i always identified with sally brown

'even my own sister,' moans charlie brown when sally wants santa to give her money 'in tens and twenties' if her letter is too confusing for him. 'i only want what i deserve,' she explains.

i always identified with sally. she was always chasing after linus (who, come on people, is so obviously gay) (not unlike my 1st husband). because she's charlie brown's kid sister, she's not getting the comeuppance lucy does, for example.

the cartoon and strip are both highly anti-woman and sally only survives (by comparison to the other female characters) because she's the kid sister.

that allows her to be seen as sweet while pursuing linus when lucy comes off like rose marie's sally rogers (dick van dyke show) desperate for schroeder. lucy looks like a homely girl chasing after a guy who doesn't want her while sally gets to come off cute. (neither shroeder nor linus wants lucy or sally.)

i also like sally's hair and look. she was the only blonde character so i naturally identified with her. but she's also got a distinctive look and you can't say that about all the characters which - like a litter of inbred cats - all seem to resemble 1 another. lucy and violet? are they supposed to be twins? cousins? is schultz attempting to say that they have the same father and the adults in charlie brown land are big time swingers?

who knows.

and all the guys resemble charlie in some form or another.

sally's her own character, distinctively drawn.

if only the schultz bois could ever bother to give her distinctive storylines.

if the cartoons were being drawn for the 1st time today, i could see sally brown starring in a caberet type spoof. of course, the men behind the cartoons would never think to do that. which is why most of us outgrow charlie brown rather quickly.

abc aired a charlie brown christmas tonight and we're all posting our thoughts. some watched the 1st half-hour only, some watched both half-hours. so be sure to go around to the community sites that post at night to check out thoughts & opinions. we're hoping for a wide range of opinions.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, December 16, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military makes an announcement regarding female prisoners, al-Maliki's council makes an announcement regarding foreign troops, a journalist apparently faces attempted murder charges, and more.

Oliver August (Times of London) reports Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi's brother, Durgham al-Zaidi, states his brother has serious injuries, "He has got a broken arm and ribs, and cuts to his eye and arm. He is being held by forces under the command of Muwafaq al-Rubaie [Iraq's national security adviser]." The journalist's name is also spelled by the press as: Muntathar al-Zaidi. Muntathar threw both of his shoes at the Bully Boy of the United States. Both shoes missed. Bully Boy joked, "This is what happens in free societies" and it's one of his more obvious jokes as bullies and thugs attacked Muntathar for a shoe-ing, demonstrating that there was no free society in Iraq. Sunday Adam Ashton and Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported: "Another Iraqi journalist yanked Zaidi to the ground before bodyguards collapsed on Zaidi and held him there while he yelled 'Killer of Iraqis, killer of children.' From the bottom of the pile, he moaned loudly and said 'my hand, my hand.' Zaidi was hauled to a sepaate room, where his cries remained audible for a few moments." Monday Steven Lee Myers and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported, "Mr. Maliki's security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room. They kicked him and beat him until 'he was crying like a woman,' said Mohammed Taher, a reporter for Afaq, a television station owned by the Dawa Party". Reuters noted: "The journalist was leapt on by Iraqi security officials and U.S. secret service agents and dragged from the room screaming and struggling." Greg Gordon and Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) report today that the US Secret Service has donned hair shirts over what they see as their own lack of quick action which can also be read as: Any damage to the journalist was done by the thugs Nouri al-Maliki has employed as his palace guards and not by us. The reaction apart from Nouri's thugs has been enthusiastic. Timothy Williams and Abeer Mohammed (New York Times) report a person in Saudi Arabia has offered $10 million for either of the shoes thrown. Raed Rafei and Khaled Hijabcalls (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) sketch out the Iraqi reaction:

In a barbershop near downtown Beirut on Monday, customers buzzed about the reporter's political gesture. "It was great," one customer said, beaming with satisfaction. Another responded by saying that Bush certainly deserved it for inflicting "disaster" on the Iraqi people. The video of the journalist throwing his shoes at Bush was played over and over again on television stations including the pan-Arab Al Jazeera as well as Iranian state television and even radio. "Please listen again," said a radio announcer in Tehran. "This is the sound of the shoe hitting the wall and missing President Bush." The left-leaning Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar featured the news in on its front page under the headline, "The farewell kiss for Bush," calling the reporter a "hero" who stood up to the president. "This was without a doubt the best farewell as seen by millions of Iraqis who were heartened" by the reporter's action, said the daily, adding that Iraqis were "probably sad when they saw their Prime Minister Nouri Maliki throwing himself in front of his guest to protect him." At McClatchy's Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent provides reactions from various Iraqis. Ammar Mohammed declares, "Of course he's a hero! He did what no one has been able to do so far: He gave Bush the criminal what he deserves. Insulting aman is more severe than killing him. It was sooooo funny -- and the moron didn't even get it! But I am glad that it was publicized -- it is good -- protection for Mutathar: now they can't make him 'disappear' . . . Or can they?" A mother asks, "How many Iraqis did Bush kill in Iraq? Hundreds of thousands. This shoe is settlement for only one. How many Muntathars do we need to settle our debt with Bush?" AP's Qassim Abdul-Zahra reported this morning that despite street protests today calling for Muntadhar al-Zeidi's release, he has been "handed over to the Iraqi judiciary" and is expected to face trial for the run-by shoeing. Oliver August noted this was day two of protests calling for Muntadhar's release and that protests took place in Mosul, Nasiriyah and Falluja. Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) reports Muntadhar acknowledged he threw the shoes today in court accodring to "Abdul Satar Birrqadr, spokesman for Iraq's High Judicial Council." And it gets more ridiculous: "The court decided to keep Zaidi in custody, and after the judge completes his investigation of the case may send him for trial under a clause in the Iraqi penal code that punishes anyone who attempts to murder Iraqi or foreign presidents." Attempts to murder? Again, Iraq is not a free society nor a democracy. Attempts to murder? For an attempted murder, Dana Perino is being very light-hearted. The White House spokesperson opened today's briefing with a joke, "Hi, everybody. The shoe check-in policy and checkout policy will begin tomorrow." And the press responded to the joke with laughter. It was not an attempted murder and for the international press not to be calling out this journalist being held is appalling. At the White House briefing, Perino offered this perspective:

Well, it was just a shoe, and the President saw it from his vantage point. He felt fine about it. I think you saw he let the Secret Service know he thought he was okay, and the Secret Service jumped in as quickly as they thought they needed to. And then they were able to back off and let the Prime Minister of a duly -- the duly elected Prime Minister of a sovereign Iraq taking questions from journalists there who never would have been able to do that five years ago. And the President just thinks it was just a -- it was just a shoe.
People express themselves in lots of different ways. Obviously he was very angry. I can't think -- I don't -- I can't tell you exactly what the shoe thrower was thinking, but I can tell what the President thought, was that he was fine. And he said immediately -- you saw his reaction was, don't worry about it; it was okay. So we hold no hard feelings about it, and we've really moved on.

No offense to Dana Perino -- who got hit with a boom mike during the incident (thanks to the Secret Service) -- but when the White House is showing more maturity and perspective than others in the international playground, there is something seriously wrong. CBS adds, "Zeidi, 29, has been working for Al-Baghdadiya since it launched in 2005, reports CBS News' Khaled Wassef in London. Co-workers describe him as a rather quiet and composed. Zeidi has been arrested before, in error, by American forces and was let go, reports CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer. This time, his family has been told he faces years in jail." For a shoe-ing. For a shoe-ing?

