Today on NPR's All Things Considered, George McGovern proved an old fool is just an old fool.
The former senator, failed presidential candidate (several times over but most infamously in 1972) and co-author of Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now is praising Barack's Iraq 'plan.'

How feeble-minded is George McGovern? In his book, he calls for all US troops out of Iraq in six months. That is more than do-able. He knows that. Bill Richardson knows that and, when running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, made it very clear that he would remove all US troops from Iraq in six months. For those who pay attention to Iraq (a small number, granted), we now know that if Barack wanted all US troops out he could do so in his first 100 days. That is do-able.

But what Barack's offering instead is approximately a third of the US troops in Iraq -- those classified as "combat forces" -- will be removed from that country over a sixteen month period.
That is not withdrawal. That is not ending the illegal war.

That is doing what Bully Boy and Donald the Rumsfled did -- fighting the illegal war on the cheap. They purposely kept numbers down because the lower the number the lower the public outrage. If they'd tried to send the number of troops that the military was calling necessary, they risked a huge public opinion shift. So what Barack's really doing is dropping down from approximately 140,000 troops currently in Iraq to approximately 80,000.

He is not ending the illegal war. He is continuing it if he sticks to that 'plan.' And it's past time he was called out for that.

He is not offering an end to the Iraq War. You can soothe him and stroke him and fondle him and maybe make yourself as good as you do him in the process. But that's not ending the illegal war. Nor is it being honest.

Let's quote McGovern's most idiotic statement, ""Another 2,500 young Americans have been killed since we wrote our book, thousands of Iraqis have been killed -- and this is too bad. It's always easier to get into a bad situation than it is to get out. And we're finding that out in Iraq as we did in Vietnam, where we were tied down for a full decade."

Wow. Tied down in Vietnam "for a full decade." That's so hard to picture, thank goodness the Iraq War is only two years old. What's that? Yeah, it does hit the six year anniversary in March. By Barack's plan, the illegal war will still be going on in March 2010, March 2011 and March 2012. That will be nine years. And it's really damn doubtful that 2012 -- an election year -- will suddenly see an end to the illegal war.

Barack's not offering an end. He's not offering a full withdrawal.

He never has. A lot of people have lied for him. A lot of 'independent' media types have whored whatever was left of their names to make Barack look good.

But the reality for anyone who studies Barack's 'plan' includes:

1) It is not all troops out of Iraq.
2) It allows for troop numbers to increase if Barack makes that determination.

It's that second point that Tom Hayden and the Cult especially work overtime to ignore. See the 16 months 'plan' is only if things go really great. As Barack's admitted repeatedly (though Panhandle Media refused to tell you about it), if he starts his partial withdrawal and things go badly, he doesn't just freeze this tiny withdrawal,, he intends to send US troops back in.

How many? Well before he could answer that question, he would have to be asked and if there's one thing the liars of Panhandle Media know it is how to avoid embarrasing Barack Obama. Embarrassing themselves? They wallow in that.

So Barack's not ending the illegal war by his 'plan' of 16-months. That 'plan' never promised the Iraq War ended. But damned if the liars didn't lie and swing their ass real hard and work overtime under their street lamps in order to lie to you and swear Barack was all about ending the illegal war.

This is not a new development, it's nothing that so-called 'independent' media shouldn't have been able to tell you months and months ago. From the November 2, 2007 snapshot:


On the subject of Iran, Barack Obama appears on the front page of this morning's New York Times. War pornographer Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny who lied in print (click here, here and here -- the paper finally retracted Zeleny's falsehood that should have never appeared) present a view of Barack Obama that's hardly pleasing. Among the many problems with the article is Obama as portrayed in the article -- and his campaign has issued no statement clarifying. The Times has the transcript online and from it, Barack Obama does mildly push the unproven claim that the Iranian government is supporting resistance in Iraq. Gordo's pushed that unproven claim repeatedly for over a year now. But Obama's remarks appear more of a reply and partial points in lengthy sentences -- not the sort of thing a functioning hard news reporter would lead with in an opening paragraph, touch on again in the third paragraph, in the fourth paragraph, in . . . But though this isn't the main emphasis of Obama's statements (at any time -- to be clear, when it pops up, it is a fleeting statement in an overly long, multi-sentenced paragraphs), it does go to the fact that Obama is once again reinforcing unproven claims of the right wing. In the transcript, he comes off as obsessed with Hillary Clinton. After her, he attempts to get a few jabs in at John Edwards and one in at Bill Richardson. Here is what real reporters should have made the lede of the front page: "Presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama who is perceived as an 'anti-war' candidate by some announced that he would not commit to a withdrawal, declared that he was comfortable sending US troops back into Iraq after a withdrawal started and lacked clarity on exactly what a withdrawal under a President Obama would mean."

That is what the transcript reveals. Gordo really needs to let go of his blood lust for war with Iran. Writing up a report, Gordo and Zeleny are useless but, surprisingly, they do a strong job with some of their questions. The paper should have printed up the transcript. If they had, people might be wondering about the 'anti-war' candidate. He maintains Bill Richardson is incorrect on how quickly US troops could be withdrawan from Iraq. Obama states that it would take at least 16 months which makes one wonder how long, if elected, it would take him to move into the White House? If you can grab a strainer or wade through Obama's Chicken Sop For The Soul, you grasp quickly why he refused to pledge (in September's MSNBC 'debate') that, if elected president, he would have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013: He's not talking all troops home. He tries to fudge it, he tries to hide it but it's there in the transcript.

He doesn't want permanent military bases in Iraq -- he appears to want them outside of Iraq -- such as Kuwait. But he doesn't see the US embassy in Iraq -- the largest US embassy in the world as a base. However, he does feel that even after the illegal war was ended, US troops would need to remain behind in order guard the embassy and the staff. In addition, it becomes clear that he will keep US troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi police. Because? The reporters don't think to ask. Here's a slice of reality, the US military is not trained to train police officers. Here's another to drop on the plate, Jordan was training them. Jordan got pushed aside around the half-way mark of 2006. If Obama wanted to pull US troops out of Iraq, the most obvious solution is to turn over the duty of training police officers to a non-military force. Along with needing those for trainers, he needs some to protect the trainers. Gordo gets to the point asking, "So how will you protect the trainers without forces in Iraq?" His answer is an embarrassment, he could keep the trainers out of potentially difficult situations. And in Iraq, that would be where? In addition, he would keep troops in Iraq for counter-terrorism (but not, he insists, counter-insurgency). If this doesn't all sound familiar, you slept through this spring and summer when Congressional Dems tried repeatedly to convince the American people that "all troops out of Iraq" could also mean that US troops stay to train, as military police, to fight terrorism, etc. While he's off talking al Qaeda in Iraq (a small number and one most observers state will be forced out by Iraqis when US troops leave) and working in more attacks on Senator Clinton, it's noted that he has "a more expansive approach to Iraq than she does in that you identify in your plan the possiblity of going back into Iraq to protect the populartion if there's an all-out civil war. . . . And providing monitors to help the population relocate and go after war criminals. Those are three elements -- those are new missions for Americans after Iraq that she doesn't postulate." What follows is a comical exchange:

Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions.

NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces?

Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that.

NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?

Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over.

So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train the police and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.

The 'plan' McGovern and others praise today is the same plan it was then. It is not about ending the Iraq War. It was never about ending the Iraq War. And those refusing to pressure Barack to end the Iraq War right now are allowing the killing to continue.

Yes, that includes McGovern. And how ridiculous that he wants to talk about a decade of Vietnam when the US will have been in Iraq for over a decade if people don't stop deluding themselves and stop deluding themselves really quick.

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 4191. Tonight? 4197. The toll includes the Friday announcements (it's already Friday in Iraq). The US military announces, "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 3:50 a.m. Nov. 13 in Baghdad." And the US miliary announces: "A Coalition force Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 11:52 a.m Nov. 13 in western Iraq." The first is listed as Thursday, it was not released by seven p.m. EST Thursday (which would have been around 3:00 a.m. Friday in Baghdad.) Just Foreign Policy lists 1,284,105 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war -- the same number they listed last Thursday.

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

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
the new york times
npr
all things considered

