One of the big complaints about elections and the media is that some voices and candidates get shut out. Ralph Nader's campaign had a strong essay on that just today. But it's not always the media's fault.



I'm not talking about Nader. KPFK decided to present three (and only three -- despite all the candidates on the California ballot) party reps for a roundtable on Monday. You had a Republican, a Democrat and a Green.



So you should have heard each advocate passionately for their candidate.



But you didn't hear that.



Instead, you heard a Republican who wanted McCain to win. You heard a Democrat who wanted Barack to win. And?



You had a worthless Green.



That's not calling all Greens worthless. That's noting that Donna Warren's ass doesn't belong on air. A few failed campaigns to her name and she's supposed to be some sort of Green Party standard bearer in California.



But apparently someone either forgot to tell her that Cynthia McKinney had the Green Party's presidential nomination or Donna Warren just didn't give a damn.



So she yacked on and non-stop about? Groovy Barack.



Make no mistake, there are many Greens in the LA area who could have been put into that roundtable and could have sung Cynthia's praises very easily. They could have cited her strong legislative record, they could have talked about where Cynthia sees the country going, they could have offered the narrative of Cynthia's life.



They could have, in other words, done what they were booked for: Provide a voice for the Green Party.



Donna Warren? She couldn't. She didn't. She's a useless voice for the Green Party and her lame ass should never have been invited on.



Now the Republican voice never forgot why he was on. He didn't suddenly start talking about how wonderful Barack was or how this or that was unfair to Barack. Ditto the Democratic voice who never felt the need to yammer on about poor John McCain. But Donna Warren? She was happy to take up the Green Party slot and waste the time talking about Barack.



Again, there are times when the media deliberately ignores candidates. They've done it to Ralph and they've done it to Cynthia many times this year. However, sometimes people have to get honest because it's not always the media's fault.



So when KPFK elects to do a roundtable featuring three parties with presidential candidates and one of the voices is too enthused on someone else's party, the whole roundtable suffers.



Donna Warren is a failed candidate many times over. So maybe she never learned how to successfully run for office?



That would explain how she could be so lame as to not use each turn she had to sing Cynthia McKinney's strengths. No one had to explain to the Republican and Democratic voices why they were booked for the roundtable. But Donna Warren was clueless and, honestly, in love with her voice. Warrned clearly dominated the end of the roundtable and she didn't mention Cynthia once. While taking the seat that was supposed to be occupied by a Cynthia supporter.



Now maybe she really is that big of an idiot. Or maybe she supports Barack.



But when Greens are upset by some of the very real and valid criticism coming at them for the way they're finding time to chat up everything but Cynthia's run for the presidency, they only need to examine Donna Warren's miserable performance as an advocate for Cynthia on KPFK.



James Carville is actually a media star. But even so, when he's on a show to talk up the Democratic candidate, he does his job. He doesn't say, "Oh, I'm a media star! Let me talk about myself." He goes on a program and does the job for his party.



That's apparently never occurred to Donna Warren who thinks that after Barack Obama's run, the most important to the Green Party is Donna Warren herself.



For Greens who are confused, let's break it down to the basics.



1) Cynthia McKinney? That's your presidential candidate unless you're voting for someone other than your party's candidate.



2) If you're voting for a candidate who is not Cynthia, you don't need to be taking up a slot as a Green 'voice.'



3) When, on one of those rare occassions, you finally get invited to the table, you're there to promote your party's nominee. You're not there to score points for another party's candidates, you're not there to tell your life story.



4) You are not the candidate or you would not be invited onto a roundtable featuring voices for other candidates. If you were the actual candidate, you'd be on a roundtable with other candidates. Translation, it's not about you. It's not about your thoughts and your musings and, goodness me, one time . . .



5) Every time your turn to speak comes up, you mention your candidate in your first sentence. Unless your cut off for time, you mention your candidate (by name) in your last sentence. In between those two sentences, you make the case for your party's candidate. That is why you were booked.



6) As much as you may have always wanted to do a monologue on yourself, a political roundtable is not the place for it.



7) If you lack the skill or intelligence that would allow you to avoid a sidebar tangent, you catch yourself in the middle of it and immediately turn the topic back to your candidate.



There's a lot of valid complaints about the media shutting out third party and independent candidates. There's also some whining. It's whining if anyone feels KPFK is at fault for Monday's nightmare. They booked a Green voice. They did so thinking that they would have a lively discussion about the Democratic, the Green and the Republican presidential candidates. It's not their fault that the Green voice didn't care enough or know enough to do her damn job.



She didn't just fail. That would have been bad enough. She might have, for example, referred to Cynthia McKinney as "Cindy Kinney" or she might have completely screwed up some position that Cynthia has. That would have been failure. What Donna Warren did was much worse than failure.



She let her ass take a slot that could have gone to a voice advocating Cynthia and instead made it about Barack. In doing so, she sent the message (willing or not) that Cynthia's run is unimportant and anyone listening took away the message that even Greens would rather talk about Barack so their own candidate must have nothing to offer.



That's how it's worse than failure. Failure would have been making a mistake (even repeatedly). What Donna Warren did was undercut Cynthia's run, undercut the Green Party as a valid alternative and a valid political party.



Earlier this week an e-mail came into the public account asking that we note the roundtable. I noted it. My mistake. We won't note anything to do with Donna Warren ever again. 61 e-mails coming in complaining on what she did. 39 of those coming into the public account. My mistake, my apologies. These were very angry e-mails from Greens who could not believe that their party finally got a seat at the table and their 'voice' couldn't even advocate for the party's candidate.



One complaining to the public account noted that "if Warren wanted to talk about racism, I'd argue Cynthia's entire career has been about fighting racism and she has repeatedly been the target of racist attacks. Warren seemed completely unaware of that."



