alito and Roberts) she might take a minute to find out where Barack's team stood on those appointments.  But Gandy's been hawking Barack like an Amway product for sometime now.  When she tried it at NOW's July convention, the response from NOW members was underwhelming which should have been Gandy's first clue that NOW ("for women") should either sit out the 2008 election or endorse the ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente.  Unlike Barack, Cynthia actually has a strong leglislative record on women's issues (no "present" votes, not even one).  But Gandy proved it was all about sucking up to perceived power and not about being "for women" throughout 2008.  Since NOW cannot endorse (or risk losing their tax status), Kim Gandy's statements should be pulled from NOW's website and appear only at NOW PAC (where it already appears).  Failure to do so means more McCain-Feingold work on soft money is strongly needed.  But, hey, just PULL THE TAX EXEMPTION STATUS ALREADY.  Kim Gandy went on NPR's Morning Edition today and repeatedly referred to NOW PAC's endoresement (as did Renee Montagne) as a "NOW endorsement."  She can't do that.  NOW proper CANNOT make an endorsement.  Kim Gandy's actions are begging for NOW's tax status to be pulled.     NOW PAC is a much smaller organization than NOW so Gandy hopes to piggy back on NOW proper (which actually has national name recognition) -- even though it skirts the law.  Lisal Loring (The Daily Kenoshan) notes that voter choice isn't just an abstract, it's a genuine issue and quotes Cynthia McKinney explaining, "I sponsored the Voter Choice Act in Congress, which would have provided for the use of ranked choice voting in Congressional elections. I fought to defend and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. I have long been a supporter of publicly financed elections. I have advocated same-day voter registration. I voted in opposition to requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections."  Cynthia McKinney's long Congress record (she served several terms -- Barack hasn't even completely his first) allowed her to amass a strong voting record on what Project Vote Smart calls "abortion issues" -- 29 chances to vote and she only missed one.  (McKinney was in the US House of Rep from 1995 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007.) Barack's been in the Senate since 2005.  Project Vote Smart shows four times he could have stood up.  In 2005 he did.  The other three votes?  He didn't bother to vote.  But hey, Kim Gandy loves him, that's good enough for . . . well for Kim Gandy.  Here's Cynthia on some of the stands she took on reproductive rights: "In 1999, I voted NO on barring the interstate transportation of minors to get an abortion. I supported funding contraception and UN family planning. I voted NO to oppose banning partial-birth abortions. In 2001, I voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad and NO on a new federal crime for harming a fetus while committing other crimes. In 2005, I voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions."  Cynthia stood up.  Kim Gandy cowered.  One's a leader, one's desperately hoping to be invited to the party.   Apparently, Cynthia McKinney doesn't speak to Kim Gandy or NOW PAC.  That's a good reason to revisit McKinney's July 12th acceptance speech when she won the presidential nomination (in a real roll call vote -- not the farce the Democratic Party offered) of the Green Party:   In 1851, in Akron, Ohio a former slave woman, abolitionist, and woman's rights activist by the name of Sojourner Truth gave a speech now known as "Ain't I a Woman." Sojourner Truth began her remarks, "Well children, where there is so much racket, there must be something out of kilter." She then went on to say that even though she was a woman, no one had ever helped her out of carriages or lifted her over ditches or given her a seat of honor in any place. Instead, she acknowledged, that as a former slave and as a black woman, she had had to bear the lash as well as any man; and that she had borne "thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And Ain't I a woman?" Finally, Sojourner Truth says, "If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!"          As it was in 1851, so too it is in 2008. There is so much racket that we, too, know something is out of kilter. In 1851, the racket was about a woman's right to vote. In 1848, just a few years before Sojourner uttered those now famous words, "Ain't I a Woman?" suffragists met in Seneca Falls, New York and issued a declaration.      That declaration began:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled."         Two hundred sixty women and forty men gathered in Seneca Falls, NY and declared their independence from the politics of their present and embarked upon a struggle to create a politics for the future. That bold move by a handful of people in one relatively small room laid the groundwork and is the precedent for what we do today. The Seneca Falls Declaration represented a clean break from the past: Freedom, at last, from mental slavery. The Seneca Falls Declaration and the Akron, Ohio meeting inaugurated 72 years of struggle that ended with the passage of the 19th Amendment in August of 1920, granting women the right to vote. And 88 years later, with the Green Party as its conductor, the History Train is rolling down the tracks.         [. . .]  My son grew up playing on the Floor underneath my desk in the Chamber of the Georgia House of Representatives. His buddies were the legislators down there, under the Gold Dome, who were my and my father's colleagues.            [. . .]        Women are still the overwhelming profile of the minimum wage worker in this country. 65% of all minimum wage workers are women, according to 2005 statistics. Despite the law, women still go to work every day, performing the same tasks as men, yet bring home less pay than their male counterparts. Asian-American and Pacific Island women make 88 cents for every dollar earned by men, but African-American women earn only 72 cents and my Latina sisters earn only 60 cents for every dollar earned by men. Overall, according to 2007 statistics, women with similar education, skills, and experience are paid 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Equal pay for equal work is not yet a reality for working women in this country. And the glass ceiling is all too real.    [. . .]        It is for all these reasons and more that I redeclare my goals in the language of my sisters who convened at Seneca Falls, NY 160 years ago. They wrote: "It is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." That declaration not only avoids the politics of the past, it contains a kernel for the future. How can those new guards for the future be won?" Here's how: When I was first running for Congress and it was the year of the woman, women all over the country were saying, "We want our seat at the table." And when I got to Washington, I saw that policy was really made in a room, at a table. There were real seats at the table. Well, imagine what has happened to public policy making now.              Apparently there was nothing in the above speech that NOW PAC could endorse.  What a proud day today is for the National Organization FOR Women.  Maybe Cynthia needs to be asking NOW PAC, "Ain't I a woman?"  Maybe NOW PAC needs to read NOW's mission statement: "Our prupose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society -- sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination."  To NOW PAC, that translates as "endorse men, ignore the women of color ticket, ignore that Cynthia has a long record of standing up for women's rights, go with Barack because we can do a trade-off and hopefully look like power players inside the Beltway!"  Someone ask Kim to explain how endorsing Obama-Biden over Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente reaches NOW's "priority issues" (advancing reproductive freedom, promoting diversity & ending racism, stopping violence against women, winning lesbian rights, achieving Constitutional equality and ensuring economic justice)?  Answer?  It doesn't.    Meanwhile Barack played True Confessions.  Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament -- video and text) emphasizes this statement by Barack on yesterday's Good Morning America, "If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that context pretty handily."  Staying with TV for a moment, this Friday's NOW on PBS will be an hour long special broadcast and will examine women -- in the electorate and in office.  Ralph Nader is the indepenent presidential candidate.  Team Nader notes:   Cardoso, my feathered friend, you've come from flying over the Amazon jungle to a cage in Utah--albeit an open-door cage with a fine master. Do not feel alone, Cardoso. Millions of voters have also been put into a cage. It is a corporate-dominated, two-party cage with no open door unless they break out and vote for Nader/Gonzalez. This ticket stands tall for justice, peace and freedom within a competitive democracy. WATCH THE VIDEO   And Team Nader notes:   Drop $15 on Nader/Gonzalez now. Why? Last night, fifteen of the best and brightest of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign -- some of them pictured here -- met at our DC headquarters office. And they decided as a group. To bypass the mainstream media. And take it directly to the American people. Door to door. Person to person. The best and the brightest of our ballot access drive. The warriors who put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in 45 states. They will now be deployed to key states. With tens of thousands of lawn signs. Hundreds of thousands of pamphlets. And ready to make thousands of phone calls. To inform the American people that they now have a choice in November. For a candidacy that will shift the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the American people. With ballot access now complete. With Nader/Gonzalez polling well in a number of key swing states. We're ready to strike. As you know, we're in the final two days of our Get Out the Vote Fundraising Drive. Our goal: $80,000 by tomorrow night. Right now, thanks to your ongoing support, we're at $62,000. So, we need to raise $9,000 today. And $9,000 tomorrow. We're within striking distance. So, drop $15 dollars on Nader/Gonzalez now. And remember, if you give $100 or more now, we will send you In Pursuit of Justice, the 520-page book of essays by Ralph Nader -- essays on corporate power, the Constitution, and transforming our country. If you donate $100 now, we will send you this historic collection -- autographed by the man himself -- Ralph Nader. (This offer ends at 11:59 p.m. September 17, 2008.)   iraq the new york times erica goode riyadh mohammed mcclatchy newspapers the new york times thom shanker stephen farrell the los angeles times tina susman now on pbs pbs