Thursday, November 13, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, a plane crashes in Iraq, Military Families Speak Out calls out VA  Secretary James Peake, and more.   Earlier this week the US Secretary of Veterans Affairs appeared on PBS' NewsHour and Military Families Speak Out has issued a press release rebuttal:   Nationwide -- Members of Military Families Speak Out are condemning comments by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs suggesting that the dramatic increase in the suicide rate among young veterans is not connected to the war in Iraq.  The suicide rate among male veterans under the age of 29 is now twice that of the general population.   In an interview aired Monday November 10th on PBS's NewsHour, Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake said that Veterans' suicides are the result of:  "the same kinds of issues that have to do with suicide in the general population.  It is issues of failed relationships, senses of hopelessness, transitions in life, that are at the root cause . . . we're not making a direct correlationw ith combat."   Specialist Scott Eiswert committed suicide in May after being told by a friend that his unit of the Tennessee National Guard would be returning to Iraq.  His widow, Tracy Eiswert, a member of Military Families Speak Out, expressed outrage at Secretary Peake's comments: "I am not a statistic.  We are a military family.  We are real people with real experiences as a result of my husband's PTSD and his suicide.  He wasn't that way before he went to Iraq, he came back changed."  After returning from a tour of duty in Iraq, Spc. Eiswert had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by civilian doctors, but the Veterans Administration denied that his condition was the result of his experiences in Iraq.  The Veterans Administration reversed that ruling in August.  Tracy Eiswert said: "It took him having to put a gun in his mouth for the military to admit that the changes in my husband were a result of the war.  If they had admit that the changes in my husband were a result of the war.  If they had admitted that earlier he might still be alive."   Kevin and Joyce Lucey are members of Military Families Speak Out and the parents of Corporal Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine Corps Reservist who suffered severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of his service in Iraq in 2003.  Shortly after being turned away from a Veterans Administration hospital, Corporal Lucey killed himself on June 22, 2004.  Kevin Lucey said:  "Secretary Peake's words are the kind of self serving comments that this nation does not need to hear from the Veterans Administration and its leadership.  This is why many regard this VA administration to be steeped in disgrace and dishonor when it comes to our loved ones.  They feel that they need to explain away, rationalize, justify or minimize -- instead of committing their resources, time and efforts to create the best healthcare system on God's earth." Joyce Lucey also had strong words for Secretary Peake: "This is dishonorable, disgraceful and shameful behaivor from someone who is charged with giving the best of care to our warriors.  With this type of message and thinking, is it any wonder that many of our troops and veterans don't seek help from those who are so callous and uncaring?"   Specialist Joe Hafley, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Military Families Speak Out who has had to fight to get treatment for his own Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, agreed.  Hafley served in Iraq with the U.S. Army Reserves from 2004 - 2005, and his brother, a Major with the U.S. Army Reserves is scheduled to deploy to Iraq early next year.  When Hafley returned from Iraq, the Veterans Administration diagnosed him with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder, and severe depression -- but ruled that none of those conditions were the result of his service in Iraq.  He said:  "My treatment at the VA was belittling and frustrating.  To have them diagnose me with PTSD and not attribute it to my service in Iraq is a slap in the face.  To have them tell me the problems could be the result of a failed relationship rather than the result of my experiences in combat makes me feel that as a veteran I have no place at the VA.    "The thing that is most baffling to me is that this 800 pound gorilla in the room, not being addressed.  Why are we feeling hopeless?  Why do we have failed relationships?  The common denominator is we all served in Iraq.  Maybe my feeling of hopelessness is that I served my country with honor and I am still trying to figure out for what reason?  For what just cause?   "Secretary Peake, it doesn't matter how many additional mental health workers you hire if you as the person at the top still feel we are just losers that failed to adjust or that we entered our military service unit.  No amount of false support will help us."   For The NewsHour report (link has text and video), Tracy Eiswert explained of her husband to Betty Ann Bowser, "He said he felt belittled because they didn't take what he was saying seriously.  'This is what it happened to me over there.'  You know, and they wanted to talk about, 'Well, how's your marriage? Or how was your childhood? How was your dad with you?' And he's like, 'Well, what's this got to do with why I'm here today?'"  Meanwhile Aaron Glantz (OneWorld) reports that Vietnam Veterans of America and Veterans of Modern Warfare "filed a class action lawsuit this week to help ensure bureaucratic delays no longer keep disabled U.S. veterans from getting the financial help they need, when they need it most" and they are asking "a federal court to order interim benefits to be paid to a veteran if an initial claim for disability compensation takes longer than 90 days to be processed or an appeal of a denied claim takes longer than six months."    Reuters reports a civilian plane, Falcon Aviation Group Ltd, with FedEx cargo has crashed in Iraq "killing all seven people on board".   Moving to yesterday's Mosul shooting.  Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that eight US soldiers were shot yesterday with two of them being shot to death and alleged shooter Barzan Mohammed reportedly used an AK-47 submachine gun in "the shooting spree".  Sam Dagher (New York Times) explains what Iraqi officials and eye witnesses are saying: Mosul police's Brig Gen Abdul-Karim al-Jubouri, "a senior official in the Ministry of Defense and an officer of the Nineveh Operations Command" all say there was "a quarrel between an American and Iraqi soldier" at the onset; 2 Iraqi soldiers and one Iraqi Army officer (all witnesses) described the US patrol arriving at the Iraqi post and "[a] heated arugment" taking place "between one of the American soldiers and an Iraqi soldier identified as Barzan Mohammed Abdullah, prompting the American to curse at the Iraqi, spit in his face and slap him, the Iraqis said.  The Iraqi soldier then opened fire on the American, they said, and other American soldiers responded with a barrage of gunfire at the Iraqi."  Ernesto Londono and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note that US Maj. Gen. Mark P. "Hertling dismissed reports by Iraqi officials who suggested that an altercation between Iraqi and American soldiers preceded the gunfire in Mosul, but he said he had no information on the shooter's motive. He said U.S. and Iraqi officials are jointly investigating the incident."   The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued the following statement:   The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG) Staffan de Mistura expressed his shock and outrage at the continued targeting and killing of religious minorities, following the murder of two Christian sisters in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, which has recently seen thousands of its inhabitants flee their homes after a campaign of threats and attacks.   The SRSG noted that this cowardly attack came hours after the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported that some recently displaced Christian families are beginning to return to Mosul as the security situation in the city shows signs of improvement.      He said Mosul has historically been and must remain the cradle of religious and ethnic diversity, reiterating the United Nations' position that respecting and guaranteeing the rights of minorities in Iraq is "absolutely fundamental to a stable and democratic future for our country."   Mr. de Mistura called on the Iraqi Government authorities to do everything in their power to safeguard the human rights and protection of Christian, Yezidis, Shabak and other minorities -- all of whome have been the victims of terrible attacks -- and to ensure that those responsible for these attacks are swiftly brought to justice.  The SRSG also urged local authorities, as well as the Kurdistan Regional Government, to assist in protecting the rights of minorities and their religious identity, as well as in ending impunity for these criminal attacks.   That's in reference to the Mosul attack that left 2 women dead and a third wounded.  Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "On Wednesday, two Christian sisters were gunned down in Mosul and their mother was wounded. When police responded, unknown assailants detonated a roadside bomb, wounding three officers. The shooting underscores Christian fears in the city. Ten thousand or more Christians fled the city last month after a spate of about 15 killings of Christians in just two weeks." Sam Dagher (New York Times) explains that the older sister was Lamia Subaih Daoud, who worked for the municpal government and was the mother of three small children, was murdered first while waiting outside the family home on a bus and the assailants then stormed the house and shot dead the woman's twenty-three-year-old sister and wounded the women's mother. Dagher notes that Lamia's three children were asleep in the home "and survived the attack." The Melbourne Herald Sun supplies the name of the younger sister, "The intruders killed Lamia and Walaa Sabih and wounded their mother before booby-trapping the house. When police arrived a bomb went off, wounding two of them, an officer said on condition of anonymity." Asia News explains while both sisters were shot, the mother was attacked with a knife, that both sisters worked for the Office of the Treasurer of the Municipality of Wala, that their names were Lamia Sobhy Salloha and Walaa Sobhy Salloha and, "According to eyewitnesses the attack was carried out by a gang of 16-to-18 year olds who after attacking the residents of the house placed a bomb at the entrance and detonated it when a group of police agents came to the scene, killing two and wounding others." Aid to the Church in Need's John Pontifex (at Australia's Christian Today) observes, "Christians and other minorities are saying that the incident casts doubt on the Iraqi government's bid to improve security with a massively increased police presence in the city. . . . Speaking from northern Iraq in an interview with ACN, Fr Bashar Warda, who has overseen the charity's emergency relief programmes for people fleeing Mosul, said today's incident was having a 'dramatic' effect on the faithful, who now fear another wave of attacks against them.  Fr Warda said: 'It is clear that many would think of leaving Mosul again.  The government is trying to say the city is now safe and then suddenly you have incidents like this'." UPI notes: "Iraqi Christians began issuing accounts of targeted attacks against their community in July when parishioners claimed an Islamic group called "The Battalion of Just Punishment, Jihad Base in Mesopotamia" sent threatening letters to several churches."  ZENIT quotes an Iraqi "Catholic leader" stating, "The government is trying to deceive the outside world, making them believe that they are acting correctly and that Christians are safe.  In reality the situation is still very challenging."   Raheem Salman, Usama Redha and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) offer an overview of violence in Iraq:     Since Monday, according to police statistics, roadside bombs, car bombs and suicide bombers wearing explosive belts have killed 58 people in the capital. Deaths elsewhere included two Christian women who police said were killed by unidentified gunmen in the northern city of Mosul, where Christians say they have been caught in the middle of a war for power between Kurds and Arabs. Several Iraqis who witnessed the violence noted the heavy presence of Iraqi security checkpoints near Saadoun Street, in the eastern part of the capital, and elsewhere and said it showed that nobody could be trusted to keep them safe. Some also said it was a sign that Iraqi forces were not ready to protect the city if U.S. troops withdrew.  U.S. military officials said that this week's violence, coming after a steady downward trend in attacks, does not mean insurgents are staging a comeback, and they disputed the casualty figures provided by Iraqi sources.  Baghdad and its environs continue to experience an average of four attacks a day on security forces and civilians, compared with more than 20 a day about a year ago, Army Brig. Gen. William Grimsley, deputy commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said Monday after bombers killed 31 people in northeast Baghdad's Kasra district.    In some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?    Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 1 life and left seven injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing that left six injured, a Mosul car bombing that claimed 1 life and left sixteen injured and a Mosul roadside bombing that left 2 people dead.   Shootings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Diyala Province.     In diplomatic news, Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes the department's minister Hoshyar Zebari and his Syrian counterpart Walid Moallem held a press conference yesterday in Damascus where they "discussed ways to develop and activate bilateral relations between the two countries," Zebari alluded to Iraq sending an ambassador to Damascus and he "explained the positive results of his visit and his meetings with President Bashar al-Assad, and delivered the letter of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to president Asaad regarding the Iraqi government's stance on the US-Iraqi security agreement and stages of negotiation. Foreign Minister Zebari also stressed the Iraqi government's refusal to use Iraqi territory as a platform to launch military operations against Syria or any of the neighboring countries and expressed sympathy and solidartiy with the Syrian people."     Tuesday's snapshot noted on IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh's court appearance for being the victim of police state actions carried out Oct. 15th in Hempstead, NY on himself and thirteen other IVAW members who were trying to deliver debate questions for Senators John McCain and Barack Obama..  Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) provides an update, "I attended court today in the stands for Adam Kokesh. Adam was there with his attorney, and some other supporters. More to follow, and possibly a few photos of Adam and his attorney. The main outcome: Adam Kokesh will have his trial on Thursday, December 11th. Sounds like the trial would happen sometime after 10am. In addition, Wednesday, December 10th and Thurs. Dec. 11th are appearance dates for some of the other Hempstead 15. So, we will standby for which dates the IVAW folks would prefer the community come out in full force for."  Adam (Adam Kokesh - Revolutionary Patriot) explains, "In requesting that I be released on my own recognizance (or ROR as everyone else had been) so I could get my bail money returned, my attorney was told by the prosecutor that he would like to have my bail raised!  The judge declined, but that would have put me in jail again until I could get bail posted at the raised amount.  The judge also declined Mr. Moore's motion to dismiss, or take an ACD, adjourn in contemplation of dismissal.  The prosecutor conferred with the police officer who would be testifying, and came up with a date to schedule the trial.  So trial is now scheduled for 9:30 AM on December 11th.  For reasons I can't discuss, we are very excited about this going to trial."  IVAW has just published Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupation in book form.   Turning to the 2008 presidential election, On The Wilder Side notes that Green Party of Connecticut officials have registered an objection that "'REGISTERED' WRITE IN votes were not counted in all towns across the state, as required by state law".  Rebecca addressed the topics of write-ins Friday and noted that Cynthia McKinney (Green Party presidential candidate) received only 53 votes in Connecticut and Rebecca focused on Texas where the Ralph Nader - Matt Gonzalez ticket allegedly received 3,053.  It appears many states have areas that were 'selective' in their counting. [That is not questioning the outcome or saying "The election was stolen!"  That is noting write-in votes appear not to have been counted.] Joel S. Hirschhorn (Dissident Voice) reviews the election numbers:     This year, among the four most significant third-party presidential candidates, Ralph Nader without a national party did the best with 685,426 votes or 0.54 percent of the grand total (a little better than in 2004 with 0.4 percent but much worse than in 2000 running as a Green Party candidate with 2.7 percent). He was followed by Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate with 503,981 votes or 0.4 percent of the total (typical of all Libertarian candidates in recent elections, including Ron Paul in 1988), followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with just 181,266 votes or 0.1 percent, and then Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with only 148,546 votes or 0.1 percent. Showing the problem of ballot access, engineered by the two major parties, is that there were only 15 states where all four were on the ballot. In all but one, Nader received more votes than the other three third-party candidates. In four states only one of the four candidates was on the ballot; in one state none of them were ( Oklahoma ). Nader's best state was California with 81,434 votes, as it was for McKinney's with 28,624 votes. Baldwin was not on the ballot there. Alan Keyes received 30,787 votes in California . Barr's best state was Texas with 56,398 votes. None of the other three were on the ballot there. In his home state of Georgia where he had been a Representative Barr received 28,420 votes (and none of the other three were on the ballot). Baldwin's best state was Michigan with 14, 973 votes. Nader was not on the ballot there. In round numbers, Barack Obama raised $639 million or about $10 per vote, and John McCain raised $360 million or $6 per vote, compared to Ralph Nader with $4 million and $6 per vote, Bob Barr with about $1 million or $2 per vote, and Cynthia McKinney with only about $118,000 or less than $1 per vote. Money matters, but the ability of the two-party duopoly to keep third-party presidential candidates out of nationally televised debates matters more for media attention, money and votes.   Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sounds warnings (at CounterPunch) today:   To its everlasting credit, the conservative American Bar Association sent to President Bush three reports in 2005-2006 concluding that he has been engaged in continuing serious violations of the Constitution. This is no one-time Watergate obstruction of justice episode ala Nixon that led to his resignation just before his impeachment in the House of Representatives. Nearly two years ago Senator Obama, contrary to what he knows and believes, vigorously came out against the House commencing impeachment proceedings. It would be too divisive, he said. As one of one hundred Senators who might have had to try the President and Vice President in the Senate were the House to impeach. He should have kept impartial and remained silent on the subject. As President, he cannot remain silent and do nothing, otherwise he will inherit the war crimes of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and become soon thereafter a war criminal himself. Inaction cannot be an option. Violating the Constitution and federal laws is now routine. What is routine after awhile becomes institutionalized lawlessness by official outlaws. Domestic Policy abuses are also rampant. Just what are the limits of the statutory authority of the U.S. Treasury Department or the government within a government funded by bank assessments known as the Federal Reserve? Don't read the $750 billion bailout law for any answers! The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid just sent a letter to Bush asking whether the White House believes the bailout law could be interpreted to save not just the reckless banks, but also the grossly mismanaged Big Three auto companies in Michigan. Didn't Congress know what they were or were not authorizing? Or did the stampede started by the demanding Bush result in blanket, or panicked ambiguity by a cowardly Congress?   Last week Raed Jarrar (Raed in the Middle) addressed the election:   1- I didn't find this in the English media, but Arab media (including Al-Jazeera) reported today: Iraqi Presidency Council said in its first reaction to Barak Obama winning the U.S. presidential election: there is only one U.S. policy in Iraq, and the changes that may occur during Obama's time "would be only technical." 2- As you've heard already, Obama picked congressman Rahm Emanuel to become the White House's chief of staff. Mr. Emanuel, an Israeli citizen who has served in the Israeli Army (he denies both), was the only one out of Illinois' nine congressmen who voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2002. I know that the confetti has not settled down yet, but I think it's time already to ask the Obama-Biden campaign some questions about their foreign policy plans, especially regarding the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and regarding ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq.   And winding this up, the GOP ticket was John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin.  The Republican governor's conference took place today and Texas Governor Rick Perry explained it was focused on "what's  the Republican Party going to look like going forward."  He then stated, "It gives me great deal of pleasure to introduce one of our collegues, one of America's great republican governors, Governor Sarah Palin."     Gov Sarah Palin: Thank you [to Rick Perry], thank you so much [to those assembled].  Thank you, Governor Perry.  Thank you governors. Thank you very much.  Thanks. Honored to be here and to speak with and to my fellow governors.  It hasn't been that long since we all gathered.  I don't know about you, but I managed to fill up the time. [Laughter] Let's see I had a baby, I did some traveling, I very briefly expanded my wardrobe [Laughter], I made a few speeches, I met a few VIPs including those who really impact society like Tina Fey [Laughter] and aside from that it was pretty much the same-old, same-old since we last gathered.  But in the great campaign that has come and gone . . .  And it was great.  One of the nicer experiences that we had along the campaign trail was seeing so many of my RGA colleagues and I think you guys so much for your assistance with John McCain's good run.  Each of you gave your all to the cause and were helpmates and positive additions to Senator McCain's good run. You were there to help when things were looking good and you were there to help when -- once in a while -- things weren't looking so good.  And where I'm from in Alaska, life would be pretty lonely if all we had were fair weather friends.  And you have been friends in all seasons and for that I will forever be grateful and I know Senator McCain also would be so appreciative.     Palin noted the campaign in her remarks. Gov Sarah Palin: Along the trail, it was my husband, Todd, who was my right hand.  And among his many willing -- winning qualities is the gift that he has of optimism and just thankfulness in all situations that he finds.  And going forward, I'm going to count on those qualities a little more even.  Because of course there was a disappointment after a loss in a national election like that.  You run to win.  You run the race to win.  It's kind of relying on Todd with that optimism and the thanfkulness in all situations that I'm certainly going to be there with him along those lines.  But far from returning to the great state of Alaska with any sense of sorrow or regret, we carried with us the best of memories and joyful experiences that really do not depend at all on political victory.  For years to come, I'm going to remember all the young girls who came up to me at rallies to see the first woman having the privilege of carrying our party's VP nomination.  And they inspired me.  With an extra hurdel or two in front of us and in front of these young girls, I fell that we've got this mutually beneficial relationship now -- me and these young girls -- where we're going to work hareder.  We're going to be stronger.  We're going to do better.  And one day, one of them will be the president because in America there will be no ceilings on achievement -- glass or otherwise.  [Applause begins and grows ] And if I can help point the way --   [Pauses for applause to die down.]  If I can help point the way for these young women or inspire them to tap into their own gifts and talents and strengths -- to find their own opportunities -- Well, it is a privilege.   iraq military families speak out pbs the newshour aaron glantz leila fadel mcclatchy newspapers the los angeles times tina susman the los angeles times usama redha raheem salman the new york times sam dagher the washington post ernesto londono qais mizher kimberly wilder adam kokesh iraq veterans against the war  raed jarrar