Meanwhile Rachel Layne (Bloomberg News) reports that GE has won a contract "valued at about $3 billion to provide electricity-generating equipment and services to Iraq" and that the purchase means "nearly doubling the country's generating capacity." Since the bulk of Iraq -- including Baghdad -- endures daily power outtages, "doubling" will not solve that problem. The problem is and remains that Nouri al-Maliki sits on billions and refuses to spend them to improve the general welfare of the Iraqi people. Thursday's snapshot noted another buying spree by al-Maliki:


October 31st, AP reported the puppet government in Baghdad's latest boo-hoo: Oil prices had dropped and their budget for 2009 had to be cut by $13 billion. The Guardian of London (via Iraq Directory) was writing that there was talk of raising production due to the drop from the expected $80 billion 2009 budget to the $67 billion budget. In 2008, they couldn't meet their spending targets and sat on a ton of money while infrastructure remained unrepaired and Iraqis suffered without electricity and potable water. This week they're on a spending spree. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency made several announcements yesterday [all links of announcements take you to PDF format]. DSCA announced: "On Dec. 9, the Dfense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 36 AT-6B Texan II Aircraft as well as associated support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $520 million." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 400 M1126 STRYKER Infantry Carrier Vehicles as well as associated equipment. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $1.11 billion." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 20 T-6A Texan aircraft, 20 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $210 million." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of (20) 30-35 meter Coastal Patrol Boats and (3) 55-60 meter Offshore Support Vessels as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $1.010 billion." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks modified and upgraded to the M1A1M Abrams configuration, 8 M88A2 Tank Recovery Vehicles, 64 M1151A1B1 Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), 92 M1152 Shelter Carriers, 12 M577A2 Command Post Carriers, 16 M548A1 Tracked Logistics Behicles, 8 M113A2 Armored Ambulances, and 420 AN/VRC-92 Vehicular Receiver Transmitters as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised could be as high as $2.160 billion." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of 26 Bell Armed 407 Helicopters, 26 Rolls Royce 250-C-30 Engines, 26 M280 2.75-inch Launchers, 26 XM296 .50 Cal. Machine Guns with 500 Round Ammunition Box, 26 M299 HELLFIRE Guided Missile Launchers as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $366 million." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of (80,000) M16A4 5.56MM Rifles, (25,000) M4 5.56MM Carbines, (2,550) M203 40MM Grenade Launchers as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $148 million." And they announced: "On Dec. 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of (64) Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelters (DRASH), (1,500) 50 watt Very High Frequency (VHF) Base Station Radios, (6,000) VHF Tactical Handheld Radios, (100) VHF Fixed Retransmitters, (200) VHF Vehicular Radios, (30) VHF Maritime 50 watt Base Stations, (150) 150 watt High Frequency (HF) Base Station Radio Systems, (150) 20 watt HF Vehicular Radios, (30) 20 watt HF Manpack Radios, (50) 50 watt Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) Ground to Air Radio Systems, (50) 150 watt VHF/UHF Ground to Air Radio Systems, (50) 5 watt Multiband Handheld Radio Systems as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $485 Million." That is over six billion dollars being committed "if all options are exercised" -- which is a little over 10% of their entire budget for 2009. There's always money to spend when it comes to weapons. And human life is always done on the cheap.

Reuters quotes al-Maliki mouth piece Ali al-Dabbagh informing that al-Maliki's cabinet has decided "to reign in its spending plans" today. No information was given on how or on actual dollar amounts. Possibly the cabinet agreed to just say a daily affirmation?

Meanwhile China's Xinhua quotes Iraqi MP Humam Hammodi stating, "The Iraqi cabient approved Tuesday a draft bill that sets timetable for withdrawal of the non-U.S. foreign troops from Iraq by five months for combat troops starting from January and seven months for the rest of the troops." The potential agreement would govern Australia, Romania, Estonia, El Salvador, NATO and the UK presence in Iraq. Ahmeed Rasheed (Reuters) quotes Hammodi but also notes that the "timeframe" "was not immediately clear." Also not immediately clear is which troops would leave -- 'combat' troops? Trainers? Police troops?

Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) notes the continued violence in the Mosul area (which already this week includes an attack that cost the lives of 7 Yazidis) and notes that statements by "American and Iraqi officials" indicate US forces will not be withdrawing from Mosul in June:


Last Saturday Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of American forces in Iraq, said that despite the joint US-Iraqi security pact that calls for US troops to leave Iraqi cities, some battalions could remain in urban centers. "It's important that we maintain enough presence here that we can help them get through this year of transition," he said.
He acknowledged that Mosul is one place where Americans could remain. "There are still some issues in Mosul that we have to work through," said General Odierno.

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 3 lives and left thirteen people injured, a Baghdad car bombing left three people injured, a Diyala Province car bombing left four members of the Iraqi military injured, another Diyala Province bombing claimed 2 lives and left seven more injured, a Mosul car bombing claimed the life of the driver and left four members of the Iraqi military injured, and a Kirkuk roadside bombing wounded a police officer. Reuters adds: "The police chief of Rashad town escaped death when a roadside bomb detonated near his convoy and wounded two of his bodyguards, 30 km (20 miles) south of Kirkuk, police said."

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Awakening" Council member Sattar al Hadidi was shot dead "leaving the mosque on Monday evening" and "A source in the border police said that an Iranian force had chased liquor smugglers inside the Iraqi land in north Sulaimaniyah province and killed and Iraqi man and an Iranian Kurdish man."

Today the US military announced: Multi-National Force -- Iraq's Task Force 134 -- Detainee Operations, transferred custody of the last of its female detainees to the Government of Iraq, Monday, Dec. 15. The final 10 female detainees were all transferred from the Coalition theater internment facility at Camp Cropper in Baghdad, to an Iraqi controlled women's prison in Baghdad. These women are all either already convicted or scheduled to stand trial in the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. While these women were in the custody of Coalition forces, they received care well above the standard of the Geneva Convention. They received first-class medical care, visits from family members and education. Currently, there are about 15,500 detainees in Coalition theater internment facilities; down dramatically from the high of about 26,000 in November 2007. Since the start of 2008, nearly 18,000 detainees have been released to their families and communities throughout Iraq.
iraqmcclatchy newspapersadam ashtongreg gordonthe new york timestimothy williamsabeer mohammed
alissa j. rubinsteven lee myersthe los angeles timesraed rafeikhaled hijabqassim abdul-zahra

blagojevich

that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Political Relations" and as the scandal simmers, 1 problem is governor rod's last name. i'm not joking. it's an issue of knowing how to spell it and how to say it. that is not a joke.

in terms of speaking blagojevich's last name, if you're not getting the issue, imagine you're at work and you're trying to talk about it. 'blag-uh ... blag ...' this will take care of itself slowly as the governor remains in the news. as his name is repeated over and over for another week, people will feel more comfortable pronouncing it. (some already are, but it is not a common name for most in this country.)

the reason i raise that issue at the start is due to the fact that some gas bags are already trying to call this over. it's not over, it's just beginning. and by christmas day, when many are sitting down at the table with families, the bulk of americans will know how to pronounce the governor's name (and he will be so well known that you can probably say 'governor rod' or 'that governor in illinois' and have every 1 know who you mean).

is barack connected. maybe. it would be surprising if he wasn't. we're talking about the governor of his state, some 1 he has known for some time and has campaigned with and partied down with (love the photos of michelle and mama blagojevich). and an offer was made from barack's team. that's what the whole labor union thing is about. it's interesting how that's dismissed. interesting until you grasp that assholes like katrina vanden heuvel had pushed that union over other 1s for some time. of course they're crooks. s.e.i.u. came out of nowhere and they're offering - via some 1 on barack's team - patty blagojevich a job. they can get away with that, the proxy assures rod.

barack's corrupt. this job favor that s.e.i.u. is dangling is the same sort of thing that provided michelle obama with a career. i'd be very interested, by the way, in knowing why she no longer practices law. it is not normal for any 1 to let their licensce expire. but michelle did that over 15 years ago.

so we really don't need the nervous nellies rushing forward to insist that there is no story here. they don't know. they need to back the hell off. reporters investigate. they do not declare, 'nothing to see!' it's too damn bad that we have so few reporters working in this country.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, December 15, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement shows its true colors, Bully Boy has his own shoes issues, and more.