The entire roundtable on her part played out like someone on week five of a six week diet who hears someone else mention a danish in a passing comment and latches onto danishes even though she's not on to talk about danishes.



Whether she meant to undercut Cynthia's run or not doesn't matter. That's what she did. In doing so, she sent a message that the Green Party had nothing to offer because, if they did, she would have been talking about it. This was not an interview to get Donna Warren's thoughts and reminscenes on life. This was a political roundtable, a presidential roundtable and she failed to advocate for her party. The Republican and Democratic voices appeared to have the points they wanted to make nailed down. Warren appeared to wing it.



Opportunities for the inclusion of third party and independent runs in media coverage are too rare for any 'voice' to blow the chance but that is what Donna Warren did.



Again, there are many valid complaints. There is also whining. Anyone unhappy with KPFK's coverage this week who blames KPFK for that is whining. The problem was Donna Warren. KPFK did not exclude the Green Party (they did excluse Ralph's run and he is on a political party's ballot in California). The Green voice is the one who excluded the Green Party. It was more important to her to fight Barack's battles than to advocate for Cynthia. She didn't just waste her own time, she denied someone who could have advocated strongly for Cynthia a spot in the roundtable.



A few e-mails to the public account were angry with me. I don't blame anyone for being angry with me. I copy and pasted the e-mail in which made the case for a real roundtable. That was my mistake. Again, my mistake. I apologize. We will never promote Donna Warren in any manner at this site again. We will not even mention her name again. She is either hopelessly inept or yet another Green 'voice' who has something better to do than promote her party's nominee.



Since the Green Party (and Cynthia) stand for actually ending the illegal war, there's no reason for any Green 'voice' to promote a War Hawk at all. In fact, every bit of air time or paper space should be used to draw a very clear line for Cynthia's stand against the illegal war and determination to end it as opposed to Barack's desire to decide what to do when he gets into office and 'listens to the generals'. Samantha Power told the BBC that Barack was not bound by any 'campaign promise.' June 5th Barack went on CNN and repeated the same thoughts. July 4th he repeated them to the press and it got enough attention that Tom Hayden finally found a reason to call Barack out. There are many other examples and you can go back to 2004 on Barack and his all over the map positions on the illegal war. Failure to do so is inviting people to see your own alleged desire to end the illegal war as mere words.



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


Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4155. Tonight? 4168. Thirteen in a week. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,267,401 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war up from 1,255,026.