An Iraqi soldier shot and killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded at least six others Wednesday in Mosul, the American military said. As the shootings occurred in northern Iraq, violence continued in Baghdad, with at least 25 people killed in bombings across the capital.
The shootings of the U.S. troops occurred in an Iraqi army compound in western Mosul outside a building where two U.S. Army lieutenants were conferring with an Iraqi captain, the American military said. Just before noon, an Iraqi soldier named Barzan Mohammed walked into the compound with an AK-47 submachine gun and began the shooting spree, according to the U.S. military.
It said he fired a "drum load" of ammunition at American soldiers. A drum load holds a "significantly" higher number of bullets than the magazine that's issued to Iraqi soldiers. U.S. Army spokeswoman Maj. Peggy Kageleiry said Mohammed said something to another Iraqi soldier and began shooting the Americans.

The above is from Leila Fadel's "Iraqi soldier shoots and kills U.S. troops" (McClatchy Newspapers) on yesterday's shooting, what Tim Cocks (Reuters) terms a "rampage." Two appears to be the number of US service members killed. Sam Dagher's "Iraqi Soldier Reportedly Kills 2 G.I.'s" (New York Times) does the best job of presenting the Iraqi version of events:

The head of police operations in Mosul, Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim al-Jubouri, said the episode was set off by a quarrel between an American and an Iraqi soldier. This was confirmed by a senior official in the Ministry of Defense and an officer in the Nineveh Operations Command, which oversees all Iraqi forces operating in Mosul and is advised by the American military.
An Iraqi Army officer and two soldiers who witnessed the attack provided a detailed account on the condition of anonymity, for fear of retribution from their commanders.
They said an American military patrol stopped on Wednesday afternoon to inspect a post staffed by Iraqi soldiers in the predominantly Sunni Arab neighborhood of Zanjili, a notoriously violent part of Mosul.
A heated argument ensued between one of the American soldiers and an Iraqi soldier identified as Barzan Mohammed Abdullah, prompting the American to curse at the Iraqi, spit in his face and slap him, the Iraqis said. The Iraqi soldier then opened fire on the Americans, they said, and other American soldiers responded with a barrage of gunfire at the Iraqi.

Ernesto Londono and Qais Mizher's "2 U.S. Troops Killed by Iraqi Soldier" (Washington Post) notes that US Maj. Gen. Mark P. "Hertling dismissed reports by Iraqi officials who suggested that an altercation between Iraqi and American soldiers preceded the gunfire in Mosul, but he said he had no information on the shooter's motive. He said U.S. and Iraqi officials are jointly investigating the incident." [Note Dagher also presents the US version. That should go without saying being that it's the New York Times but before some drive-by e-mail comes in from a visitor screaming about what NYT has done now, let's make that clear.] Tina Susman provides background on such attacks in "Iraq soldier kills at least two Americans" (Los Angeles Times):

A similar shooting occurred in the area in December. Two U.S. soldiers were killed by an Iraqi soldier in Nineveh, which remains one of the country's most volatile areas because of the presence of Sunni Muslim insurgents loyal to the group Al Qaeda in Iraq and friction between Arabs and Kurds vying for influence. The Iraqi soldier is awaiting trial in Baghdad.


That's yesterday. Already violence is being reported today. Reuters notes Baghdad has seen two bombing with at least thirteen wounded while a Mosul car bombing has left 16 people injured, a Ramadi bomber has taken his own life and the lives of 4 other people "including two policemen" and a bombing outside Laitifya has claimed at least one life.