Today, Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The deadlines sound clear enough in the security agreement: U.S. combat troops must be out of Iraqi urban areas by June, and all Americans should withdraw from the country by Dec. 31, 2011.
However, those deadlines have appeared anything but firm to Iraqis over the past week. " Thursday David Morgan and Anthony Boadle's (Reuters) reported, "Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years but told reporters that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and U.S. governments." Alsumaria pointed out on Friday, "Al Dabbagh, representing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in Washington, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years stressing that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and US governments in 2011 since the security pact has not tackled this issue. He added that until that time, the number of troops needed and the level of cooperation and support required would be clearer." Clearer? That's all the treaty did? Shocking -- for those not paying attention and/or self-deluding themselves. The news just kept coming over the weekend. Xinhua quoted puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki stating, "What Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh said about Iraqi forces will need ten years to be ready was only his personal view and does not represent the Iraqi government." Stating? Not really. His office issued a statement. al-Maliki said nothing publicly. al-Maliki has a pattern of 'issuing' statements that he then disowns. Over the weekend, AP finally decided to report what al-Dabbagh said Thursday -- when they could run the 'denial' with it -- only they focused so on the denial they couldn't even get the day right of al-Dabbagh's statements (they reported the remarks were made Friday when they were made Thursday). Missy Reid and Michael Christie (Reuters) walked the late comers through:
Dabbagh, on a visit to Washington this week, raised the possibility of some of the 149,000 U.S. troops in Iraq remaining for longer than the date defined by the security pact."We do understand that the Iraqi military is not going to get built out in the three years. We do need many more years. It might be 10 years," Dabbagh said at a Pentagon press briefing.He said that future Iraqi leaders would decide what kind of U.S. presence might be required after 2011.Iraq's parliament approved the bilateral security agreement setting the end-2011 deadline after fierce and protracted debate. It is scheduled to be put to a referendum next year.Opponents of the pact, including supporters of anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have argued the pact gives legitimacy to a destructive foreign occupation and say they do not believe the United States will honour the withdrawal date.Maliki, a Shi'ite who heads a coalition government, was seen as benefiting the most from the pact.

McClatchy's Ashton added Iraqi reaction to the Thursday statements, "That assertion makes sense to many Iraqi leaders, though they rarely say it in public. Iraq doesn't have a navy or an air force to protect itself. Many view it as America's obligation to improve the country's defense." But the alledged denial wasn't the only thing in the news cycle and, in fact, the top US commander in Iraq knocked the spin out of the statement issued by the puppet's office. Yochi J. Dreazen (Wall St. Journal) explained that despite the treaty 'promising' US forces would withdraw from all Iraqi cities (and to bases) in June, turns out, maybe not: "Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters here that the U.S. troops assigned to 'joint security stations' inside Iraqi cities like Baghdad would remain in the outposts indefinitely. The bases, which are a key part of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, house thousands of American personnel across the country. There are well over a dozen such outposts in Baghdad alone.Gen. Odierno, who assumed command in September, explained that the withdrawal provision in the security pact applied only to combat personnel. The U.S. forces assigned to the joint security stations mentor and fight alongside Iraqi troops, so American commanders classify them as training personnel and don't consider them to be covered by the withdrawal language, he said." Odierno was not alone when he he held his press conference, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was with him. That's the current US Secretary of State and the also the one president-elect Barack Obama wants to continue in the job. Sunday Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) repored on Odierno's statement and that Lt Col James Hutton "reiterated" Odierno's statements after the press conference. Bumiller noted Odierno also indicated that the US would attempt to renegotiate the treaty and stated, "Three years is a very long time."

Today Ashton reports that al-Dabaggah issued a statement saying he was misquoted (no, he was not) and trying to back away from his statements as Odierno's statements only further added fuel to the fire with Iraqi MP and Nouri's B.F.F. declaring, "The agreement is clear and it didn't give a space for misunderstanding. This statement is stepping over the limits and authorities of this military leader, and over the constitutional establishments."
Ashton also quotes MP Harith al Obeidi declaring, "Treaties and pacts among nations are obligations and commitments, but this statement gives the matter a question mark on it." And a question mark hovers over al-Maliki. Steven Lee Myers and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) observe:

Although a majority in the Iraqi Parliament approved the agreement, on the street, Iraqis have mixed views. Many distrust any pact made with an occupying power, and while Mr. Bush is appreciated for having overthrown Mr. Hussein, he is widely blamed for the violence that raged in the years after the war, which prompted more than a million Iraqis to flee and killed tens of thousands of civilians. Still, Mr. Bush's stalwart support for Mr. Maliki -- after an initial period when the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, expressed doubts about him -- has been a bulwark against domestic political forces who sought to topple him. With the American president's term ending, Iraqi politicians from parties other than Mr. Maliki's have been discussing whether to force the prime minister out with a no-confidence vote. This is not the first time his ouster has been discussed, but with American power in Iraq on the wane and troop numbers beginning to decline in earnest, it seems a more serious threat.


For those attempting to keep track, the Queen of Panhandle Media, Amy Goodman, continues to ignore the issue but she made herself clear when she adopted the White House spin (such as "historic" for the Parliament vote). This is from American Freedom Campaign:The document parading around as the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not valid under the U.S. Constitution. Its legitimacy is based solely on the silence of lawmakers (and members of the media), who seem to be paralyzed by the fear of having an independent and intelligent opinion. Fortunately, one lawmaker has broken the silence and has acknowledged the truth before everyone's eyes.It is now time for others, including you, to join their voices with hers.A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pending U.S.-Iraq agreement, decrying the fact that the Iraqi Parliament was being given the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the agreement while Congress was being denied - and was refusing to fight for - the same opportunity.Well, thanks to our efforts and the leadership of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives may finally get to voice its opinion on President Bush's unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's legislative power.Yesterday, Rep. Lee introduced a resolution related to the U.S.-Iraq agreement, inspired in part by AFC's call for a "signing statement" resolution. The primary purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the House that President Bush does not have the power under the Constitution to negotiate and sign such a far-reaching agreement with another nation without seeking congressional approval of the agreement.Passage of this resolution -- most likely following re-introduction in January -- will send a message to the Bush administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the rest of the world that the agreement holds no legal weight under U.S. law and will be considered merely advisory by Congress.In truth, even without passage of this resolution, Congress shall not be bound by its terms. No president can unilaterally commit $10 billion per month in U.S. treasure to keep our troops in another nation. The United States has never been a monarchy or a dictatorship and we are certainly not going to accept any similar kind of system today.Putting aside the question over whether this agreement is currently binding or not, it is important that as many lawmakers as possible openly reject the constitutionality of the agreement. So please tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor, support, and vote for Rep. Lee's signing statement resolution (H.Res. 1535) by clicking on the following link Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the "Tell-A-Friend" option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message. Thank you so much for taking action. Steve Fox Campaign Director American Freedom Campaign Action Fund


Meanwhile a new Washington Post - ABC News poll is out. Michael A. Fletcher and Jon Cohen (Washington Post) report: "Americans are more upbeat about U.S. prospects in
Iraq than at any time in the past five years, but nearly two thirds continue to believe the war is not worth fighting and 70 percent say President-elect Barack Obama should fulfill his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. forces from the country within 16 months, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll." How many would be so upbeat if they knew that Barack did not promise to withdraw all US troops from Iraq? Not asked, not answered. On this issue of withdrawal, UPI reports that Japan "began withdrawing force from Kuwait" today as it ended "its 5-year airlift mission in Iraq".

The Bully Boy of the United States might wish he hadn't landed in Iraq yesterday. Adam Ashton and Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) report it was one-shoe, two-shoe thrown at the Bully Boy by Muntathar al Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist, who yelled, "This is a goodbye kiss, you dog." The kisses missed the cheeks and, in fact, the entire target though puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, did attempt to swat one away. Bully Boy would go on to declare, "This is what happens in free societies." And, as if to provide evidence of what a 'free society' Iraq is, the reporters explain:Another Iraqi journalist yanked Zaidi to the ground before bodyguards collapsed on Zaidi and held him there while he yelled "Killer of Iraqis, killer of children." From the bottom of the pile, he moaned loudly and said "my hand, my hand."Zaidi was hauled to a separate room, where his cries remained audible for a few moments.It wasn't clear whether Zaidi was hurt. His employer, Cairo-based Baghdadiyah Television, released a statement late Sunday demanding Zaidi's release from Iraqi custody.
As the White House transcript documents it, Bully Boy was joking and joshing, just having a good old time. "And I'm looking forward to some food" the transcript indicates was a laugh getter -- at least from reporters or "suck ups" -- you decide. He said he was there to sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and to sign "a Security Agreement, sometimes called a Status of Forces Agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq's democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year." Bully Boy was spinning big time in the lead up to the shoe tossings, "There is still more work to be done. The war is not yet over -- but with the conclusion of these agreements and the courage of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi troops and American troops and civilian personnel, it is decisively on its way to being won." When you lie like that, maybe it should be considered a win that the sky didn't fall down on you?

Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times, link has text and AP video) report what followed Bully Boy's outlandish claims:

"This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," the man said, according to a pool translation.Seconds later, the journalist hurled his other shoe with similar precision as another Iraqi journalist reached over in an attempt to stop him."This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq," he said, according to the translation.

