Friday, November 7, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the pathetic voices of the left continue cooing while stronger voices from the left speak to realities, Talabani makes an announcement, and more.   Tuesday a presidential election was held in the US.  It could have been about something but that would have required actual issues.  Instead it was stroke, fondle and feather-kiss Barack by All Things Media Big and Small while real candidates were shut out of the coverage -- by all outlets and Amy Goodman a crappy once a month nod to Ralph or Cynthia didn't mean s**t when every day you swung that tired ass under the street lamp once more for Barack.  In 2004, we heard "never again."  Never again would we allow the movement to end the illegal war to be derailed by a presidential campaign.   That got tossed aside and ripped to shreds, now didn't it?     Let's move over to Loony Tune Stephen Zune who lied in a 2008 article, never corrected it and, before you knew it, all the simple minded were running with (Dahr Jamail, come on down!).  No, Hillary did not visit Iraq only once.  "Dr." Zunes, correct your lying mouth.  He, of course, refused to.  And he's back to lie some more at ZNet: "Obama's honest and prescient understanding of Iraq prior to the invasion gives hope that as president he will be less inclined to engage in such acts of reckless militarism."  Apparently Zunes is back on the meds that regulate his intense mood swings (sadly, the meds do nothing for his delusions). The 2002 speech was an embarrassment and nothing for the peace movement to praise.  There's been some question about that speech so let's put Zuney to the side for a moment.  The speech did take place.  It is recorded.  On video.  The reaction from the crowd is the only reason Team Barack had to lie and claim that the speech didn't exist.  The crowd wasn't applauding, they weren't cheering.  It was a meek and embarrassing speech (delivered to a sparse crowd, it should be noted).  When Barack finished there wasn't even polite applause.  But Zuney liked it and, if you're off your meds, you may as well.   Loony Tunes Zunes goes on to argue that if the War Hawk Barack isn't a dove, so what, because "he owes his nomination -- and therefore his election -- to those who opposed the invasion of Iraq".  Yeah, try collecting on that, Stephen.  Hey, remember Stephen Zunes' snit-fit at Barack a few months back?  When Barack picked Joe Biden as his running mate?  The Joe Biden who supported the illegal war?  But Loony wants you to believe that Barack's indebted to the 'anti-war' 'movement.'  (That would be the same Barack who punked Iraq Veterans Against the War in Denver -- they were protesting and getting attention, he sent out a Texan known for lying -- one who even lied for W. -- out to trick them and they fell for it and gave the media a lot of statements about how groovy Barack was.  As soon as the protest ended so did Barack's 'promise' to them.)  Zunes uses phrases like "surely Barack is aware of this" and what's really hilarious is that someone who whored his ass for Barack as hard Stephen did has to guess as to what Barack is and isn't aware of. But a debt is owed, Zunes maintains, and pressure will be applied!  In the real world, Mickey Z points out:     While the savvy strategist/activists of the Left harbor their delusions of grandeur about their ability to sway the Prince of Hope, here's a tiny bit what they--and all of us--have allowed to happen without exerting our "influence": epidemics of preventable diseases; the poisoning of our air, water, and food (including mother's breast milk); global warming, climate change, animal and plant extinctions, disappearing honeybees, destruction of the rain forest, topsoil depletion, etc.; one-third of Americans either uninsured or underinsured in terms of health care; 61% of corporations do not even pay taxes; presidential lies, electoral fraud, limited debates, etc.; the largest prison population on the planet; corporate control of public land, airwaves, and pensions; overt infringement of our civil liberties; bloated defense budget, unilateral military interventions, war crimes committed in our name, legalization of torture, blah, blah, blah...   Before you know it, the US government will start spying on American citizens and detaining prisoners without charges while allowing corporations to ravage the earth in pursuit of profit, wiping out entire eco-systems in the process.  Oops . . . sorry: they're already doing all that and the mighty Left is fighting back by supporting Obama?    Everywhere I went on Election Day, I was asked by friend and stranger alike: "Did you vote?" Once the polling booths closed, I could be 100% certain I'd not be asked another politically motivated question by such people for another four years. No one would be rushing up to me and demanding to know if I was planning to do anything about, say, FISA, the death penalty, the PATRIOT Act, homelessness, or factory farming. The election is over. Obama has won. For 99% of the Left, that means their work is done until 2012. It's time to gloat and reap all the rewards, right?    My prediction: The only pressure that will be consistently exerted by those on the Left will be the pressure of their soft butts on their couch cushions as they sit back to smugly watch Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher.   Zunes can never stick to the facts and, having a word count, has to resort frequently to falsehoods.  Which is how you end up with his claim that the likes of Susan Rice (she works herself into a war frenzy at the drop of a hat) and Our Modern Day Carrie Nations Samantha Power (Sammy, get the axe!) are "innovative and enlightened members of the foreign policy establishment".  Keep dreaming and keep lying Zunes.  If you told the truth at this late date, your head might fall out. For reality on the likes of Sammy Power, see John R. MacArthur's "Pro-War Liberals Frozen in the Headlights" (Common Dreams).  Or maybe you want to refer to  Howard Zinn on Power's "myopia": She believes that "there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a "moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more reprehensible than the other?  In countless news briefings, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional" or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem. In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and various generals.    Or maybe you'd prefer Edward S. Herman (ZNet) explaining Power's belief system? She believes that "there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective." Of course, there's a difference, but is there a "moral" difference? That is, can you say one action is more reprehensible than the other? In countless news briefings, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, responding to reporters' questions about civilian deaths in bombing, would say those deaths were "unintentional" or "inadvertent" or "accidental," as if that disposed of the problem. In the Vietnam War, the massive deaths of civilians by bombing were justified in the same way by Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon and various generals.   No, it doesn't sound very enlightened but then Stephen Zunes is the Minute Rice 'Scholar' of the campus set.  Here's Noam Chomsky (via ZNet) explaining the basics re: Sammy Power, "I don't think, incidentally, that it would be fair to criticize Power for her extraordinary services to state violence and terror. I am sure she is a decent and honorable person, and sincerely believes that she really is condemning the US leadership and political culture. From a desk at the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School at Harvard, that's doubtless how it looks."     Let's spread the joy and turn to the Pathetic Dave Lindorff who writes (at CounterPunch), "And don't tell me 'Good, we should have all voted for Ralph Nader.'  The political left in the US is a pathetic joke."  Some parts of it are.  Such as Dave Lindorff.  Dave Lindorff is a PATHETIC JOKE.  He will die one because he made himself one.  In February, Third noted a Barack supporter and his IDIOTIC reasons for supporting Barack:   I think it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that a black candidate at this level is fundamentally different from all white candidates who have come before or who are now competing. the more so a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya).   The person making a PATHETIC FOOL of himself?  That's Dave Lindorff.   Yes, Dave Lindorff supported Barack because he was "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs".  It doesn't get anymore pathetic than that.  Davey-Boy thought Barack was fighting the brave fight, just, no doubt, as Amy Winehouse does on the streets of London today.  The same 'civil rights' battle that River Phoenix gave his life for, Dave?   Dave Lindorff is an idiot, he is pathetic and he has proven that In These Times had good reason to end their relationship with him over his 'curious' assertions.  We stood by Crazy Ass back then.  We walked away after he made a frothy-mouthed fool of himself in February.  You can't go home again, Crazy Ass.  This is the world and bed you made, live with it.  Pablo Ouziel (Dissident Voice) tracks the continued disengration of left 'voices':     The new era of voting for the lesser of the two evils has penetrated the core of America's critical intellectual community, and some of the biggest voices for change have endorsed Obama. In effect, what has taken place is the union between those opposed to imperial ideology and those endorsing it. Although this serious event has gone largely unnoticed, American intellectuals will need to reflect on its consequences seriously if they are to contribute to the building of a stable future for humanity as a whole, and in particular to mending the tarnished corrupt fabric of American society.   One American intellectual, James Petras, has been able to identify the direct social consequences of such a paradigm shift and prior to the elections has publicly expressed his views in an article titled "The Elections and the Responsibility of the Intellectual to Speak Truth to Power: Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney." As the title of the article clearly states, Petras voices the reasons why intellectuals have the responsibility of voting against Obama just like they should vote against McCain. In regards to those intellectuals who have endorsed Obama he says:  They are what C. Wright Mills called 'crackpot realists', abdicating their responsibility as critical intellectuals. In purporting to support the 'lesser evil' they are promoting the 'greater evil': The continuation of four more years of deepening recession, colonial wars and popular alienation.    After listening last night to Obama's first speech after his victory, a victory he said was of the people, what Petras is saying seems disturbingly accurate when looked at through the prism of critical discourse analysis. One can look back now to the presidency of George W. Bush and listen to his rhetoric. What has been his message throughout the last 8 years? When Obama's core messages are compared to Bush's, it becomes apparent that the coming presidential plans are not too different to current presidential policies.   Even more disturbing, is the fact that when Bush spoke throughout his presidency there was always a slight cynical reaction by the majority of the public, as most of the surveys have shown time and time again. However, last night the cynicism seemed to have vanished and the hope of a new American century was reborn with full force, to the clapping thunder and joyous splendour of the reborn American people. With every word uttered by Obama one could see how the empire was not gone, Bush almost killed it, now Obama the symbol of hope, together with all the American people in unity, are going to reconstruct their country and the world, restabilising America's faltering hegemony.   All of the above effects the illegal war.  The defocusing on what mattered, the hijacking of the peace movement result in the illegal war being prolonged.  The decisions Barack will be making (and receiving excuses on from Panhandle Media) will prolong the Iraq War. All of the appointments will say something (usually, "Empire! Empire! Empire!").  We'd planned to be dark after this day so you can see some of the above as raided from what would have been the year-in-review but it's also true that some topics we'll ignore.  Rahm Emanuel is now Barack's Chief of Staff.  I know Rahm.  If he makes a real ass out of himself, we'll call him out here or have a laugh over it, otherwise we'll ignore him.  (You can think back to the way Joe Biden was covered here after he became the v.p. nominee.)  You can go elsewhere community wide for negative criticism of Rahm (Rebecca doesn't like him) and we can highlight that here (or other trusted voices from outside the community) but unless Rahm makes a real ass out of himself on a particular day, I'm not going to be weighing in on him here. (And no compliments or defense unless he's the target of a pile-on.)  Example, Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) offers, "For starters, Emanuel is a shameless neoliberal with close ties to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), even co-authoring a strategy book with DLC president Bruce Reed." Tariq Ali (CounterPunch) opines, "The same day that Spain denied the son of Osama Bin Laden political asylum, Obama appointed the son of an Irgun terrorist as his Chief of Staff.  Osama's son declared that he did not agree with his father's actions or opinions.  Rahm Israel Emmanuel is an Israel-firster, a pro-war DLC hack and bully."   Meanwhile the Whig Standard editorializes today that Barack should use "soft power" and argue Barack "should start by reaffirming his greatness by demonstrating to the world the 'enduring power of our ideals.'  He should start by reaffirming his campaign pledge to stand is in U.S.-occupied Iraq where Assyrians -- an ancient Christian people indigenous to northern Iraq -- are the victims of a jihadist campaign of ethnic cleansing.  The U.S. must accept some blame for this crisis.  By deposing Iraiq dictator Saddam Hussein, the U.S. unwittingly unleashed sectarian forces that are bent on destroying religious pluralism in Iraq."  Meanwhile the National Council of Churches in Australia issues an alert and calls for their country to take in more Iraqi reufgees and to provide more funds for external and internal Iraqi refugees.  They note:   Violence and persecution against minority groups in Iraq continues, including communities of Christians which have been in existence for over 1500 years. The Assyrian Church of the East, as one of the Churches most affected, has mobilised itself worldwide to call attention to the crisis, and seek help where help can be found. Other Churches under extreme duress are the Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Chaldean.    Prior to 2003, 4% of Iraq's population was Christian. Yet 40% of Iraq's 2.2 million refugees are Christian, which indicates the seriousness and disproportionate degree of violence and persecution to which Iraqi Christians are being exposed. "No one has been untouched by grief either by personal loss or to see their country torn apart by violence," said Bishop Mar Meelis Zaia, Australian head of the Assyrian Church of the East. According to Church sources this exodus is the result of a campaign of violence, murder, terrorism, threats, and intimidation targeted at the Christian minority.    Attacks have escalated since September, when the electoral law was changed to remove the system of quotas that ensured minority groups representation on provincial councils. The result of government investigations and the arrest of about 12 people in relation to the latest wave of attacks are being awaited.   The international Assyrian Christian community is raising money to help. Local parishes are collecting money to help the Assyrian Church of the East Relief Organisation (ACERO) provide aid for people in the city of Mosul, where the recent escalation of attacks has been most severe. In the long run the hope of those fleeing the country is for a self-governing administrative region within Iraq.     The Journal of Turkish Weekly reports that Chaldean-Assryian Council chair Jamil Zito declaring, "Iraq's Christians were hoping that various political factions would accept the UN Mission in Iraq proposal".  Iraq may hold provincial elections in January (or not).  Article 50 provided for religious minority representation.  Article 50 was stripped out of the bill before Parliament passed it.  A compromise was proposed this week which Iraqi Christians find insulting.  Earlier this week, Sam Dagher and Mohammed al-Obaidi (New York Times) explained that Christians would get one seat each on Baghdad, Basra and Nineveh council while Yazidis would get one seat on Nineveh for a total of 4 seats combined while Article 50 guaranteed the religious minorities 13 seats and the UN proposed 12 (the United Nations proposal came after Article 50 was deleted).  Today Waleed Ibrahim, Tim Cocks and Philippa Fletcher (Reuters) report that the office of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement yesterday about his meet up with Christians, "They expressed worries about the negative impact of the law passed in parliament, which they said gives them a small number of seats and does not protect their rights.  They asked the [presidency] council to reject this law.  The president showed full support to Christian and other minorities (and) . . . promised he will not sign any law that could deprive any Iraqi group of their rights."  If you thought that or the treaty might have resulted in questions at the White House today you missed Tony Fratto's and the press' embarrassing performances.    The treaty?  Leila Fadel, Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "Many Iraqi officials are now calling the status-of-forces accord, or SOFA, 'the withdrawal agreement,' possibly as a way of marketing it to a wary public."  Ernesto Londono, Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) quote government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh, "Iraqis would like to know and see a fixed date" and that the US has to be prepared for more negotiatings while the US Embassy maintains (as does the US State Dept) that what Iraq has been given is the "final text."   Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) adds that Hoshyar Zebari, the country's foreign minister, has stated that the treaty will be finalized with "the current administration."  AFP reports that al-Sadr follower Sheikh Sattar al-Batat, "Every Iraqi should read this agreement and decide for himself whether he agrees or disagree with it. . . . No one in his right mind can accept this agreement, so how can we?"  NYT's Katherine Zoepf (for the paper's other holding, International Herald Tribune) quotes al-Batat declaring, "We will continue to condemn the Iraqi-American pact because it will legislate the American presence in Iraq. Sadr City has lost 4,300 martyrs since the invasion, so how could we accept this agreement? We say no to the Iraqi government if it wishes to sign anything." And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes that Sunnis are also nervous over the treaty and Rubin also notes, "The Iraqi government, made up of exiles who were able to rise to power only as a result of the American invasion, has been looking for a way to support the pact without appearing to be kowtowing to Americans."   Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?    Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing killed Haider Hassoon (an Iraqi refugee who'd just reclaimed his home) and left six people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing that claimed 2 lives and left seven people injured and a Diyala Province roadside bombing targeting "Awakening" Council members -- two were killed, five more wounded.     Today the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier died in a non-combat related incident Nov. 6 in Kirkuk province. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is still under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4191.   Public radio note, Monday on WBAI (2:00 pm EST), Cat Radio Cafe features: "Writer/performer Danny Hoch on Taking Over, his hip-hop infused play about New York gentrification; and Coney Island documentarian Charles Denson, photographer Claude Samton, and PS 225/ Shell Bank JHS/Abraham Lincoln HS graduate Sheila Samton on The Puffin Room's multi-media celebration of Coney Island Maybe. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer." And TV note, Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes Steve Kroft explores president-elect Barack's "brain trust," Scott Pelley explores the final destinations for discarded cell phones, monitors, etc and Morley Safer speaks with pioneer Ted Turner.   Community member Stan started his own site yesterday entitled Oh Boy It Never Ends. He's still playing around with it and has so far offered "Good for Nader" and "Stan 411" and "Robin Morgan". Also posting yesterday, Mike's "Joshua Frank, Murphy, Cocktail Weinie Norman" covers the strong and the pathetic, Marcia's "A lot including my cousin is blogging!" is a grab bag post on a multitude of topics, Ruth's "McKinney results, Doug Ireland" continues Ruth's following of election results, Kat's "Pathetic Green Party" explores the planned uselessness of a political party, Cedric's "And she smells like urine" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! TINA FEY'S A SKANK!" (joint-post) pulls a Jim and assigns Ava and I an article (joking, it falls under the topic we're already covering) and Rebecca's "gail collins is an idiot" covers the embarrassment of Collins. On the Green Party, Kimberly and Ian Wilder (On The Wilder Side) are advocating for action and not waiting around until Januray 2012 to start figuring out what to do: What next for the national Green Party? Let's send Malik Rahim to Congress The Green Party has a golden opportunity to elect a Congressperson next month. Let's work together, in this lull after the election, to focus on a powerful strategy and a winnable race. It has created such interesting timing, that the election for Congress, District 2, in Louisiana was changed to December 6, 2008. And, we have one of our strongest Green Party candidates running in that race. In the vacuum of the November elections being over, this is a chance for green throughout the country to focus their energy in one place, on one candidate, who has the qualifications, resume and charisma to win. Malik Rahim has credentials. He was a member of the Black Panther Party. He was a founder of Common Ground, an organization dedicated to supporting poor and working class people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Malik's story has been in a variety of national media outlets. And, Malik's work after Hurrican Katrina is a story in Amy Goodman's book, "Standing Up To The Madness." Malike gave one of the most compelling and inspiring speeches at the Green Party National Convention in Chicago this summer. (Video of his speech is: here.)   iraq howard zinn noam chomsky edward herman john r. macarthur tariq ali joshua frank mickey z. the new york times sam dagher mohammed al-obaidi leila fadel warren p. strobel mcclatchy newspapers nancy a. youssef the washington post mary beth sheridan ernesto londono karen deyoung bloomberg news daniel williams alissa j. rubin the new york times katherine zoepf wbai cat radio cafe janet coleman david dozer 60 minutes cbs news oh boy it never ends kats korner sex and politics and screeds and attitude the daily jot cedrics big mix mikey likes it ruths report sickofitradlz the third estate sunday review kimberly wilder