And we'll again note John Pilger's "Beware the Obama Hype" (Dissident Voice) but focusing on this section:

That is the subtext of Barack Obama's "oratory". He says he wants to build up US military power; and he threatens to ignite a new war in Pakistan, killing yet more brown-skinned people. That will bring tears, too. Unlike those on election night, these other tears will be unseen in Chicago and London. This is not to doubt the sincerity of much of the response to Obama’s election, which happened not because of the unction that has passed for news reporting from America since November 4 (e.g. "liberal Americans smiled and the world smiled with them") but for the same reasons that millions of angry emails were sent to the White House and Congress when the "bailout" of Wall Street was revealed, and because most Americans are fed up with war.
Two years ago, this anti-war vote installed a Democratic majority in Congress, only to watch the Democrats hand over more money to George W Bush to continue his blood fest. For his part, the "anti-war" Obama never said the illegal invasion of Iraq was wrong, merely that it was a "mistake". Thereafter, he voted in to give Bush what he wanted. Yes, Obama's election is historic, a symbol of great change to many. But it is equally true that the American elite have grown adept at using the black middle and management class. The courageous Martin Luther King recognized this when he linked the human rights of black Americans with the human rights of the Vietnamese, then being slaughtered by a liberal Democratic administration. And he was shot. In striking contrast, a young black major serving in Vietnam, Colin Powell, was used to "investigate" and whitewash the infamous My Lai massacre. As Bush's secretary of state, Powell was often described as a "liberal" and was considered ideal to lie to the United Nations about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Condoleezza Rice, lauded as a successful black woman, has worked assiduously to deny the Palestinians justice.
Obama's first two crucial appointments represent a denial of the wishes of his supporters on the principal issues on which they voted. The vice-president-elect, Joe Biden, is a proud war maker and Zionist. Rahm Emanuel, who is to be the all-important White House chief of staff, is a fervent "neoliberal" devoted to the doctrine that led to the present economic collapse and impoverishment of millions. He is also an "Israel-first" Zionist who served in the Israeli army and opposes meaningful justice for the Palestinians -- an injustice that is at the root of Muslim people's loathing of the United States and the spawning of jihadism.

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


iraq
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
tina susman
john pilger

For three years no one had crossed the bridge, which was closed in 2005 after an infamous day when Shiite pilgrims panicked and stampeded after rumors broke out about a suicide bomber in their midst. More than 900 people died.
"We are all Muslims -- Sunnis and Shiites," men chanted as they danced on the newly opened span. "We will not sell out this country."
The two neighborhoods were separated by blood for years. But on Tuesday, the blood on the bridge was in celebration. Two sheep were slaughtered in honor of the opening as a ritual sacrifice. The meat later was distributed to the poor.
Baghdad is still largely segregated by religious sect, and many people fear driving through neighborhoods of the other sect where they were once killed for being Shiite or Sunni. However, the bridge opening was taken as a message that Shiites and Sunnis could venture into each other's neighborhoods again.

The above is from Laith Hammoudi's "Opening of bridge reconnects Shiite, Sunni Iraqis" (McClatchy Newspapers) and the bridge is seen as a 'big story' with all the outlets that regularly cover Iraq filing on it. Usama Redha offers "Reopening of Iraq bridge symbolizes renewed unity" (Los Angeles Times) which probably does the best job on recent history:

For the Iraqi public, question marks remain despite the relative calm of late. Most of Baghdad is still sectioned off by a maze of concrete barricades aimed at separating long-feuding Sunni and Shiite armed groups. Violent acts such as roadside bombings and assassinations are still an everyday occurrence.
On Monday, for example, a triple bombing claimed the lives of 31 people in east Baghdad. Another bombing on Tuesday wounded six.
And then there are the memories, including those of that fateful day in 2005 when the bridge was briefly reopened for pilgrims heading across the Tigris River to a gilded shrine in Kadhimiya to mark the anniversary of the death of a Shiite saint, Imam Musa al Kadhim. After rumors of a bomber sparked panic, hundreds of pilgrims were trampled to death in the stampede or drowned when they jumped off the bridge to escape.
It was the highest death toll in any single incident since well before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
After the stampede, Kadhimiya and Adhamiya, with its tomb of the revered Sunni cleric Abu Hanifa, were again closed to each other. During the worst violence, the districts traded mortar fire across the Tigris.

From Mary Beth Sheridan's "Long-Closed Baghdad Bridge Reopens" (Washington Post), we'll note this section:

Rana Jassim, a 30-year-old mother of two who lives near the bridge on the heavily Shiite Kadhimiyah side, noticed the crowds streaming onto it Tuesday morning and realized the rumors of its reopening were true.
As she strolled across the span with her family, she began clapping and dancing, she recalled later. It had been two years since she had been in mostly Sunni Adhamiyah on the opposite bank.
"The situation was bad," said her husband, Samel Lafta, 35, a government employee. "Not because of the regular people of Adhamiyah. It was some foreign people. Foreign terrorists -- they tried to destroy the relations between us."

Yes, there are Iraqi women. Imagine how much different their fate would have been had the Go-Go Boys of the Green Zone bothered to pay them the slightest attention in the early days of the illegal war? To read Dexter Filkins and John Burns back then was to assume that Iraq was an all male prison. (As opposed to the co-ed prison the White House has turned it into.) In the New York Times today, Stephen Farrell's "Baghdad Bridge Reopens, Restitching a Divided Area" stands out mainly for this: "But on Tuesday, the only blood in sight was of sheep slaughtered in celebration as hundreds of people marched with politicians and clerics from both sides to meet in the middle." Gotta be a sac-sac-sacrifice, as Tori sings ("I I E E E" off Tori Amos' From The Choirgirl Hotel). And on the op-ed pages, Maureen Dowd plays out the stereotype of spinster aunt in the final stages of dementia as she attacks Sarah Palin yet again. Maureen's become a public embarrassment (and any writer who would open a sentence with "Calling Tina Fey . . ." really has past their expiration date -- not even Thomas Friedman would be so damn cornpone). Rebecca will tackled Crazy MoDo tonight. But it needs to be noted right now that while liars pushed the myth that Palin was shooting animals from a helicopter, they've been sacrificing in Iraq for some time at every official ceremony and the pseudo PETA brigade hasn't acted at all alarmed. That's the US-occupied Iraq. And don't offer some garbage about 'religon' because this is fundamentalism and the US has encouraged it, has rewarded it and has seen it grow.

Remember that visiting Bloomberg TV allows you to access Night Talk and other programs. Night Talk allows you to enjoy Katrina vanden Heuvel unhinged. It is hilarious. To get it in a podcast, click here. Mike Schneider host Night Talk. That was noted in yesterday's snapshot as was Operation Survivor: "The traumatic effects of war, left unaddressed, will have far-reaching negative consequences for service members, their families, and their communities. Based on our ten years of global experience helping survivors of conflict overcome trauma and give back to their communities, Survivor Corps founded Operation Survivor to provide the same kind of life-changing support to American veterans and service members." Both deserve a second noting. We'll note the news release on the start of Survivor Corps:

Survivor Corps Launches!
Leader in Nobel Peace Prize Winning Campaign Launches Survivor Corps to Help Survivors of War, Violence and Terrorism

Formerly the Landmine Survivors Network (LSN), Survivor Corps Aims to Expand Reach of Global Network of People Helping Each Other Overcome Trauma Caused by War and Conflict

Quick Links: News Facts | About Survivor Corps | About Jerry White | About I Will Not Be Broken | Contacts | Multimedia Elements | Additional Resources | Join Our Mailing List | Social Media | Tags


I Will Not Be Broken Survivor Corps Rise Above Give Back
Landmine Survivors Network (LSN)
is expanding its mission from serving those injured by landmines to serving all those who have been injured by the man-made epidemic of violence and war. In recognition of this expansion, the organization is changing its name to Survivor Corps and accompanying the move with the launch of a new website: http://www.survivorcorps.org.


Survivor Corps was co-founded by Jerry White, who recently published I Will Not Be Broken, a memoir about his personal experiences as a landmine survivor outlining a very specific five-step program to coping with disaster.

The new Survivor Corps website will feature new social networking functionality that will allow members to meet, interact and support each other through their healing journey.

Survivor Corps is a nonprofit organization that serves victims of global conflict, by providing tools and support to help them rebuild their lives, improve their communities, and ultimately work together to break the cycle of violence in the world.

I Will Not Be Diminished Survivor Corps Rise Above Give BackThe Landmine Survivors Network has already made a large impact on awarness and policy about landmines, including:

* The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
* The Disability Rights Treaty to end discrimination and bring equal opportunity to 650 million people with disabilities around the world.
* The Cluster Munitions Ban, being negotiated in 2008 to end the use of cluster bombs and help victims of this indiscriminate weapon.

The Campaign for Violence Prevention, soon to join this Campaign started by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Similar to work done as the Landmine Survivors Network, Survivor Corps will continue to work on three formats: peer support, training and advocacy.

Survivor Corps is also launching a new program to help American Service members who are returning home after combat. This program will help connect US military survivors to each other, their communities and to all the local and online services that exist to help them reintegrate and recover.

About Survivor Corps
I Will Not Be For Nothing Survivor Corps Rise Above Give Back

Around the globe, people are inflicting harm on one another on an alarming scale with alarming ease. There were approximately 250 wars throughout the 20th century. Today, there are more than 39 conflicts raging in the world -from armed conflicts in Latin America to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to genocide in Darfur.

More than 35 million people have been displaced from these conflicts-innocent people who have been robbed of their dignity, their homes and their livelihoods. With no hope or tools to rise above their circumstances, far too many victims lash out, seeking revenge for their plight and perpetuating the cycle of violence and suffering. Something has to be done to break this downward spiral.

Survivor Corps operates under the credo that no one is better equipped to change the world than those who have been most scarred by what's wrong with it. There is a way to break the cycle of violence, and it begins with showing survivors a new, more hopeful way forward.
I Will Not Be Powerless Survivor Corps Rise Above Give Back

What is the Survivor Corps philosophy? No one is better equipped to change the world than those most scarred by what’s wrong with it.

Whom does Survivor Corps serve? We serve people who have been injured by global conflict. Primarily through training and support of the organizations that serve victims of conflict.

Whom does Survivor Corps serve? We serve people who have been injured by global conflict, primarily through training and support of the organizations that serve conflict survivors at the local level.

Where does Survivor Corps work? Wherever communities are experiencing or recovering from conflict - currently in over 50 countries.

Why should I support Survivor Corps? We have a ten-year track record of results improving health, creating economic opportunity, and changing laws & policies for survivors of conflict.

How does Survivor Corps work? We work across the spectrum of issues and organizations that affect the lives of survivors.

Can Survivor Corps really solve this problem? Yes. We believe that by showing survivors a new, more hopeful way forward, we can help break the cycle of violence.

Survivor Corps provides the tools and support survivors need to rise above their injuries and give back to their communities. Learn more at www.survivorcorps.org.

About Jerry White

Jerry White of Survivor Corps
Jerry White is a global survivor activist who has dedicated his life to helping victims of violent conflict. While camping in Northern Israel in 1984, he stepped on a landmine, and he spent nearly six months in Israeli hospitals learning to walk on an artificial leg. Since then, he has become a recognized leader of the historic International Campaign to Ban Landmines, co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Peace; and a co-founder of Survivor Corps. He has testified before the US Congress and the United Nations and appeared in hundreds of media interviews and profiles.