Other Items

On September 19, Battle in Seattle, the new fictionalized movie about the mass direct action shutdown of and week-long street resistance to the World Trade Organization in Seattle in 1999, will open in theaters across the US. Some global justice and anti-capitalist activists will intervene on the opening day of the movie to urge moviegoers to get the real story and make some history themselves.

Can you help us get out "Real Battle in Seattle" invites (see downloadable resources below) to moviegoers on Friday September 19 in San Francisco, San Rafael, Seattle, Minneapolis and Washington DC (later on in Sacramento, Pittsburgh, Detroit, LA, Boston, Chicago, Columbus, OH, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Philadelphia and Plano, Texas, San Diego, San Jose, Denver, Charlotte, Cleveland, Portland, Philadelphia, Nashville, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Sant Antonio, Madison, Milwaukee and Olympia), and out to our communities? Some folks will make guerrilla announcements (masking up optional) before or at the end of each screening (Get as many folks as you can up front before and/or after screenings and announce the site and tell people what they can do to take action in your community). Send us a report!

For the last two years, since before the Battle in Seattle was filmed, we have struggled with how we and the movements we are part of should relate to the movie. Some of us have also engaged with and struggled with the film's director Stuart Townsend and fought to intervene in and improve the film, with a small bit of success. Out of these discussions we have created the Seattle WTO Peoples History Project, an indymedia-style, participatory peoples' history website of our movements' own accounts, photos, videos and reflections from the Seattle WTO shutdown and resistance.

We are a small collective of global justice, anti-capitalist, community and independent media organizers and activists--most of whom were involved in organizing to shut down the WTO and many of whom live or lived in Seattle. This website project, at RealBattleInSeattle.org, is an experiment that has the potential to popularize the "Battle of Seattle" in our own voices and from our movements. This potential can only be realized if friends from the movements step up, participate, post their accounts and reflections and get the world out widely! We aim to create a culture of memory and peoples' history within today's movements to take seriously documenting, popularizing and fighting for our histories and our victories.

At the US Social Forum in Atlanta in the summer of 2007 a couple dozen of us participated in a forum to discuss how to relate to the Battle in Seattle movie and to our own Seattle WTO history. At the time we wrote up a statement signed-on by over 100 Social Forum participants from many parts of the movements. In part, it reads:

"In the fall of 2008, a major motion picture called "Battle in Seattle" will come out in cities across the country. The movie is a docu-drama—a fictional story based on real events—that features extensive archival footage. It alone may shape what most people in the US and around the world think happened for decades to come—unless we speak up. We call for social movements to take action: to reclaim our history, our stories, and our future.

"The story of popular resistance to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle in 1999 is a story of how people power can change the world. It is a dangerous example for the global elite, and a powerful one for movements. For eight years, the US corporate media, global elites, and their police have been twisting and marginalizing the truth, in order to invent their own story of Seattle 1999 and the stories of social movements' resistance and victories. These lies and revisions of history have been used in an attempt to criminalize and repress our protests, movements, and mobilizations."

It's time that we in the social movements tell our own stories, reclaim our own histories, and publicly fight damaging myths of our movements past and present. We must intervene in the public understanding of what happened, what is happening, and what it all means. Stories are how we understand the world and thus shape the future—they are part of our fight against corporate power, empire, war, and social and environmental injustice and for the alternatives that will make a better world.