Today the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier died in a non-combat related incident Nov. 6 in Kirkuk province. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is still under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4191.

Meanwhile Brian Bennett's "Will Obama Have to Adjust His Timetable on Iraq?" (Time magazine):

Senior U.S. military officials will likely advise Barack Obama to adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. While promising a 16-month timetable for getting all U.S. fighting forces out, Obama repeatedly insisted on what he calls a "responsible" withdrawal. Pulling nearly all U.S. troops and equipment out of Iraq in 16 months is "physically impossible," says a top officer involved in briefing the President-elect on U.S. operations in Iraq. That schedule would create a bottleneck of equipment and troops in the south of Iraq and Kuwait where brigades repair, clean and load vehicles and weapons for the trip home, said the official. Others say U.S. could conceivably pull out on that time scale, although that would require leaving more equipment behind. A more important concern that, officers believe the security gains in Iraq would be put at risk if troops were withdrawn before the Iraqi security forces are in a position to protect their own communities and borders.

Adjust his position? He told CNN he'd do just that on June 5th. It's not a promise, it never was. Remember Tom Hayden's meltdown July 4th when he grasped that? (In fairness to Tom, at least he finally made it an issue. Even after he did that, others pretended not to notice, the way they had all along.) From Third's "Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq" (July 6, 2008):

In "Obama's Position on Iraq Could Put His Candidacy at Risk" (Aging Socialite's Cat Litterbox), Tom Hayden declared last week:



The most shocking aspect of Samantha Powers' forced resignation earlier this year was not that she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" off-camera, but that she flatly stated that Obama would review his whole position on Iraq once becoming president. Again, no one in the media or rival campaigns questioned whether this assertion by Powers was true. Since Obama credited Powers with helping for months in writing his book, The Audacity of Hope, her comments on his inner thinking should have been pounced upon by the pundits.



No one questioned it, Tom-Tom? Check The Washington Post's archives. It wasn't that the media refused to challenge it (or that this site refused to challenge it, check our archives) it's that the Barack 'movement' (a fringe group of largely White eggheads in Panhandle Media) refused to even mention it! Did Jeremy Schaill rip Barack a new one? No. Did Amy Goodman immediately report it on Democracy Someday!? Hell no.





But let's back up. Tom-Tom's shocked (!). Elaine and C.I. know very well you've lived a life estranged from the truth; however, that doesn't give you the right to lie. Samantha Power made the news cycle on March 7th (a Friday). You can refer to that day's "Iraq Snapshot." In fact, we are referencing that at length (and overruling C.I. on it):



Meanwhile, it was not a good day to be Our Modern Day Carrie Nations or, as Samantha Power prefers to be called, "the humanitarian War Hawk." Last night, The Scotsman was making news with Power's insults of US Senator Hillary Clinton and "the poor" in America and, generally, just flashing that foul mouth everyone knows about but generally ignores. The morning started with Sammy Power expressing 'sorrow.' She wasn't sorry and we're not going to play around with this story. Here's reality, the press was lining up this morning the stories on this and talking to one another (as they are prone to do) for background examples of other times Sammy Power has personally (and destructively) insulted Hillary Clinton. When it was obvious that those stories would come out if she stayed with the campaign she 'resigned.' At The New Statesman, she was flaunting her War Hawk nature in an interview (as well as that foul mouth). [Personal note: I'm sure I could match Sammy swear word for swear word, but I wasn't planning on becoming Secretary of State.] Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times) was one of the first out of the gate noting that Sammy Power "resigned as a foreign policy advisor to Sen. Barack Obama" this afternoon. Her calling Hillary a "monster" did matter, it was off sides -- both for a future Secretary of State as well as for a professor at Harvard. It's a shame Obama still lacks the leadership to take control of his campaign -- that would have required firing Power. Instead she resigned indicating that he's unable to run a campaign as well as unable to tell the truth. Power -- who also went to work for Obama in 2005 when he was first elected to the US Senate (November 2004) -- also had to deal with the BBC interview she'd given. Barack Obama has not promised to pull ALL troops out of Iraq in 16 months. He has promised the American people that "combat" troops would be removed. But promises, promises (as Dionne Warwick once sang) . . .

Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?

Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can't even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.

Which would mean Mr. Pretty Speeches has been lying to the American people. (Add the "AGAIN!")

Her rise was swift, her fall even faster. Our Modern Day Carrie Nations took part in the "Bring the troops home and send them to Darfur" nonsense. [For more on that nutso crowd, see Julie Hollar's "The Humanitarian Tempatation" (Extra!).] Despite presenting herself recently as against the Iraq War from the start, the public record has never backed that up. But it is true that she wanted wars in Africa and was selling them under "humanitarian" guise. "Stop the killing!" she cried but if she really wanted to stop the killing, she might have tried to speak out against the ongoing genocide in Iraq (which has also produced the largest refugee crisis in the world). She didn't care about that. Probably because it demonstrates that sending armed forces in is not an answer. Again, if Barack Obama had any leadership abilities, he would have announced today that he fired his longterm advisor. He did not, she resigned. (She foolishly doesn't grasp that this is her Alexander Haig moment and there is no comeback.) Power was not a campaigner, she was a high level, longterm foreign policy advisor being groomed to be the next Secretary of State. As Krissah Williams (Washington Post) notes, Senator Clinton's response to Power's BBC interview was to note Power's agreement that Obama's pledge to have "combat" troops out in 16 months was never more than a "best-case scenario". Hillary Clinton: "Senator Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comments especially troubling. While Senator Obama campaigns on his [pledge] to end the war, his top advisers tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president. This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."



The Clinton camp didn't call it out Tom-Tom?

March 8th, one day after the news broke, the Clinton campaign issued "MEMO: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words:"

Once again, it looks like Senator Obama is telling voters one thing while his campaign says those words should not be mistaken for serious action. After months of speeches from Senator Obama promising a hard end date to the Iraq war, his top foreign policy adviser that counseled his campaign during that period is on the record saying that Senator Obama will 'not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. Voters already have serious questions about whether Senator Obama is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Now there are questions about whether he's seriou about the Iraq plan he's discussed for the last year on the campaign trail.
Senator Obama has made hard end dates about Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign and has repeatedly attacked Senator Clinton for not being clear about her intentions with regard to troop withdrawal.
It turns out those attacks and speeches were just words. And if you can't trust Senator Obama's words, what's left?



Want to try lying again, Tom-Tom? They immediately sprung into action. (And that one release wasn't all they did. We'll note at least one more thing but they hit on it. It was the failure of our 'left' media -- Goodman, et al -- to cover the story that kept it from getting traction.)

Where was Panhandle Media? Tom-Tom, we know where you were. C.I. outlined it in the same snapshot:



Meanwhile Tom Hayden again offers Barack advice from the heart, from love. At Common Dreams, Hayden feels that, "The only policy difference favoring Obama that goes straight to the issue of 'experience' is Iraq. It no longer is enough that Obama opposed the war five years ago, especially if it appears that there are no differences between the candidates now. For whatever reason, Obama has allowed Clinton to appear to take an identical stand on the war. Is that true? Or is it time for Obama to issue a further clarification of his position separating him from both Clinton and McCain? The peace movement and media can play a role here." Tom then asks, "Does Clinton propose a timetable for withdrawing combat troops, like Obama does?" Apparently Tom missed Sammy's interview -- Obama has no proposal. As Sammy notes, things change, who can say? Should we expect Hayden's endorsement of Hillary anytime soon? Or will he again plan to 'represent' the peace movement by covering for the 'anti-war' candidate -- one whose own foreign policy advisor (she was that when she gave the interview) informs is saying words he'd not planning to live up to?



The Washington Post was blogging it (they would also do an article on it), the Clinton campaign was issuing a statement (they would later issue this release), Boston Globe offered Peter Canellos' "Comments raise questions about Obama, his advisers" and where was Panhandle Media? Covering for Barack.

You did. So did John Nichols. C.I. called out John Nichols nonsense on Saturday March 8th (the day after Power's remarks were known) when Johnny Five-Cents was lamenting "Samantha Power and the Danger of Gotcha Politics." Not only did John Nichols cover for Samantha Power (his post at The Nation is labeled "03/07/2008 @ 11:28 pm" meaning his article went up that Friday hours and hours after the "Iraq snapshot" calling out Power did -- isn't Johnny Five-Cents supposed to be a 'journalist'?), so did you. You want to show up on July 4th and blame the lack of attention to this story on the MSM when The Washington Post was blogging about it as the story broke, when they would go on to do a print report on it and yet Panhandle Media couldn't even be bothered with it?

Like Nichols, they were all lying. Davey D would go on to lament -- on KPFA's The Morning Show -- that Samantha "Powers" (it helps to know the name of the person you're broken up about, Davey) had left the campaign for (he said) calling Hillary a "monster." But let's stay with The Nation where Tom-Tom sits on the board. It never got into The Nation and he damn well knows that. Not on March 7th, not on March 8th. March 20th, Eric Alterman would feel the need to weigh in Power's leaving the campaign in "The Ritual Sacrifice of Samantha Power" and though he would note "monster" and "NAFTA," he never said a DAMN word about the BBC interview that entered the press cycle March 7th. He didn't say one DAMN word. It didn't stop there. Michael Massing's "The Power Conundrum" (published online May 22nd and in the June 9th issue of The Nation) found time to recount the "monster" remark which was rather strange since he was reviewing Power's book on the UN involvement in the Iraq War. Wouldn't the better thing to have referenced when reviewing a book on Iraq have been Power's remarks on Barack's so-called "promise"?


June 12th, John Nichols was back on the scene ["Students for Hillary, er, McCain (or McKinney)" -- what a wit and joy he must be for the others at the SciFi conventions] quoting a missive that referred to the "monster" incident. No need on his part to enlarge the topic and note Power's interview to the BBC.



March 12th -- five days after the Power remarks were in the news -- FIVE DAYS AFTER -- Air Berman was offering "It's Okay to be Intemperate!" (at The Nation's blog Campaign '08) and yet again recounting Samantha Power's 'unjust' departure over the "monster" remark (when not licking Hendrick Hertzberg's aging sack). Never once -- FIVE DAYS AFTER -- did Berman mention Power's remarks to the BBC. He would conclude his sad eulogy to Sammy (and presumably devote full attention to "Rick") with this, "Thanks to the events of the past week, campaign officials will be even more guarded when dealing with the media, and I don't blame them. It's an outcome that benefits no one." Apparently Ari thought he could help fight that trend by not telling readers what Samantha Power said about the Iraq 'promise'? It needs to be noted that the day the news broke, Ari Berman attempted to distract from Power's statement by filing "Clinton Does McCain's Bidding" which was nothing but his rummaging through old chat & chew transcripts in an effort to discredit Hillary on Iraq. Needless to say, he said nothing about Power. [As we noted in our March 9th in "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia."]

What we got from the alleged 'independent' media (including The Nation) and from the alleged 'independent' web was inane defenses of War Hawk Samantha Power that avoided her Iraq remarks. Check out Josh Michah's Marshy & Hairy Butt Crack where Greg Sargent posted "New Hillary Campaign Video Seeks To Revive Samantha Power Controversy." It's a March 19th post and what does Sargent conclude of the commercial featuring Power revealing that Barack's 'promise' isn't a promise? A snippy: "Given that this is weeks-old story, the timing of its release is pretty obvious: The Hillary camp is hoping to use it to overshadow Obama's big Iraq speech today." That's from mind reader Greg Sargent and even then (and terming the commercial an "attack video"), check out the reaction of Josh's groupies (conditioned to salivate at the mention of Barack's name): "Ah, Hillary. Desperation becomes her," purrs one while Patagonia and das2003 lead the sizeable number who are offended and outraged that the video was even posted at Joshy's site.

Over at Mother Jones, David CornNuts kind-of sort of covered it (as C.I. noted March 10th) huffing ("An Ugly Moment for the Clinton Campaign," March 10th) that the campaign "took the unusual step of convening a second conference call of the day for reporters. And it was a sorry spectacle." (CornNuts, you went nuts.) Davey C writes "the Clintonites pounced on the comments" -- comments, pay attention Tom Hayden -- that Davey C immediately dismissed: "In other words, a campaign proposal is just that: a proposal. And only a fool would think that a military plan would be applied to reality unchaged a year after it was first devised." That's what happened Tommy Hayden -- AS YOU DAMN WELL KNOW -- Panhandle Media mainly ignored it and then the CornNuts crowd excused it and attacked Hillary for raising the issue. They lied repeatedly and we can outline that (mainly because we already have -- starting with John Nichols' LIE that Samantha Power and Hillary knew each other very well when Power told Charlie Rose they'd only met once). C.I. led on this at The Common Ills, but we all called it out at community sites and we didn't do it for one day or one week. We stayed on the story. The one Tom Hayden couldn't bother to write about until July 4th -- even though it took place March 7th. The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and others in the MSM did cover it and the response was silence from 'independent' media and attacks from the Barack groupies in comments and e-mails to the outlets.

So, no, Time, there is no promise, there is no pledge. That's reality and on that topic, Alissa J. Rubin gets Iraq on the front page of New York Times today and we'll note this from the article:

The Iraqi government, made up of exiles who were able to rise to power only as a result of the American invasion, has been looking for a way to support the pact without appearing to be kowtowing to Americans.

Has the reporting section of the paper ever told such truth on Iraq before?

Public radio note, Monday on WBAI (2:00 pm EST), Cat Radio Cafe features: "Writer/performer Danny Hoch on Taking Over, his hip-hop infused play about New York gentrification; and Coney Island documentarian Charles Denson, photographer Claude Samton, and PS 225/ Shell Bank JHS/Abraham Lincoln HS graduate Sheila Samton on The Puffin Room's multi-media celebration of Coney Island Maybe. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer." And TV note, Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes:

" Obama's Brain Trust
Steve Kroft goes behind the scenes on election night to speak to the brains whose strategy propelled Barack Obama into the White House.