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

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet

Thursday, September 18, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, a US helicopter crashes,  1 US soldier enters a guilty plea, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader makes news even when the news outlets don't report it, this weekend's NOW on PBS examines women and politics, and more.   Starting with Tuesday's US House Committee on the Budget's hearing on Iraq's Budget Surplus.  We're focused on the first panel where the witness was the Government Accountability Office's Joseph A. Christoff.  Tuesday's snapshot covered some of the statements by the committee chair John Spratt Jr., US House Rep Chet Edwards and US House Rep Lloyd Doggett.  Tuesday night, Mike noted some of US House Rep James McGovern's questioning as did Wednesday's snapshot which also noted Bob Etheridge, Dennis Moore and Tim Bishop.   Marion Berry: I also think anytime we have a hearing like this, we should first and foremost recognize the contribution and sacrifice that our men and women in uniform and their families have made and we should never ever fail to be appreciative of that.   Joseph Christoff: Absolutely.   Marion Berry: And show that appreciation in every possible way.  As I've listened to this testimony and we can talk about numbers, we can talk about policy and all of those things -- it seems to me that we're in a situation where it reminds me of a bumper sticker you see from time-to-time: "DON'T FOLLOW ME, I'M LOST."  You just said a while ago, that there's not a plan.  I don't know who doesn't have a plan.  It seems to me to be pretty obvious that nobody does.  I cannot imagine a more ridiculous situation than we're in right now.  I would like to think from some of the things you've said that we may actually have a reasonable expectation that it'll get a little better but at the same time we don't have any reason to think it's going to be cleared up and every thing's going to be in really good shape over there in the next few years.  Don't know how you define "few."  I'd say anything under five years.  But I just -- I don't see any, I'm like Mr. McGovern, I don't see any way to end this.  We just keep pouring money into that place.  We continue to make deals that no responsible person would enter into, it seems to me.  And we thank you for bringing us this information too, at least letting us know what is really going on as best as you're able to determine it and I'm confident that you've done that.  And we appreciate all of that.  Beyond that, I think it's time for the Congress, the American people, the administration and anyone else in a position of responsibility to being to start figuring out how we're going to get out of there and how we're going to bring this to a conclusion because the American people can't stand much more of it.  And I thank you for the work that you've done.   We have two more Democrats to note.  Other than Pete Ryan (Ranking Minority Member), Republicans elected to skip to the first panel.    Allyson Schwarts: I also thank you for this information.  And it's important for us to be having this hearing today and I thank the chairman for doing it because we -- and in some ways, you're offering suggestion on how we can see our way out of this if we just really look at things really quite differently which is that -- as has been pointed out, you pointed out and many of the speakers before me have pointed out -- we have, we're looking at working with the Iraqis to make sure that they use their almost $80 billion surplus to start spending their money on reconstruction.  And I was particularly struck that recently there was a -- I guess it was back in August -- some discussions about rebuilding police stations in Iraq and spending American dollars to do that.  I have to say representing the city of Philadelphia and the suburbs, I go to police stations and fire stations all across my district and they need reconstruction.  And so instead of a president saying we're going to spend our dollars on reconstructing our police stations and helping our first responders we're spending American dollars on reconstruction in Iraq when the Iraqis are actually sitting on $79 billion.  Now you talked about the politics of why it hasn't happened but my question really is how can we -- is there a way for us to, one, start to say  -- we've tried to in Congress -- to say Iraqis should start paying for reconstruction.  I believe the last bill we passed actually had the condition of their spending 50%   Joseph Christoff: Right.   Allyson Schwartz:  -- on going forward on that.  Is there anyway that you would actually -- that we could insist upon that happening?  Is there a way that we could get back some of these dollars that we're spending now that are committed into the future?  We were led to believe several years ago that we would not have to pay for this war at all.  And that's been pointed out as well.  And yet we are right now spending billions of American tax payer dollars to reconstruct Iraq when Iraq has the money.  And adding insult to injury we're spending a whole lot, every American family, on the price of gasoline that we're buying from the Iraqis. I mean something about this picture just isn't right no matter how you feel about this war or our going into it.  I've been asked just recently this weekend was asked about how we could -- why we're not doing enough to make sure that we get the Iraqis to spend their money on reconstruction.  And I understand the politics of it.  And I understand even the difficulties on some of the buerocrats.  But even if we lend expertise even if we help them figure out how to do this -- why -- is there more that we could be doing to make sure that going forward the Iraqis are spending their money, particularly the surplus  -- $80 billion dollars surplus, rather than the American tax payer on reconstruction of basic infrastructure for the Iraqi people which we all agree needs to get done.  But why not the Iraqis?  And why is this administration -- that's political. What could we be doing even from your perspective to make sure that going forward this is really a changed world, we're not spending American tax dollars on reconstruction, the Iraqis are?   Joseph Christoff: Well let's just talk about this concept of trying to get repayment for perhaps what we did.  I think we began in 2004 with good intentions.  With good intentions to the fact that the Iraqis at that time did not have the resources.  So when you appropriated the $18.4 billion dollars in IRRF 2 (Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund) it was "to jump start the reconstruction process" under two premises that generaly did not pan out.  One that it would be a benign environment where you could do reconstruction without violence and secondly the Iraqis would step up to the plate and third the international community would contribute.  Those premises never really panned out until quite frankly recently where we see the Iraqis now have a substantial amount of money.  I shouldn't say recently. They had surpluses in '05, '06 and '07 as well because they didn't spend on the investments.   Allyson Y. Schwartz: But you're making a good point, if things are more secure if the issues around violence allows them to do some of this reconstrutcion without spending so many dollars on security can we actually get them to both repay us and get them to pay going forward?   Joseph Christoff: Yeah, I don't know if we want to take back our generous contributions to try to jump start -- because I thought they were good intentions back in 2004. But again going forward I do think you should have the healthy debate about cost sharing.  And you began it with the roughly three billion dollars that you put and the restrictions you put on the economic support fund -- that it should be a dollar for dollar cost sharing. The State Department in two weeks has to send a report to the Congress certifying that the Iraqis are engaged in cost sharing on the ESF so it will be interesting to see exaclty  how the State Department can confirm that that is actually occurring   Allyson Y. Schwartz: I should say not just interesting but also important to our financial security here at home and to respond to the Amercian people that we've actually said that there had to be cost sharing dollar for dollar and it will be important for us to see that that is actually happening going forward.   And of course we'd like to see at some point the Iraqis pick up much more of the reconstruction if not all of it.   The last Congress member to question Christoff was Marcy Kaptur.  Pay close attention to his final answer to her.  She's asking for very basic information, stats and figures (including arrests) and that information, according to Christoff, isn't public.  It recalls his earlier comment to House Rep Tim Bishop who merely asked about the possible impact of the de-Baathifcation legislation (passed but not implemented) which resulted in Christoff informing Bishop that it was classified information he could not reveal in an open hearing.  What are the possible effects of that legislation -- labeled a benchmark by the White House -- can't be made public.  Now Bishop and Kaptur both have clearance.  They can get the information as members of Congress.  But what Christoff's testimony repeatedly underscored was how much information is being kept from the American people.   Marcy Kaptur: I've been looking over one of the charts that we've been provided that shows the increase in spending by the people of the United States on the war in Iraq and I think everyone knows that every year it gets larger.  I remember Secretary [Paul] Wolfowitz coming up before our defense committee saying that we didn't have to worry about this because it would all be paid for. Well, where is he now?  I have no idea where he is but he certainly wasn't correct in those statements which I think influenced a lot of the members of this Congress to vote in the way that they did.  But one of the bits of information that I have here, that I want you to clarify for me deals with the, what appears to me to be two structures operating in Iraq -- one by the United States and one by the government of Iraq.  It says: "While the United States has spent 70% of the $33 billion that it has allocated for  key security, oild, water and electricity sectors." In other words, we're spending down the money that the American people have allocated for this.  Iraq has only spent 14%  of the $28 billion it allocated to those sectors or less than 3% of the 10 billion that it had programmed from the year 2005 to 2008.  So as I read these numbers and I'm looking at the expenditure of our dollars and we look at how much we have spent versus how much they have spent, it seems to me then that there may be two structures operating in Iraq: The American paid for structure and then the Iraqi structure. Because how could the Iraqis be doing such a poor job?  