Let's link the 1999 resistance to the WTO in Seattle and globally with building support for today's 2007 resistance that is continuing the fight for global justice on many fronts: against war and occupation for environmental and climate justice; for workers, immigrants, women, and farmers rights, etc. We call for commemorations, public events, performances, media, interventions, interruptions, educational events, performances, screenings, gatherings, and celebrations."

Please circulate this email, and check out and participate in the RealBattleInSeattle.org.

EDUCATE! PARTICIPATE! LIBERATE!

Heather Day, Jeremy Simer, David Solnit, John Dudas, Kate Khatib

of the Seattle WTO Peoples History Collective

Contact:

wtopeopleshistory@gmail.com

Bleak Sunday, Momentous Monday, and Nader/Gonzalez

On this momentous Monday, September 15, 2008, we make a simple request.

Donate $15 to Nader/Gonzalez.

The prudential choice for 2008.

We woke up this morning early.

Turned on C-Span radio.

And heard Brian Lamb quoting Ralph Nader.

From years ago.

With Ralph warning about extravagance, recklessness, and excessive compensation on Wall Street.

Warning years ago about the undue influence of Fannie and Freddie on Democrats and Republicans alike.

Warning about the failure of our government to protect small investors.

Throughout his career, Nader has strong been a strong advocate for due diligence.

For protecting shareholder rights.

For prudential regulation.

And strict oversight of the markets.

While the Democrats and Republicans have bent to the whims of their corporate masters and Wall Street's bottom line imperatives.

Nader has been steadfast in his advocacy for safety, regulation, and protecting the little guy.

Unfortunately for the nation and for investors, his warnings have gone largely unheeded.

On this momentous Monday, as we watch the fallout from the failed policies, greed and extravagance of the corporate political class unfold, we make this simple note.

Due diligence, prudential regulation, and strict oversight of the markets -- Nader-style -- would have gone a long way to averting the disaster currently hitting Wall Street.

Instead, it was short-term fast and dirty profits, muzzled politicians, and throw caution to the wind.

And so now, the American people are learning the hard way about the consequences of a reckless corporate dominated political economy.

But thanks to your hard work, we are in a position to give America a choice in November.

For prudence.

For strict oversight.

For regulation.

Right now, we're in the stretch drive of our $80,000 fundraiser -- to help fund our get out the vote drive.

To get Ralph Nader into the presidential debates.

To let the American people know that they don't have to settle for corporate rule.

There will be a choice in November.

But first, we need to reach $80,000 by September 17th.

We're at $50,000.

We have three days to reach $80,000.

We haven't missed one fundraising goal yet.

And we don't plan to start now.

So, please, drop $15 now on Nader/Gonzalez.

Help shift the power.

From Wall Street and the corporate giants.

Back into the hands of the American people.

Together, we are making a difference.

Onward to November

The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

ned parker

the los angeles times

david solnit

kpfk

kpfk evening news

Petraeus says Bye-Bye-Bye

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org

For Immediate Release:
Monday, September 1, 2008

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org

Greens promote 'Peace Slate' and call Obama/Biden the 'faux antiwar' ticket, citing Obama's record and warhawk positions on military funding, US troops in Afghanistan, threats against Iran; McKinney speaks out on Dems' complicity in Bush-Cheney hijacking of the US


Video: Cindy Sheehan endorses Cynthia McKinney for President
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOZlpLmL7wk
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRNA6nnT2OY

Video: Cynthia McKinney discusses major issues
http://www.youtube.com/user/RunCynthiaRun
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RunCynthiaRun

Ms. McKinney on the Democratic Party:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpYlQx2MLuw


WASHINGTON, DC -- Calling the Obama/Biden ticket the "faux antiwar" candidates, Green Party leaders urged national support and votes for the Green Party nominees, Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente, and for the party's 'Peace Slate' of candidates for Congress and other offices.

Greens challenged the belief among many pro-Obama voters that his candidacy opposed the warhawk actions of the Bush-Cheney White House, and noted that the Democrat-led Congress elected in 2006 -- including Sen. Obama -- endorsed most of the Bush Administration's legislative agenda.

Green leaders also noted that the Democratic leadership, including Sen. Obama, failed to hold the President and Vice President accountable for a host of crimes and abuses of power and rejected motions for impeachment. In 2006, Cynthia McKinney, as Georgia Representative to the US House, introduced the first impeachment motion. (See below for a comparison of McKinney/Clemente and Obama/Biden on military and foreign policy, energy and the environment, and impeachment.)

In a sharply worded speech delivered in Denver on August 24, Ms. McKinney discussed the complicity of the Democratic Party in the Bush Administration's 'hijacking' of America:

"When it came to the Constitution, the Democratic leadership showed us that aiding and abetting illegal spying on us was more important to them than protecting our civil liberties.... The Democratic Party's national leadership gave us the Iran Naval Blockade bill, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and telecom immunity. They continue to fund war and occupation to the tune of $720 million a day while our children graduate from college tens -- or even hundreds -- of thousands of dollars in debt. Entire cities are going into receivership while the Democratic leadership in Congress gives the Pentagon one half trillion dollars annually with no accountability, no strings attached. That's over and above spending for war."

Ms. McKinney noted that "[t]he Democratic Party's national leadership didn't even mention Hurricanes Katrina and Rita survivors in their Congressional agenda for the first 100 days."
Video of speech: Speech in Denver, August 24: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPxgcjOjUEc
Text of speech: http://votetruth08.com/


Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente

• call for US troops to be brought home safe and sound, with an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all US military and contracted personnel from Iraq. The Green Party and Green candidates opposed the invasion and occupation since the Bush Administration announced its intention to wage war on Iraq.


• have urged Congress to cut off funding for the war.


• would hold the Bush Administration responsible for deceiving the public with false claims that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, posed a threat to the US and to Iraq's own neighbors, had conspired with al Qaeda, and played a role in the 9/11 attacks.


• have opposed 'benchmarks' that would allow US and UK corporations to take control over most Iraqi oil resources.


• support an end to the US occupation of Afghanistan.

• offer a delayed timetable for partial troop withdrawal, and would leave private US military personnel and tens of thousands of troops in Iraq to protect "American interests"(Iraqi oil resources), as well as expand US combat forces in surrounding nations. The Democratic Party leadership supported the Iraq War from the beginning, believing Bush Administration deceptions, and voted with Republicans to surrender Congress's war power to the White House.