---

The Wasteland
Where do the millions of computer monitors, cell phones and other electronic refuse our society generates end up? Some of it is shipped illegally from the U.S. to China, reports Scott Pelley, where it is harming the environment and the people who salvage its valuable components. | Watch Video

---

Ted Turner
The nearly 70-year-old media mogul looks back on a life marked by huge successes, steep downfalls and public feuds that have made him an American legend. Morley Safer reports. "

Community member Stan started his own site yesterday entitled Oh Boy It Never Ends. He's still playing around with it and has so far offered "Good for Nader" and "Stan 411" and "Robin Morgan". Also posting yesterday, Mike's "Joshua Frank, Murphy, Cocktail Weinie Norman" covers the strong and the pathetic, Marcia's "A lot including my cousin is blogging!" is a grab bag post on a multitude of topics, Ruth's "McKinney results, Doug Ireland" continues Ruth's following of election results, Kat's "Pathetic Green Party" explores the planned uselessness of a political party, Cedric's "And she smells like urine" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! TINA FEY'S A SKANK!" (joint-post) pulls a Jim and assigns Ava and I an article (joking, it falls under the topic we're already covering) and Rebecca's "gail collins is an idiot" covers the embarrassment of Collins. On the Green Party, Kimberly and Ian Wilder (On The Wilder Side) are advocating for action and not waiting around until Januray 2012 to start figuring out what to do:

What next for the national Green Party? Let's send Malik Rahim to Congress
The Green Party has a golden opportunity to elect a Congressperson next month. Let's work together, in this lull after the election, to focus on a powerful strategy and a winnable race.
It has created such interesting timing, that the election for Congress, District 2, in Louisiana was changed to December 6, 2008. And, we have one of our strongest Green Party candidates running in that race. In the vacuum of the November elections being over, this is a chance for green throughout the country to focus their energy in one place, on one candidate, who has the qualifications, resume and charisma to win.
Malik Rahim has credentials. He was a member of the Black Panther Party. He was a founder of Common Ground, an organization dedicated to supporting poor and working class people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Malik's story has been in a variety of national media outlets. And, Malik's work after Hurrican Katrina is a story in Amy Goodman's book, "Standing Up To The Madness." Malike gave one of the most compelling and inspiring speeches at the Green Party National Convention in Chicago this summer. (Video of his speech is: here.)


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

iraq
brian bennett
alissa j. rubin
the new york times
wbai
cat radio cafe
janet coleman
david dozer
60 minutes
cbs news
oh boy it never ends
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
the third estate sunday review
kimberly wilder

"The soldiers used to talk about the freedom in America and how great life was there, but they used to make jokes about gays," Bashar told DNA. "The Americans who patrolled the streets threw a bottle of water at my friend and I because we were gay. They were driving by in their Humvees, and they had these windows where they could look out from, and I could see that they were laughing at us and calling us f*gs. They'd said that when they came here they would change things -- they would liberate us -- and here they were disrespecting us."
"Nevertheless," Bashar continued, "I began working inside the Green Zone as a translator for the American military police, who were teaching the Iraqi police how to use weapons. They gave me a hard time. They were very negative people. One day, my American friend told me, 'All the people talk about you.' I said, 'Why? I do a good job.' He said, 'They are not open-minded people. They are not predisposed to accept gay people teaching the police."
So, Bashar recounted to the Australian journalist, "I went to see the chief of the American company who had hired the translators to clarify the situation, but he was an asshole. He just looked me up and down and said, 'You are a disease. A piece of s**t. We have no place for people like you. We have enough fa**ots f**king each other in San Francisco.'"
Bashar subsequently went to work translating for other army contingents at the Camp Delta base in southern Iraq, where one night the taxi he was traveling in was stopped by five militiamen loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the fundamentalist extremist cleric who has egged on his own anti-gay death squads.
"They put a cape over my face and drove me somewhere," Bashar told DNA, "and when we got there, they took off my clothes and started beating me. They kept me naked for three days. I cried for hours. I couldn't sleep. They didn't give me any food or water. During the beatings I just tuned out and kept thinking of the lyrics of Madonna songs - especially the 'Erotica' album - and that gave me the courage to go through what they did to me.
"They beat me every two or three hours for 10 minutes at a time. They pissed on me many times. I said, 'Please God, I want to die. I come from a good family.' They said I was gay and that they had orders to kill gays and lesbians wherever they found them. Then they said they wanted to f**k me. I refused and they gang-raped me. There were ten of them, and they came in the room one after the other. One of them was so drunk that he threw up on me... This went on for 12 days. "
Bashar was eventually released, naked, to an interrogator ordered to murder him. But knowing Bashar's family, the interrogator instead beat him relentlessly and then took a photograph of his bloodied face to make it seem as if he had killed him.
"I told one of the Americans in charge of security inside the base what had really happened to me," Bashar recounted to the Australian journalist, "and that I hadn't been able to sleep or eat very well since, but he just laughed at me. He said, 'You're lucky to have had ten d**ks in 12 days.'"
Bashar expressed his disillusionment with the US occupier. "I was a fool back in 2003," he told DNA. "I stood in the street and applauded the American troops when they entered Baghdad. But America is living in denial about what it has done to our country...
"You think you've done such a great thing 'liberating' us from Saddam, but where is the freedom for gay men and women? Sure, we are free - free to live in hiding, free to run for our lives, and free to die for the 'crime' of being gay. You in the West do not think about your freedom. It's nothing to you. But there is a price to be paid for freedom."
And Bashar ultimately paid that price in a hail of machine gun bullets.

The above is from Doug Ireland's "Key Gay Leader Slain in Iraq" (Gay City News) and it was published last month. What's being described isn't uncommon in Iraq.

However, it is illuminating. Not only are Iraqi LGBTs targeted by extremist thugs from their own country, they're also targeted by US service members. Complain, be told you're lucky you were gang-raped. Complain, be dismissed. These crimes take place because they are tolerated and not just by Iraqis but by the occupying power which is supposed to be on Iraqi soil to protect the people. But that's not what happens. It's a real shame the US elected to install thugs of the Shi'ite persuasion and then train thugs from the Sunni pool. It's a damn shame that the US stood around saying, "What's with the brain drain? Why are these people leaving?"

They were leaving because it wasn't safe and it wasn't safe because the White House wasn't attempting to create safety. If Iraq hadn't had the brain drain, it would be a lot less easy to attempt to push them around. And an educated class would have been far less dependent upon US handlers for 'training.'

UK Gay News quoted Peter Tatchell on the assassination of Bashar:

This morning, I received news from Iraq that the coordinator of Iraqi LGBT in Baghdad, Bashar, aged 27, a university student, has been assassinated in a barber shop.
Militias burst in and sprayed his body with bullets at point blank range.
He was the organiser of the safe houses for gays and lesbians in Baghdad. His efforts saved the lives of dozens of people.
Bashar was a kind, generous and extremely brave young man -- a true hero who put his life on the line to save the lives of others.
My thoughts go out to his loved ones and to the other members of Iraqi LGBT.
Their courage is an inspiration to all people everywhere fighting against injustice.
Bashir was far from the first one targeted and not even the first for 2008. Tatchell wrote about for the Guardian of London in "Sexual cleansing in Iraq:"

The "improved" security situation in Iraq is not benefiting all Iraqis, especially not those who are gay. Islamist death squads are engaged in a homophobic killing spree with the active encouragement of leading Muslim clerics, such as Moqtada al-Sadr, as Newsweek recently revealed.
One of these clerics, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa urging the killing of lesbians and gays in the "most severe way possible".
The short film, Queer Fear -- Gay Life, Gay Death in Iraq, produced by David Grey for Village Film, documents the tragic fates of a several individual gay Iraqis. You can view it here. Watch and weep. It is a truly poignant and moving documentary about the terrorisation and murder of Iraqi lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Since this film was made, the killings have continued and, many say, got worse. For gay Iraqis there is little evidence of the transition to democracy. They don't experience any newfound respect for human rights. Life for them is even worse than under the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

At the end of July, Frederik Pleitgen, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Wayne Drash's "Gays in Iraq terrorized by threats, rape, murder" (CNN) reported:


Kamal was just 16 when gunmen snatched him off the streets of Baghdad, stuffed him in the trunk of a car and whisked him away to a house. But the real terror was about to begin.
The men realized he was gay, Kamal said, when he took his shirt off and they saw that his chest was shaved.
"They told me to take off my clothes to rape me or they would kill me immediately. This moment was the worst moment in my life," he said, weeping as he spoke of the 2005 ordeal.
"I was watching them taking off their clothes, preparing to rape me. I did not know what to do, so I started shouting loudly, 'Please do not do that! I will ask my family to give you whatever you want.' " Watch the tormented life of gays in Iraq »
His pleas went unheeded. "The other two kidnappers took off my clothes by force, and, at that time, I saw them as three dirty animals trying to tear my body apart."
He was held for 15 days, released only after his family paid a $1,500 ransom. He was raped every day. Only once, he said, was he allowed to talk to his family during captivity. "I told my family that I was beaten by them, but I did not dare to tell my family that I was raped by them. I could not say it, it's too much shame."

Iraqi LGBT is an organization working to improve conditions for Iraq's gay community. Let's jump back to the reaction Bashir recevied from the US military. That attitude can be stopped but it has to come from the top. And what has come from the top has been homophobia. The same as what Barack's offered whether putting homophobes onstage in his primary campaign and in his general election campaign and letting them 'preach' their homophobia or whether it is surrounding himself with homophobes as advisers and supporters. Saturday's "Robin Morgan's homophobic candidate" noted Barack's favorite t-bagger Wlliam McPeak and his insulting homophobic remarks that he should have been held accountable for but instead got waived on through. ("If you want to do something like racial integration or the integration of openly homosexual soldiers, sailors and marines, airmen, the service leadership will have to get ahead of it. Service leadership will have to go to the gay and lesbian annual ball and lead the first dance. I've spoken many, many times at black history week and am proud to do it. . . . But I couldn't see how I could become an advocate for open homosexuality in Air Force combat units. I don't see how people can do it today.") And of course there's always Collie Powell, a major homophobe.
James Kirchick's "Powell's Cautionary Tale" (The Atlantic) provides some background on Collie:

But there is something else that should give those liberals pause: Powell's record on a signature civil rights issue of the age has been nothing short of disgraceful. Powell did more than any uniformed officer to undermine the attempt by President Clinton to allow openly gay people to serve in the military, an explicit promise Clinton made in his presidential campaign. This is a baleful, not to mention dangerous (given the number of gay linguists who have been booted from the uniformed services) policy that the president could, and ought to, have changed by executive order. (The military, seemingly unbeknownst to Powell throughout his decades of government service, operates under civilian control.) But for various reasons (his draft-dodging past chief among them) Clinton refused to stand up to the uniformed officers under his command.
And no officer took better advantage of Clinton's spinelessness than Powell. At one point, he even threatened to resign if Clinton pressed the issue further than the compromise "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy--a policy that soon resulted in the discharge of even more gay soldiers than under the previous protocol. At the time, Powell sought to downplay any comparison between the racial integration of the military and the potential inclusion of open homosexuals, writing in a letter to congresswoman Pat Schroeder that "skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics." That Powell, the highest achieving beneficiary of Harry Truman's decision to unilaterally desegregate the military, would be the individual most responsible for preventing the similar integration of gays is to his everlasting shame.
To be sure, Powell has since softened his stance on the issue. In 2007 he told Tim Russert that his "own judgment is that gays and lesbians should be allowed to have maximum access to all aspects of society," though he did not go so far as to say that the ban should be lifted. Powell's newfound, post-government (read: professionally convenient and less politically consequential) enlightenment on this issue, more than 12,500 unnecessary honorable discharges later, does not absolve him of his original impetuosity nor the weakening effect its had on the caliber of the nation's armed forces.

"Maximum access"? Doesn't sound like equality, does it. A point The Atlantic leaves out is that while Powell's slight shift of positions too late to do any good, it's also true that Collie now depends on coporate monies and bookings and homophobia so upfront rarely flies in corporate America these days. It's not good for the image so if Collie wants to cash in, he knows he has to tone it down. These are the type of people who back Barack, McPeak and Powell. And they are the ones who have institutionalized homophobia in the military and done everything they can to make sure it remains there.