Is my perception correct that in fact there are two structures operating there?     Joseph Christoff: Well in terms of the --   Marcy Kaptur: For electricity, for water, for oil and security>   Joseph Christoff: Well in terms of how things are spent, obviously when the US spends its money, the majority of that is being spent through the Corp of Engineers -- they've been the big builder using US appropriated dollars.  So they're using Corp of Engineering contracting, procurement, budgeting procedures.  When you look at how the Iraqi government is spending its resources, it's going through its own ministries -- oil and electricity, water  -- to try to do the types of contracting and procurement.  So yes there are seperate procedures because there are seperate pots of money.     Marcy Kaptur: I appreciate that because if in fact oil production has gone up it's been because of US expenditures because obviously the Iraqi expenditures aren't locking in.   Joseph Christoff: Right.  Most of the money on oil infrastructure has been the US funding.   Marcy Kaptur: Then why would Iraq sign its first contract with China? You have any --   Joseph Christoff: I don't know.    Marcy Kaptur: -- clarity on that?   Joseph Christoff: No.   Marcy Kaptur: And Royal Dutch Petroleum, Royal Dutch/Shell is the next one they signed a deal with? I just find all of this very, very strange.  Could you also tell me in terms of the sabatoge and the smuggling --   Joseph Christoff: Mmh-hmm   Marcy Kaptur: -- it's estimated by some that at least a third of what is occurring in the oil sector -- and again, it's unclear to me who is really managing the oil sector? Is it the US dollars that have been allocated or is it the Iraqi dollars that really have a handle on what is happening in the oil sector?  But regardless, if you have any comments on that I would appreciate it, of the dollars being expended, why is so much being smuggled out of there?  Who doesn't have control of what's happening in the oil fields?   Joseph Christoff: Well I think actually the smuggling and the diversions have declined over the past couple  years.  The biggest problem that occurred back in 2006 was massive smuggling -- estimates of up to two million dollars out of the Baiji refinery because there was not sufficient protection forces around it.  The US and the Iraqi government have responded by putting more protection forces around the majory refinery in Iraq at Baiji and also trying to set up these oil facility police forces that are trying to manage and protect the oil pipelines and the infrastructures particularly in the north. But there are still interdictions that are occuring because you can't cover everything and --   Marcy Kaptur: May I ask you, sir, who hires those security officers for those oil installations?   Joseph Christoff: Yeah, right now it's the Ministry of OIl but it's supposed to eventually be subsumed in the Ministry of Interior's police forces   Marcy Kaptur: But if we look at the expenditure of Iraqi dollars to do all of this, it looks like the US contracted operations are spending their dollars down without them, Iraq wouldn't be able to function.  Am I correct?  If you just pulled the US contracts and llet them fly on their own.   Joseph Christoff: Well we have lots of reconstruction projects in all of the critical sectors including the oil sector so we have been investing over the past several years in trying to build pipelines, trying to improve the refinery capacity -- a lot of individual projects have added up to billions of dollars.  The Iraqis are trying to spend more money in terms of the oil sector.  One of the problems with the Ministry of Oil is that, unlike the Ministry of Electricity,  it has not developed any type of a plan to determine what its needs are, its priorities and exactly where it should be spending its future resources. And the Ministry of Electricity has a pretty good plan.  The Ministry of Oil does not yet have a plan to try to set its own priorities.  And he himself has estimated that he needs $30 billion to try to improve the oil infrastructure in Iraq.   Marcy Kaptur: I know my time has expired. If I wanted to read one clear report on what is really going on inside the Iraqi oil sector what would I read?   Joseph Christoff: Inside the Iraqi oil sector?    Marcy Kaptur: For security officers.  Who's paying for it, how much is being smuggled, who did the smuggling, was anybody aprehended?  Where do I find that?     Joseph Christoff:  Well I'd probably have to go back to some of the CIA reports that I read that you wouldn't be able to read in public domain.   Marcy Kaptur: Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.    Again, Kaptur is asking for very basic information.  She's not asking for information on how to build a weapon.  Stats is all she's asking for and she's informed that the information isn't for the public.  The operations Christoff is reporting on are paid for by the tax payer and the tax payer is repeatedly told that things are 'improving' in Iraq.  So why is very basic information being kept from the tax payers.  And if, dropping back to Bishop's question, the US anticipates that there will be some awful bloodbath as a result of the de-Baathification legislation, since the White House has labeled it a benchmark and since it has yet to be put into effect, shouldn't both the American people and the Iraqi people have a right to know the projections that have been made on that?   Turning to Iraq, last night CNN reported that a helicopter has crashed in Iraq claiming the lives of 5 US service members. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) said the death toll is "seven U.S. soldiers" and cites M-NF as the source.  M-NF updated it today announcing: "Seven U.S. Soldiers were killed when a CH-47 Chinook crashed about 100 km west of Basra at approximately 12:01 a.m. Thursday.  The Chinook was part of a four-aircraft aerial convoy flying from Kuwait to Balad.  The seven Soldiers were the only ones onboard the Chinook at the time of the crash.  A British Quick Reaction Force team was dispatched from Basra to assist at the site. A road convoy in the vicinity was also diverted to the scene. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and official release by the Department of Defense The incident is under investigation, however enemy activity is not suspected."  The Washington Post notes, "There was no word on the cause of the crash or whether hostile fire was involved."  Camilla Hall and Michael Heath (Bloomberg News) report that the military is now publicly stating that this should be considered "an accident" on their 'initial' information but that the US military added, "At this time we are uncertain of the cause, but hostile fire has been ruled out."  Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) observes, "In total, that means 11 U.S. service members have died since Sunday for non-combat-related reasons" while noting the helicopter crash itself "was the deadliest U.S. helicopter accident in Iraq since Aug. 22 of last year, when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in the northern part of the country, killing 14 U.S. soldiers." Joseph Giordono (Stars & Stripes) notes, "The AP reported that an aide to U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., said four Texans and three from Oklahoma were among the seven National Guardsmen killed in [the helicopter crash[ . . . Fallin's spokesman Alex Weintz says the four Texans killed were soldiers from the Texas National Guard."  ICCC lists 4168 as the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war with 17 for the month thus far.     On shootings, yesterday's snapshot noted: "Meanwhile, AP reports that Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin's deaths on Sunday in Iraq are under investigation and a US soldier 'has been taken into custody' due to the deaths.  Troy Moon (Pensacola News Journal) reports that Dawson was 'a father of four' and a graduate of Escambia High and quotes his stepmother Maxine Mathis stating, 'It's bad enough he had to fear the enemy. But he had to fear a fellow soldier. This is senseless. Not only did (the alleged shooter) take our son's life, he took another man's life as well. It's just horrible. I want people to know what happened.''  Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports that Durbin was from Dallas and 'an honor student and 2001 gradute of Dallas Luterhan School.  He volunteered in the Civil Air Patrol in high school, then joined the Marines.  After he left the Marine Corps, he joined the Army two years ago'."  Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) notes the silence on this story and then amends an AP story at the end which, please note, raids Troy Moon's report and does so without credit.  Today Nicholas Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Dawson was on his third tour of duty and that his stepmother (Maxine Mathis) states, "He was telling me about these nightmares he'd have.  He'd wake up in a cold sweat, seeing the things he was seeing over there.  It really was messing with my son's mind."  NYT's Stephen Farrell (for the Times' owned International Herald Tribune) explains that April of 2005 saw "Seargent Hasan Akbar, of the 101st Airborne Division, was sentenced to death over a grenade attack on his comrades in March 2003 in Kuwait, at the very outset of the war" and "In November 2006, Staff Seargent Alberto Martinez, serving with the New York National Guard, was arraigned in a military court suspected of murdering two officers in a grenade and mine explosion at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces in Tikrit in June 2005. He has consistently maintained his innocence but if convicted could face the death penalty."  Yesterday's snapshot also included this: "BBC reports that Sgt John Hatley, Sgt 1st Class Joseph Mayo and Sgt Michael Lehy Jr. are charged with murdering four Iraqis ('blindfolded, shot and dumped in a canal in April 2007'). . . .   CBC notes, 'The killings are alleged to have been retribution for casualties suffered by U.S. forces.'  CBC also states that four more are being held and are under investigation (with two of the four US soldiers having been charged).  AP, however, says the four additional soldiers 'have already been charged with conspiracy in the case'."  None of those three soldiers charged with murder has entered a plea but one of the four charged with conspiracy has: Spc Belmor Ramos.  AP reports that Ramos "pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder and was sentenced to seven months in prison Thursday in the deaths of four Iraqis, saying he stood guard from a machine-gun turret while the bound and blindfolded prisoners were shot."     