Steven Lee Myers and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) report, "Mr. Maliki's security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room. They kicked him and beat him until 'he was crying like a woman,' said Mohammed Taher, a reporter for Afaq, a television station owned by the Dawa Party". Reuters notes: "The journalist was leapt on by Iraqi security officials and U.S. secret service agents and dragged from the room screaming and struggling." Alistair Lyon (Reuters) observes international reaction: "He has also won instant fame abroad -- a poem on an Islamist website praises him as 'a hero with a lion's heart' -- although the Iraqi government slated his 'barbaric and ignominious act'."



September 16, 2007 Blackwater slaughter at least 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. Last week, Anwar J. Ali weighed in with observations at the New York Times' blog:


I did not feel anything going to Nisour Square. I consider it something minor. It was only one site among so many where such things happened in Iraq, whether it was Americans or terrorists who did the shooting.It is only because of media interest that Americans saw the injustice of this particular incident. Otherwise it would have been easily forgotten just like other violence here. If we concentrated on each incident that happened to Iraqis it would take hundreds of years to bring justice to all that Iraqis have suffered since 2003 -- and maybe will suffer in the future and in the next generation. I can't deny there is humanitarian justice in the behavior of the Americans in this regard, yet it is also intended to show to the world that the Americans will punish people who committed violations, even if they were Americans. In fact, in the year after this incident, there were many other incidents, sometimes explosions and at other times killing and assassinations. Many Iraqis were killed. Women, children and men of all ages and professions. Most of them were poor, mostly their only guilt is that they were in the street shopping, or earning a living.

Ali and Katherine Zoepf reported yesterday that the FBI met Saturday with approximately 50 people who either survived the September 16th slaughter or who had family killed or wounded in the attack. The two reporters also provide Iraqis with a forum to speak:

"It's an old case, and I had lost hope," said Jassem Mohammed Hashem, a 29-year-old former policeman who has been on disability since being shot in the head by a Blackwater guard while he stood at his post. "But now it seems the American administration will give us our rights."Mr. Hashem, who has a divot about half the size of an egg on the right side of his forehead, said that to save his life he had needed to undergo several operations. He still suffers from debilitating headaches, he said, as well as uncontrollable mood swings that have seriously affected his family relationships."I am so worried for my children," Mr. Hashem said. "My daughter is 5 and my son is 2 months old. I'm always in a bad mood, and I get very aggressive sometimes. I was never like this before. I lost my health on that day. I lost my job. I'm only 29, but I'm on disability and will probably have to retire."A woman who identified herself as Umm Ghaith, whose husband, Hammoud Said Attah, a 32-year-old taxi driver, was killed in the shootings, said that until she received a call four days before informing her of the meeting, she had heard nothing about the investigation."Till now I don't know what to expect, but I really wish justice will take place," she said at the gathering, accompanied by her six young children and her sister-in-law, whose husband was also killed. "I think we will probably file a suit against Blackwater -- it's the right of my children."


Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad ("outskirts") car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left thirteen injured. AP reports it was 5 and not three (police officers) and that it was a "suicide truck bomber" (not included in the death toll) and not just a car bombing. AP also notes 1 "female sucide bomber" in Baghdad who took her own life and that of 1 "Awakening" Council member ("Ahmed Khamees, the local commander of the Sons of Iraq volunteer force in Tarmiya") at the door to his home. Reuters places the truck bomber on the "western outskirts of Baghdad" at claiming 9 lives with thirty-one wounded.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 7 family members shot dead in a village outside Mosul. Xinhau reports the slaughter took place "around midnight when gunmen believed to be affiliated to al-Qaida militant stormed a house belong to a family from Yazidi sect in the al-Shimal village near the town of Sinjar, some 180 km west of Mosul, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity." BBC explains that Yazidis are believed to amount to 500,000 worldwide and: "The Yazidis are an ancient, religious sect and there have been a number of attacks on them in Iraq in the past. In August 2007, some 400 people were killed in the Sinjar area in multiple bomb blasts targeting Yazidis." In addition, Reuters notes 1 woman shot dead in Mosul.

Turning to US politics, Paul Street is the author of Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics. and, at Dissident Voice, he notes:

Five weeks away from Obama's inauguration, some progressives are disturbed to learn that his corporate-imperial cabinet picks epitomize what former Clinton administration official and Kissinger Associates Managing Director David J. Rothkopf calls "the violin model: Hold power with the left hand, and play the music with your right" (NYT, November 22, 2008, A1). It bothers a growing number of Obama's liberal backers to learn that, as Wall Street Journal editorial board member Matthew Kaminski notes, "the Obama camp says the future president, who won running from the left, intends to govern from the center" (WSJ, December 6/7, 2008, A8)."This Wasn't Quite the Change We Pictured," whines the title of a recent Washington Post editorial by leading left-liberal writer David Corn.2It's long past time for Corn and other "concerned" and "disappointed" Obama liberals to trade in their rose-colored campaign glasses for the demystifying shades donned by the ideology-decoding rebels in John Carpenter's classic left science fiction movie "They Live." The balmy feel-good people's rhetoric of the electoral contest has faded as always before the big chill of corporate-imperial governance.A little more due diligence research on their candidate's longstanding centrist history and how well it matches the narrow parameters imposed by the American political tradition and party system might have prevented some of the current left and liberal "honeymoaning" (Alexander Cockburn's useful term3) about Obama. For all his claims to be a noble and "pragmatic" reformer "above the fray" of America's imperial plutocracy and "ideological" politics, Obama is no special exception to -- and is in many ways an epitome of -- what Christopher Hitchens called (in his 1999 study of the Bill and Hillary Clinton phenomenon) "the essence of American politics. This essence, when distilled," Hitchens explained, "consists of the manipulation of populism by elitism." Christopher Hitchens, No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family (New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 17-18.It's nothing new. Relying heavily on candidates' repeated promise to restore "hope" to a populace disillusioned by corporate control, corruption, and inequality -- a standard claim of non-incumbent Democratic presidential candidates -- this dark essence of United States political culture goes back further than the corporate-neoliberal era into which Obama came of political age. It is arguably as old the Republic itself, always torn by the rift between democratic promise and authoritarian realities of concentrated wealth and power.


iraq
alsumariadavid morgananthony boadle
mcclatchy newspapersadam ashton
yochi j. dreazenthe wall st. journal
the new york timeskatherine zoepfanwar j. alielisabeth bumilleranwar ali
the washington postthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsteven lee myerspaul street

yeah, we saw it coming

Environmentalists said the concessions made the plan ineffective.
"The deal is a disaster, it's disgraceful," said Stephen Singer, a climate specialist for WWF International. "If the world follows the example of the EU, it is on a trajectory to disastrous climate change."
The plan increased the amount of emissions Europeans could offset by sponsoring green projects in developing countries. Armed with that opt-out, Singer said Europe's actual emissions reductions would be a mere 4 percent, not the 20 percent the EU claims.

that's from robert wielaard and arthur max's 'EU hails climate deal as example for the world' (ap) about the european union's conference in belgium that resulted in no action. and if the offends you, prepare for it to get even worse. this is from andrew grice's report in the independent of london:

Green groups accused the European Union of watering down its trail-blazing pledge to tackle climate change last night, after EU leaders made concessions to "dirty" industries in Germany and eastern Europe.
The compromise allowed the EU to agree on its commitment to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2020. Its leaders said the deal, and the election of Barack Obama, will boost the prospects of a historic global agreement on climate change in talks in Copenhagen in a year's time.

as if it's not bad enough that nothing was accomplished they are using the election of barack as their excuse to do nothing. now we knew the left in the united states would use barack as their excuse for doing nothing for the next 4 years but now the european union is doing nothing - on the greenhouse effect!!!!!! - and using barack as their excuse.

what kind of pathetic world do we live in? a pretty damn pathetic 1 and expect it to get much worse that is, after all, what global warming is doing.

there is not time to pause or delay. we need to be addressing the problem and doing so right away. instead of that, we're going to delay. change you can believe in? try delay, delay and do nothing.

i am so sick of barack and he's not even sworn in.

we knew this was coming, those of us who jumped up and down and screamed to try to wake the cult up and get them to put the hopeium pipes down.

i voted for ralph. i knew who i was voting for. i knew i was voting for a candidate who stood against the illegal war and who stood for stopping global warming.

now it's not just us that will suffer for 4 years, it's our chance at saving the planet.

down the drain. and some liar, some con man (and you know it will be a man) will show up in 4 years and the same katrina vanden heuvel liars will say we have to vote for him to save the environment. the reality is the people she supports will never do a damn thing to make the world better.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, December 12, 2008. The British military announces a death (and it's strange how closely it resembles their most recent Basra death), a US outlet reports on the remarks by al-Maliki's spokesperson (that the US military may be needed in Iraq for at least 10 more years), Donald Rumsfeld and many others are implicated in the Senate Armed Services Committe report, and more.