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 4189. Tonight? 4191. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,284,105 finally up from weeks and weeks at 1,273,378.

Off topic for a community note. Stan has started his own site, Oh Boy It Never Ends.

And back to the topic of this entry, we'll close with Leslie Feinberg's "New York Times admits: 'Life better for gay & lesbian Iraqis under Hussein' Lavender & red, part 119" (Workers World, January 27, 2008 ):

The New York Times--an imperialist mouthpiece--admitted in a mid-December article that social life was better for those who it described as "gay and lesbian Iraqis" under the secular government of Saddam Hussein. The Times also confirmed that sanctions, war and occupation crushed that social progress and ushered in death-squad terror.
The Dec. 18 article was a political feature, not based on breaking news. The original headline summed up: "Gays Living in Shadows of New Iraq: Violence Replaces Tacit Acceptance."
Times journalist Cara Buckley interviewed Iraqis who she described as gay. She reported, "And, until the [U.S.] American invasion, they said, Iraqi society had quietly accepted them."
Buckley said those Iraqis she interviewed offered this view of life before sanctions and war: "For a brief, exhilarating time, from the mid-1980s until the early 1990s, they say, gay night life flourished in Iraq. Whereas neighboring Iran turned inward after its Islamic revolution in 1979, Baghdad allowed a measure of liberation after the end of the Iran-Iraq war."
The New York Times newspaper--"all the news that's fit to print" --doesn't see fit to mention that U.S. imperialism instigated the Iran-Iraq war. The Reagan administration armed both sides. Instead, the article continues to attempt to pit the two oil-rich countries against each other.
At the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, Buckley continued, "Abu Nuwas Boulevard, which hugs the Tigris River opposite what is now the Green Zone, became a promenade known for cruising. Discos opened in the city’s best hotels, the Ishtar Sheraton, the Palestine and Saddam Hussein's prized Al-Rasheed Hotel becoming magnets for gay men. Young men with rouged cheeks and glossed lips paraded the streets of Mansour, an affluent neighborhood in Baghdad."
The Times quotes Ali Hili, who left Iraq in 2000 and is now living in London, where he heads the organization Iraqi LGBT-UK. Hili stressed that before the U.S. war and sanctions, "There were so many guys, from Kuwait, from Saudi Arabia, guys in the street with makeup," Hili recalled. "Up until 1991, there was sexual freedom. It was a revolutionary time."
Buckley noted, "Then came the Persian Gulf War, and afterward Saddam Hussein put an end to nightclubs. Iraq staggered under the yoke of economic sanctions."
The late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a bourgeois nationalist, reportedly added a religious law that made anal intercourse, prostitution, rape and incest a capital offense in 2001. The edict came after almost a decade of economic strangulation, as the U.S. pressed for shock-and-awe military invasion.
Buckley asked two of the Iraqis she interviewed what life was like in Iraq for them and acquaintances after the 2001 law was written. She reported, "While anti-gay laws were increasingly enforced, Mohammed and Mr. Hili said they still felt safe. Homosexuality seemed accepted, as long as it was practiced in private. And even when it was not tolerated, prison time could be evaded with a well-placed bribe."
The admission by the New York Times that social attitudes towards male-male or female-female sexuality were freer under the secular Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein is particularly shocking after U.S. finance capital has enforced 12 years of economic warfare, unleashed two blitzkrieg wars and continues to be the military occupation force against the entire population of Iraq based in part on the Big Lie.
Prewar media agitation about a virtual fascist dictatorship for "gays" in Iraq targeted newspapers aimed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans audiences in the U.S. and Britain, and helped sell the war as "liberation."
But imperialism, and colonialism before it, has never brought liberation to the Middle East. Just the opposite is true. For example, the Times neglected to mention that British finance capital outlawed "sodomy" in Iraq--almost a century ago.
For the purposes of the Dec. 18 New York Times feature, however, Iraqi history begins with the mid-1980s, and "gay" and "lesbian" are fixed categories, identical to Western concepts, and transcend economic and social relations, cultures and eras.
Translating sex & love
More than a century ago, as the historical sun rose on capitalist economic and accompanying military expansion, Europeans also judged and condemned, speculated and sensationalized, categorized and theorized regarding Arab sexualities, particularly about expressions of love between adult men and adolescent males.
Scholar and author Khaled El-Rouayheb pointed out, "The tendency is very much in evidence already in Sir Richard Burton’s remarks on 'Pederasty' in the 'Terminal Essay' to his translation of The Arabian Nights in 1886. Writing before the term 'homosexuality' was introduced into the English language, Burton still assumed that he was faced with one phenomenon, 'pederasty,' which he claimed was widespread in the Islamic world and regarded as at worse a peccadillo."
El-Rouayheb is the author of a meticulously researched book, entitled "Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World., 1500-1800," that was published by the University of Chicago Press in 2005.
Khaled El-Rouayheb cautioned, "The assumption that it is unproblematic to speak of either tolerance or intolerance of homosexuality in the pre-modern Middle East, would seem to derive from the assumption that homosexuality is a self-evident fact about the human world to which a particular culture reacts with a certain degree of tolerance or repression.
"From this perspective," he continued, "writing the history of homosexuality is seen as analogous to writing, say, the history of women. One assumes that the concept 'homosexual,' like the concept 'woman,' is shared across historical periods, and that what varies and may be investigated historically is merely the changing cultural (popular, scientific, legal, etc.) attitude toward such people."
El-Rouayheb concluded, "The concept of male homosexuality did not exist in the Arab-Islamic Middle East in the early Ottoman period. There was simply no native concept that was applicable to all and only those men who were sexually attracted to members of their own sex, rather than to women."
Next: British outlawed 'sodomy' in Iraq.
E-mail: lfeinberg@workers.org
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

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

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
doug ireland
frederik pleitgen
mohammed tawfeeq
wayne drash
peter tatchell
james kirchick
leslie feinberg
oh boy it never ends

Yesterday (late) the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier died of non-combat related causes Nov. 5." That brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4191. We'll come back to fatalities in a minute. In this morning's Washington Post, Ann Scott Tyson's "Combat Brigade Is Cut 6 Weeks Early in Iraq" runs on A10 and informs that former top US commander in Iraq and now head of Centcom Gen David Petraeus is cutting the brigade numbers down to fourteen from fifteen and doing so "as a result of dramatically lower violence there, Pentagon officials said yesterday. . . . Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has stated that further increases in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan -- where American commanders say they need three more brigades and thousands of support forces to combat a growing insurgency -- will be contingent upon further withdrawals from Iraq next year."

Tyson reports the decision was made on reduced violence (which does not appear to include the attacks on Iraqi Christians last month) and deaths of US service members which the paper lists as 12 for October ("Twelve American service members died last month, including six from noncombat causes."). That is wrong. The number is fourteen. From ICCC:

29-Oct-2008	2	| US: 2 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Private 1st Class Bradley S. Coleman	Qayyarah Airfield - Ninawa	Non-hostile
	US	Sergeant Scott J. Metcalf	Mosul (died in Balad) - Ninawa	Non-hostile
24-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Private 1st Class Cody J. Eggleston	National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda	Hostile - hostile fire - indirect fire
23-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Staff Sergeant Brian P. Hause	Balad Air Base - Salah Ad Din	Non-hostile - medical
20-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Lance Corporal Stacy A. Dryden	Al Asad - Anbar	Non-hostile
16-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Private 1st Class Heath K. Pickard	Ba'qubah - Diyala	Hostile - hostile fire - indirect fire
15-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Specialist Justin A. Saint	Baghdad	Non-hostile
14-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Private 1st Class Christopher A. McCraw	Baghdad (Nasar Wa Salam)	Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
12-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Specialist Geoffrey G. Johnson	Baghdad	Non-hostile
11-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Corporal Reuben M. Fernandez III	Majar Al Kabir (Amara) - Maysan	Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
07-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Sergeant Michael K. Clark	Mosul - Ninewa	Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
05-Oct-2008	2	| US: 2 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Colonel Michael R. Stahlman	Anbar Province	Non-hostile
	US	Sergeant William P. Rudd	Mosul - Ninewa	Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
03-Oct-2008	1	| US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
	US	Private 1st Class Tavarus D. Setzler	Majar al-Kabir - Maysan	Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
02-Oct-2008	0	| US: 0 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
Total	14	| US: 14 | UK: 0 | Other: 0

On the subject of Afhganistan, Anne Geran's "Tough morning for Obama: Russian threats and Afghan deaths greet the president-elect" (AP) explains:

In Afghanistan, the U.S.-backed president demanded that Obama change U.S. tactics as villagers said U.S. warplanes killed 37 people -- nearly all of them women and children -- during a cat-and-mouse hunt for militants.
"We cannot win the fight against terrorism with airstrikes," President Hamid Karzai said. "This is my first demand of the new president of the United States -- to put an end to civilian casualties."

And it's only Karzai's "first demand of the new president". As al-Maliki has so aptly demonstrated, sometimes the puppet pulls the strings.

On the subject of Iraqi Christians, IRIN reports:

About 400 Christian families, (some 2,400 individuals) have returned to their homes in the northern city of Mosul after a spate of threats and killings led them to flee in early October, according to officials.
"We have so far registered nearly 400 Christian families who have returned to their houses and jobs, and resumed normal lives thanks to the deployment of security forces," said Jawdat Ismaiel, head of the Ministry of Displacement and Migration in the province.

That's IRIN reporting today, dropping back to Monday, they issued an alert again stating that it was not safe for refugees to return to Iraq:

The Iraqi government should review its policy of encouraging Iraqi refugees to return home by offering them free plane or bus tickets, until it is able to ensure security, local and international NGOs said.
"For the time being, the government should take care of the refugees and meet their daily needs in their host countries until it can secure suitable life conditions to allow them to go back to their homes," said Basil al-Azawi, head of the Baghdad-based Commission for Civil Society Enterprises, an umbrella group of over 1,000 NGOs operating inside and outside Iraq.

On the issue of any decline in violence, we'll note these observations by Andrew North (BBC) :

This uncertain situation is now encased in an incredible amount of concrete - the blast barriers that have become one of the signature images of Baghdad
There were plenty in place when I was last here a year ago. Now there are even more and journeys take longer than ever.
There are checkpoints with heavy machine-guns every 300 metres on many roads now - far more than you ever saw under the police-state rule of Saddam Hussein.
Baghdad is a city under complete military occupation. So the relative quiet here may be deceptive.

Leila Fadel's "Does a New American President Change Iraq?" (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) is a roundup she did prior to the election results.

"The American elections have no importance to me at all. Their presidency is one thing and their policy is another, therefore there is no real difference who wins. American foreign policy is constant. Iraqis are not ignorant, we have seen this over the years; one president goes and another comes and he does nothing to remedy his predecessor's mistakes only what concerns the American people. As for people in other countries they don't count because they don't vote." -- Aqeel Mohammed, 37, a Shiite minibus driver from southern Baghdad

"What possible change can either of them bring? And if they do anything, it is only to the interests of their own country – not for our sake. They might "bring their boys home" and "stop spending their money in Iraq" and "let Iraqis shoulder their own responsibilities"…. Where are we in all this?