• continued to vote for President Bush's requests for more war funding. Democrats, including Mr. Obama, approved all war funding bills after gaining control of Congress in 2006, despite their claim of opposition to the Iraq War.


• have supported 'benchmarks' giving US and UK corporations control over Iraqi oil, which would require continued US troop presence in Iraq to protect corporate interests. In recent campaign ads, Mr. Obama's language about US access to Iraqi oil confirms the Democrats' occupation-for-oil agenda.


• support continued US occupation and war on Afghanistan: Mr. Obama called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.

• would slash the US military budget, reducing it to the amount needed for defense of US, and redirect the savings to human needs.


• strongly oppose President Bush's threats to attack Iran.


• support cutoff of military aid to Israel, and demand US pressure on Israel to end the brutal occupation of Palestine and suppression of Palestinian and Israeli Arab human rights, in accord with international law and UN directives.


• oppose manipulation by the Bush Administration and NATO of the Russia-Georgia conflict in order to isolate Russia and jump-start a new Cold War, citing White House approval and assistance for Georgia's invasion of Ossetia.


• seek an end to the US embargo of Cuba


• favor nonviolent solutions to international conflict.

• support a huge military budget, voted for increases in military funding.


• have signed on to President Bush's threat to attack Iran, repeating White House misinformation about Iran's nuclear capabilities and embracing Bush-Cheney doctrine of preemptive warfare.


• avoid criticizing Israel and dismiss international law and UN directives on Israeli apartheid and occupation of Palestinian lands; would maintain a foreign policy that conforms to Israel's regional military objectives.


• endorse most of the Bush Administration line on the Russia-Georgia conflict.


• favor a continued US embargo of Cuba.

• call for far-reaching short-term and long-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and favor major conservation programs to cut US energy consumption


• seek widespread economic reorganization and millions of new jobs in conservation and conversion to safe, clean energy sources.


• oppose nuclear energy, which creates huge amounts of toxic waste and multiple security risks, and off-shore drilling, and favor a ban on new coal fired-power plants and all mountaintop coal removal.


• oppose widespread conversion to biofuels that require agricultural land needed for food production.

• favor modest long-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and ineffective corporate polluter-friendly carbon emissions trading schemes ('cap and trade').


• don't talk about cuts in consumption.


• support nuclear energy, biofuel production, and 'clean coal', and have dropped opposition to off-shore drilling: Sen. Obama receives major campaign contributions from nuclear and ethanol industries and supports their goals.

• endorse impeachment of Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors: deception and manipulation of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq; cover-ups of information about impending 9/11 attacks; use of torture; denial of habeas corpus and due process; warrantless surveillance of US citizens; hundreds of 'signing statements' to exempt the President from executing over 1,000 federal laws; censoring and tampering with scientific research to conceal the seriousness of global warming; responsibility for the deaths of as many as one million Iraqi civilians and over 4,000 US servicemembers. Ms. McKinney was the first member of Congress to introduce a motion for impeachment, in 2006.


• opposed the 'telecomm immunity' bill blocking prosecution of telecommunications companies that allowed warrantless spying on US citizens.


• call for a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks.


• support establishment of an International Criminal Court to prosecute war crimes.

• oppose motions for impeachment, despite Bush Administration's numerous crimes and abuses of power. The Democratic Party leadership has blocked efforts to pursue impeachment.


• voted for the telecomm immunity bill.


• do not support a new, independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks.


• are silent on establishing an International Criminal Court.

thom shanker

stephen farrell

leila fadel

the los angeles times

tina susman

julian e. barnes

derek kravitz

Iraq snapshot

Monday, September 15, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, US Secretary of Defense Gates goes to Baghdad, tensions flare within Iraq and more.

 

Al Jazeera reports Gen David Petraeus is back in Baghdad as he gets ready "to hand over his role to general Raymond Odierno, his second-in-command."  Over the weekend,  Jim Michaels (USA Today) reported that Gen David Petraeus, eager to assume control of CENTCOM and no longer be the 'top [US] commander' in Iraq, managed to send off "a farewell letter issued Saturday".  At Baghdad Bureau (New York Times Iraq blog), [PDF format warning] the letter is posted.  In the second to the last paragraph, Petraeus notes Odierno, "Your new commander is precisely the right man for the job.  General Ray Odierno played a central role in the progress achieved during the surge.  He brings tremendous skill, experience, and understanding as he returns to Iraq for a third tour and takes the helm of MNF-I just seven months after relinquishing command of Multi-National Corps-Iraq. I have total confidence in him, and I will do all that I can as the commander of Central Command to help him, MNF-I, and our Iraqi partners to achieve the important goals that we all share for the new Iraq."  Publicly, Odierno's role was largely to repeatedly insist that Iran was guilty of whatever the charge being pushed was and demanding that there was hard proof.  But when asked to provide the evidence, Odierno would have to backtrack.

 

Julian E. Barnes and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) report that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in Baghdad both for the handover between Petraeus and Odierno and to insist on "a cautious approach to cuts". Gates, Petraeus and Odierno all attempt to sell the escalation ('surge') as a success.  But even Martha Raddatz was noting on Friday's Washington Week (PBS) that there will be more US service members in Iraq than before the escalation started.  While the US sees an increase, other countries see the opposite.  Friday night, Tina Susman (Babylon & Beyond, Los Angeles Times) explained that, "The coalition of the willing has become the coalition of the dwindling in Iraq, where non-U.S. forces now number about 7,000 compared with the 146,000 American troops here. More than half the non-U.S. troops are British, with Poland, Romania and South Korea being the other main providers to a multinational force that at its height numbered 49 countries and more than 200,000 troops."  Simon Assaf (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) observes:

 

The US is now confidently predicting that it will finally be able to start drawing down its troops. The "surge", Bush's gamble to stabilise the occupation, is being paraded as a success.      
But in fact Iraq is poised to enter a new era of instability -- and the US is finding itself trapped by a series of dirty deals that are coming back to haunt it.
Foremost among these is the deal the US hoped it could forge with the Shia‑dominated Iraqi government.     
This deal, known as the "status of forces agreement", would have granted the US the right to stage military operations inside Iraq without Iraqi government approval, and the right to launch wars on other countries from permanent bases on Iraqi soil.    
But progress towards the agreement has been grindingly slow. Talks on Iraq's oil resources, electoral reform and amnesties for members of Saddam Hussein's regime have all stalled.       
Meanwhile the Kurds are blocking constitutional reforms that will claw back the autonomy granted to them in the earlier phase of the occupation.