About I Will Not Be Broken

Survivor Corps Rise Above Give Back Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis By Jerry White Book
The loss of a loved one, a painful divorce, or a serious physical injury---we must all, at one point, face tragedy -- unavoidable moments that divide our lives into "before" and "after."

How do we muscle our way through tough times and emerge stronger, wiser -- even grateful for our struggle? In 1984, author Jerry White lost his leg -- and almost his life -- in a landmine accident. He has endured the pain of loss and the challenge of rebuilding. As cofounder of Survivors Corps, White has interviewed thousands of victims of tragedy. With this book, he shares what he has learned.

White outlines a very specific five-step program to coping with disaster; to achieving strength and hope; and to turning tragedy into triumph. In their own words, his survivor friends and colleagues share their stories. It's a group that includes the well known, like Lance Armstrong, Nelson Mandela, and the late Princess Diana, and also everyday survivors. Through their stories and the author's words, the book takes readers step-by-step through the process of not only surviving tragedy and victimhood, but going on to thrive.

For more information about I Will Not Be Broken, visit: http://iwillnotbebroken.smnr.us

Contacts

For Press Inquiries: Daniel Krueger
dkrueger@survivorcorps.org

For More Information: Elizabeth Miner
eminer@landminesurvivors.org
202-250-3929
2100 M St. NW Suite 302,
Washington, DC 20037

For two years we got garbage daily passed off as news. We got polls and we got fashion and so much more nonsense passed off as 'news' coverage of the presidential race. Actual news was regularly blacked out. Whether it was Hillary's proposal on breast cancer research, Sarah Palin's proposals regarding special-needs children or anything that actually matters. One example is of the black out on all genuine news was what Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney did on the last Thursday in October. This is Gloria Rubec's "Presidential candidate joins protest of execution" (Workers World):

Cynthia McKinney made history in Texas Oct. 30. Never has any politician or any candidate for public office been in Huntsville, Texas, on an execution night to join in with those protesting.

Photo: Jon Axford

McKinney, the Green Party candidate for president of the United States, joined the ranks of protesters this evening, Oct. 30, and quietly introduced herself to the family and friends of Greg Wright, who was scheduled to be executed 45 minutes later.
As Wright's stepdaughter stood outside of the death house holding a cell phone in one hand and a framed photo of Wright in the other, McKinney approached her and asked about the photo. "How long has your family been dealing with fighting this execution? Did you ever think that your family would ever have to deal with the issue of the death penalty in such a personal way?"
McKinney listened to Misty Smith explain that they had been fighting to prove Wright’s innocence for seven or eight years and that never did she think she and her mother would be going through this injustice.
Then McKinney was introduced to the crowd opposing Wright's execution.
The candidate told them: "I am sad to join you tonight, those of you who have a conscience and who want the U.S. to join the community of nations that respect life, rights and the administration of justice. It’s one thing to feel politically, academically and intellectually opposed to the death penalty. It’s quite another thing to meet the family of someone who has maintained his innocence throughout his entire ordeal and yet they find themselves on the opposite side of justice.
"Most people in this country have believed in the justice system. They believe that they would never be the victims of injustice. And yet I am here in the very place where Shaka Sankofa was murdered by the state of Texas.
"Texas is the execution capital of the country. Why is it that the state of Texas wants the world to know that killing is wrong yet it engages in killing?"
McKinney continued: "Our president, George W. Bush, has engaged in killing. One million Iraqis are dead from war and occupation. How many Afghanis are dead from war and occupation? How many Pakistanis dead from war and occupation?
"The war machine is a death machine. It's a killing machine. As a leader of the Green Party, I join with the families that are here right now and say that we must end all of this killing, including the death penalty, including the use of depleted uranium munitions, and including the interminable march of the imperialistic war machine.
"Misty, thank you for allowing me to be here. Thank you for helping me to understand how barbarically this country can treat people, people who believe in it still. Thank you."
Greg Wright expressed his appreciation for the Green Party just hours before his execution when his spouse, Connie Wright, told him that Cynthia McKinney would be in Huntsville for the protest. "Well, now, you sure know who to vote for, don't you?" he told Connie. "I can't believe she will be here for me."
Music that Connie Wright and Greg Wright chose for the evening played over the sound system outside of the death house as the prison clock chimed at 6:00 p.m. Then Connie and the four other witnesses to the execution walked into the death house for the 419th Texas execution, while "You are the Wind Beneath My Wings" could be heard for blocks around.
Some 1,125 people have been executed in the U.S. since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s. Over one-third of all executions have been in Texas and over 85 percent have been in the South. Texas has 13 more executions scheduled, including another likely innocent person, Eric Cathey. Over 65 percent of those on death row are African-American or Latino.
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


As Maureen Dowd bores the world with her sad attempts at pop culture ditherings (which only reveal how truly out of touch Dowd is), grasp that the garbage Dowd serves up today is exactly why news like Gloria Rubec's was ignored in the MSM.

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


iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi
the washington post
mary beth sheridan
the los angeles times
usama redha
the new york times
stephen farrelll
mike schneider
night talk
bloomberg tv
gloria rubec

Although world attention has focused on the battle to control oil-rich Kirkuk — where the late Saddam once purged Kurds, and now Kurds and Kurdish parties are purging Arabs -- the strip of small villages connecting Sinjar to Khanaqeen has turned into a powder keg as Kurdish and Arab parties compete for the loyalties of the minorities. Both sides are using economic incentives, intimidation, detention and in some cases murder.
The force at the center of the conflict is the Peshmerga, Kurdish militias that mostly have been absorbed into the Iraqi Security Forces but remain loyal to the Kurdish parties in the north rather than the Shiite-dominated central government to the south. Sunni Arabs, who've cracked down on extremists elsewhere in Iraq, are angry and fearful of Kurdish rule in the region and have given the extremists space to terrorize Mosul.
"The whole front of where the (Kurdistan Regional Government) borders the rest of Iraq from Sinjar through Kirkuk on down to Khanaqeen is timed for a misstep, especially a military misstep," said Brig. Gen. Tony Thomas, the U.S. commander in Nineveh province. "We've got a real challenge and a crisis on our hands."
The office of the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Massoud Barzani, an outspoken Kurdish nationalist and the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, rejects allegations that they're "Kurdifying" areas through intimidation, detention and extrajudicial killings. Barzani's chief of staff, Fuad Hussein, charged that accusations from the Shabak and Yazidi communities, whom the Kurds consider to be fellow Kurds, often were due to Arab backing and Arab racism against the Kurds. Any incidents of intimidation or abuse are isolated and not a policy, he said.
"Some people speak on the behalf of the Yazidis, and now there are a few who are speaking on behalf of the Shabak to say that there is a policy within Kurdish political parties or within the KRG to discriminate against them," Hussein said. "We are trying to do everything to protect these people. We believe in their rights. . . . We are trying to help them as we are trying to help ourselves."
Thomas said he'd seen little evidence of extrajudicial killings during his 14-month tour. "We hear allegations all the time. You'll hear about Kurdish pressure; it will be everything from economic and political pressure to more concerning forced apprehension and murder," he said.
The issue is so sensitive that many Western officials won't talk about Kurdish intimidation on the record. Residents who've complained to U.N. officials about intimidation by Kurdish forces are often subject to detention by those forces within hours of their meetings with the officials.

The above is from Leila Fadel's "Kurdish expansion moves threaten stability in northern Iraq" (McClatchy Newspapers), a very important article. Meanwhile, for the third day in a row, Baghdad's in the news for bombings. Hamid Ahmed (AP) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 4 lives today (fifteen more wounded) and it was "the third consecutive day of morning rush hour blasts in the Iraqi capital" which also included a roadside bombing that left seven wounded while, in Mosul, two Iraqi Christians (sisters) were shot dead outside their home and their mother was left wounded.

As the report released Monday by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted (this is the link, click on language of choice -- such as "English" -- and remember it's PDF format):

Starting in August, attempts at intimdation aginst Christians in Mosul were reported with a dramatic increase in violence in the first two weeks of October. Over 2,200 families, more than 10,000 individuals, have reportedly fled their homes and most have sought temporary shelter in the Ninawa plains, leading my Special Representative to publicly express concern and strongly condemn the killing of civilians on 12 October. The development comes at a very sensitive time, and against a backdrop of heightened political tensions regarding the unresolved issues of minority representation in the provincial elections and disputed internal boundaries.

Didn't puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki swear the assaults had resulted in stronger measures to ensure protection? Some of the over 2,000 families have returned to the area and it appears some may flee for their own safety again.

Louise Ireland (Reuters) notes, "In Wednesday's incident, gunmen killed one woman outside her home, then stormed the house, killing her sister and wounding their mother."

A few e-mails to the public account offer heads up to the pay day for the "Awakening" Council members. This was covered in Monday's snapshot. It was avoided in yesterday's (which was a nightmare with too many people wanting too many things included -- mainly friends wanting things included) because some accounts were just laughable and incorrect. (But highly similar to the talking points issued by M-NF.) For those interested in the topic, Tina Susman's "Payday for some impatient sons" (Babylon & Beyond, Los Angeles Times) offers a highly comprehensive rundown and we'll note this from it:

The Iraqi payout, which began Monday in Baghdad, seemed to go smoothly, but the impatience exhibited by Jundi and several other Sons of Iraq is a warning sign of what may lie ahead if the Iraqi government does not fulfill its vow to find jobs for these men.
"So far all we've gotten is promises that we'll get hired here or there, but nothing," said Jundi as other men in line around him joined in the complaints. "There's nothing tangible" to hold on to for the future, said Younis Abdullah Sukhairi. "We don't have any faith." They said they trusted the U.S. forces but not Iraq's government.
The mutual distrust between the mainly Shiite Muslim government and the mainly Sunni Arab Sons of Iraq is at the root of several problems that could derail the program, which is credited with helping bring down violence nationwide. A year ago, there were about 24 attacks per day on U.S. and Iraqi forces and Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. William Grimsley. Now, there are about four attacks per day, said Grimsley, who called the Sons of Iraq "hugely important" in bringing down violence.
As U.S. troops brought journalists to visit some of the pay stations in Baghdad to witness the historic payout, there were no outward signs of mistrust. The Sons of Iraq stood in orderly lines. They quickly began tucking their shirts into their trousers when they spotted a TV camera. As their names were called, they stepped forward one by one to receive bundles of cash. The biggest problem seemed to be matching names on the Sons' identity cards with the transliterations of names on lists being kept by U.S. forces overseeing the operation.
"Say again?!" an American soldier said to an Iraqi after he'd called out the name of a man waiting to get paid. The American couldn't find the name on his list. "What's the tribal name?" he asked. Eventually the name game was sorted out and the man got his money: the equivalent of $300 in Iraqi dinars.
But how long can men be expected to expose themselves to attacks and danger -- at least 79 Sons of Iraq have been killed in Baghdad -- without knowing when they will find permanent work in the Iraqi security forces or other government institutions? That was on the minds of the men waiting to get paid. Even among some Sons already tapped to become Iraqi police, there was the sense that they would not have gotten to that point without U.S. forces prodding the Iraqi government.