Maybe Obama would withdraw their forces – but is that good? I would be happy to see them go – but I am also afraid.

What they do, they do for themselves. -- Widad Hamid, 74, a Sunni Arab retired high school teacher from western Baghdad.

"We do follow the news, but I don't expect any change at all. I have no faith in their promises because they say only what they think the American people want to hear. They dissemble their own people – not others. They don't care about the Iraqi people. It's all about their security freedoms, their boys, their money and their democracy. American foreign policy is one line, presidents come and go." -- Khalid Abu Abdullah, a Sunni Arab shopowner from northern Baghdad

"The residents of Sadr city don't car about the American presidential election, now we care only about the blocked roads and the traffic jams...I don't think the American policy will change towards our country," -- Khaleel Abu Ahmad, 37, a Shiite engineer from the east Baghdad district of Sadr City.

the washington post
ann scott tyson
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
anne geran
andrew north

The U.S. embassy used the elections as the reason to have its first official function at the new embassy in Baghdad. Security was tight around the compound and dozens of private security personnel stood outside the embassy area. Inside, a projector displayed the latest elections news from CNN on a wall, and information sheets on the two presidential candidates and other information about the American electoral process lined a table. In the back of the room was a gigantic cake.
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told the crowd of Iraqi officials, journalists and others that the elections marked the historic occasion of the first African-American elected to the U.S. presidency. But Mr. Crocker also emphasized the democratic traditions that were represented in the U.S. race. Mr. Obama's win marked the 44th peaceful transition of power in the U.S. and the 22nd time a new political party was taking over the presidency through democratic means, Mr. Crocker said.
Mr. Crocker then cited an excerpt from Mr. Obama's victory speech: "To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope."
The ambassador said he couldn't think of a place where Mr. Obama's words were more important than in Iraq, where two elections are scheduled to take place next year.

The above is from Gina Chon's "Obama’s Victory Came as a Surprise to Many Iraqis" (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) and it's not at all surprising that Barack's threat was used as such in Iraq. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Gary Leupp's "" (Dissident Voice) offered a decoding of Barack's bullying:

"To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you."

In other words: Under my administration we Americans will continue to simplistically conceptualize the existence of an enemy that is pure evil and wants to destroy the world, and imagine we can "defeat" it through the War on Terror.

"To those who seek peace and security: We support you."

In other words: You Georgians facing Russia. You Afghans facing Pakistan-based attacks. You Israelis facing what you imagine to be the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. You can trust an Obama administration to behave just like other recent U.S. administrations have behaved: with threats and sanctions, illegal cross-border raids and more war. Have no fear. As the world's greatest imperialist country, with bases in over half the countries on the planet, we can seek peace and security and support whoever we want. Yes we can!

Yesterday's snapshot also noted Corey Flintoff (NPR's All Things Considered) report on Crocker entertaining at the embassy for those needing or preferring audio. Suada al-Salhy and Katherine Zoepf cover it in this morning's New York Times with "U.S. Envoy Hosts First Event at New Embassy in Baghdad" which explains the US embassy/fortress hosted approximately "250 Iraqi officials, diplomats and dignitaries . . . Wednesday morning" for a beyond tacky meet up that served up bad sheet cake (I'm calling it bad based on reports beyond NYT, they merely mention how large it was) and "green-tinted fruit punch." As a general rule, serving any green colored liquid should be done on St. Patrick's Day and, even then, done in moderation. Maybe it was to symbolize the Green Zone? It certainly wasn't to appear appetizing. Crocker stressed that nothing's changed and, of course, nothing has. The reporters note:

Yet the embassy, built like a fortress, suggested a degree of permanence to the American presence here that at least some of the Iraqi guests seemed to find comforting.
"The size of this embassy and the number of employees who will occupy it are a sign of the American government’s commitment to democracy in Iraq," said Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister. He did not remember the details of the original lease agreement for the land, he said, "but it was a very long lease."

Amazing that Americans can't be informed how long the lease is, isn't it? They are the ones footing the bill. No doubt it's a 'national security' issue that must be kept classified.

A visitor e-mailed the public account asking that we note Sam Smith's "The real Obama" and a few points. Smith is a bad reporter, a really bad one. You don't need to know his work during the Clinton administration to know that but it does show you how truly bad he is. In this article, he brags about being "a good boy" (he's over 65, grow the hell up) and sitting on issues relating to Barack. That goes to the fact that he's not a reporter. A reporter does not try to influence the outcome and certainly doesn't keep facts hidden. We'll note his late to the party piece but via Green Change and not via Sam Smith's bad website:

There is one story from Chicago, however, that remains relevant. A citizen walks into his alderman's office looking for a job. "Who sent you?" he asks. "Nobody," he replies. Says the staffer: "We don't want nobody nobody sent."
Who sent Barack Obama remains a mystery. He has risen from an unknown state senator to president in exactly four years and that only happens when somebody sends for you.
The black liberal image falters on a number of other scores including Obama's affection for extreme right wingers like Chuck Hagel and an obvious indifference to anybody who votes like, say, a state senator from Hyde Park. Think back over the campaign and try to recall a single instance when Obama reached out to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party or to the better angels of the Congressional Black Caucus. Instead his ads attacked as 'extreme' the single payer health insurance backed by many of his own supporters, he dissed ACORN and Colin Powell was as radical a black as he wanted to be seen palling around with.
The key issue that has driven Obama throughout his career has been Obama. He has achieved virtually nothing for any other cause. His politics reflects whatever elite consensus he gathers around himself. This is why his "post partisanship" needs to be watched so carefully. If Bernie Sanders and John Conyers don't get to White House meetings as often as Chuck Hagel, Obama will glide easily to the right, as every president has done over the past thirty years. If liberals, as they did with Clinton, watch without a murmur as their president redesigns their party to fit his personal ambitions, then the whole country will continue to move to the right as well.
Since the real Obama doesn't exist yet, it is impossible to predict with any precision what he will do. But here is some of the evidence gathered over the past months that should serve both as a warning and as a prod to progressives not to take today's dreams as a reasonable facsimile of reality [. . .]

Late to the party. Expect to see a lot more come crawling out over the coming months. And for those who don't grasp how bad a 'reporter' Sam Smith is, please note, he's one of those "They killed Vince Foster!" nutcakes. And, to be clear, he didn't just sit on Barack concerns while savaging the Republicans, he refused to cover Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney. He's a bag boy for Barack. He is not a journalist. He never was. During the 90s spectacle, you could find him and the drunken Chris Hitchens blathering on with their crazed conspiracy talk.

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

iraq
gina chon
the wall street journal
gary leupp
npr
all things considered
corey flintoff
the new york times
katherine zoepf
suadad al-salhy