 

AFP reports that Gates praised Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "during a dinner at Petraeus' headquarters in a former Saddam Hussein-era palace on the outskirts of Baghdad" while Ryan Crocker told Petraeus, "It's been one heck of a ride, buddy."  The US military notes that Iraq's "Ministry of Defense held a ceremony today to say goodbye to U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, the outgoing commanding general of Multi-National Forces-Iraq. . . . Iraqi Minister of Defense Abd al-Qadir congratulated Petraeus on his next assignement and expressed his regret to lose a man he called a close friend to himself and the Iraqi people."  Petraeus is scheduled to take control of CENTCOM October 31st.  Tim Albone (Times of London) reports, "The outgoing Bush Administration and both US presidential candidates promised to send thousands of US reinforcements to the country, although the nature of the conflict was very different."

 

Sunday Hala Jaber (Times of London) reported on his Beirut conversation with Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi who claims credit both for attacks on British soldiers in Basra and for being "able to halt the onslaught last year in a secret deal negotiated with British officials in his cell" but who now claims that "British forces had reneged on the deal that allowed them to withdraw peacefully from central Basra to an airbase outside the city, reportedly in return for the release of 120 Mahdi Army prisoners.  The agreement had been broken, he said, when the British returned to Basra last March following Maliki's 15,000-strong 'charge of the knights' to seize control from the Mahdi Army and other militias."  Fartuis now promises attacks will resume.

Saturday BBC reported, "A roadside bomb killed six Kurdish peshmerga fighters in Khanaqin town in Diyala province, north-east of Baghdad."  Sam Dagher (New York Times) observed that the Saturday bombing increased "tensions with the Iraqi government and local Arabs over the Kurds' presence in the area. The Kurdish presence in Khanaquin, and in other nearby areas, has been a growing source of tension. Kurdish forces have been moving the borders of their semiautonomous region in northern Iraq, in what they say is an effort to improve security. But the move has been viewed by many Iraqi and American officials as a threat to stability in areas that are already prone to violence." Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported before the bombing, "Kurdish leaders have expanded their authority over a roughly 300-mile-long swath of territory beyond the borders of their autonomous region in northern Iraq, stationing thousands of soldiers in ethnically mixed areas in what Iraqi Arabs see as an encroachment on their homelands. The assertion of greater Kurdish control, which has taken hold gradually since the war began and caused tens of thousands of Arabs to flee their homes, is viewed by Iraqi Arab and U.S. officials as a provocative and potentially destabilizing action."  An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy (at Inside Iraq) reviews the benefits for the Kurds and wonders if "is it right to cause a state to collapse into entities to realize your dream?"  The correspondent notes how the Peshmerga appears to decide what they will do and which areas (Kurdish or non-Kurdish) they will 'patrol.'  Of oil-rich Kirkuk, the correspondent notes that Kurds compose only an estimated 40% of the city's population but have "taken control of it and the Pershmerga handle the security there".  Of the Iraqi Constitution, the correspondents notes that "the Kurds objected to the statement that read 'Iraq is an Arab state and part of the Arab nation' pointing out that there are other ethnic groups that would be offended.  So the statement was struck out -- as if by a magic wand disregarding the other constituents of the Iraqi population.  Arabs constitute 84% of the population."

 

Journalists were murdered over the weekend in Iraq.  Reporters Without Borders noted:

"Reporters Without Borders is appalled and saddened by the murder of four employees of privately-owned TV station Al-Sharqiya yesterday in the northern city of Mosul. Al-Sharqiya's news director noted that the murders followed a smear campaign against the station by state TV broadcaster Al Iraqiya.  'We condemn the abduction and murder of the three Al-Sharqiya journalists and their driver and we call for a thorough investigation into the circumstances,' Reporters Without Borders said. 'The comments by Al-Sharqiya's news director make such an investigation all the more urgent'."  Nicholas Spangler and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that the foru were bringing "gifts that had come to be the trademark of their reality show: some basic household appliances and a delicious supper to break the Ramadan fast for a family of little means."  Meanwhile Caesar Ahmad and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) report on the diminishing press freedoms in Iraq and among the stories included is Saad Khalaf's -- he is a photograph who was harassed by the military, threatened with arrest and had his camera taken from him: "Col. Ali then ordered the soldier to return the cameras. Khalaf, thinking that Ali was afraid the photographers had taken pictures of the soldiers, said he had been taking shots only of the burning car that carried the bomb. That did not satisfy the colonel, who shouted back. 'In this neighborhood under my jurisdiction, no one is allowed to shoot any photos. I don't care what others say, but  Col. Ali bans any pictures here'."  There was also a verbal assault on the press in Iraq over the weekend.  As noted in  "Naeema al-Gasseer: the United Nations' embarrassment in Iraq" (here) and "The UN's embarrassment in Iraq" (Third Estate Sunday Review) a press conference was held Friday in Baghdad supposedly to address cholera. Participating were Iraq's Minster of Health Dr. Salith al-Hasnawi, Dr. Tahseen al-Sheikhly and WHO's Dr. Naeema al-Gasseer.  They attacked the press verbally throughout.  The worst was al-Gasseer because she's an employee of the United Nations -- a fact she frequently forgot while speaking (saying "we" and then having to back up and clarify she meant the Iraqi government).  She blamed the cholera outbreak on Iraqi women, on lack of cleanliness, made comments that were insulting and non-medical.  She ignored the fact that the puppet government sits on billions and does nothing to repair the infrastucture.  But in ten years, some of it will be up and running, it was explained.  In ten years.  al-Gasseer blamed Iraqi women for not boiling water and apparently she doesn't grasp that not only is electricity 'iffy' in most areas of Iraq, fuel for heating is expensive.  al-Gasseer repeatedly lectured such as with this gem: "Your role is to deliver the information rapidly in order to help us stop spreading the disease."  For all their faults, the media does know their role.  al-Gasseer's the one who seems to have forgotten that she's an allegedly neutral party.  Instead, she gave cover for the government that does nothing, attacked the media and ignored the real roots of the problem.  It was an embarrassment.  Among the roots of the problem is the issue of sanitation.  Click here for Zaineb Naji (Wall St. Journal) writing about the huge trash piles.