Starting with Alsumaria's "Iraq: US Forces could be needed for 10 years:"

In the first statements that point out to Iraq's need for US Forces in the country since the declaration of the US-Iraqi security pact, Cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said Iraq will need US troop presence to help build up its military forces past the newly agreed three-year deadline for the withdrawal of US troops.Al Dabbagh, representing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in Washington, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years stressing that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and US governments in 2011 since the security pact has not tackled this issue. He added that until that time, the number of troops needed and the level of cooperation and support required would be clearer. Al Dabbagh statements came at a time when the International Security Council is getting ready to adopt during a meeting scheduled next week a resolution to end multinational forces mission in Iraq upon the request of Baghdad. Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Hamed Al Bayati affirmed in a statement to the Kuwaiti News Agency (Kuna) that Iraq has sent a similar letter to the Security Council Chief. He added that the letter has been distributed to members and will be official early next week. Al Bayati affirmed that Al Maliki has noted in a letter to the Security Council that the extension of multinational forces mission has been done for the last time and while their mission will end late this month.

Yesterday's snapshot noted David Morgan and Anthony Boadle's (Reuters) report and they noted that "Dabbagh's comments appeared to be the first to address the potential need for a residual U.S. presence since the pact was announced." (This topic was covered at length here.) Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) becomes the first reporter at a US outlet to report on it, noting today:

Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki last month sold the Iraqi people on a security pact with the U.S. that he called a "withdrawal agreement" to end the presence of American forces in his country by the beginning of 2012.
His top government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh, undercut that claim this week, however, when he said in Washington that the U.S. might be needed in Iraq for another 10 years, a statement that reverberated with political leaders in Baghdad, renewing criticism of the deal.


On the treaty, American Freedom Campaign:
The document parading around as the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not valid under the U.S. Constitution. Its legitimacy is based solely on the silence of lawmakers (and members of the media), who seem to be paralyzed by the fear of having an independent and intelligent opinion. Fortunately, one lawmaker has broken the silence and has acknowledged the truth before everyone's eyes.
It is now time for others, including you, to join their voices with hers.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pending U.S.-Iraq agreement, decrying the fact that the Iraqi Parliament was being given the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the agreement while Congress was being denied - and was refusing to fight for - the same opportunity.
Well, thanks to our efforts and the leadership of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives may finally get to voice its opinion on President Bush's unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's legislative power.
Yesterday, Rep. Lee introduced a resolution related to the U.S.-Iraq agreement, inspired in part by AFC's call for a "signing statement" resolution. The primary purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the House that President Bush does not have the power under the Constitution to negotiate and sign such a far-reaching agreement with another nation without seeking congressional approval of the agreement.
Passage of this resolution -- most likely following re-introduction in January -- will send a message to the Bush administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the rest of the world that the agreement holds no legal weight under U.S. law and will be considered merely advisory by Congress.
In truth, even without passage of this resolution, Congress shall not be bound by its terms. No president can unilaterally commit $10 billion per month in U.S. treasure to keep our troops in another nation. The United States has never been a monarchy or a dictatorship and we are certainly not going to accept any similar kind of system today.
Putting aside the question over whether this agreement is currently binding or not, it is important that as many lawmakers as possible openly reject the constitutionality of the agreement. So please tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor, support, and vote for Rep. Lee's signing statement resolution (H.Res. 1535) by clicking on the following link
Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the "Tell-A-Friend" option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.
Thank you so much for taking action.
Steve Fox Campaign Director American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

Joby Warrick and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) cover yesterday's report from the Senate Armed Services Committee on which "accuses [former Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the authors and chief promoters of harsh interrogation policies that disgraced the nation and underminded U.S. security. The report, released by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCian (R-Ariz.), contends that Pentagon officials later tried to create a false impression that the policies were unrelated to acts of detainee abuse committed by members of the military." The 19 page report [warning, PDF format] is entitled "Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into The Treatment Of Detainees In U.S. Custody." In a statement released by his office, Levin notes:

The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody compromised our moral authority and damaged both our ability to attract allies to our side in the fight against terrorism and to win the support of people around the world for that effort. In May 2004, just after the pictures from Abu Ghraib became public, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that the abuses depicted were simply the result of a few "bad apples" and that those responsible for abuse would be held accountable. More than seven months later, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Asked about accountability for detainee abuses, Gonzales said "we care very much about finding out what happened and holding people accountable." Neither of those two statements was true.
Department of Defense investigations into detainee abuse failed to adequately assign accountability to those senior military and civilian officials who authorized abusive interrogation techniques.
As we began to dig into what happened, the influence of SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) resistance training techniques on our interrogation policies and practices became more and more obvious and became the focus of our investigation. SERE training is intended to be used to teach our soldiers how to resist interrogation by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions and international law. In SERE school, our troops who are at risk of capture are exposed -- in a controlled environment with great protections and caution -- to techniques adapated from abusive tactics used against American soldiers by enemies such as the Communist Chinese during the Korean War. SERE training techniques include stress positions, forced nudity, use of fear, sleep deprivation and, until recently, the Navy SERE school used the waterboard. These techniques were designed to give our students a taste of what they might be subjected to if captured by a ruthless, lawless enemy so that they would be better prepared to resist. The techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody. As one JPRA instructor explained, SERE training is "based on illegal exploitation (under the rules listed in teh 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) of prisoners over the last 50 years."
So, how did it come about that American military personnel stripped detainees naked, put them in stress position, used dogs to scare them, put leashes around their necks to humiliate them, hooded them, deprived them of sleep, and blasted music at them.

How? The report makes clear, in the section entitled "Presidential Order Opens the Door to Considering Aggressive Techniques," how:

On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda and concluding that Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner of war status or the legal protections afforded by the Third Geneva Convention. The President's order closed off application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. While the President's order stated that, as "a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions," the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e. legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
In December 2001, more than a month before the President signed his memorandum, the Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel's Office had already solicted information on detainee "exploitation" from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), an agency whose expertise was in training American personnel to withstand interrogation techniques considered illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

What follows is multiple meetings with then-National Security Advisor Condi Rice being brought in, with her requesting then-CIA Director George Tenet provide briefings to the NSC and for then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to "personally . . . review and confirm the legal advice prepared by the Office of Legal Council." Rice "also said that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld participated in the NSC review of CIA's program." In other words, the bulk of the administration in 2002 was involved. The Dept of Justice issued two legal opinions August 1, 2002:

One opinion, commonly known as the first Bybee memo, was addressed to Judge Gonzales and provided OLC [Office of Legal Counsel]'s opinion on standards of conduct in interrogation required under the federal torture statute. That memo concluded:

[F]or an act to constitute torture as defined in [the federal torture statue], it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under [the federal torture statue], it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years.

[ . . .]

The other OLC opinion issued on August 1, 2002 is known commonly as the Second Bybee memo. That opinion, which responded to a request from the CIA, addressed the legality of specific interrogation tactics. While the full list of techiniques remains classified, a publicly released CIA document indicates that waterboarding was among those analyzed and approved. CIA Director General Michael Hayden stated in public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 5, 2008 that waterboarding was used by the CIA. And Steven Bradury, the current Assistant Attorney General of the OLC, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on February 14, 2008 that the CIA's use of waterboarding was "adapted from the SERE training program."
Before drafting the opinions, Mr. Yoo, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the OLC, had met with Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, to discuss the subjects he intended to address in the opinions. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Yoo refused to say whether or not he ever discussed or received information about SERE techniques as the memos were being drafted. When asked whether he had discussed SERE techniques with Judge Gonzales, Mr. Addington, Mr. Yoo, Mr. Rizzo or other senior administration lawyers, DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes testified that he "did discuss SERE techniques with other people in the administration." NSC Legal Advisor John Bellinger said that "some of the legal analyses of proposed interrogation techniques that were prepared by the Department of Justice. . . did refer to the psychological effects of resistance training."
In fact, Jay Bybee the Assistant Attorney General who signed the two OLC legal opinions said that he saw an assessment of the psychological effects of military resistance training in July 2002 in meetings in his office with John Yoo and two other OLC attorneys. Judge Bybee said that he used that assessment to inform the August 1, 2002 OLC legal opinion that has yet to be publicly released. Judge Bybee also recalled discussing detainne interrogations in a meeting with Attorney General John Ashcroft and John Yoo in late July 2002, prior to signing the OLC opinions. Mr. Bellinger, the NSC Legal Advisor, siad that "the NSC's Principals reviewed CIA's proposed program on several occasions in 2002 and 2003" and that he "expressed concern that the proposed CIA interrogation techniques comply with applicable U.S. law, including our international obligations."