And you can also check out Susman and Ned Parker's "Iraq's Sunni fighters leave U.S. payroll" (Los Angeles Times proper):

On Monday, fighters groused about a cut in pay, in some cases from $350 a month under the U.S. to $300 now.
In west Baghdad's Ghazaliya district, off a residential street with palm trees and chocolate-colored houses, hundreds of the fighters gathered in a line and waited to be called inside the tombstone-like blast walls of a U.S.-Iraqi military compound.
Under the leadership of a former officer in Saddam Hussein's special forces who identifies himself as Col. Raad, more than 100 Sons of Iraq members have been placed in the police force in this neighborhood.
Ghazaliya's Sunni paramilitary began as a way for the U.S. military to counter the influence of both the Sunni-dominated insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army militia, made up of Shiites. Through the summer of 2007, the Iraqi army was thought by Sunnis and U.S. officers to be tacitly aiding the Mahdi Army as it spread into Sunni sections of Ghazaliya.
Raad, a onetime insurgent, fought the Americans in 2003 and 2004 and spent most of 2005 in Abu Ghraib prison, but became one of the group's leaders after his release. On Monday, he sat side by side with the Iraqi army commander and watched as his men were paid, studying the list of names.

This morning, the United Nations World Food Programme issued this press release entitled "New Report Says Iraq Food Security Better But Situation Still Volatile:"

Baghdad, 12 November 2008 -- The number of people without adequate access to food in Iraq has fallen dramatically, according to the findings of a joint assessment carried out by the Iraqi Government and the UN World Food Programme (WFP).
The assessment -- which shows a significant improvement in food security - found some 930,000 people were without adequate access to food last year, down from around four million in 2005.
The Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Assessment (CFSVA) was carried out in late 2007 in collaboration with the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), as a follow-up to the last food security survey in mid-2005.
"We can give a cautious welcome to these figures," said Edward Kallon, WFP Country Director for Iraq.
"I say cautious, because 930,000 is still far too many for a relatively wealthy country. Moreover, there are a further 6.4 million people who would slide into food insecurity if it were not for safety nets, such as the Public Distribution System (PDS)."
Under the Government-run PDS, every Iraqi is entitled to a monthly food basket to fulfill their nutritional needs. However, frequent shortfalls and delays in the distribution of certain commodities have made it difficult for vulnerable households to manage their monthly food needs.
As well as surveying the food security of 26,000 people across the country, the CFSVA also examined the nutritional status of 24,000 children under five. It found an improvement in national acute malnutrition rates and little change in chronic malnutrition rates. However, in five districts, stunting rates among children were described as alarming.
"This report gives us crucial insights into the current state of food security in Iraq," said Dr Mehdi al-Alak, chairman of the Central Organization of Statistics and Information Technology of the Iraqi Ministry of Planning. "And that, in turn, is vital for the country's economic recovery, reconstruction and improvements in basic services."
"For the first time, we have a comprehensive report covering all parts of the country. This makes it an extremely valuable tool for working out policies and strategies in the future," said Dr. Jamal Ameen, the head of Kurdistan Region Statistics Office.
WFP is currently providing food assistance to 750,000 of the most vulnerable among the estimated 1.5 million people displaced inside Iraq since February 2006, who do not have continuous access to a PDS ration because they are unable to register in the places where they are currently living.
Kallon attributed the reversal of declining food security to increased economic activity across the country, stimulated by a marked improvement in security and the humanitarian efforts of the international community. “But the situation remains volatile and any deterioration could undermine the whole process,” he said.
The report recommends continued food assistance to the most vulnerable in collaboration with the Iraqi government’s efforts to reform the PDS. It calls for support to initiatives to improve mother and child nutrition and caring practices, scaling up micronutrient programmes and providing food for education in the poorest areas, with a particular emphasis on girls’ school enrolment and attendance.

Katherine Zoepf covers the $3.5 billion oil deal between China and Iraq in today's New York Times.

Last Thursday, Stan started his own site, Oh Boy It Never Ends. The plan for yesterday's snapshot was to note the political election section with links to community posts including Stan's "Isaiah and some quick thoughts" -- it did not work out that way. (It rarely does when attempts are made to plan something.) But I will note it here and note Stan's "Read Terrance D.C." from last night as well as:

• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Barack and Rupaul

  8 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! BARACK SHARES PHOTOS!

  8 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Cynthia McKinney, Veterans Day

  9 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  palin, survivor corps, heroes and more

  9 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  Shut up Sherry Wolf, shut the hell up

  9 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  Katrina vanden Heuvel is an idiot

  9 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  Miss Bully Boy Regrets . . .

  9 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  No, no, Nancy

If you've checked out Stan's site, you recognize the above. That's how his permalinks display. It gives the site and the most recent posting.

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


iraq
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
tina susman
ned parker
the new york times
katherine zoepf
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