 

Bombings?

 

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad car bombings resulting in 12 deaths with thirty-seven wounded. Reuters notes a female bomber killed herself in Diyala Province and claimed 20 other lives (with thirty wounded).  Al Dulaimy notes 22 dead from that bombing and, "The attack occurred at a feast to celebrate the release of police sergeant Adnan Shukri, released yesterday from a U.S. detention facility."

 

Corpses?

 

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

 

Sunday the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier died this morning of non-combat related causes." And they also announced: "A second Multi-National Division - Center Soldier died this morning of non-combat related causes. The soldier died of wounds Sept. 14 at a Coalition forces Combat Army Support Hospital."

 

 

Turning to the US race for president.  Senator Hillary Clinton campaigned for Barack Obama, Democratic presidential nominee, in Ohio.  It's among the many states Hillary won during the primaries. Translation, among the many big states Barack lost in the primaries.  Toby Harnden (Telegraph of London) reports a large crowd turned out for Hillary in Akron and the ones he spoke with after have no plans to vote for Barack which would explain why Hardin observers that "the response to her remarks about him" Barack "was relatively muted."  Many speak of hoping for a 2012 run by Hillary, Sandy Wierzbicki wishes Hillary had been picked at the v.p. nominee, and Paul Barry may speak for a number when he declares, "I'll probably stay at home. It's all a media love fest with Obama. It's like it's 'American Idol' to choose the president. I don't like all the mystical, transcendental stuff from him.  Anyone can be in favour of change and brotherly love. Yes, he's inspirational. So why not give him his own show after Oprah? I'm into reality. I want to know the facts about what he'll get done. We need the meat and the potatoes, not just pie in the sky."

 

Riverdaughter (The Confluence) writes for many who will not vote for Barack, "One of the things that sets PUMAs apart from other Democrats is our built-in BS detectors.  The other thing is that we were supporters of Hillary Clinton because we saw her as the true Democrat in the race.  We liked her stands on the issues, her ability to reach out to every voter and her grace under pressure.  But the PUMA movement is not about Hillary.  It is about us, the voters.  The Obama campaign, the DNC and the media targetted *US*, Hillary's voters, for a peculiar brand of derision, disrespect and disenfranchisement this year."  Meanwhile Peggy Simpson (WMC) reports, "The Sarah Surge is unmistakable. GOP presidential nominee John McCain's support rose markedly after he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate--although after two solid weeks of Palin-all-the-time media attention, McCain still hasn't broken 50 percent. Republicans now are far more fervent backers of McCain, a candidate that the religious right and social conservatives opposed in past races and were lukewarm about in this one. Post-Palin, Republicans' strong backing of McCain nearly has doubled, from 39 percent in July to 71 percent in September, in a Newsweek poll."  Dr. Violet Socks (Reclusive Leftist) has compiled a series of quotes by Palin on feminist issues.  While Socks compiles what Palin has said, Joseph (Cannonfire) focuses on what was left out of an interview last week: "ABC News deliberately edited the interview with Governor Palin to make her appear bellicose and ignorant. You'll be shocked when you see what they left out. "  Palin was a hit in Carson City, Nevada Saturday. Scott Conroy (CBS News) describes it as a "rally in front of a raucus crowd of several thousands"  Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times) has posted the transcript which includes Palin noting one person attending, "I'm honored to hear that we have with us in our midst, so many of us who admire, Chuck Yeager, and I hear that he may be here. (Cheers, applause.) Now, he is a true American hero and maybe the first man to break the sound barrier. Hopefully he has a good idea maybe how that first woman can break the glass ceiling once and for all! (Cheers, applause.)"

 

Jo Freeman's "The 1976 Republican Convention" (JoFreeman.com) is a photo essay of a historic convention:

 

In this fractious atmosphere women and women's issues took a back seat to the Presidential campaigns. Feminists, acting through the Republican Women's Task Force (RWTF) of the National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC), were part of the Ford campaign. The anti-feminists, acting through Phyllis Schlafly's STOP ERA, were Reagan supporters. 

These two groups fought over whether support for the Equal Rights Amendment should remain in the Republican Party Platform. It had been in the Platform from 1940 until 1964, when it disappeared without actually being removed. Even though all of the candidates for the 1964 Republican nomination (Goldwater, Rockefeller, Scranton, Smith) supported the ERA, a decision to write a very brief platform that year caused removal of many planks which had traditionally been in the Platform. In 1972, Republican feminists put it back in without opposition. Serious opposition to the ERA emerged the following year as the states debated whether or not to ratify the proposed Constitutional amendment. 

Both Ford and Reagan had supported the ERA when it was sent by Congress to the states on March 22, 1972. Between then and 1976, Ford strengthened his support. His wife, Betty, was an ERA champion. While Governor of California, Reagan had also supported the ERA. When he decided to run for the 1976 nomination he switched sides to court the large number of conservative women who did not like it. 