As Carl Levin has pointed out the myth is of a "few bad apples" at the bottom being responsible for torture used in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is not correct. Equally true is that the report does not pin all blame on Donald Rumsfeld. There are "many bad apples" at the top and all need to share in the blame and in the shame.

By November 2002, alarms were being sounded by the Air Force ("serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques"), the DoD's Criminal Investigation Task Force stated some techniques could leave US military personnel open "to punitive articles of the [Uniform Code of Military Justice]," the Army's International and Operational Law Division objected (noting some of the techniques "crosses the line of 'humane' treatment"), the Navy asked for further "legal and policy review," and the Marine Corps wanted "a more thorough legal and policy review" (and expressed concerns about violations of federal laws). All of this was ignored even when the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rear Adm. Jane Dalton and her staff brought these issues to the Defense Dept (specifically the General Counsel's Office).

The report notes that Donald Rumsfeld received a recommendation from DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes that 15 of the 18 techniques be approved (November 27, 2002) and this recommendation "indicated that he [Haynes] had discussed the issue with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, and General [Richard] Myers and that he believed they concurred in his recommendations." Rumsfeld signed off on the recomendations (December 2, 2002) adding, "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Alarms continued to be sounded and nothing was done (Rice states she held regular meetings to express concerns).

The report notes, "From Afghanistan, the techniques made their way to Iraq. According to the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG), at the beginning of the Iraq war, special mission unit forces in Iraq 'used a January 2003 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which had been developed for operations in Afghanistan'." Col Steven Kleinman's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committtee (September 2008) addresses abuses he personally saw. September 14, 2003 finds Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez providing the authorization for "stress positions, environmental manipulation, sleep management, and military working dogs in interrogations." He withdrew that authority on October 12, 2003 but confusion (intended by Sanchez or not) remained as to what was and was not now authorized.

The report finds the problems went well beyond Rumsfeld. Conclusion One notes the White House's decision to toss aside Common Article 3 and Conclusion Two notes those particiapting in the process: "Members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials . . National Security Council Principals". Conclusion 19 pertains specifically to Iraq so we'll note it in full:

The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their cloths, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistant and at GITMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treament for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.

On Wendesday, Senator Russ Feingold issued a call to the president-elect on "Concrete Steps" needed for the Rule of Law to be restored. In terms of the topics noted above, these recommendations from Feingold are worth noting:


The new administration should express its unqualified commitment to enforcing the ban against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and should establish as a matter of policy a single, government-wide standard of humane detainee treatment. I have supported efforts in Congress to make the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that standard. The new administration should revoke all existing orders and legal opinions authorizing cruel interrogations, including Executive Order 13440 and any relevant opinions of the OLC.The new administration should commit to providing timely notification of and access to the International Committee of the Red Cross for any and all detainees held in U.S. custody anywhere in the world.The new administration should close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, as you have pledged to do. Closing Guantanamo raises a number of complex questions, many of which were addressed in the hearing submissions. I hope those submissions can serve as a resource to your administration in addressing these difficult issues. As you tackle the Guantanamo problem, however, I urge you not to establish an entirely new preventive detention regime based on concerns about a very small number of difficult cases.The new administration should reject the flawed military commission trial system being used at Guantanamo Bay.The new administration should develop effective means of enforcing the ban against rendering individuals to countries where they have a credible fear of being tortured.

The Senate Armed Service Committee was not the only governmental body issuing a report yesterday. The Office of Inspector General at the Dept of Defense released a report yesterday. Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports, "The Pentagon's inspector general said yesterday that the Defense Department's public affairs office may have 'inappropriately' merged public affairs and propaganda operations in 2007 and 2008 when it contracted out $1 million in work for a strategic communication plan for use by the military in collaboration with the State Department." And around 11:00 AM EST, the man who insulted Stephanie Tubbs Jones back in 2005 (longterm community members know whom I mean -- remember the Ohio 2004 vote didn't matter to him) rewrote Walter's article for a website. No link to that trash.

It's Friday. Violence is rarely reported. Yesterday's bombing at Abdalla Kabab resulted in 57 deaths and over 120 wounded. We'll note some of this morning's reporting on that. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The Abdullah restaurant was the kind of place Iraqis took their families on special occasions. It was the kind of place high-ranking officials in the northern city of Kirkuk chose for power lunches, where they dug in to plates on tables covered with white cloths as water burbled from a decorative fountain." Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) adds, "Hundreds of families were inside the Abdullah restaurant, an area landmark, celebrating the end of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, police and hospital officials said. It was the deadliest attack in Iraq in six months." Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The room was a shambles. On the flood was mass of tortured humanity -- those that lived. Prams and pacifiers; ribbons and toys. Purses thrown open with make up and perfume bottles strewn everywhere. I can see them with my mind's eye. They look much like what my daughter carries in her purse. . . . My daughter, your daughter . . . anyone's daughter." Nico Hines (Times of London) offers, "The explosion may have been targeted at a group of Arab elders and Kurdish political officials who were holding discussions over lunch aimed at easing long-standing ethnic tensions in the northern Iraqi region." Timothy Williams (New York Times) quotes Abdalla Kabab's supervisor Shirzad Mowfak Zangana explaining, "All of a sudden we heard a very loud explosion. Two of the walls collapsed, and then the next thing I remember is that I felt blood covering my face. People were screaming. Children were crying. Smoke filled all three dining rooms." Williams also attempts to connect it to larger issues regarding Kirkuk. Youssif Bassil and Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) do that much better -- for starters they note Kirkuk is disputed territory -- and they sketch out the current struggle taking place as follows: "The Kurds have been flexing their muscles lately by building up their substantial oil industry without conferring with the central government. They also want to incorporate towns with significant Kurdish populations outside the region into their sphere -- particularly the city of Kirkuk. But Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government has pushed back, criticizing some of the Kurdistan go-it-alone business efforts and criticizing the deployment of the Kurdish peshmerga security forces in towns under the control of the federal government."

Today the British Military announced: "It is with profound sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death in Basra yesterday, Thursday 11 December 2008, of a solider serving with 20 Armoured Brigade. At approximately 2200hrs local time, a report was received of a soldier who had suffered a gunshot wound within the Contingency Operating Base. Immediate medical assistance was provided but sadly the soldier died at the scene. No enemy forces were involved and there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that any third party was involved in the incident. An investigation by the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch is underway." This is the second British military fatality in Iraq this month. December 4th David Kenneth Wilson died in Basra from a gunshot wound and, note, "No enemy forces were involved and there is no evidence at this stage to suggest that anyone else was involved." Today's announcement brings the number of British service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 178 (ICCC currently is at 177 as I dictate this, it will be at 178 when they note this death).

In other news, independent journalist David Bacon latest book (just out this month) is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) came out in September and his latest labor article explores (at New America Media) explores this week's win for Chicago workers:

When the day finally comes that Raul Flores loses his job, he will face a bitter search for another one. "I've got a family to support, so I've got to do whatever it takes," he says. "It's going to be hard. The economic situation is not good, but I can't just wait for something to happen to me." That puts Flores in the same boat as millions of other U.S. workers. Last month alone 533,000 workers lost their jobs, the highest figure in 34 years. A week ago, the heads of the big three auto companies were in Washington DC, pleading for loans to keep their companies afloat. As a price, lawmakers and pundits told them they had to become "leaner and meaner," and in response, General Motors announced it would close nine plants and put tens of thousands of workers in the street. Ford and Chrysler described a similar job-elimination strategy. What makes Flores special? He didn't just accept the elimination of his job. Instead, he sat in at the Chicago plant where he worked for six days, together with 240 other union members at Republic Windows and Doors. Republic workers were not demanding the reopening of their closed factory. They've been fighting for severance and benefits to help them survive the unemployment they know awaits them. Yet their occupation can't help but raise deeper questions about the right of workers to their jobs. Can a return to the militant tactics of direct action, that produced the greatest gains in union membership, wages and job security in U.S. history, overturn "the inescapable logic of the marketplace"? Can employers, and the banks that hold their credit lines, be forced to keep plants open?