In some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Baghdad roadside bombings that left twelve people wounded (including five Iraqi soldiers), a Nineveh roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers (one more wounded) and, dropping back to last night, a Nineveh car bombing that wounded one police officer. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers, 2 Tal Afar roadside bombings that left nine people injured and a Hawija roadside bombing that left two people injured.   Shootings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a man shot dead in Mosul and his wife and daughter injured in the shooting and 1 person shot dead in Nineveh province.  Reuters notes a Mosul home invasion that claimed 4 lives and 2 drive-by shootings in Mosul that each claimed the life of a "retired security personnel".   Corpses?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpse discovered in Mosul.     Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate.  Matt Gonzalez is his running mate.  Yesterday the campaign was able to announce that Nader - Gonzales was on the ballot in Florida (officially).  Today they announce Nader made 46 ballots.  That is the 45 states ballots they set as their goal (and achieved before their self-declared deadline) as well as the ballot in the District of Columbia.  Team Nader notes that residents of Texas, Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina will be able to vote for Nader - Gonzalez via write-in which means the residents of 49 states (and DC) can vote for them.  The 45 state ballots is eleven more than in 2004 and one more than in 2000.  The Nader campaign's Michael Richardson explains, "This means 85 percent of the American electorate will actually see the names Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez on their ballots. . . . This is quite a feat since states generally make it really hard for third-party candidates to get on state ballots. But in every state, our volunteers collected more than enough signatures to qualify. The response has been positive -- much better than in 2004. It's obvious that there is national interest in more choices and independent candidates outside the two-party system."  Tomorrow the Nader - Gonzalez campaign holds a rally in Lousiville, Kentucky (6:30 p.m., University of Louisville, Swain Student Activities Center, Suite W310).   Team Nader notes:   I have always been skeptical when people blame a lack of news coverage on some nefarious plot by the media. Most people who cry media 'blackout' aren't that newsworthy, have stories that don't check out, or don't pitch their story that well. The truth is, unless you have a compelling, timely, well pitched story, today's media will not cover it.  They are too burdened by ever tighter web-driven deadlines, fewer reporting staff, and the barrage of sophisticated public relations professionals who definitely do know how to pitch a story, and outnumber reporters 5-to-1. But after a full week working as Ralph Nader's media coordinator, I have a new perspective. The story of the decade is breaking, we have the candidate of the century on this story--and we are getting no coverage by major media. After years of neglect, deregulation, and sharp declines in corporate transparency and corporate accountability, the gig is up and Wall Street is being shaken to its foundations. What has already happened towers over the savings and loan crisis, and we are not even close to the end, or even the beginning of the end.  The Wall Street bailouts and wipe outs are on track to be the biggest frontal assault on financial consumers and taxpayers in history. Ralph Nader, America's undisputed protector of consumers, has uncannily tracked the chain of events--on the documented public record--that has led our economy down this devastating path. In countless letters, testimonies and reports--all warning of the dangers of unrestrained greed absent accountability and transparency (check for yourself at Nader.org), Ralph proposed alternative paths, and all along the way he was ignored or ridiculed. Now he has a plan to soften the blow, get us out of the morass, and help ensure it doesn't happen again. But no major press will cover it. No New York Times. No Wall Street Journal. No Associated Press. No network news. Nothing but a pundit on C-Span, kudos from a newsletter and a little article on the web site Politico. The September 16th Washington Post summed up the gravity of this issue on its front page: "Yesterday's meltdown on Wall Street brought the economy roaring back to the center of the presidential campaign, and the question for the final seven weeks of the general-election campaign is whether Barack Obama or John McCain can convince voters that he is capable of leading the country out of the morass." If the meltdown on Wall Street and bailout by taxpayers is the deciding factor of this election: Which candidate has the best record for consumer protection, standing up for small investors and taxpayers in America? Which candidate has been warning us all along the way of the dangers of deregulating Wall Street? Which candidate has a plan to get us out of this morass, restore accountability and transparency to Wall Street, and can actually be trusted to do what he says? His name is not Barack Obama or Senator McCain, and he is invisible as far as the media is concerned. Yesterday, Ralph Nader issued a chronology of the lead-up to the current meltdown, and his ten-point plan to restore a semblance of accountability, transparency, and incentives that would steer Wall Street away from short-termist, out-of-control casino capitalism toward fulfilling its proper function of efficiently allocating capital to advance our long-term economic well-being. The plan was sent out to 6,000 reporters, including specific e-mails and phone calls to the editors and reporters from the major newspapers that are on this beat and evening TV news producers. Aside from the Fox cable business channel, no major media picked it up. After a series of editorial board meetings we did this week with the Washington Post and New York Times Washington Bureau, I think I know why. When we asked them what their standards for covering Ralph Nader were, it was clear they didn't have any. But Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor at the Washington Post, hit the nail on the head. He said, "I like some of your issues, but I don't see how you being a presidential candidate affects them. I see you more as a consumer advocate." In other words, if Ralph was just some guy running for president on the ballot in 45 states with 5 percent support in the polls, he might actually get some coverage in that role, rather than having his giant stature as a consumer advocate trivialize his presidential candidate stature.  So today, when AP broke a story that the Federal bank insurance fund was dwindling and in danger of needing a taxpayer bailout, I tried taking Fred up on his advice and pitched to the economic editors and financial reporters, emphasizing 'Ralph the consumer advocate.' It happened that just two months ago Ralph wrote a letter to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who have oversight over the FDIC, warning of exactly this and suggesting some measures to shore up the FDIC reserves before it was too late. As usual Congress dismissed Ralph's warning, with Congressman Spencer Bachus saying there was "no factual basis" for his concern. Six years ago, Ralph warned of the potential shakeout from Clinton giving most of the commercial banks free federal deposit insurance since 1995, saying, "Don't be surprised if this latest banking reform deteriorates into little more than another version of the savings and loan deposit insurance reforms of 1980 which helped fuel that industry's demise and lightened taxpayers' pockets by several hundred billions of dollars." Here we have a substantive story where Ralph is right in the sweet spot from the beginning of the problem to the present. I phoned up Marcy Jones, the AP SEC reporter who had broken the story to let her know Ralph had called it six years back, and that he now had a plan to fix it. But Marcy didn't want to hear from Ralph either, and referred to me to the political desk. I called the AP Washington Politics Editor, Donna Cassata, with great enthusiasm, saying "Now I have something that is too good to pass on." But she passed. The Wall Street meltdown story has Ralph Nader's name all over it, and as a candidate or as a consumer advocate he should be getting an avalanche of requests and invitations--not a stone-wall. That's ok. This story is not going away and neither are we. If need be, our supporters will overwhelm the political and economic editors and producers, taking the public relations professional-to-journalist ratio to a new order of magnitude. In the mean time, thank goodness for our Cardozo the Parrot video, which goes to show that even sheep cannot ignore a talking bird.   Team Nader then links to this Washington Post piece by Chris Cillizza.  Staying with politics,  this weekend's NOW on PBS offers:     How have women in politics changed America and the world? NOW on PBS investigates with an hour-long special hosted by Maria Hinojosa: "Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?" See the show on television this weekend or watch online STARTING SATURDAY  [. . .] Show Description:  Given the hoopla surrounding Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's historical political ascendance, why does the U.S. rank so low among countries for percentage of women holding national office? On Friday, September 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), in a one-hour special, NOW's Maria Hinojosa talks to women leaders around the world and here in the United States for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for women leaders of today and tomorrow.   Among these women are President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate. We also travel to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of parliament; and to Manhattan, where ambitious high school girls are competing in a high-stakes debate tournament. "Women, Power and Politics," is also about the personal journey of mother and award-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa as she strives to answer the question: "What does to mean to be a woman in power?" Watch a preview and excerpt of this special program at this web address: Use this directory tool to find out where the show is airing in your area: The NOW website ... will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Tina Brown; a personal essay from Maria Hinojosa; an interactive debate over Sarah Palin's candidacy; as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement. (The "interactive debate" over Sarah Palin's candidacy is live now ...)    iraq cnn troy moon greg mitchell the washington post sudarsan raghavan mcclatchy newspapers camilla hall nicholas spangler sahar issa stephen farrell now on pbs pbs