Tuesday, November 11. 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, attempted land-grabs continue, the treaty is still in a holding pattern, and Katrina vanden Heuvel preps her comedy act.   Today Iraq's cabinet met for six hours during which they were to address the issue of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.  However, AFP reports that they dispensed with the treaty quickly and quotes the Minister of Science and Techonology Raid Jahid Fahmi explaining, "The council of ministers will wait until we have a complete translation in Arabic of the American proposal and have consulted legal advisors before making a final decision." Despite this, the US remains publicly upbeat.  AP quotes an e-mail from a US Embassy official (unnamed) which informs them, "We understand the Iraqi government is continuing to study the agreement text. We believe that an agreement can be reached that meets the needs of both parties."  While Iraq decides to wait and the US tries to appear optimistic, Baghdad attempts to reassure its neighbors.  Sana Abdallah (Middle East Times) reports, "Iraq's National Security Minister Shirwan al-Waeli, who delivered a message to the Arab League from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki outlining the security pact with the United States, said the accord contains 'basic content that no violations are undertaken from Iraqi soil against any neibhoring, Arab or friendly country, and it does not undermine Iraqi sovereignty'." That was already a fear on the part of some neighbors before October 26th.  Following that day's US attack on Syria, it's only become more of a fear.  Sara Flounders (Workers World) explains of that attack which killed 8 Syrians, "It is a violation of international law, the UN Charter, and U.S. law, specifically the War Powers Act."  Brooke Anderson (San Francisco Chronicle) observes, "Syria has demanded that Washington apologize for the strike and has threatened to cut off cooperation on Iraqi border security.  The government has also ordered all foreign staff of the American Language Center and American Cultural Center in Damascus to leave the country, and postponed a Nov. 12 meeting of a joint Syrian-Iraqi committee in Baghdad to improve troubled relations."  Xinhua notes that Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, has "paid a surprise visit to Syria" today "as tension between the two neighbors rose after a U.S. cross-border raid killed eight Syrians last month."  While there, he again repeated the claim that Iraq will not allow itself to be used as a base for attacks on its neighbors.   Today Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports Syria refused to allow a World Food Program ship to unload rice "at the country's main port" due to "the percentage of cracked rice in the cargo" (according to a Syiran official).  The rice was intended for some of the estimated 194,000 refugees from Iraq currently living in Syria.    Iran is another neighbor and Fars News Agency reports Iraq's Ambassador to Iran Mohammed Majeed al-Sheikh met with Iranian MP Heshmatollah Falahatpishe who told the ambassador that "Iraq must not turn to the strategic territory of the United States and what the agreement must be geared to is paving the way for stabilizing an independent Iraqi state."   Today is Veterans Day and Survivor Corps has started Operation Survivor: "The traumatic effects of war, left unaddressed, will have far-reaching negative consequences for service members, their families, and their communities. Based on our ten years of global experience helping survivors of conflict overcome trauma and give back to their communities, Survivor Corps founded Operation Survivor to provide the same kind of life-changing support to American veterans and service members."   And IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will also be noted here.  Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is noting the following: Tomorrow, Wednesday, Nov 12th is the first date, when one of the demonstrators, an IVAW member from D.C., Adam Kokesh, will have his day in court. It is Adams' trial. If you are off work, please, please come. It will be difficult to get enough people out here in Long Island on short notice. These veterans and demonstrators are worthy of support. And, it will be important, but difficult, to get a crowd out for all 15 of them, on 15 different days. Please spread the word: Subject: Please come to court in Nassau County on Wed, Nov 12th at 8am to support the Hempstead 15 from the Hofstra Demo Subject: Hempstead 15 plead not guilty while cops defend brutalizing veterans It was a sad day for Nassau County, but a proud one for veterans and activists nation-wide when the Hempstead 15 plead not guilty Nov. 10 in the Nassau County District Courthouse to charges of disorderly conduct while a crowd of nearly 100 supporters cheered them from in and outside the building. Video of the court support demo is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNGTnxWJFW8   Returning to tensions in Iraq, Ed Johnson and Bill Varner (Bloomberg News) report the United Nations has warned the provincial elections scheduled for January 31st "may trigger more attacks" and the reporters note UN Secretary-General delivering a report to the UN Security Council Monday in which he termed "the security gains 'fragile'." Michele Montas handled Monday's UN briefing in NYC and she stated that Iraqi ministries no longer provide the United Nations with fatality information. She also noted Ban Ki-moon released a report and that he states the provincial elections " represent the most significant events in the coming months, as they can advance political dialogue, establish representative provincial councils and empower community leaders to meet the needs of local citizens in cooperation with the Government of Iraq. At the same time, he warns, there is potential for election-related violence and instability." Take "he warns" out of the previous quote and that's page 14 of the Secretary General's report (item 55). The United Nations report is entitled [PDF format warning] "Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1830 (2008)."  The report covers a wide range of topics involving gains and things still needed.  Regarding elections, it notes: Following intense negotiations, the Council of Representatives adopted the provincial election law on 24 September and the Presidency Council ratified the measure on 7 October. The law was amended on 3 November to include provisions for minority representation in Baghdad, Basra and Ninawa. Provincial council elections are now scheduled to take place in early 2009 in 14 of the 18 governorates in Iraq.    Starting in August, attempts at intimdation aginst Christians in Mosul were reported with a dramatic increase in violence in the first two weeks of October. Over 2,200 families, more than 10,000 individuals, have reportedly fled their homes and most have sought temporary shelter in the Ninawa plains, leading my Special Representative to publicly express concern and strongly condemn the killing of civilians on 12 October. The development comes at a very sensitive time, and against a backdrop of heightened political tensions regarding the unresolved issues of minority representation in the provincial elections and disputed internal boundaries.   [. . .]  On 26 October, United States forces from Iraq launched an attack on a house in the village of Sukkariyah in the Syrian Arab Republic. I expressed my deep regret over the loss of civilian lives and I called for regional cooperation to solve issues of common concern, including border security. The situation in the region is fragile and we therefore must stay focused on initial positive steps towards regional dialogue.          And regarding Kirkuk and minorities, we'll note this from the report: During the reporting period my Special Representative and his political and electoral teams faciliated the negotiations on the provincial election law between the major political party blocs, the Presidency Council, members of the Council of Representatives and the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Following the passage of the election law, engagement with the parties continued with a view to their reconsidering the issue of minority representation in the provincial councils. An amendment addressing this issue was passed on 3 November. My Special Representative met with key leaders from the Christian, Yezidi, Shebek and Sabean Mandean communities to reassure them of the continued engagement of the United Nations on the issue of minority representation.  The provincial election stipulates special arrangements for Kirkuk Governorate, whereby a committee comprised of seven representatives (two Members of Parliament each from Kirkuk's Arab, Turkmen and Kurdish components and one Christian representative) is to submit a consense report to the Council of Representatives by 31 March 2009 on (a) mechanisms for sharing administrative and security powers and civil service positions in Kirkuk; (b) a review of violations against public and private property within the Governorate of Kirkuk before and after 9 April 2003, with the Government of Iraq guaranteeing the correction of those violations in accordance with the laws applied in Iraq; and (c) an examination of all data and records related to the demographic situation including the voter registry. The committee's findings will be binding recommendations for implementation by the Independent High Electoral Commission. The committee's mandate concerns the issues that lie at the epicentre of what has so far been irreconcilable Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen and Christian claims on the future administrative status of Kirku. UNAMI is ready, should it be invited, to provide advice and assistance to the committee. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that "world attention has focused on the battle to control oil-rick Kirkuk"; however, "the strip of small villages connecting Sinjar to Khanaqeen has turned into a powder keg as Kurdish and Arab parties compete for the loyalties of the minorities. Both sides are using economic incentives, intimidation, detention and in some cases murder."  Fadel focuses on Yazidi Murad Kashtu who has been taken into custody by Kurdish forces three times (twice he was beaten while in their custody) while threatening him over his work "with an Arab party in territory that the Kruds covet."  Asi tells Fadel, "Any man who is not with them (the Kurds) -- and especially not with the party (the Kurdistan Democratic Party) -- cannot live in the area because he will suffer, and for this reason I think all of us will leave the area."   Staying with violence but dropping back to yesterday's Baghdad bombings, Anwar J. Ali and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) report the "synchronized triple-bombing" claimed 28 lives according to the Ministry of the Interior and that is and the "suicide attack in Baquba on Monday, seem to be part of a rise in violence after a relatively quiet few weeks here.  . . . The Associated Press counted at least 19 bombings in Baghdad this month as of Sunday, compared with 28 for all of October and 22 in September."  Mary Beth Sheridan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) describe the scene: "Walls define much of this historic city -- slabs of concrete erected by U.S. soldiers or residents that have turned neighborhoods into mazes aimed at frustrating attackers.  Only recently, as security improved, did someone wedge open the barriers by Karim's Abu Wael restaurant.  No one noticed when someone drove a white Volkswagen Passat through the opening and parked.  At about 8 a.m. Monday, explosives in the Passat's trunk detonated, just as a minibus packed with 20 people passed by on the busy road on the other side of the barriers, witnesses and U.S. officials said."  Hussein Kadhim and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explain that there is some confusion as to whether there were three or four bombings: "Witnesses said they saw two car bombs followed by two roadise bombs, while police blamed a suicide bomber and two roadside bombs for the fatalities."  AP's Robert H. Reid and Qassim Abdul-Zahra raise the death toll to 31 and they add, "Witnesses said the suicide bomber mingled among rescuers and bystanders, then detonated an explosives belt, which probably accounted for most of the casualties."   Baghdad was again the scene of coordinated bombings this morning. BBC reports a double-bombing "during the morning rush hour.  The target appeared to be a newspaper distribution; the first blast hit a delivery lorry and the second a row of vendors waiting to collect newspapers."  AFP adds, "Three day labourers were killed and another 14 wounded when a bomb went off in an empty lot where they were waiting for work near Palestine street, one of the main thoroughfares of Baghdad." McClatchy's Sahar Issa notes 2 dead from the two bombings and seventeen wounded.   Other bombings today?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that left six people wounded a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded six people, another Baghdad roadside bombing also injured six ("including three policemen"), a Nineveh car bombing that wounded fifteen people and the Turkish military bombed Dohuk last night and this morning.     Reflecting on the US election last week, former US House Rep and Senator  James G. Abourezk (CounterPunch) observes:   Of course, we all understood that Nader would not win the election, but the movement of Arab Americans away from him regrettably deprives him of the political influence he might have gained to press his positions, including his strong criticism of Israel's illegal occupation.  His voice is considerably weakened because of the movement of Arab American voters to other candidates, which is unfortunate for those Palestinians who live in desperation on a daily basis.  The same is true for the people of Lebanon and Syria who are in constant fear of being bombed by U.S. warplanes flown by Israeli pilots.   In this election, a great many Arab American joined Obama's winning coalition, despite Obama's clear indication that he wanted nothing to do with Arabs, either Christian or Muslim.  We saw, during his campaign, that his staff prevented Muslim women with head scarves from sitting behind him in view of the television cameras during his campaign rallies.  He visited Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues, but he refused to visit even one Mosque during the campaign.  And, finally, joining John McCain, he made the obligatory bow and scrape to the Israeli Lobby -- AIPAC -- during that group's 2008 convention.  He made no attempt to hide any of these clearly pro-Israeli actions from Arab Americans.  Had he done the same toward any other ethnic group, we would expect that the group would find another electoral home for their support and their votes.  But that, apparently, is not what happened this year.  Arab Americans voted overwhelming in support of Obama, rushing right past Ralph Nader, who has articulated the community's feelings about the Israeli occupation.    This is a continuation of the self-destructive attitude held by people of Arab descent.  We see it in the Arab world, and we see it among the Arab diaspora.  We see the urge to defeat or to overlook one of our own in favor of catering to those we think are certain to hold power.   Team Obama launched, encouraged and fed on some of the most sexist attacks the country's seen in years.  In a landscape where feminist 'leaders' rolled over and took it (with a smile!) The New Agenda was among the organizations springing up to promote self-respect and self-worth.  Amy Siskind notes that today is the quarter birthdray of New Agenda and recaps the recent history:   The New Agenda is formed on August 11th, and it's no longer just about Hillary  Playing hardball with Matthews on August 14th    Advancing our Platform to the Obama Campaign and the McCain Campaign  Clinton's journey awakens a new feminist movement and welcome to the fourth wave of feminism   We speak out about using the term "shrill" demanding an apology from Sen. Reid and The Wall Street Journal   The New Agenda is the first women's rights group to speak out against the sexism against Gov. Palin, which we do within 48 hours  Chris Matthews remains in our sights  We question NOW's endorsement of the Obama/Biden ticket, but refuse to appear on MSNBC saying "Thanks, but no thanks."  We organize actions to counter the sexism and misogyny aimed at Gov. Palin and we make a difference  We say "NO" to Larry Summers for Treasury Secretary, not once but twice  Oh, and we have one heck of a good time together each Monday night at 10 p.m. EST on Chewing the Fat with Ophelia     On Governor Palin, we noted Sunday at Third, "Palin is seen as a strong voice in the Republican Party's future so naturally the press violates all the rules to spread a whisper campaign. No, The New York Times is not supposed to allow opponents to attack someone without coming forward. Strange that when they acknowledge that policy these days, it's usually when someone in the entertainment industry threatens to sue the paper. The threat of lawsuit will always force the paper to issue one of those, 'Oops, we goofed. It is not our policy to allow character assaults to be launched by unnamed persons.' Maybe Palin should threaten to sue?" As Debra J. Saunders (San Francisco Chronicle) points out today, "It tells you everything that the Palin smear stories come from anonymous staffers.  