 

Again, it's a photo essay with many photos from her own personal collection.  (She covered both the Democratic and Republican 1976 conventions and may be posting a photo essay of the Dems shortly.) Staying with photos and journalism, David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).  He is in the midst of a book tour and some of the upcoming dates include:

 

Sept 16
Photography exhibition and reception, 6:30PM
Living Under the Trees
Exhibition 9/1-10/1
Santa Paula Family Resource Center
940 E. Main Street, Santa Paula, CA
Sept 17
Book discussion, Illegal People, 2:30PM
Transborder Institute, University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA

Sept 21
Presentation at REFORMA Conference, 10AM
National Association to Promote Library and Information Services
to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking,
El Paso, Texas

Sept 22
Book presentation, Illegal People,12:30PM
Fall for the Book, Grand Tier III, Center for the Arts,
Photography exhibition, Johnson Center's Gallery 123, 9/21-26
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Sept 29
Book discussion, Illegal People, 6PM
World Affairs Council, 312 Sutter St., #200, San Francisco

Sept 30
Book discussion, 7:30PM
Illegal People and The Accidental American, by Rinku Sen
Modern Times Bookstore, 888 Valencia St., San Francisco

 

Last week, Bacon appeared on Democracy Now!:

 

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the spread of these huge raids over the last few years, it seems almost in response to the immigrant rights protests that developed a couple of years ago, when you saw this new movement developing in America, and suddenly the federal government all across the country begins clamping down and raiding factories, communities, stopping buses and trains, boarding buses and trains, even Amtrak trains and regular commercial buses, checking IDs all over the place.

DAVID BACON: That's right. These are-as you say, Juan, these are terror raids, really. The purpose of these raids is really to terrorize and frighten immigrant communities, partly because, I think, the government is afraid of people asserting their rights and asserting their existence in the country through the marches and through other kinds of immigrant rights activities, organizing unions in plants and so forth.  But also, I think the government has an agenda here. In fact, it's pretty open. Michael Chertoff keeps saying it over and over and over, and that is that he says we're going to shut the back door and open the front door. And what that means is that ICE is trying to push for the establishment of new guest worker programs, so that people can come here as workers, but only as workers, without rights, without eventually getting political rights, without becoming citizens, certainly without voting, but whose labor is going to be used in the economy. And so, these raids are a way of terrorizing people and saying to people: don't think that you're going to be able to come to the United States; don't think that you're going to be able to work in any other way other than through these programs.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And I think one of the things that you raise in your book and in a lot of your articles is that the movement for comprehensive immigration reform, even among Democrats, is divided in terms of the purposes of that immigration reform, that there are groups that are really representative of business interests who are looking for that front-door situation. Could you expound on that?

DAVID BACON: Sure. The comprehensive immigration bills that we saw in Congress in a lot of ways were labor supply bills. These were bills that were really intended to supply guest workers to industry and then an enforcement program to kind of drive workers into those programs. So, the difference of opinion, I think in the Democratic Party, especially, is between people who sponsored those programs and other people like Sheila Jackson-Lee, the congresswoman from Houston, who said instead of having a guest worker program, what we need is people to be able to come here with green cards and with permanent residence visas. And also, the thing I think that she said that was really a pioneering idea, and that was that we also need a jobs program. We need to couple immigration reform with jobs programs. So she said, let's take the fees that people pay when they're normalizing their status and use that to set up job creation and job training programs in communities with high unemployment, so that all communities can have some kind of benefit out of these bills. You know, these labor supply bills, comprehensive immigration reform bills, what they do is they pit communities against each other over jobs, over wages and so forth.

 

Freeman's essay provided us with the transition into Bacon.  Some might have expected us to go to Cynthia McKinney next and I would love to.  But I've gone through about 30 articles and blog posts on or related to her that were published over the weekend.  Not interested.   That's nothing against Cynthia.  I have a lot of respect for her.  But if she has female supporters, they need to start making themselves heard because if I see one more article or blog post about how she's not a woman, she's a ___ (whatever compliment), I'm not even going to bother to try to highlight the campaign again.  And notice, it's men writing these things and men being quoted in them.  Again, if she has female supporters, they need to start speaking up.  Reality, Cynthia is indeed a woman and it's nothing to run from.  I won't highlight any articles or blog posts that claim or suggest it is.  Cynthia has an amazing personal story and an amazing legislative record.  She is also a "she."  And all three things can and, in fact, do go together.  Some of those pieces are so bad they read like the writers want to strap down her breasts, paste a mustache on her and insist she's really "Sidney McKinney."

 

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate (Cynthia is the Green Party candidate).  His running mate is Matt Gonzalez.  This is the latest from Team Nader:

 

On this momentous Monday, September 15, 2008, we make a simple request.

Donate $15 to Nader/Gonzalez.

The prudential choice for 2008.

We woke up this morning early.

Turned on C-Span radio.

And heard Brian Lamb quoting Ralph Nader.

From years ago.

With Ralph warning about extravagance, recklessness, and excessive compensation on Wall Street.

Warning years ago about the undue influence of Fannie and Freddie on Democrats and Republicans alike.

Warning about the failure of our government to protect small investors.

Throughout his career, Nader has strong been a strong advocate for due diligence. 

For protecting shareholder rights. 

For prudential regulation. 

And strict oversight of the markets. 

While the Democrats and Republicans have bent to the whims of their corporate masters and Wall Street's bottom line imperatives. 

Nader has been steadfast in his advocacy for safety, regulation, and protecting the little guy. 

Unfortunately for the nation and for investors, his warnings have gone largely unheeded.

On this momentous Monday, as we watch the fallout from the failed policies, greed and extravagance of the corporate political class unfold, we make this simple note.

Due diligence, prudential regulation, and strict oversight of the markets -- Nader-style -- would have gone a long way to averting the disaster currently hitting Wall Street.

Instead, it was short-term fast and dirty profits, muzzled politicians, and throw caution to the wind.

And so now, the American people are learning the hard way about the consequences of a reckless corporate dominated political economy.

But thanks to your hard work, we are in a position to give America a choice in November.

For prudence.

For strict oversight.

For regulation.

Right now, we're in the stretch drive of our $80,000 fundraiser -- to help fund our get out the vote drive.

To get Ralph Nader into the presidential debates. 

To let the American people know that they don't have to settle for corporate rule.

There will be a choice in November.

But first, we need to reach $80,000 by September 17th.

We're at $50,000.

We have three days to reach $80,000. 

We haven't missed one fundraising goal yet.

And we don't plan to start now.