Wednesday, November 5, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, the empire gets a new ruler, Nouri al-Maliki claims credit, the treaty remains stalled, Iraqis are far from overwhelmed and more.      Yesterday the US elected a new ruler for the empire, War Hawk Barack Obama.  David A. G. Fischer (Dissident Voice) reports on an election night panel independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader took part in:   He goes on to contrast his campaign with that of Obama as not having any hoopla, hope or rhetoric; Ralph continues to campaign on the real issues affecting the people in spite of overwhelming odds -- he is a champion despite Obama's victory. Along the same line and with applause, his lack of hoopla and rhetoric is still so out-of-sync with the media cartel's disinformation campaign that he was once again ignored by the mainstream. What we have here is a man who refuses to sell out and complacently surrender to the status quo, he is a man based on strong principle who perceives reality for what it is -- a sham directed by the controlling institutions of power, of which Obama is just another cog in their finely-tuned machine. But what do we really know about Mr. Barack Obama? Here we have a candidate who received hundreds of millions in campaign donations by corporate America and Wall Street. Nader sensibly asks something I've pointed out many times, "Why are the corporations investing in Obama?" By looking at his voting record it is obvious who he supports with approbation for illegal surveillance, a permanent presence in Iraq with a potential spread to neighboring countries, offshore drilling which he used to be against, an economic bailout lacking oversight and transparency, and so forth. Where is this great change that he has been spewing forth to the public for the past twenty months? It is likely just more of what the public wants to hear, but it's apparent by voter turnout that they fail to feel the hot air blowing by them.  Part of the problem with Obama, as Nader points out, is that while Obama is pulled to the right by the corporate establishment, there are no demands being put on him by organized groups such as labor and unions to pull him the other direction and thus "make him better."   Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes this refusal to make demands on Barack as well:   We have learned that Black politicians and activist-poseurs have an infinite capacity to celebrate not having engaged in struggle with Power, and that the Black masses can be made drunk by the prospect of vicariously (through Obama) coming to power. Having failed to make even the mildest of demands on Obama in return for unquestioning support, Black misleadership vowed they would press for firm commitments on issues of importance to African Americans once Obama had passed the final hurdle. (White progressives who were similarly self-neutered during the campaign also promise to begin acting like real people's advocates, any day now...just you wait and see.) We have already learned that "Progressives for Obama" of all ethnicities, who failed to put pressure on the candidate early on, when it might have made a difference, are full of crap.   Yes, they are full of crap.  Including the Agency-fronted political closet case who has already shown up with a pep-talk about how the economic crisis is a good thing, a really, really good thing!  Those in the closet politically might want to check their language so they don't expose themselves by accident.  But lets' move to the economy.  The San Francisco Business Times observes, "A day after the United States made history by electing Barack Obama president, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 486 points Wednesday, ending at 9,139.27."  The Phoenix Business Journal notes that news as well: "The election is over and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has taken a dive of nearly 500 points."  No, there was no magical 'cure' nor was there going to be.  Any zowie-wowie article on the election today notes in cautionary tales how things will have to be scaled back or dropped.  That's your preparation for expecting nothing from the man who promised even less.  Larry Pinkney (Information Clearing House) offers a list of things to expect:   In relative short order - inside the United States itself - under a Barack Obama presidency, the living conditions of the majority of Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow peoples will continue to steadily and massively deteriorate while the corporate Wall Street barons prolong their glut of the every day people's finances, resources, hopes, and dreams. Under an Obama presidency those non Blacks who stand in opposition to Barack Obama's de facto pro Wall Street backers and their blood-sucking policies will be branded as racists and traitors, while those Blacks who oppose Obama's policies will be ignored and/or branded as fringe radicals and traitors. Thus, the horrors of the U.S. Empire will continue unabated, and in many respects, under Barack Obama, actually worsen. The blame for the deteriorating economy and continued war will of course quickly be laid by the Obama / Biden regime and the Democratic Party Republicrats on the previous Bush / Cheney regime, despite the fact that it was the complicity of the Democratic Party itself with the Bush / Cheney Republican Republicrat regime that facilitated the despicable policies and practices of the Bush / Cheney regime. The fact is that the Democratic and Republican Parties are de facto Republicrats with the objective of exploiting the majority of people and maintaining U.S. Empire abroad. After the Democratic Party Republicrats so-called election euphoria and celebrating is over, the Obama / Biden Republicrat regime will get down to the business of placing the ongoing exploitation of the every day people of this nation on fast track. The masses of Black Americans, along with the oppressed and exploited Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples of this nation will learn first hand that, notwithstanding the deceptive Obama rhetoric, exploitation nationally and internationally will be intensified. The "clash between those who want freedom, justice, equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation" about which Malcolm X referred, will be intensified under Barack Obama, with Obama representing the interests of the oppressors. The political contradictions in this regard will also be increasingly obvious. Those so-called leftist and progressives who were and are collaborators with U.S. Empire will, for a time, try to pretend that their support of Barack Obama was not a sell out, and that they simply need more time to persuade the U.S. Empire's colored corporate emperor to do the right thing. Meanwhile, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples will be enduring an unprecedented rate of economic and social suffering. The anger of the people will ultimately peak and explode, as a result of having bought into false hope and raised expectations. This is precisely why the U.S. corporate government has already made military contingency plans to contain and massively quash dissention within the United States. Barack Obama will serve to provide his corporate / military masters with colored political cover for political repression in this nation; and he will have already provided a small respite of wiggling room for them in this regard. Nevertheless, as brutal reality forces the proverbial scales of blindness to drop from eyes of the masses, it will become crystal clear that the supposed "change" to which Barack Obama referred in his campaign rhetoric, was nothing more than a vicious ruse of double-speak by him, backed by his corporate and military handlers. Indeed, the emperor will be shown to "have no clothes." But what of the fate of millions of Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow peoples inside the U.S.? How many horrible sacrifices will have been, and will yet need to be made by the people in order to get the boot of economic blood-sucking and political repression off their / our necks?   Emperor Barack gave his victory speech in Chicago.  Gary Leupp (Dissident Voice) decodes it:   "And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand." In other words: Don't worry, world. The bad old days of George Bush are over. "To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you." In other words: Under my administration we Americans will continue to simplistically conceptualize the existence of an enemy that is pure evil and wants to destroy the world, and imagine we can "defeat" it through the War on Terror.     Exit polls demonstrate that the economy was the number one issue, ahead of the illegal war.  Going unnoticed is how Iraq was taken off the table by All Things Media Big and Small.  When the faux activists of CODESTINK are protesting Wall St. -- not for the war machinery they manufacture and sell but over the economic meltdown -- and Jodi's given everything but her uterus to Barack's campaign, don't pretend anyone's being encouraged to give a damn about ending the Iraq War.  To really ensure that it be a non-issue, did someone else take it off the table?  Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports that Nouri al-Maliki is claiming to "close aides" that he gave the election to Barack because "he took the Iraqi issue 'off the table' for Obama by endorsing his timetable during his visit to Baghdad in July."  Don't be too angry with al-Maliki, CIA assets tend to face very violent rub-outs when they've exhuasted their usefulness and al-Maliki's pretty much squeezed out.  al-Maliki reportedly believes he can get further concessions from Barack on the treaty between the White House and the puppet government. At the US State Dept today, Sean McCormack was asked about the treaty and the spokesperson stated that the US has not yet responded (officially) to the amendments suggested by Iraq and that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will convey communications to al-Maliki. As for whether the amendments will fly or not, McCormack declared, "Well, again, I go back to what -- you know, what I've said and what Dana Perino has said over at the White House in terms of the bar for any changes.  You know, it's a pretty high bar for any changes.  But again, we'll take a look at what is suggested.  We're formulating our responses.  The Iraqis took some time to think through what they wanted to provide us by way of comments, and we're taking our time in providing that response back to them."   One thing Ambassador Crocker already conveyed to the Iraqi government was, "While this historic election has changed a great many things, we will also have full continuity of policy and purpose as we move through our transition."  NPR's Corey Flintoff (All Things Considered) reported that today and on the reaction of Iraqis to the election results with Abu Osama stating, "We don't know whether he'll change now that he's elected" and Rana Sa'ad Diyab stating she's not seen any improvements in six years and "she'll wait and see whether Obama's policies bring any changes in security or her family's standard of living, but she doubts that will happen."  Hameed Kamil Hilal tells Leila Fadel and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers), "We have seen nothing positive from any American president, and McCain and Obama are two faces of one coin, one policy."  Meanwhile Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times of London) explains that it's not just Iraqis who are doubtful that any 'change' will take place, "On Iraq, the Illinois senator campaigned on a pledge to remove US combat troops within sixteen months, but some military officers privately argue that he will show more flexibility on timing after assuming responsibility for the war started by George W. Bush."   In some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing where the driver killed him/herself and 4 people with nine more wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing where three people were wounded and a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life with three more wounded.   Shootings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 police officers shot dead in Mosul.   Corpses?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul Tuesday night and, also Tuesday night, 2 corpses discovered outside of Kirkuk.   In peace news, Cindy Sheehan ran for the US Congress from California's 8th district.  She lost to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday.  While others tried to hop a bandwagon and refused to challenge Democrats, Cindy had the strength to stand up.  At Information Clearing House she shares her thoughts:     This past month, I kept on saying to my supporters, staff, interns, volunteers and myself, that no matter what happened on November 4th that we could hold our heads up high and be very proud of our campaign. Until yesterday, I wasn't sure that what I said would be true, but I feel an incredibly sense of peace and pride in our accomplishments. There were so many victories over the last year that the American paradigm of "winner-take all" just doesn't fit. We moved into San Francisco a little over a year ago with less than nothing. We used savings and credit cards to open our office and sometimes to keep it open. We transformed a former "sex shop" to a fully functioning and vibrant campaign office. Our "natural base" never materialized, so we had to build a foundation in less than a few months. In August, we historically gained ballot access as only the 6th independent campaign in California history to do so. Our platform based on humane economics was in place long before the recent collapses and resultant bailouts. Our labor platform was hailed all over the world, while unions here in SF supported the corporate "rescuer" Nancy Pelosi. Cindy for Congress never once sold out our solid principles based campaign and would never sell out the voters of San Francisco like Nancy Pelosi has. Nancy Pelosi ran from my campaign and our demands to debate me and we persevered and did so amazingly well after a near total media black out and several attempts at political intimidation. We got to the end of this stage with a barrel full of integrity and a boatload of dedication and love. Dozens of activists came from all over the country to be here to help us spread our progressive, peace based message and thousands donated to help keep our campaign afloat. We have moved right through November 4th because this is a movement for peace and against corporate control of our political system. Movements can't stop, we must keep moving.   iraq gary leupp glen ford black agenda report larry pinkney npr corey flintoff demetri sevastopulo leila fadel mcclatchy newspapers hussein kadhim corinne reilly damien mcelroy cindy

The elections will feature political races heavily influenced by Iraq's complex and sectarian conflicts.
They could exacerbate tensions in southern Iraq between U.S.-backed Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's nationalist Islamic Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the two main Shiite Muslim parties in the country.
The results of the internal Shiite rivalry are likely to determine whether Iraq is broken up into semiautonomous regions or retains a strong central government. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council wants to push for the creation of a nine-province federal region, which Dawa fears could jeopardize Iraq's unity.
"Much is at stake in Basra and other oil-bearing governorates," said Joost Hiltermann, an expert on Iraq for the International Crisis Group think tank. "And Baghdad is the prize for those who seek the restoration of strong central government in Iraq."

The above is from Ned Parker's "Iraq looks ahead to provincial, national elections" (Los Angeles Times) and will the Iraqi elections receive even a fourth of the attention worldwide that the US elections did? No, of course not.



Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) live blogged the election and she is highlighting the following by Ronald Hardy:

I am sure that there are many who might feel disappointed in these results, but I have to ask if you are really all that surprised by them? Cynthia McKinney was the only major candidate left off of CNN's radar, and what "main stream media" coverage she did get (Washington Post, FoxNews) were hit pieces meant to further discredit the campaign. Cynthia McKinney is a 6 term Congresswoman with more experience in government than Obama, but she got less coverage than Chuck Baldwin, a radio minister. Wayne Allyn Root got more coverage than Cynthia McKinney. Why? Why the Blackout? It can’t be because she is an African American, can it? It can’t be because she is a woman, can it? Was it her message? Was it her lack of money?However, I am not depressed by the outcome. The results of the Presidential election are of course disappointing, but on the other hand, over 150,000 Americans, of those who even had the opportunity, voted for Cynthia McKinney, despite the lack of coverage, despite the ballot access, and despite the politics of fear.

McKinney may have received more votes. The same is true for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin and other presidential candidates. Write-in ballots aren't a first priority when it comes to counting so the 150,000 referred to above is the preliminary count.

That said, Cynthia was savaged and she was stabbed in the back. Look at (Democratic) Women's Media Center. Supposedly a site highlighting and making women visible. They ignored Cynthia and Rosa's run and only did a story on them (October 31st) finally due to (a) pressure (including the site being called "racist") and (b) they thought it would serve as counter to Robin Morgan's latest foaming at the mouth insanity against Sarah Palin. WMC can't endorse candidates but they damn well did, didn't they? When you cheerlead one campaign over and over and ignore another (one article on Cynthia the entire election?), you are endorsing.

Like every other woman who wouldn't whore herself out for Barack in 2008, Cynthia had to be ignored and demonized at the same time. That's just the way it worked. And the feminist 'leadership' is so damn pathetic that they not only allowed it to happen, they took part in it. They did so when it was Hillary, they did so with Palin and they did so with Cynthia. They sent the message very loud and clear that no woman was good enough and that they will always suck up to a man. It's a message they made clear in 1972 as well and why Shirley Chisholm had a great deal to say about what passed for 'leadership.'

'Leadership' is too old and out of it to lead anymore and expect major shake ups in the near future. It's really amazing that the likes of Robin Morgan elected to go out this way. Susan Faludi's Backlash is an amazing book but the Sleepless in Seattle reference becomes more true every day. Had most actually read the book, they'd know what lies ahead. Backlash didn't just call out the Newsweek lie re: marriage. Backlash called out all the women who contributed to the backlash and, yes, that did include Ms. magazine. The next major feminist book will do the same and when Robin's called out for lying, a few years from now when young women are finding out that Robin Morgan (who they won't give a damn about and really shouldn't because she hasn't done anything of great value since 1972) used lies to tear apart a woman and build up a man, it won't be pretty. And if it's further noted that Morgan's (Democratic) Women's Media Center ignored Cynthia McKinney, it will be down right ugly.

We're not talking the 1800s here. Feminists are damn well aware of the charge (usually incorrect) that the feminist movement is a White movement. So a few years from now when feminists discover that Robin Morgan blacked-out Cynthia, it won't be pretty. It will be the sort of thing that moves her to the list of others who fell into disrepute over racial issues (some of the feminists from the post-Civil War era). Because feminism isn't about telling someone how to vote (though Robin Morgan -- Socialist that she is -- never learned that lesson). Feminism is about opportunities and access. When a so-called feminist outlet like WMC refuses to cover the presidential campaign of a woman (while filing non-stop garbage on a male running for president), opportunities and access for women have been limited.

It's all the more appalling when we're speaking of a woman who stood up for women's rights, reproductive rights and more during her terms in Congress. But she got written off because it was so much more important (and so much more 'feminist') for women to go gaa-gaa over a man. This was Shirley's point, by the way, all those years ago: When women won't even support a woman's right to run, what does that say about the feminist movement?

Thirty-six years later and we're left with the same question.

A visitor e-mailed to complain about Greg Palast. When I have time, his tired ass is pulled from the links. We haven't linked to him in an entry here in years. Yeah, Greggie went and endorsed Barack even though he damn well used Cynthia for years. It really doesn't matter with Palast, he's trash. Only trash choose to publish in H**tler magazine. Had I known he'd done that, he'd never have been added to a link. He's trash. He's human trash. He was never going to endorse Cynthia, his thoughts on women are clear by his decision to be Larry F**nt's buddy.