In 2003 and 2004, Odierno was a two-star general in command of the 4th Infantry Division (4th ID). The division "owned" much of the "Sunni Triangle," including such insurgent hotbeds as Tikrit (Saddam Hussein's home town) and Samarra (the future site of the Golden Mosque bombing that kick-started Iraq's civil war in 2006). Odierno's troops were notorious for their heavy-handed tactics: They conducted indiscriminate sweeps of Sunni towns, arrested thousands of Sunni men, and were often accused of excessive force. The division's approach was devastatingly critiqued by Dexter Filkins in the New York Times Magazine, and Tom Ricks' 'Fiasco' described the division as the poster child for a failed "search-and-destroy" approach to counterinsurgency that focused on killing and capturing the enemy instead of protecting the population. As Odierno prepared to return as the Corps commander in charge of day-to-day operations for all U.S. forces in late 2006, he made a concerted effort to alter this image. In pre-deployment interviews, he emphasized his understanding of counterinsurgency and the centrality of protecting the population in these operations. And, reflecting on a 2006 visit with Odierno, Petraeus noted, "There is no question at that time that he and his staff and subordinate leaders absolutely understood the principles that we had all come to accept as necessary for the conduct of counterinsurgency operations."

The above is from War Hawk Colin Kahl's "The New Man in Iraq" (Washington Post) and was noted by a visitor e-mailing the public account. War Hawk Kahl is an advisor to War Hawk Barack Obama. As John Pilger (New Statesman) observed in May:

On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of "100 years", his earlier option). Obama has now "reserved the right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year. "I will listen to our commanders on the ground," he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations.