So, please, drop $15 now on Nader/Gonzalez. 

Help shift the power.

From Wall Street and the corporate giants.

Back into the hands of the American people.

Together, we are making a difference.

Wednesday's snapshot noted a Feminist Wire Daily news item.  Some e-mails ask where is it?  Ask them.  Here's the item they took down: 

 

Donny Deutsch recently made sexist comments about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and former Democratic Presidential contender Hillary Clinton. 
Deutsch appeared on CNBC's Squawk the Street (Watch the video here) and made several misogynistic comments including praising Palin for earning respect through her ability to make men "want to mate with her" and calling Senator Clinton's loss in the Democratic Primaries a direct result of the fact that she "didn't put a skirt on."  

Deutsch also said that "if you were gonna sell a new concept, a Woman in Power, to the American people, if it was a cereal, was a product, what ingredients would you put in? Hillary Clinton never figured it out. She (Sarah Palin) figured it out." Later, he said that it was a "huge lesson that if you have a woman candidate "you gotta first sell her as a woman" before you can sell her as a candidate. 

The blogosphere quickly responded to Deutsch's comments. A CNBC blogger wrote that, "to imply men want to sleep with [Palin] as a reason for her popularity is about as chauvinist as it comes." A blogger on Feministing posed the question, "Would he even think to talk about packaging a product in quite so demeaning a way if he were talking about McCain?"  

Media Resources: Feministing 9/8/08; Shakesville 9/8/08; ThinkProgress 9/5/08

 

That's their brief in full.  Again, ask them where it went.  Also this Friday's NOW on PBS will be an hour long special broadcast and will examine women -- in the electorate and in office

 

 

 iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
jim michaels

the washington post
amit r. paley

david bacon

jo freeman

simon assaf
the socialist worker

mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
nicholas spangler

the los angeles times
tina susman
caesar ahmed

now on pbs
pbs
washington week

Other Items

When a thunderous blast Sunday shook a Baghdad neighborhood that is home to the Los Angeles Times and other news organizations, photographers did what photographers are supposed to do: grabbed their cameras and headed for the huge cloud of black smoke, which was clearly visible despite a dust storm and the creeping darkness of night.
It was about a three-minute walk to the scene, but if you don't see many photographs of the bomb's aftermath, which killed at least two people and wounded seven, that's because Iraqi soldiers seized photographers' camera equipment. They got their camera bodies back, but the Iraqi officials refused to give up the memory cards inside them.
The incident was an example of the twisted relationship Iraq's government has with the media, who under Saddam Hussein had virtually no freedom and who now are promised freedom but often get the opposite. Scores of journalists have been detained by Iraqi and U.S. security forces since Hussein's ouster in 2003, and according to the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York, at least 182 journalists or media employees ranging from drivers to technicians have been killed in Iraq. That does not include four abducted and killed Saturday in the northern city of Mosul while working on a show for independent Sharqiya TV.
Concerns about press freedom began growing in May 2007, when Iraq's government declared that photographers would be banned from bombing sites, ostensibly to prevent them from destroying evidence. Media groups suspected the real intention was to prevent images that portrayed Iraq in a negative light from getting out. Whatever the case, journalists who tried to test the ban later that month had warning shots fired their way.
On Sunday evening, the Iraqi soldiers on the scene outside the Hussan restaurant in Karada did not feel the need to cite any laws except their own as they confiscated camera gear.

And on the verbal attacks on the press, you can see "Naeema al-Gasseer: the United Nations' embarrassment in Iraq" and "The UN's embarrassment in Iraq." Meanwhile Reuters notes two Baghdad car bombings have claimed at least 12 lives and left at least thirty-four injured.

Bryan notes this from Team Nader:

Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader to Speak in Baton Rouge, Wednesday September 17

ShareThisShareThis

the los angeles times

tina susman

caesar ahmed

mcclatchy newspapers

Iraq

In Honor of Peter Miguel Camejo

Peter Miguel Camejo, a civil rights leader, socially responsible investment pioneer, and magnanimo caballero for third party politics in the US, peacefully passed away early Saturday morning at his home in Folsom, CA with his wife Morella at his side -- only days after completing his autobiography.

The 68-year-old justice fighter had been battling a reoccurrence of lymphoma cancer, and his condition had rapidly deteriorated over the past few days.

Peter was a student leader, civil rights advocate, leader in the socially responsible investment industry with his own investment firm, Progressive Asset Management, Inc., and author of books on investment and history including Racism, Revolution, Reaction, 1861-1877, The Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction, California Under Corporate Rule, and his recent book, The SRI Advantage: Why Socially Responsible Investing Has Outperformed Financially.

Peter used his eloquence, sharp wit, and barnstorming bravado to blaze a trail for 21st century third party politics in the US. He was a third party candidate for state and national office, making three gubernatorial runs in California as a Green, including one in the 2002 election when he earned 5.3 percent of the vote. In the 2003 recall election, he debated Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, and in the 2004 Presidential election, he was my running mate on our Independent Ticket.

Among the many causes Peter forcefully championed were a living wage, healthcare for all, and making the US the world leader in renewable energy. He was also a passionate advocate for electoral reform, pressing for proportional representation and instant run-off voting (allows voters to rank their top choices) in an effort to overturn the "200-year-old dysfunctional money-dominated winner take-all system that disrespects the will of the people."

Peter was a friend, colleague and politically courageous champion of the downtrodden and mistreated of the entire Western Hemisphere. Everyone who met Peter, talked with Peter, worked with Peter, or argued with Peter, will miss the passing of a great American.

Peter Camejo is survived by his wife Morella, his father Daniel, his daughter Alexandra, his son Victor, three brothers Antonio, Daniel, and Danny, and three grandchildren Andrew, Daniel, and Oliver.

When his autobiography (with the working title Northstar) is published, we will all be able to get a vivid sense of the great measure of Peter Camejo as a sentinel force for civil rights and civil liberties, and expander of democracy. His lifework will inspire the political and economic future for a long time.

Click here to view Peter Camejo at this summer's California Peace and Freedom Party convention, endorsing the nomination of Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez.

ShareThisShareThis