There is no documentation.  There is no way to prove the rumors false.  Think graffiti in a junior high school girls' room."  Saunders goes on to note, "The political press corps doesn't win any awards in this episode, either.  Remember when the pack would not jump on National Enquirer stories about John Edwards' relations with Rielle Hunter and child -- because the story had not been nailed down?  It seems that there is a different standard for Palin -- to wit, anything goes."   Today the Times continues their efforts to smear Palin and Michael Cooper should be ashamed of himself.  He accuses her of "not going quietly into the sunsent" which is strange when you consider no one launched accusations like that at John Edwards who, following the 2004 election, immediately launched his 2008 presidential campaign.  He finds it shocking that "she will be given a starring role when the Republican Governors Associations meets in Miami" -- why the hell shouldn't she?  She's one of the few exctiing people that party has.  It's her or Ahnuld.  And she just came off a campaign where she packed in huge crowds.    "She seems determined to remain highly visible," Cooper frets.  Was she supposed to die?  Was she supposed to hang her head in shame?  Exactly what does the New York Times want from Governor Palin and how long is the paper going to allow the double-standard to remain so obvious in print?  He then goes on to declare that "Palin remains popular among some Republicans, and she is still mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012."  Among some?  Jeremy P. Jacobs (PolitickerMA) reports the latest Rasmussen poll finds "64% of 1,000 likely Republican voters would support Palin over Rmoney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Louisian Gov. Bobby Jindal, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist" for the 2012 GOP presidential nominee.  Among some? 8% judged Palin unfavorable in the poll (that's "somewhat" and "very") while 91% judged her favorable (that's "somewhat" and "very lumped together).  This echoes Rasmussen's earlier poll this month, "Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans say John McCain made the right choice by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Palin has been the subject of largely critical media coverage but has attracted some of the most enthusiastic crowds of either campaign.  Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say the party picked the right nominee for president."  With Republicans, Palin was more popular than was McCain.   And that's in spire of non-stop attacks.   As soon as Palin was announced, Barack's operatives set about smearing her with one vile lie after another.  Early on, it was noted here (back in August) that we wouldn't repeat that nonsense but if Palin commented on it, we'd quote her.  She's commented on one of the big early lies, that Trig was not her son.  She did so on Fox's On the Record With Greta which has transcript and video:   VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything else that has been raised or said about you in the media, either during the convention -- I mean, during the campaign or since the campaign ended, that you think you need to address that has been, you know, an allegation about you?   PALIN: Well, unfortunately, early on, there are a tremendous number of examples that we can give regarding my record and things that could have, should have been so easily corrected if -- if the media would have taken one step further and -- and investigated a little bit, not just gone on some blogger probably sitting there in their parents' basement, wearing their pajamas, blogging some kind of gossip or -- or a lie regarding, for instance, the -- the discussion about who was Trig's real mom? You know, Was it one of her daughters or was she faking her pregnancy?      And that was in mainstream media, the question that was asked, instead of just coming to me and -- and -- and you know, setting the record straight. And then when we tried to correct that, that, yes, truly, I am Trig's mother, for it to take days for it ever to have been corrected, that -- that kind of right out of the chute was one of the oddities of this campaign and the messaging.   And then, too, things that, again, so easily could have been corrected about my supposed attempts to censor and ban books when I was the mayor of Wasilla. And one of the examples that they gave was that media was just sure that one of the books I tried to ban was Harry Potter. Of course, it hadn't even been written when I was the Mayor of Wasilla. So just issues like that that just -- you know, it was -- it was mind- boggling to consider what it was that we were going to be up against, when you could see that something was written about, something was stated in the media. I knew the truth and I had the record to prove otherwise, and yet it would either take too long to unring that bell that had just been rung or there was no attempt at all to correct the record.   That was pretty frustrating.    That's Greta Van Sustern. We don't normally link to Fox but it was noted -- back in August -- that if Palin commented on that vile trash, we would note and otherwise we wouldn't.  She's commented.       Barry Grey (WSWS) addresses realities and hype in the election:   Virtually without exception, liberal commentators and "left" political tendencies have ignored or downplayed all such indications that Obama intends to pursue a conservative course and reject anything that suggests a more democratic and egalitarian restructuring of American capitalism. This has been facilitated by their interpretation of the election almost entirely in racial terms. The obsession with race, which for 40 years has been the mainstay of liberal politics in America, has, if anything, been accentuated in the aftermath of the election.     This is despite the fact that the election was a powerful refutation of the portrayal of American working people as racist, backward and hopelessly in the thrall of religion and conservative "values"--a political myth that assumed the status of an unassailable truth after the reelection of Bush in 2004.   Typical is the column in the Sunday New York Times by Frank Rich, which begins, "On the morning after a black man won the White House, America's tears of catharsis gave way to unadulterated joy." Rich notes approvingly that the election disproved what "we've been told by those in power… that we are small, bigoted and stupid--easily divided and easily frightened." He then makes the significant admission that "We heard this slander of America so often that we all started to believe it, liberals most certainly included." It is obvious that Rich, speaking for liberals in general, employs the same superficial impressionism, buttressed by an obsession with race, that led him to buy into the old illusions in order to embrace a new one--that Obama represents a new dawn of democracy and progress in America.      It is legitimate to recognize that the vote for Obama would not have been possible were it not for the fact that social attitudes in America have changed profoundly over the past 50 years--something that was for all practical purposes denied by Rich and his fellow liberals. Nor is there any doubt that the movement to the left of broad sections of the working class overcame any hesitations linked to the lingering influence of racial attitudes.  But there is a disturbing undercurrent in the response of Rich and other liberal and "left" commentators to the election. For them, it is all about race, and not about the social sentiments, policy questions and class issues that actually determined the outcome. They define the election as the victory of a black man, not the result of a wave of popular opposition to Bush and a Republican administration that lifted a candidate into the White House who happens to be black.     On the hype machine, Roger Snyder (Greens for Greens) expresses that he's reached his saturation level:   I sorry to say I'm over it. While I was moved by the first reports of people celebrating in the streets, and can still understand the feeling that many people (many of my neighbors) have, the plethora of bad analysis and false claims has left me not wanting to hear any more. For example: Obama's Historic Victory by Howard Zinn "But, as the first African American in the White House, elected by an enthusiastic citizenry which expects a decisive move towards peace and social justice, he presents a possibility for important change. Obama becomes president in a situation which cries out for such change. The nation has been engaged in two futile and immoral wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American people have turned decisively against those wars." No and no. What people did was vote against Bush. They didn't like him anymore, and took it out on McCain. The McCain tactic of claiming to have years of inside experience backfired when the economic went south and the voters blamed those in power for the collapse. And they couldn't tell or didn't care that Obama was no different than McCain on the economy. And the economy was the issue. Obama was a likely loser before it came along. Not the wars. Not social justice.     Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party's presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente was her running mate.  Unlike other presidential tickets, Cynthia regularly raised the issue of the prison-industrial-complex and the death penalty throughout her campaign.  Gloria Rubac (Workers World) reports, "Cynthia McKinney made history in Texas Oct. 30.  Never has any politician or any candidate for public office been in Huntsville, Texas, on an execution night to join in with those protesting.  . . . As [Greg] Wright's stepdaughter stood outside of the death house holding a cell phone in one hand and a framed photo Wright in the other, McKinney approached her and asked about the photo.  'How long has your family been dealing with fighting this execution?  Did you ever think that your family would ever have to deal with the issue of the death penalty in such a personal way?'  McKinney listened to Misty Smith explain that they had been fighting to prove Wright's innocence for seven or eight years and that never did she think she and her mother would be going through this injustice."   Meanwhile Laura Carlsen (CounterPunch) reports that "Latin American leaders still aren't running to the mountaintop to proclaim the dawn of a new era in U.S. relations.  The response can be characterized more as hope seen through the ever-leery eye the contintent keeps on its northern neighbor.  The U.S. government has a long way to go to undo the damage done to its relations and its repuations through decades of both Republican and Democratic presidencies.  Latin American leaders placed conditions and qualifications on their congratulations.  Lula in Brazil and Evo Morales in Bolivia called for an end to the 'unjustifiable' embargo against Cuba.  Morales added a demand for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region.  Mexico's Felipe Calderon sent a brief congratulatory note, calling for strengthening bilateral relations and emphasizing the role of Mexican-Americans in the elections and the U.S. economy.  This was his way of insisting on action toward legalizing the status of Mexican immigrants and creating legal frameworks for future immigration flows."   Dr. Elias Akleh (Information Clearing House) evaluates the realities of the upcoming Obama presidency:   Obama is no different. He will soon be exposed the person he really is; just another wolf in sheep clothing. Obama's promises to protect the middle class are just empty promises. This was obvious after he approved the $700 billion (plus interest) bailout to give more tax money to corrupt bankers, who will use that money to buy weaker banks. The money should have been used to pay portions of the mortgages the middle class owe to the banks, so they could keep their homes. His acclaimed tax cut promise to the middle class means nothing to its unemployed members. The official unemployment rate is 6.5% not counting those, who are not receiving unemployment benefits and are thus not counted. In 2008 alone Americans have lost 1.2 million jobs to outsourcing. Obama's solution to outsourcing is offering corporations tax cuts as incentives to keep the jobs in the US. Such incentive is nothing compared to the huge savings, in the forms of benefits and retirement funds the corporations are saving by employing very cheap labor force unprotected by any labor laws in third world countries lacking any environmental laws. Obama never talked about the poor Americans. For him they don't exist. Obama's real position concerning the unfair NAFTA agreement, that he aggressively criticized and called for its revocation, was exposed later, when it was leaked that his advisor Astan Goolsbee had called Canadian officials asking them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously, but "... should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plan".   Herb the Verb (Corrente) takes on bigot Jasmyne A. Canick who made an ass out of herself on NPR's Talk of the Nation spewing homophobia, "She has a point, after all, since human rights are a limited resource, the more human rights your group gets, the less my group gets.  She didn't say whether that also translates to brown people, women, etc., but it isn't a stretch to assume that it does."  (Herb the Verb is using sarcasm.)  And we'll close out on this topic with Media Matters (which misses the boat in their criticism):   During the November 7 edition of ABC's The View, while discussing the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage and effectively overturning the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted that a "priest" in Sweden was "put in jail for not wanting to perform a marriage to a gay couple, so then they put him in jail because the law stated that you could not discriminate based on sexual preference." Later in the discussion, co-host Sherri Shepherd said: "I don't want to know that my pastor -- because, you know, the church is preaching against homosexuality, and I don't want to know that my pastor could be jailed." However, contrary to Hasselbeck and Shepherd's suggestion that as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling -- or without the passage of Proposition 8 -- members of the clergy "could be jailed" for refusing to perform gay marriages, neither the decision by the California Supreme Court, nor Proposition 8 had anything to do with members of the clergy. The California Supreme Court's ruling applied only to state officials. The ruling directed "state officials [] [to] take all necessary and appropriate steps so that local officials may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples" [emphasis added]. The court itself noted the irrelevance of its decision to clergy, saying in the majority opinion that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."   A) Barbara Walters brought it up.  (Media Matters has the transcript.)  It's her show.  Hold her accountable.  There was no reason for her to bring up things that weren't accurate (which was the reason Whoopi's visibly ticked off, video is posted as well).  Walters brought it up.  B) In the US, churches do not handle marriages or divorces, the government does.  You can be married in a church -- it can be a location.  You can pick someone of the clergy to preside over the ceremony; but the church itself has nothing to do with marriage or divorce in the US other than locale and ceremony.  States issue marriage licenses, states grant divorces.  That's how it works.  C) Elizabeth's tale of Sweden doesn't need to be addressed because who knows if it's true (it probably isn't) and who gives a damn?  This is the United States of America.  You don't need to fret over what Sweden did or didn't do.  In the US can someone be sued for refusing to marry a couple?  No. NO NO NO.  If they could, couples would be suing the Catholic Church which is very clear that you have a Catholic annullment (not a civil one) or a dead spouse if you plan to remarry in the Church.   And for pro-Barack talk, you can check out the Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel who will be Mike Schneider's guest tonight on Bloomber TV's Night Talk.  Watch Mike try to keep a straight face as alleged lefty Katty-van-van declares, "I could see sending Colin Powell to the middle east or to Iraq to help faciliate an exit out of Iraq or to really move on a Middle East peace process."  Yes, Katty-van-van is that silly of a prat-prat. Katty-van-van will go on to hiss, "I'm not ecstatic that there are so many Clinton administration people" but Colin Powell -- the man who lied to the UN and created his own "blot" -- she wants to bring as someone to do 'good' work in the Mid East?  Cover-up Collie, covering up for War Crimes since Vietnam?  In fairness, if Katty's saying it either her husband or her father told her to.  Since it's so outrageous, the talking points came from her father.   Laugh with Katty-van-van tonight at 10:00 PM in Europe, Asia or the US on Bloomberg TV or catch the artifical coo in stereo on Bloomberg Radio (1130 AM in NYC also on XM and Sirius) at the same time.  You can also catch Night Talk online at Bloomberg.com and click here for the podcast (or check iTunes Business News).   iraq anwar j. ali the new york times katherine zoepf leila fadel mcclatchy newspapers hussein kadhim the washington post mary beth sheridan qais mizher elias akleh roger snyder ed johnson bill varner