But back to the issue of the failure of 'leadership.' Here's reality, in the past, 'leaders' didn't hang on so desperately. Current 'leadership' has been in place since the last years of the 60s and need to step their asses down. They wanted 'change' and the 'youth' was so important -- they said. That's why they endorsed Barack.

Well get your tired asses out of 'leadership.' Who the hell are you anyway, Fidel Castro? Goodness, how long are you going to desperately try to hold on? Really, it's past time for all of you to take your asses onto the golden years and let other women step up. If you can't do that, you'll be shoved out of the way and that's what should be happening right now.

It's that baby boomer stranglehold. No other generation has ever been allowed to control and impose for so very damn long. Come on, gals, show us some 'change' -- 'change we can believe in!' Sit your tired asses down, and stop repeating the same talking point you've made for nearly forty years. It's time to go.

We live in a society where women are conditioned to be 'nice' and to put others 'first.' As a result, women's reactions are rarely immediate. They build slowly. We saw that with Anita Hill and we'll be seeing in the near future with regards to what went down this year.

2008 saw open season on Hillary Clinton. She was the first. And some, like Robin, might think that defending Hillary means they accomplished something. Robin accomplished nothing. In her defense of Hillary, she rightly said that Hillary is not responsible for Bill's actions and shouldn't be held accountable for them. But when it was time to rip apart Sarah Palin, Robin was more than fine with snarling over Todd Palin's two decades old DUI or DWI. (I don't know which and I don't give a damn, something that happened 20 years ago and wasn't done by the candidate? Not interested in that gutter nonsense.) That's what Robin still can't grasp and why women are so furious with her right now.

It's not about politics. It's about feminism. And feminism didn't require that any woman vote for Hillary in the Democratic Party primary or that they vote for Cynthia in the general election or for McCain because Palin was on the ticket.

Feminsim did require that we all stood up to sexist coverage in the media. Not just for our personal favorite but for all women running on presidential tickets.

Robin made it very clear that you could stone Sarah Palin and she'd never call you out or even be bothered by it.

That's not feminism.

In two pieces, she trashed Sarah Palin -- "trashed" in the feminist sense of the word. She used gossip and lies and she behaved like the stereotypical "harpy" -- she didn't just embarrass herself, she embarrassed all feminists and the movement itself.

Though she could blather on and on about Barack, she never wrote a word about Cynthia. Actually, she did. She didn't name Cynthia, but she ridiculed Ralph (by name) and all candidates not of the two-major parties. Remember, no one ever carries as much water for the Democratci Party as a Socialist (Robin) or Communist trying to fit in.

In 2012, a woman may run again. Why she'd bother is a question many might have after 2008.

But it needs to be noted that the tired 'leadership' of the feminist movement has made it very clear that women can be ripped apart in the press and attacked for their clothes, for their hair, for their looks and for the gender. It's been made clear that unless you're a feminist 'fave' (Hillary), you won't be defended. Even if you're a feminist -- and all three women are feminists: Hillary, Cynthia and Sarah -- you won't be defended strongly.

So what women can expect is three types of treatment:

1) The Hillary: You're old and unattractive! We want a young man! You married your way in! You pimp your daughter! You're calculating and ambitious! Power-hungry! Look at your clothes!

2) The Sarah: You're an idiot! You're a beauty queen! You're calculating and ambitious! Power-hungry! (Ava and I will be going into this in great detail at Third Sunday.) Look at your clothes!

3) The Cynthia: You don't exist! You're not even worthy of my time! You are invisible! You need to drop out of the race because you could hurt the man! Look at your clothes!

That's the message that was sent. 'No woman is worthy, therefore there's no point in the feminist movement defending any woman.'

"Leadership" failed women and the first thing they should be doing right now is apologizing for that. The seeds were sewn early in the year as non-Democrats like Eve Ensler and others stuck their noses into a Democratic Party primary and started questioning Hillary's gender. That should have resulted in the Red Queen Evie being sent packing. She's not really a feminist and she's never done anything but line her own pockets with that bad 'play' she 'wrote.' But she and others were allowed to rip apart Hillary in the 'name of feminism' and do so in the most sexist manner.

"Leadership" failed women by playing favorites when they offered minimal media criticism. Sexism was all over the airwaves. It was not confined to MSNBC. But they became the Whipping Boys.

I think we'd all agree that making racist remarks is racism. I think we'd also all agree that refusing to include accomplishments by people of color is racism. And yet, MSNBC got called out for sexism while so many others walked free. Some of whom made sexist remarks but all of whom (and especially focus on PBS here) were happy to refuse the accomplishments of women.

Leadership needs to apologize to the grassroots for:

A) Refusing to stand up for women
B) Joining in the attacks on women
C) Refusing to lead

Leading is not bullying people into voting for a candidate.

I'm biting my tongue because of a piece Ava and I are doing but one thing this week, if you caught it, on TV, may have underscored how low women have fallen. And that happened due to 'leadership' focusing on other things.

Instead of fretting over presidential candidates or hoping they could get Bob to ask a question at the debates, feminist 'leaders' should have been calling out the fact that women were marginalized. That happened in debates, that happened in panels. No, it's not a new development but it has never been this bad.

When nearly ten people were discussing First Ladies and women's advances on PBS during the Republican Party convention, feminist 'leaders' damn well should have made a huge issue out of the fact that not one person was a woman. But they didn't even notice. "Don't call out PBS, it's our friend!"

There are no passes. Feminism is independent movement. That's always been the case. Women couldn't matter in 2008 because feminist 'leaders' didn't act as if women mattered.

Apologies need to be made to the grassroots and resignations need to be offered.

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

iraq
the los angeles times
ned parker
kimberly wilder

So many different kind of people
Trying to be the same
"No way," baby
He said
Baby there's no way


So the breakdown currently is 62,509,207 votes for Barack and 55,438,509 for McCain making it 349 electoral college votes for Barack and 147 for McCain. Not the blow out they wanted and not a landslide by any real definition of the word. It's not all that different from the election it resembles in so many ways, 1968's where Tricky Dick got 301 electoral votes and
Hubert Humphrey got 191.

As in that year, the presidency flipped parties. As in that election, an illegal war started by one party's president was turned over to another and continued.

Laurie Kellman (AP) notes in her election overview:

Exit polls showed that voters were deeply anxious about the economy and dissatisfied with President Bush. They haven't been thrilled by Democrats in Congress, either, largely because the new majority could not agree on how to end the Iraq war as promised.
Exit polling showed that the war remains unpopular, and distaste for the conflict helped Obama. Nearly two-thirds disapprove of the conflict, and that group overwhelmingly backed the Democrat.
But that issue faded this year. Politically, the economy was the number one issue with voters and nothing else came close, exit polls showed. That hurt McCain and trickled down-ballot, hurting some Republican candidates.

The Democratic Congress (2006 to 2008) couldn't end the illegal war and doesn't plan to now. Get used to it. Get used to more lies from them. More reasons they just can't -- though they really, really, really want to, honest! -- end the illegal war. Get used to them continuing to play dumb about what's going on.

It's not just that in two years they couldn't end the illegal (and highly unpopular) war they were elected to end, it's that they couldn't impeach the Bully Boy who leaves office with the lowest approval ratings in polling history. And they said that control of even one house would mean this amazing investigative power (as heads of committees) and what the hell have they done?

The only thing that there's been any improvement has to do with veterans care and that did not result from Congress. That resulted from the Washington Post (with their expose on Walter Reed) and CBS News (with their expose on the actual suicide rate as opposed to the number Veterans Affairs wanted to emphasize). There have been many for-show hearings but when did anything actually happen? Never. Not with Blackwater, not with anything. For-show hearings that resulted in nothing.

Oh, they grabbed some headlines, they just didn't do any actual work. The for-show Congress continues. The Dems didn't see the huge increase they wanted (and some races are still not called) but they got an increase.

In the process, the illegal war just got a little longer. President John McCain would have meant what passes for the left in this country could have been active and active from day one of the next adminsitration. President Barack Obama means more passes, more 'tingles,' more whores offering excuses and throwing hissy-fits when the Christ-child is expected to meet the same standards as any other adult.

The hallmark of this decade will not be the financial crisis. That's not saying that mess is over because it's not. But that's pointing out that the illegal war will be the hallmark. The Iraq War, more than any other event, will sum up this decade in the history books and it hits year six in March. The Katrina vanden Heuvels, the Matthew Rothschilds, the Amy Goodmans and all the other losers of Panhandle Media don't give a damn about ending the illegal war. Like the Democratic Party, they raked it in over the illegal war. It gave them a certain level of fame. And when it came down to actually have to do something, they moved on. But when they -- like Democrats -- could make some superficial remarks against the illegal war and get some loud cheers and applause, they were more than happy to ride it to what passed for fame.

And their failure to end the illegal war, their failure to build any serious opposition to the illegal war is the reason their broadcast audience and readership shrinks and shrinks. In 2003, they were posing as something they weren't -- independent and journalists.

They're just more hucksters trying to stick their hands down someone else's pocket to steal a wallet and their actions have prolonged the illegal war.

They're all failures. Abject failures who couldn't succeed at real jobs and couldn't even succeed in the fringe world of 'journalism via begging.'

Remember that a few didn't lie and they actually are journalists. The list includes: John Pilger, Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley, Bruce Dixon, Paul Street, Chris Hedges, Joshua Frank and a few others.

So the war drags on for much longer as a result of liars tricking the American people into believing that Barack would end the illegal war. (Ten months! cried Tom Hayden. At the end of ten months, that would be November 1, 2009, start booing Tom Hayden in public and give the little nothing something to cry about.)

The War Hawk will be president and that's when every liar will have to answer and that will include one little liar who rode 2004 to greater fame by calling out their peers but, you'll note, despite tossing out that lecture in 2008, the liar did just as their peers did.


Caro at Make Them Accountable observes:

In 2000 and 2004, it was Republicans who used thuggery and hate to win the presidency. In 2008, it was Democrats.
Congratulations, Democrats, for a job well done.
And for setting back respect for women more than 50 years.
Bro's before ho's. You wanted it, you got it.
Now, we'll all have to live with it.


If we could start again
Well who knows
Have we really changed
Some say we have
Reflecting our past
Who can say
Who can say

2008 when Democrats truly became Republicans. It wasn't that difficult, just grab even more corporate money (and, in the process, destroy public financing) while knowing that the likes of Katty-van-van and Matty Roth would never, ever call you out or hold you to any standard of human decency. Democrats couldn't transform into Republicans without Panhandle Media agreeing not to hold them accountable.


Races are run
Some people win
Some people always have to lose

And the losers are the American people and the Iraqi people. Don't forget Afghanistan where War Hawk Barack will oversea the deaths of even more people than did the Bully Boy. Don't forget AFRICOM. Don't forget that the Cult of Barack wants war in Sudan. And don't forget that it took a Democrat (Jimmy Carter) to bring back registration for the draft.

Lyrics are "Races are run" off Buckingham & Nicks (Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham).
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
stevie nicks
make them accountable