And Eli Lake (New York Sun) reported in May:

A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a cofidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000--80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center's Web site as a policy brief.

"The security improvement is just in the media, it has nothing to do with reality," Iraqi grocer Ali Mahmoud tells Sam Dagher for Dagher's "Conflicting Reports on Death Toll in Bombings in Baghdad" (New York Times) on some of yesterday's violence. On yesterday's twin Baghdad bombings, Dahger writes:

Almost five minutes after the first blast, a second bomb exploded about 300 feet away, next to a kiosk that sells cigarettes and soft drinks. Iraqi and American soldiers cordoned off the area and cut off traffic on one of the capital's most congested thoroughfares, known as the Baghdad International Expo Street.
Smashed storefronts, burned vehicle remains and scattered debris were reminiscent of scenes that Baghdad residents have been anxious to forget.
A spokesman for the United States military, who placed blame for the attack on Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown terrorist group that the military says is led by foreigners, put the toll at three killed and 16 wounded. A source at Yarmouk Hospital, where some of the casualties were taken, gave a toll of five killed and 20 wounded. Discrepancies in tolls are common in Iraq.

And Hans-Edzard Busemann's "Opposition says Germany covered up Iraq spy role" (Reuters) reports:

German spies in Baghdad actively supported the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq despite government denials, opposition parties said on Thursday before the two secret agents' testimony to a parliamentary panel.
"The records unfortunately contradict completely the government's position that it was not involved," Norman Paech, a member of the investigative committee from the Left party, told reporters before the closed-door hearing.
The issue could embarrass Foreign Minister Franz-Walter Steinmeier, the Social Democrats' candidate for chancellor in next year's elections, who oversaw intelligence operations at the time of the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Both agents in Baghdad reported to Germany's BND intelligence agency, which passed on at least part of their information to the U.S. military. The parliamentary committee seeks to determine whether this actively helped the war effort.

Turning to the US presidential race, Eddie notes this from Team Nader:

Ridiculing Ralph

In a letter to Congress on July 23, 2008, Ralph Nader warned that the federal government's bank insurance fund may be insufficient to handle the developing crisis in the banking industry.

The day after Ralph sent out his warning, he was ridiculed in Congress.

One member, Spencer Bachus, at a Congressional hearing, mentioned Ralph's letter and said point blank "Our banks are well capitalized, our deposit insurance fund is sound. There's absolutely no factual basis for saying that there's not money there to pay."

Fast forward to September 17, 2008, today, less than two months after Ralph sent his letter.

And now we have an Associated Press story, featured prominently right now on the Drudge Report, with the headline "Federal bank insurance fund dwindling."

Here's the opening sentence from the AP report today:

"Banks are not the only ones struggling in the growing financial crisis. The fund established to insure their deposits is also feeling the pinch, and the taxpayer may be the lender of last resort."

The reality is that the Democrats and Republicans have screwed up royally.

They have screwed up because they are under the thumb of the big corporations.

The big corporations said -- weak regulation, weak law and order for corporations.

And the Democrats and Republicans delivered for their corporate paymasters.

The rest of us -- taxpayers and workers alike -- will now suffer the consequences -- through either increased taxes, lost jobs -- or both.

For his entire career, Ralph Nader has been sounding the alarm about the dangers of deregulation, about the dangers of a hands off approach to corporate power.

Time to listen up.

Reassert the public will.

And get behind the one Presidential candidacy that has the track record and will power to set things straight.

How?

If you haven't donated yet to Nader/Gonzalez -- do it now.

We're really close to meeting our goal of $80,000 by midnight tonight.

Donate now, whatever you can afford -- $10, $20, $50, $100.

And help push us over the top.

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. tonight.)

Together, we will make a difference.

Onward to November.

The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

And as the Wall St. meltdown finds many candidates pointing the fingers at others (while hoping their Wall St. cash is shoved deep enough in their own pockets), Ralph actually can take a stand on the issue because he isn't compromised by it. From Team Nader:

Nader Releases 10-Point Plan to Recover from Financial Crisis

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Toby Heaps, 202-441-6795, toby@votenader.org

RALPH NADER PREDICTED WALL STREET MELTDOWN 8 YEARS AGO

Eight years ago, consumer advocate Ralph Nader correctly predicted that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were on track to follow the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and 90s into a big financial heap of trouble. Nobody listened, and taxpayers are now at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars. Wall Street is being shaken to its foundation. American International Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by assets, is now teetering on the brink of ruin after suffering losses of $18 billion in the past three quarters, largely due to its sub prime mortgage exposure.

"Nader Rips Mae and Mac," declared the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal on June 16, 2000. "Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which he called 'poster children for corporate welfare.'"

This year Nader, who is also running for president as an independent, is getting credit for his prescience.

"Give one presidential candidate credit for identifying the problem and getting the policy right -- and doing so before the twin government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into the tank in mid-July," wrote Lou Dubose in The Washington Spectator on Aug. 1. Dubose went on to quote Nader's June 15, 2000 Congressional testimony about HR 3703, a bill that would have reigned in some of the most dangerous tendencies of GSE's, had it passed.

In a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in 2006, Nader also criticized the exorbitant salary of GSE executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel Mudd, Robert Levin and Timothy Howard, and noted that their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer financial security because of the grave moral hazard created by accounting manipulations they sanctioned that benefited their personal wealth, with no penalty for being caught.

"As you continue to investigate the Fannie Mae accounting debacle, we are writing to urge you to seek civil sanctions, including disgorgement, from senior executives who profited directly from the misconduct at Fannie Mae, and that you urge the Department of Justice to give careful consideration to criminal prosecution of these individuals," wrote Nader.

Candidate Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and a start to the aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.

Today, in his prepared remarks for New York Times editors in its Washington Bureau, Nader stated : "Given the contrast between the 'free market' ideology of the Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their increasing practice, the time is ripe for full Congressional hearings next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street."

Nader added, "What we need to do now is find a just way to deal with the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure and make sure that this level of financial market manipulation does not happen again." He elaborated a 10-point plan to cool off the financial markets meltdown:

Immediate Changes Required for Any Bailout

- No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants

- No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out

- No golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards for guilty executives

- No bailouts without public hearings

Changes to Housing Market

- Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products as they do in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.

- Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent-to-own their homes at fair market value rates.

- Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15-20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.

Structural Changes to Financial Markets

- Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet Position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as making sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the President and answerable to congress.

- Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.

- Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives to deter casino-style capitalism.

For more information, visit votenader.org.

Sources:

RN's response to bailout on Vote Nader Web site:

http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/10/bailing-out-fannie-and-freddie

Politico: Nader on bank woes: "I predicted this" Sept. 15, 2008

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13459.html

Washington Spectator - Ralph Nader was right (Aug. 1, 2008)

http://www.washingtonspectator.com/message.cfm?msg=notsubs2&PageName=Articles%2F20080801GSEs.cfm

Ralph Nader's letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox Sept. 25, 2006:

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/669-Letter-to-SEC-Chairman-Cox-Regarding-Fannie-Mae.html

Ralph Nader's testimony on H.R. 3703—to the U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Government Sponsored Enterprises (June 15, 2000)

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba65224.000/hba65224_0f.htm

2000 American Enterprise Institute book about Fannie & Freddie Mac in which Ralph Nader wrote a chapter:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.58,filter.social/pub_detail.asps

Serving Two Masters, Yet Out of Control - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.233,filter.all/book_detail2.asp

Ralph Nader's chapter:

"How Fannie and Freddie Influence the Political Process." (starts on pg. 110)

http://books.google.com/books?id=SNhE9GCXTGMC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=%22Serving+two+masters%22+and+%22Nader%22&source=web&ots=n_9cMLWE6C&sig=EXbGRoAPVFP7glg1rUn9mU1Vvoo&hl=en&sa=X&o

i=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA110,M1

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) (from June 2000)

Nader rips Mae and Mac

Published: June 16, 2000

Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which he called "poster children for corporate welfare." But some lawmakers said that acting hastily could raise the cost of buying a home by increasing borrowing costs for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are called government-sponsored enterprises.

Copyright 2000 Journal Sentinel Inc.

-End-

ShareThisShareThis

Several times this week we've noted this Friday's NOW on PBS:


This week's NOW on PBS:

How have women in politics changed America and the world? NOW on PBS investigates with an hour-long special hosted by Maria Hinojosa: "Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?"

See the show on television this weekend or watch online STARTING SATURDAY at: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/437/index.html

Show Description:
Given the hoopla surrounding Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's historical political ascendance, why does the U.S. rank so low among countries for percentage of women holding national office? On Friday, September 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), in a one-hour special, NOW's Maria Hinojosa talks to women leaders around the world and here in the United States for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for women leaders of today and tomorrow.

Among these women are President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate.

We also travel to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of parliament; and to Manhattan, where ambitious high school girls are competing in a high-stakes debate tournament.

"Women, Power and Politics," is also about the personal journey of mother and award-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa as she strives to answer the question: "What does to mean to be a woman in power?"

Watch a preview and excerpt of this special program at this web address:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/437/video-excerpt.html

User this directory tool to find out where the show is airing in your area:
http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html


The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Tina Brown; a personal essay from Maria Hinojosa; an interactive debate over Sarah Palin's candidacy; as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement.

(The "interactive debate" over Sarah Palin's candidacy is live now at: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/436/debate.html)

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

iraq
colin kahl
the washington post
john pilger
eli lake
hans-edzard busemann

CNN reports that a helicopter has crashed in Iraq claiming the lives of 5 US service members. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) says the death toll is "seven U.S. soldiers" and cites M-NF as the source.

Currently M-NF offers "Five killed in CH-47 hard landing west of BasraMulti-National Corps-Iraq PAO:"

BASRA AIR STATION, Iraq -- Five U.S. Soldiers were killed when a CH-47 Chinook experienced a hard landing at approximately 12:01 a.m. about 100 km west of Basra Thursday.
The Chinook was a part of an aerial convoy flying from Kuwait to Balad.
A Quick Reaction Force was dispatched from Basra. A road convoy in the vicinity was also diverted to the scene.
The names of those killed are pending notification of next of kin.
The incident is under investigation.

And today's snapshot noted the shooting of two soldiers. M-NF has issued this press release on that incident:

U.S. Soldiers killed in shooting incident Multi-National Division -- Center PAO
CAMP VICTORY, Iraq -- The Department of Defense Monday released the names of two Multi-National Division -- Center Soldiers killed Sunday morning in a non-hostile incident.
Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson, 24, of Pensacola, Fla., and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin, 26, of Hurst, Texas were victims of an early morning shooting incident at their patrol base near Iskandariyah, Iraq.
Sergeants Dawson and Durbin were assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.
A U.S. Soldier is in custody in connection with the shooting deaths. He is being held in custody pending review by a military magistrate.
The incident continues under investigation.

ICCC lists 4166 as the total number of US service members who have died in the illegal war since the start of the illegal war (which is counting five dying in the crash and not seven).

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

iraq
cnn

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

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

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