Public broadcasting notes. One of America's most gifted contemporary singer-songwriter, Aimee Mann, has a Christmas concert on NPR tomorrow. Live from the Kewsick Theater in Pennsylvania, Aimee's concert will be webcast by WXPN beginning Saturday night at 8:00 PM EST. This concert is part of a series of Christmas performances by Aimme that will next find her in Alexandria, VA (December 15 and 16), NYC (December 17 and 18th) and Tarrytown, NY (December 19th). Can't make it to those concerts? One more reason to catch Saturday's webcast. For Saturday's concert, her guests will be Nellie McKay and Grant-Lee Phillips. (In a year of sheep, Nellie McKay stood up for peace and did so proudly and publicly. Very few can make that claim, let alone claim to have her courage.) Aimee first came to national attention as a member of the band 'Til Tuesday whose songs and singing ("Voices Carry," "J for Jules," "No One Is Watching You Now," "Welcome Home," etc.) registered strongly and immediately. On her own she's produced hits like "That's Just What You Are" while still trying to fit into the corporate label scheme before going off on her own and producing amazing work (and earning an Oscar nomination for "Save Me"). Her latest album is @#%&*! Smilers. Kat's reviewed her latest CD as well as The Forgotten Arm. And NPR's previous Aimee Mann coverage includes "Aimee Mann: Heartache And Hope" and "Aimee Mann: Bittersweet Holidays" (here for NPR's archive of Aimee stories).

PBS? NOW on PBS visits Kiribati as it examines the issue of displacement as a result of global warming. Washington Week also begins airing tonight on some PBS stations (others tend to air it as a Sunday morning chat & chew) and joining Gwen will be Pete Williams (NBC News), Christi Parsons (Chicago Tribune), David E. Sanger (New York Times) and John Maggs (National Journal). On broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, 60 Minutes:Barney FrankLesley Stahl talks to Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), whose position as House Financial Services Committee Chairman puts him right in the middle of the huge and controversial government bailouts, first for the financial industry and now for Detroit's automakers. Watch Video
Where's The Bottom?The mortgage mess that touched off the financial meltdown is far from over, with a second wave of expected defaults on the way that could deepen the bottom of this recession. Scott Pelley reports.
Coach CarrollByron Pitts profiles USC college football coach Pete Carroll, who, in addition to his success in making the Trojans a football dynasty, is making positive contributions toward decreasing gang violence in Los Angeles. Watch Video
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

iraq
alsumariadavid morgananthony boadle
mcclatchy newspapersadam ashton
sahar issa
the washington postwalter pincuskaren deyoungjoby warwick
sudarsan raghavan
the los angeles times
tina susmanthe new york timestimothy williams
david bacon
aimee mannnprzoltan grossman60 minutescbs newswashington weeknow on pbspbs

iraq treaty; aimee mann concert tomorrow online

i'm reposting all of c.i.'s entry this morning because i want to be sure every 1 knows about the concert streaming online tomorrow.

US Forces could remain in Iraq for 10 more years

In the first statements that point out to Iraq’s need for US Forces in the country since the declaration of the US-Iraqi security pact, Cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said Iraq will need US troop presence to help build up its military forces past the newly agreed three-year deadline for the withdrawal of US troops.
Al Dabbagh, representing Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki in Washington, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years stressing that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and US governments in 2011 since the security pact has not tackled this issue. He added that until that time, the number of troops needed and the level of cooperation and support required would be clearer.
Al Dabbagh statements came at a time when the International Security Council is getting ready to adopt during a meeting scheduled next week a resolution to end multinational forces mission in Iraq upon the request of Baghdad. Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Hamed Al Bayati affirmed in a statement to the Kuwaiti News Agency (Kuna) that Iraq has sent a similar letter to the Security Council Chief. He added that the letter has been distributed to members and will be official early next week. Al Bayati affirmed that Al Maliki has noted in a letter to the Security Council that the extension of multinational forces mission has been done for the last time and while their mission will end late this month.

The above is "Iraq: US Forces could be needed for 10 years" (Alsumaria) and that should be the headline on the front page of every US paper. It should result in the worthless beggars of Panhandle Media taking to public airwaves and their websites to explore what they refused to in real time (yes, Amy Goodman, you, the Queen of All Beggars, are included on that list).

They pimped the treaty. Amy Goodman and all the rest did exactly what they have spent years condemning Judith Miller for -- lack of skepticism and running with the official 'version' of the truth the White House was pimping. They have spent how many years ripping Judith Miller apart?

So watch as they all pretend yesterday's events didn't take place. Yesterday's snapshot noted Reuters' report on the remarks (report by David Morgan and Anthony Boadle) and let's revisit "Iraq may need US troops for decade - Iraqi official:"


Iraq will need a U.S. troop presence to help build up its military forces past the newly agreed three-year deadline for the withdrawal of American soldiers, a senior Iraqi official said on Thursday.
Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years but told reporters that the terms of any extended presence would be negotiated between the next Iraqi and U.S. governments.
[. . .]
"We do understand that the Iraqi military is not going to get built out in the three years. We do need many more years. It might be 10 years," Dabbagh said at a Pentagon press briefing.
Iraqi officials had spoken about the potential need for a lengthy U.S. troop presence before the new SOFA agreement. But Dabbagh's comments appeared to be the first to address the potential need for a residual U.S. presence since the pact was announced.


"Dabbagh's comments appeared to be the first to address the potential need for a residual U.S. presence since the pact was announced." For those who spent too long probing the esoterics of reporting in J-school, let's speak slowly: That's breaking news. And yet, see how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly, I'm crying. [Added: "see how . . ." is Lennon & McCartney's "I Am the Walrus."]

Campbell Robertson's "A Panel on Iraqi Detainees Meets" (New York Times) includes mentions of the Pentagon briefing but, curiously, Campbell (who has lied about the treaty repeatedly in print) can't make room to include that very important statement. He can tease and fluff military press releases into 'reporting,' he just can't cover actual news. Even worse is Julian E. Barnes of the Los Angeles Times who needs to be asked: "Is your desire for war with Iran so great that you somehow missed the actual news from the briefing?" He really needs to explain how Ali al-Dabbagh is worthy of quoting only when he backs up US claims (the same, tired claims we've heard for over three years now -- never proved, just tossed around).

On the topic of the treaty, Martha passes on this e-mail from American Freedom Campaign:

The document parading around as the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not valid under the U.S. Constitution. Its legitimacy is based solely on the silence of lawmakers (and members of the media), who seem to be paralyzed by the fear of having an independent and intelligent opinion. Fortunately, one lawmaker has broken the silence and has acknowledged the truth before everyone's eyes.

It is now time for others, including you, to join their voices with hers.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pending U.S.-Iraq agreement, decrying the fact that the Iraqi Parliament was being given the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the agreement while Congress was being denied - and was refusing to fight for - the same opportunity.

Well, thanks to our efforts and the leadership of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives may finally get to voice its opinion on President Bush's unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's legislative power.

Yesterday, Rep. Lee introduced a resolution related to the U.S.-Iraq agreement, inspired in part by AFC's call for a "signing statement" resolution. The primary purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the House that President Bush does not have the power under the Constitution to negotiate and sign such a far-reaching agreement with another nation without seeking congressional approval of the agreement.

Passage of this resolution -- most likely following re-introduction in January -- will send a message to the Bush administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the rest of the world that the agreement holds no legal weight under U.S. law and will be considered merely advisory by Congress.

In truth, even without passage of this resolution, Congress shall not be bound by its terms. No president can unilaterally commit $10 billion per month in U.S. treasure to keep our troops in another nation. The United States has never been a monarchy or a dictatorship and we are certainly not going to accept any similar kind of system today.

Putting aside the question over whether this agreement is currently binding or not, it is important that as many lawmakers as possible openly reject the constitutionality of the agreement. So please tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor, support, and vote for Rep. Lee's signing statement resolution (H.Res. 1535) by clicking on the following link:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26332

Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family. In the alternative, you can use the "Tell-A-Friend" option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.

Thank you so much for taking action.

Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

Thursday Mike noted Zoltan Grossman's "Biden's Wars" (ZNet):


It was always a mistaken and shallow analysis to demonize Bush and Cheney as the root of all evil, implying that removing them from office would excise unilateral militarism from foreign policy. Personalizing the problem was especially misleading for Americans who had not yet come of political age during previous Democratic administrations. It was Jimmy Carter who declared an "Energy War," established the Central Command in the Middle East, accelerated the nuclear arms race, and revived draft registration. It was Bill Clinton who repeatedly bombed Iraq, enforced draconian sanctions on the Iraqi people, and bombed Serbia and a few other countries. The problem with Democratic politicians is not only that they rarely stand up to Republican wars, it is that they have initiated wars of their own.
If the peace movement relaxes for even one minute because of the Democratic victory, it could demobilize the millions of people -- particularly younger people -- who have joined the movement since the Iraq occupation began. Note that the new administration is proposing to withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq, but keeping other "residual" troops and mercenaries in the new military bases (and adjacent countries) that could continue intervening in Iraq -- perhaps curbing the "war" but not the occupation. The national security establishment wants Obama to extend his 16-month withdrawal timetable, and to send fresh forces (such as Stryker brigades) in 2009 for occupation duty.
The new administration plans to direct General Petraeus to initiate a new "surge" in Afghanistan, to transfer more occupation troops to that quagmire and escalate yet another disastrous war. It plans to continue or expand the dangerous attacks initiated by Bush against "insurgent refuges" in Pakistan and Somalia. And it could offer the precedent of so-called "humanitarian" interventions to justify meddling in Sudan, Georgia and possibly Syria and Iran. Below, I spell out some of these past, present and future "humanitarian" interventions -- which are anything but.

I'm limited in what I'll say here (Jim's claimed a topic for this week's editorial at Third) but you should be able to apply Grossman's commentary above to what came before it in the entry.

Let's turn to reports.


The Pentagon's inspector general said yesterday that the Defense Department's public affairs office may have "inappropriately" merged public affairs and propaganda operations in 2007 and 2008 when it contracted out $1 million in work for a strategic communications plan for use by the military in collaboration with the State Department.
"Without clearly defined strategic communications responsibilities, DoD may appear to merge inappropriately the public affairs and information operations functions," the inspector general said in a report released yesterday. Strategic communications programs, which have become a major part of the Pentagon's information operations carried out in the "war of ideas" in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East, should be under the oversight of the undersecretary of defense for policy, the report added.

The above, noted by Lloyd, is from Walter Pincus' "Pentagon May Have Mixed Propaganda With PR" (Washington Post) and there's more than just the report on abuse that's been issued. On that report, Joby Warrick and Karen DeYoung's "Report on Detainee Abuse Blames Top Bush Officials" (Washington Post) opens:

A bipartisan panel of senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.
In the most comprehensive critique by Congress of the military's interrogation practices, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a report yesterday that accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the authors and chief promoters of harsh interrogation policies that disgraced the nation and undermined U.S. security. The report, released by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), contends that Pentagon officials later tried to create a false impression that the policies were unrelated to acts of detainee abuse committed by members of the military.

Public broadcasting notes. NOW on PBS starts airing tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings):

Just this week, a top UN official predicted that by the middle of this century, the world should expect six million people a year to be displaced by increasingly severe storms and floods caused by climate change. But for many island nations in the South Pacific, climate change is already more than just a theory—it is a pressing, menacing reality. These small, low-lying islands are frighteningly vulnerable to rising temperatures and sea levels that could cause flooding and contaminate their fresh water wells. Within 50 years, some of them could be under water.

This week, NOW travels to the nation of Kiribati to see up close how these changes affect residents' daily lives and how they are dealing with the reality that both their land and culture could disappear from the Earth. We also travel to New Zealand to visit an I-Kiribati community that has already left its home, and to the Pacific Island Forum in Niue to see how the rest of the region is coping with the here-and-now crisis of climate change.

Washington Week also begins airing tonight on some PBS stations (others tend to air it as a Sunday morning chat & chew) and joining Gwen will be Pete Williams (NBC News), Christi Parsons (Chicago Tribune), David E. Sanger (New York Times) and John Maggs (National Journal).

The incredibly talented Aimee Mann has an NPR special this weekend and this is noted by an NPR friend:

Live Saturday: Aimee Mann's Christmas Concert

Listen Online At 8 p.m. ET

**Remind Me With: Google Calendar, Outlook or iCal

Courtesy of the artist

Aimee Man performs live at the Keswick Theater this Saturday, Dec. 13.

See a list of upcoming concerts and add them to your calendar.

• Full Aimee Mann Archive
• Live Concerts Podcast
• Newsletter for Concert Updates

WXPN, December 11, 2008 - Aimee Mann doesn't seem like the type to gravitate toward Christmas music — there's nothing Bing Crosby or Mannheim Steamroller about her. Yet for the third year in a row, she's about to perform material from her beautiful 2006 holiday album, One More Drifter in the Snow, and more at the Keswick Theater in Glenside, Penn. Hear the complete concert, webcast live by WXPN this Saturday, Dec. 13, starting at 8 p.m. ET. Nellie McKay and Grant-Lee Phillips will join Mann onstage for special duets.

After Mann left the popular '80s band 'Til Tuesday, she became a more folk-tinged singer-songwriter on her 1993 debut solo album, Whatever. Throughout her solo career, she's built up a strong catalog of bewildering narratives, morally ambiguous characters and brutally honest lyrics. Her latest album, @#%&*! Smilers, moves away from the sprawling concepts of 2006's The Forgotten Arm and gets back to songwriting basics. It sounds more like a collection of songs that grow on you than a massive work taken in one dose.

When Mann originally came up with the idea for her Christmas album, she wanted to hearken back to the classic holiday music of the '40s and '50s.

"I wanted to do a Christmas record that reflected the whole range of emotions that people have around Christmas," Mann says. "I thought a lot about the feeling I had about Christmas as a kid, the almost spooky beauty and mystery that the holiday has, and wanted to do something that echoed that musically."

One More Drifter in the Snow features the intimate and sometimes carnival-esque arrangements fans know her for, but with a lighter and warmer feeling. Classics such as Jimmy Webb's "Whatever Happened to Christmas" and "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" (featuring Grant-Lee Phillips as the narrator) sit alongside a Mann original, "Calling on Mary."

Related NPR Stories

• Aug. 29, 2008
  Aimee Mann: Heartache And Hope
• Dec. 25, 2006
  Aimee Mann: Bittersweet Holidays

That's currently buried at the NPR site. Supposedly it will be fixed. (It's not even a top article on the Music page. You have to click on the link at the bottom of the Music page under "Coming Soon" -- coming soon? Try tomorrow. Aimee Mann is one of the country's most gifted songwriters and Kat's reviewed her latest CD as well as The Forgotten Arm. (I know and like Aimee but, as already noted, that plug's at the request of an NPR friend.) The concert webcasts tomorrow night.

On broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, 60 Minutes:

Barney Frank
Lesley Stahl talks to Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), whose position as House Financial Services Committee Chairman puts him right in the middle of the huge and controversial government bailouts, first for the financial industry and now for Detroit's automakers. | Watch Video

---

Where's The Bottom?
The mortgage mess that touched off the financial meltdown is far from over, with a second wave of expected defaults on the way that could deepen the bottom of this recession. Scott Pelley reports.

---

Coach Carroll
Byron Pitts profiles USC college football coach Pete Carroll, who, in addition to his success in making the Trojans a football dynasty, is making positive contributions toward decreasing gang violence in Los Angeles. | Watch Video

---

60 Minutes, this Sunday, Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.



Yesterday Stan's offered "Grab bag" (and also check out his "Films on sick-out day"). Other community posts from last night:

• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  The conference

  7 hours ago
• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  The cowboy way

  9 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! BARACK IS THE MIRROR IMAGE!

  9 hours ago
• 
  The Common Ills

  I Hate The War

  10 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Barack Blagojevich

  10 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  it's like 2002 in replay

  10 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  Barbra Streisand, Margaret Kimberley

  10 hours ago
• 
  Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  Princess Brat

  10 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  Sexist Sarah at Corrente

  10 hours ago

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

iraq
alsumaria
david morgan
anthony boadle
the los angeles times
julian e. barnes
the new york times
campbell robertson
the washington post
walter pincus
karen deyoung
joby warwick
aimee mann
npr
zoltan grossman
60 minutes
cbs news
washington week
now on pbs
pbs
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends