chalabi

i was going to write about barbra streisand - the actress and director - tonight but she's trashing sarah palin so i'll just move along.

i'm not supporting palin. i am not voting for mccain. but i'm damn sick of the attacks.

if this confuses any 1, i'll clear it up on monday.

anyway.

instead, let's note this from ned parker and saif hameed's 'iraq politician ahmad chalabi survives assassination attempt' (los angeles times):

A suicide bomber tried to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi on Friday night, killing six of his guards when he rammed his car into the Shiite Muslim politician's speeding convoy, Chalabi's spokesman said.
Chalabi, who has survived at least three previous attempts on his life, was returning to his home in the west Baghdad district of Mansour when the bomber in a sports utility vehicle struck, spokesman Iyad Kadhim Sabti said. At least 17 people were wounded, including nine of Chalabi's guards, police said.

c.i. notes that in the snapshot but i see the los angeles times did a story tonight on it. chalabi's a c.i.a. asset and also a thug. he also helped lie the u.s. into the illegal war.

cnn calls him 'controversial' and offers this:

The politician known for providing false information to the United States about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the target of a suicide car bombing Friday, Iraq's Interior Ministry said.
[...]
The controversial Iraqi politician's intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was cited, in part, as the justification for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The Interior Ministry said the car bombing happened near Chalabi's home in Baghdad's al-Mansour district.
At least one of the people killed was a civilian and authorities were uncertain Friday whether the other fatality was a civilian or a member of Chalabi's security detail.

france 24 calls him 'a former pentagon favourite'.

okay, let's note some ralph nader news:

Nader and Gonzalez on Sunday Campaign Swing through Michigan
Friday, September 5, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM
ShareThis
News Advisory
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Marc Abizeid, 831-818-7736, marcabizeid@votenader.org (Washington); David Switzer (248) 207-5452, switzer@votenader.org (East Lansing); Karen Shelley 248-355-4328, karenshelley@votenader.org (Detroit).
Nader and Gonzalez on Sunday Campaign Swing through Michigan…
THE INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES WILL SPEAK AT NEWS CONFERENCES AND CAMPAIGN RALLIES IN EAST LANSING, DETROIT
East Lansing Event
Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader and Vice Presidential Candidate Matt Gonzalez will host a news conference on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2:30 p.m., in Room 101 of the Kellogg Hotel & Conference Center, Michigan State University, 55 South Harrison Road, East Lansing, Mich. 48824.
Following the news conference, Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will hold a campaign rally at 3 p.m. in Big Ten room A of the Kellogg Center.
For details, call David Switzer, 248-207-5452, switzer@votenader.org.
Detroit Event
Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader and Vice Presidential Candidate Matt Gonzalez will host a news conference on Sunday, Sept. 7, 7 p.m, and a campaign rally at 7:30 p.m., at the Unitarian Church Sanctuary, 4605 Cass Ave. Detroit, Mich. 48201. For details, call Karen Shelley 248-355-4328, karenshelley@votenader.org.
Michigan Nader/Gonzalez TourThe theme of the Michigan tour, "Open the Debates," reflects the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign's call for inclusive, democratic Presidential debates. Right now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties. The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987, which Walter Cronkite called an "unconscionable fraud" because the CPD format "defies meaningful discourse."
In addition, the candidates will speak about the growing, multifarious crisis Michigan residents confront, starting with a tanking economy, increasing environmental pollution and a health care system broken beyond repair. A June 24 article in Business Week, "Michigan: Epicenter of Unemployment," focused on the state as having "the nation's highest unemployment rate," and Census Bureau figures show Michigan to be the only state in the union where incomes fell while poverty rose in 2007, before the onset of the national economic downturn.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, as of 2004, the United States had lost 1 million job opportunities due to the affect of NAFTA on the economy. Michigan alone had a net loss of 63,148 jobs attributed to NAFTA. Nader/Gonzalez would withdraw and renegotiate NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
An April 2004 report by the Sierra Club, "Michigan Communities at Risk" found that weakened federal air, ground and water regulations have introduced sever new health risks in Michigan, shifted the costs of pollution abatement from large corporations onto the backs of individual tax payers, and encouraged the use by electric companies of coal over cleaner energy sources.
The Nader/Gonzalez team would fix Michigan's pollution problem and create many new jobs with its crash program to switch the nation to a non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel, solar-based economy--which is "off the table" for Obama/McCain. Enormous improvements in proven energy efficiencies from consumer, home and building technologies can become the norm if Washington overcomes the energy companies' lobbies that do not want to see their sales diminish. A March 2008 Families USA report, "Dying For Coverage In Michigan" found that in 2006, of the nearly 5,347,000 people between the ages of 25 and 64 living in Michigan, 13.4 percent had no health insurance and that uninsured Michigan residents are sicker and die sooner than their insured counterparts
While Obama and McCain offer health care plans that would enrich private insurance companies at the expense of tax payers, the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign favors a Canadian-style public health insurance system with private delivery and free choice of hospital and doctor. Also "off the table" for Obama/McCain but on the table for Nader/Gonzalez is a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild and repair the Nation's crumbling schools, clinics, roads, bridges and other vital public infrastructure, with funds coming from cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget that devours 50 percent of the federal government's operating expenditures.
Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez will address these and many other critical issues the major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign has put on the table, including:- a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;- a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act;- a carbon tax to deter global warming;- an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars; and,- more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with "we the people," and not "we the corporations."
About Ralph Nader
Attorney, author, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader has been named by Time Magazine one of the "100 Most Influential Americans in the 20th Century." For more than four decades he has exposed problems and organized millions of citizens into more than 100 public interest groups advocating solutions. He led the movement to establish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and was instrumental in enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and countless other pieces of important consumer legislation. Because of Ralph Nader we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments. Nader graduated from Princeton University and received an LL.B from Harvard Law School.
About Matt Gonzalez
Matt Gonzalez was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2000 representing San Francisco's fifth council district. From 2003 to 2005, he served as Board of Supervisors President. A former public defender, Gonzalez is managing partner of Gonzalez & Leigh, a 7-attorney practice in San Francisco that represents individuals and organizations in mediation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings before state and federal regulatory bodies. Gonzalez graduated from Columbia University and received a JD from Stanford Law School.
About the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
The Nader/Gonzalez independent presidential candidacy will be on the ballot in 45 states, is polling at 5-6 percent nationally, and a new Time/CNN poll shows Ralph Nader polling 8 percent in New Mexico, 7 percent in Colorado, 7 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6 percent in Nevada -- all key battleground states.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.

so there's some nader news and i wish i had more to post. i was going to post about movies but i'm so sick of this sour grapes b.s. barbra needs to get over it. i say that as a longtime fan. she can criticize palin's positions (there's a lot to criticize) but let's not have tantrums in public, ok?

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

Friday, September 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, no cutbacks (let alone withdrawals) is the word, al-Maliki pretends his feelings are hurt, Adam Kokesh shares his thoughts at a rally in Minn., and more.

Starting with the news of no 'cutback' (forget withdrawal). Tony Capaccio (Bloomberg News) explains, "Top U.S. military advisers have recommended that President George W. Bush delay futher combat-troop withdrawals from Iraq until early next year, according to two administration officials." Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reveals, "Under the recommendation, the current level of about 140,000 troops would remain in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency in January. Then a combat brigade of about 3,500 troops would be removed by February a senior Pentagon official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the recommendation has not been made public." Al Jazeera adds: "The recommendation that George Bush withdraw one combat brigade, or up to 5,000 soldiers, from Iraq only early next year was contrary to expectations that improved security in Iraq would allow for quicker cuts." At the White House today, Dana Perino declared, "I don't recall in the last few times when President Bush has worked with, or has gotten recommendations from General Petraeus, that we have gone too far outside. Of course we -- the President gets an update, as he did on Wednesday evening from Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates. They took Secretary -- I'm sorry -- General Petraeus' recommendation and ran that through the chain of command. And then they presented it to the President. He's obviously talking to his national security team, and we'll be consulting with members of Congress before we move forward." US forces aren't leaving. Two presidential candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) have no intention of withdrawing US troops. At what point does the Iraqi puppet face the wrath of the Iraqi people (many of whom have already figured out that Obama and McCain are the same on Iraq)?

UPI reports on yesterday's press conference held by Iraq's Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashimi. The press conference focused on the proposed treaties between the puppet government and the White House and al-Hashimi declared, "I think that we are not in need of an agreement that does not guarantee sovereignty and brings Iraq out from under Chapter VII, and also guarantees Iraqi law as a whole." Which would seem to put al-Hashimi in a better position with the Iraqi people than the puppet Nouri al-Maliki. However, al-Maliki was handed a gift today with advance publicity for Bob Woodward's latest book due out Monday. The book asserts that the White House spied on the puppet. Not a shocking or surprising claim. (A) He is there puppet and they don't trust him (as well as see him as inept). (B) This is the same White House that spied on the United Nations in the lead up to the illegal war. But al-Maliki's trying to turn it into a national pride issue. BBC reports that the puppet government is making noises about being shocked and how, gosh darn it, they think they maybe plan to ask the White House if this is true! Maybe.

At the US State Dept today, Robert Wood (Deputy Spokesperson) handled the press briefing and was asked about the charges made in Woodward's forthcoming book. He stated originally, "I don't have anything to say other than, you know, I read books, but I don't do book reviews, basically." Pressed later, he would state he hadn't read the book and "I'm not going to give you a review of it." The most Wood would offer was, "Well, again, I'm not going to get into the substance of this book and, you know, our characterization of it, except to say that, look, we have a good working relationship, a strong working relationship, with the Government of Iraq. We've worked very closely with Prime Minister Maliki. We'll continue to do so and -- in our efforts to strengthen Iraq's democracy."

Wood was more expansive on the issue of the "Awakening" Council members, stating, ". . . we believe transitioning some members of the Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi security forces, while providing the others with vocational training and other employment opportunities, will be key to sustaining the security gains that have been realized in Anbar and elsewhere in 2007. But I don't have anything beyond that." In other words, "Thank goodness the puppet government might soon start paying the thugs so we don't have to. Liability concerns, you understand." They certainly have the money to pay it since al-Maliki sits on millions and millions while Iraqis suffer. At Inside Iraq, one of McClatchy's Iraqi correspondents contributes "Why Does Iraq Need This Loan" which notes the central government in Baghdad issued a press release Wednesday proclaiming the Italian ambassador and Iraq's Minister of Finance addressed the topic of the "400 million euro" loan:

Until now, everything seems normal and logical. A third world country takes loan money from an industrial country. That would be completely acceptable if this third world country is a poor country but is it acceptable for a country that gained 32 billions dollars only as supplementary budget from the increasing of oil prices?Why does Iraq need this loan? Our government wastes millions of dollar everyday in putting more blast walls, renewing pavements and of course in buying new armored vehicles for the enormous and increasing number of Iraqi officials. We can buy thousands of agricultural machines with the millions that have been wasted for the faked projects. Of course I'm not talking about the millions that had been stolen by the former ministers or even by the contractors.

Puppet al-Maliki better hope he can get some traction with his mock outrage of "The White House Spied On Me! Who Could Have Guessed!" James Denselow (Guardian of London) contemplates al-Maliki, "So how has this situation come to pass and how are things likely to develop? Is Maliki going to detach from his perceived political masters in Washington and be allowed to show independence? Or will such posturing result in Maliki suffering a similar fate to his predecessor, who was replaced when he became too independent?"

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

Bombings?

Reuters notes Ahmed Chalabi was the target of an assassination in Baghdad today via a car bombing that claimed the lives of 2 and left seventeen injured (Chalabi was not among the dead or injured).

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Dbdulameer Hasen Abbas ("Advisor to the Ministry of Defence") was assassinated in Baghdad.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse was discovered in Nineveh Province today (a police officer who was kidnapped yesterday).

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier died of non-combat related injuries in Baghdad Sept. 5." The announcement brought to 4154 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

This as Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports, "Suicides among active-duty soldiers this year are on pace to exceed both last year's all-time record and, for the first time since the Vietnam War, the rate among the general U.S. population, Army officials said yesterday. Ninety-three active-duty soldiers had killed themselves through the end of August, the latest data show. A third of those cases are under investigation by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's Office. In 2007, 115 soldiers committed suicide." Pauline Jelinek (AP) adds, "As officials have said before, [Brig. Gen. Rhonda L.] Cornum said the main factors in soldier suicides continues to be problems with their personal relationships, legal and financial issues, work problems and the repeated deployments and longer tour lengths prompted by an Afghan war entering its eighth year and Iraq campaign in its sixth."
While the military does keep saying the same thing over and over, it really doesn't hold up. Take the case of Dustin Mark Tucker whom Mary Callahan (The Press Democrat) reported on Thursday. The doctors can't explain the death (kidney failure is suspected -- the cause, no one knows) and his family can't either:

"He has no family history or personal history of any kind of medical issues," said his mother, Cindy Tucker. "He didn't complain of not feeling well . . . He was happy. He was busy. He was excited for his vacation. He was on top of the world."Tucker, 22, was home for an 18-day leave, his first since his March deployment as a gunner with the Army's 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas. He was thrilled to be home, where his family had planned plenty of free time for golf, fishing and other activities. He was fatigued and jet-lagged after days of traveling from Baghdad to Kuwait, then Ireland, Atlanta and Los Angeles before finally flying into San Francisco and the embrace of his family. Despite the lengthy trip, he seemed ready for some fun, they said. Since arriving home Aug. 25, he had visited family and friends, played golf, bought a motorcycle and was looking forward to a family fishing trip at Clear Lake this week. He complained of no pain, discomfort or illness, but did mention being tired Aug. 27 when he decided to hang out with his two brothers rather than go out with friends, Cindy Tucker said.


Dustin Mark Tucker, apparently healthy, got on the couch and died there. And there are no answers. And there doesn't appear to be a great deal of interest in finding out what happened -- the same way they're not all that interested in the suicides. It's a pattern of pass-the-buck that hasn't been deal with despite the scandals of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.


Turning to the US presidential race. Yesterday's financial goal for the Ralph Nader campaign was to reach $100,000 in the donations for the Nader Media Fund which led to some mocking in the press. Not only did they reach $100,000, the campaign surpassed it, hitting $104,500 via donaors from around the country -- Texas, Wisconsin, Arizona, California, Oregon, Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii and elsewhere. Meanwhile Richard Winger's Ballot Access News reports Ralph Nader is currently on the ballot in 38 states (the Green Party in 31, the Constitution Party in 33 and the Libertarian Party in 42 -- see chart at the top of the page). Hamza Shaban (The Cavalier Daily) observes, "What Democrats have failed to realize is this: Nader is most dangerous when he is ignored. As a politician on the fringe, he does not seek the broadest coalition but makes new ones. If his platform is not integrated into the Democratic party's, then he will relentlessly go after the disaffected and carve out his own demographic. What loyal Democrats call "spoiling," Nader calls a systemic and deliberate boycott." Team Nader notes:

The Invisible Man, song by 98 Degrees - Justin Jeffre and Jeff Timmons.
WATCH THE VIDEO

The revolution will not be televised - but thanks to your help, it will be on youtube.
We passed our media fund goal of $100,000 and brought in over $20,000 yesterday alone!
This video is our highlight reel from the "Open the Debates" super rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The rally took place on September 4, at the same time as the Republican National Convention in neighboring St. Paul. I flew to Minnesota to shoot video of this exciting event, then stayed up all night editing - I hope you enjoy the result. Also, because of your generous support, you will see much more coverage of future events.
Please forward this video to your friends & family. Also please help us - subscribe to our youtube channel and rate our videos and comments!
Haven't had a chance to help our media fund grow? There's still time...contribute to our campaign today.
Onward

The RNC wrapped up their convention last night. John McCain is the Republican nominee. Governor Sarah Palin will be his running mate. CBS Evening News' Cynthia Bowers reported on Palin (link has video and text) today. CBS Evening News with Katie Couric found the anchor interviewing Cindy McCain on Wednesday (link has text and video). Barack supporter Hillary Rosen (CNN) shows a stronger grasp of feminism than a number of leaders when she compiles her reasons for not supporting the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket but first calls out rank sexism, "I am a woman who someone took a chance on several years ago when they gave me a job that had only previously been done by old white guys. Experience? How do you get any if no one takes a chance on you? And the decision to take a chance can be instinctive, as John McCain said. And what about the argument that she is a negligent mother who will be distracted from her important role? I am a mother who constantly feels the pressure from others about whether I am fit to be a parent, whether I put my kids first often enough and whether my children get enough of my attention. Who has the right to judge my family? My grandmother always said, 'You can't tell time on someone else's clock.' Judgments about people's personal lives are better left unsaid and unrealized."

Tuesday night in Minneapolis, IVAW's Adam Kokesh participated in the Rally For The Republic. Kokesh has posted a video of his speech at his website and below is transcription of the remarks he delivered:

Adam Kokesh: Thanks to a few neocon, chicken-hawk draft dodgers I was sent to Falluja in 2004 with the Marine Corps Civil Affairs Team and I found out the hard way that the greatest enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America are not to be found in the sands of some far off land but rather right here at home. It's not enough to understand that the war in Iraq is simply unjust, illegal, unconstitutional, costing us a horrendous amount of money and destroying our military. The issues before us today are a matter of life and death. I continue to serve my country today as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and the Campaign for Liberty. It is through the Campaign for Liberty that we will take Ron Paul's message, we will take the torch of freedom that he has borne so well for us, we will take it back to our communities and set brushfires of freedom in the mind of every liberty loving man, woman and child in this great country. I'd like to take a second to recognize the veterans in the room -- if you would please stand -- and any active duty service members please stand. These are the brave men and women who swore an oath with their lives to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And while it is our responsibility now to resist tyranny civily while we still can, there may come a time when we will say to the powers that be "With your blood or ours, we have come to water the tree of liberty." And it is those veterans and myself, we will be on the frontlines. Who will stand with us? Thank you for taking that stand. To all of you loyal soldiers in this new revolutionary army, it is an honor to count myself among your ranks and I salute you. You want a revolution? You better be ready to fight for it. Now I want you all to get back on your feet, take that stance for liberty with me, with all the veterans in this room, make for yourself the same committment with your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honor to our cause and make that pledge from your hearts where the fire of liberty burns that we will not rest 'till we achieve our goals and we get this new revolution in America. Now I want you to stay on your feet for just for just another minute -- you're going to want to stay on your feet for this -- because now I have the great pleaure of introducing on behalf of the Campaign for Liberty, someone you have all been waiting to see, Aimee Allen.

Note, Adam is co-chair of IVAW. He was speaking for himself at the Ron Paul rally as do all IVAW members participating in political campaigns for candidates. IVAW does not endorse any single candidate, they do not belong to or serve one party. IVAW is a diverse group in all ways including politically. Their shared beliefs include an end to the illegal war, reperations for the Iraqi people and that US veterans' service is honored (and promises kept) by the US government.

Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has held multiple events in Wisconsin today and has more planned for tomorrow: Today she held a lunch (10:30 a.m.), a town hall (Walden III School, Racine) at one p.m., and a Park Six meet and greet starting at 4:30. Saturday she will be speaking at the Fighting Bob Festival (Baraboo, Wisconsin at 10:20 in the morning and will be hosting another meet and greet this time at High Noon Salloon in Madison beginning at 5:30 p.m.).


NOW on PBS begins airing tonight in most markets. (Check local listings.) On the program this weekend (the above is a web exclusive and not a part of the show), Brancaccio interviews Christine Todd Whitman (billed as a moderate Republican) about the state of the GOP. Bill Moyers Journal brings back Dr. Kathy -- no doubt because America doesn't have enough worthless gas bagging on TV. The program moves into reality with a look at the National Guard members serving in Iraq. Gwen and the gas bags reteam to scare America on the latest installment of Washington Week. The Washington Post's David Broder and Vanity Fair's Todd S. Purdum are the two names that can be mentioned with minimal shudders. The others would produce screaming. In terms of radio, The Next Hour airs on WBAI Sunday (eleven to noon EST) and this week Janet Coleman and David Dozer "appear with yarrow sticks and The Book of Changes." Bill Moyers Journal tackles protests (and, some would say attention getting) so we'll include this section:

Perhaps the most prominent arrest was that of journalist Amy Goodman, anchor of the daily television and radio news program, "Democracy Now!" Police had taken two of her producers into custody as they were trying to cover the news. Goodman went out looking for them, but didn't get very far. She was stopped, slapped into handcuffs, and hauled into a detention center, along with almost 200 hundred other people. They had come to demonstrate, she had come to report on them. Goodman was released a few hours later and back on the job anchoring her daily radio and TV show, a favorite of listeners and viewers who go to her for news they won't find in the mainstream or rightwing press.

Winship is very kind to attention seeking Goody and what she actually offers. The essay is available in full online at Bill Moyers Journal.

iraq
adam kokesh
iraq veterans against the warmcclatchy newspapersthe los angeles timesjulian e. barnes
the washington postann scott tysonmary callahan
the next hourjanet colemandavid dozerwbaiwashington weekbill moyers journalpbsnow on pbs
michael winship

disgusted

Obama and Biden were not entirely on the same page on Palin on Thursday. Speaking to reporters in York, Obama waved off a question about whether media coverage of Palin has been sexist. "If they want to work the refs, they are free to do so," he said of GOP supporters who have made the allegation. "And I think the public can make their judgments about this." But, he added, "I assume she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated, which means that their records are under scrutiny. I've been through this for 19 months. She's been through it, what, four days so far?"
At a town-hall meeting in Virginia Beach, Biden called Palin a formidable politician and said he was impressed by her speech, which he said was stocked with "good, funny lines. . . . I'm glad they weren't about me. I was sitting there thinking, 'Whoa, zinger.' "
But he said some coverage of Palin has been out of bounds, particularly questions about her ability to raise five children, including an infant with Down syndrome, while barnstorming the country as a vice presidential candidate. "Whoever these folks are don't know any strong women," said Biden, who will debate Palin on Oct. 2 in St. Louis. "Some of the stuff said has been over the top, totally unfair, and I think it has been sexist."

that's from shailagh murray's article in the washington post. poor little titty baby barack. his people can smear all the time and yet he says he'd fire them. did he fire the staffer who told the atlantic to look into bill clinton's sex life? no. there are no off limits from the chicago trash. he destroys women and some women are so eager to destroy themselves, they defend him.

if you wonder why joe was added to the ticket, just re-read the above.

what barack can't compliment, joe does.

barack's an asshole.

and he's a failed community organizer by his own admission.

oh-boo-hoo, some 1 finally called out barack and america loved it.

now barack wants to whine again.

and he's getting women to defend him. gender-traitors who should remain on the sidelines and tell him, 'you used sexism and homophobia, you're on your own bud.'

instead, it's time for women to whore themselves out to the democractic party.

and they do so nothing.

they give it away for free.

they don't say, 'well barack, maybe you should address ...'

he won't address sexism, he won't address women's rights.

he's been courting anti-choice evangicals.

so buy a clue, feminist 'leaders,' you're disgracing yourself and the movement.

sarah palin is my brand of feminism but there's no denying that she's a feminist.

these belittling attacks are not working. i was a t's today and all the women were talking about it. they are disgusted with the media and the way they have treated sarah.

to be really clear, i want to explain what no 1's talking about: sarah's youngest child is actually her grandson.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

that was started by barck supporters.

that's how they smear women. that's how they trash women.

if sarah palin becomes vice president?

i won't shed any tears.

the democratic party 'leaders' made their choice. they chose sexism.

they're on their own.

and that is the feminist position.

not to praise and endorse a homophobic candidate like barack obama.



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

Thursday, September 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, we're back to Waiting on Petraeus, the 'dodgy dossier,' and more.

Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) reports that the US Congress still wants Gen David Petraeus to testify before Congress about Iraq while the US Defense Dept continues to refuse "that request, ostensibly because of scheduling issues. But as the Pentagon struggles to muster more troops for Afghanistan, officials worry that the general's testimony on Iraq will upstage other needs." Dropping back to the August 27th snapshot:

At the US Pentagon today Gen James Conway declared that there might be a drawdown of some marines because "to do more in Afghanistan, our marines have got to see relief elsewhere". No, that would not be withdrawal, no that would not be troops home. Now or later. It is an acknowledgement -- public -- by a marine commander ("The Commandant of the Marine Corps," says the Defense Dept) that the US military is stretched to the limit fighting two illegal wars that neither the White House nor the Congress has the guts or desire to end.

Lubold notes that "public plea" and quotes "one official close to the debate on troop levels within the government" stating of Conway, "He's the first four-star who ha sopenly challenged Dave Petraeus's view of Iraq." Meanwhile Thomas Harding (Telegraph of London) quotes Petraeus stating "Conditions permitting, yeah," to the question of whether 16,000 US service members could be withdrawn by July 2008. There are approximately 146,000 US service members currently in Iraq. 16,000 is supposed to pass for something? Apparently the press is too excited lining up their final interviews with Petraeus as commander in Iraq (he becomes CENTCOM Commander this month). Patrick Walters (The Australian) lands "an exclusive hour-long farewell interview" -- why, it's like Carson's last show. (Johnny Carson.) Petraeus tells Walters, "We will see in the coming week that we can get to the point where we have the confidence to make some additional recommendations." Is that what 'we' will see?

"I believe that we have marched as far as we can go; signed as many petitions as we can; knocked on too many Congressional office doors; and sang too many verses of 'We shall overcome.' This campaign is the most significant action an anti-war person can be involved in until November 4th." That's Cindy Sheehan explaining why she's running for the US Congress from California's 8th district. Joshua Frank (Dissident Voice) interviews her about her decision to run for the seat currently occupied by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Cindy explains, "I decided to target Pelosi because she is the number one Democrat in Congress and she was the number one obstacle to ending the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. My reasoning was and is that if she refused to hold Bush accountable, then someone needed to hold her accountable. I am not the kind of person to wait for someone else to do something that needs to be done. So here I am." In other elections news, Iraq's Shi'ite vice president, Adel Abdul-Mahdi has declared that even if the Iraqi Parliament does not pass a law for provincial elections this year, they will take place. Reuters quotes him stating, "The elections will take place at the end of this year. If the parliament doesn't approve the (new) elections law, there is an old law. The government cannot delay the elections." That would mean ignoring the issue of oil-rich Kirkuk, as well as the United Nations which has stated they were working on a proposal that would be released shortly. Deborah Haynes (Times of London, link has video) reminded everyone of the realities of Kirkuk at the end of last month, "Yet there is no sewerage system, the roads are cracked, rubbish is strewn all over the pavements, unemployment is as high as 40 per cent and there is no sign of any improvement. Even more worrying - to the Government as well as to the US-led coalition - is that the city is being pulled between different ethnic groups, making it the most dangerous issue facing Iraq." How the Kurds would respond to a move to push through elections with Kirkuk unresolved is not an issue raised in today's reports.


In England the focus is on the recent past. Though the New Statesman has nothing up thus far, they'll probably be hitting the topic in the coming days. For background we'll drop back to Chris Ames' "Secret Iraq dossier published" (New Statesman) from February:

The secret first draft of the Iraq WMD dossier written by Foreign Office spin doctor John Williams has finally been published after a ruling back in January under the Freedom of Information Act. The document contains an early version of the executive summary of the next draft, which was attributed to Intelligence chief John Scarlett. The document places a spin doctor at the heart of the process of drafting the dossier and blows a hole in the government's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry. Last month the Foreign Office was ordered by the Information Tribunal to hand over the Williams draft, which I first requested under the Freedom of Information Act in February 2005. From the time that the row first erupted over Andrew Gilligan's allegations that the dossier had been sexed-up, the government has claimed that Scarlett's draft, produced on 10 September 2002, was the first full draft and produced without interference from spin doctors. But the Williams draft, dated a day earlier, shows that spin doctors were sexing up the dossier at the time the notorious 45 minutes claim was included.

That was February. Today's development? Sky News reports, "The Government has been ordered to release more detail relating to the 'dodgy dossier' that may have exaggerated the case for the Iraq war. The ruling by the Information Commissioner follows a three-year battle by journalist Chris Ames to obtain drafts of the dossier, as well as comments made about them by officials and spy chiefs in the run-up to its publication in September 2002." James Macintyre (Independent of London) adds, "Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, has told civil servants to release undisclosed material which could provide 'evidence that the dossier was deliberately manipulated in order to present an exaggerated case for military actions'." Jon Swaine (Telegraph of London) reminds, "The dossier, which detailed claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, was published on 24 September 2002 and set out the Government's case for the war commenced the following March. Its production was overseen by the then head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Sir John Scarlett." Nicholas Cecil (Evening Standard) gets a bit more specific than Swaine, "The dossier, which included the claim that the Iraqi dictator could launch WMDs within 45 minutes, sparked a huge row between the BBC and the Government over claims that it had been 'sexed up'. Dr Kelly, a biological weapons expert, committed suicide in July 2003 after being named as a source of a BBC story about the document. He was questioned by the Commons foreign affairs select committee over his role." Cecil also quotes journalist Chris Ames stating, "The commissioner has laid bare the Government's farcical cover-up, which included shamelessly playing the national security card. He has also given a strong hint that the Government has concealed evidence of sexing-up to save political embarrassment."

Today, Erica Goode (New York Times) reports on "Awakening" Council 'commander' Ali Abdul Jabbar who fretted throughout Wednesday that Iraqi forces would arrest him. Left unexplored was the issue of 'warrants' and how the Iraqi 'government' appears to have a host of warrants already drawn up and ready to be issued at a moment's notice. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (NPR's Morning Edition) reports that "Awakening" Council member Mullah Shihab also worrieds that he'll be arrested. and that his "name, along with hundreds of his fighters, is on an arrest warrant -- and the only ones safeguarding them now are the very people they used to fight against." Again, this seems to be a pattern in the Iraqi 'government,' always have a warrent at the ready for anyone who might become a political enemy. Ask Moqtada al-Sadr or Ahmed Chalabi. Tina Susman and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) note that yesterday's 'friendly fire' incident claimed 7 Iraqi lives and observe, "Wednesday's deaths were likely to rev up debate among Iraq's leaders about the issue of immunity for U.S. forces in this country. Though soldiers are immune from prosecution for incidents that occur on combat missions or that are deemed not the result of negligence or wrongdoing, friendly fire incidents invariably arouse anger among Iraqis who feel that American forces don't do enough to prevent such mistakes."

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

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded four people, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed 1 life. Reuters notes a Baghdad grenade attack that wounded three people.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Iraqi troops wounded in a Baghdad shooting, a Mosul shooting that claimed the life of 1 police officer and, dropping back to yesterday, a "Kurdish child" shot dead in Mosul late Wednesday in Mosul and Nabeel Abdul Hasan Muhsin ("general director of the projected department in the ministry of transporation") in Baghdad.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.

Today the US military announced: "Two Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldiers were killed while on patrol as a result of a terrorist attack using an improvised explosive device in eastern Baghdad at approximately 12:15 p.m. Sept. 4."


Turning to US presidential politics, Ralph Nader makes an ill informed remark to John Nichols ("My Running-Mat is More Qualified," The Nation) that Matt Gonzalez is more qualified than Sarah Palin. Matt Gonzalez was not the mayor of San Francisco -- he did run for it, he did lose to Gavin Newsom. Gonzalez has many strong qualities, being mayor is not one of them and to imply that mayor and Board of Supervisors President is the same thing is to ignore that we elect different people to those posts and we decided not to elect Matt. That is the way it went. While president of the board is an important position, it is not mayor. And it's a real shame Ralph allowed himself to be put in the position of doing Team Obama's work for them. It scores no points for Nader to get into that conversation. It allows the attacks to be launched on him -- attacks people like Kim Gandy are more than willing to make. He put himself in a very bad position and shouldn't have done so. Repeating, since the issue was raised elsewhere, we could have voted Matt Gonzalez mayor of San Francisco, we chose to vote Gavin Newsom into that office. Those of us who voted in that election made the decision. When Ralph makes the comment, "San Francisco is a lot bigger than Wasilla," he takes it into a penis measuring contest whether he intends to do so or not. And he does it over someone (Gonzalez) who has never been mayor. It's not the same thing and all the boys need to stick their privates back into their pants before they do more damage to their images. If you get sick of the whose-is-bigger commentary that the mainstream and panhandle media traffic in, Catherine Morgan has and is compiling a resource list for women bloggers. She explains, "Answering the question…Where are all the women political bloggers? I decided to take some time today and surf the Internet for as many women blogging on politics that I could find. The refreshing thing about women political bloggers is their diversity…and here are 100 300 500 of them."

Amanda Hess (Washington City Paper) notes, "Tonight, Nader will not only stage a rally, but a 'Super Rally,' pulling out even superer celebs: Sheehan. Ventura. Rovics*--in an attempt to get to the $100,000 mark--only 10,000 $10 bills." Team Nader notes:


We knew you wouldn't let us down.
We're rapidly approaching our goal of $100,000 by midnight tonight.
Now, we're in striking range.
Just a little over $10,000 away.
That's just 1,000 of you -- our loyal supporters -- contributing $10 each now.
Then, tune in tonight 7 p.m. Central, 8 p.m. EST.
Live from Minneapolis.
It's Ralph Nader.
Then, tune in tonight 7 p.m. Central, 8 p.m. EST.
Live from Minneapolis.
It's Ralph Nader.
And Matt Gonzalez.
And Jesse Ventura.
And a lot more.
In the belly of the Republican beast.
The Nader/Gonzalez Open the Debates Rally.
If you are in the area, hope to see you there at Orchestra Hall.
If not, you can watch it the live stream here at 8 p.m. EST.
(Sorry it didn't work out with the Denver stream. We'll try and make sure this one works.)
As you watch, keep an eye on the last day of our $100,000 fundraising campaign.
We're so close, we can almost touch it.
So, as you watch Ralph Nader rip into the corporate Republicans and Democrats.
Ask yourself this:
Who else is in this election year is standing for the American people?
Who else is standing against the candidates of perpetual war?
Who else is standing for shifting the power from the corporate goliaths back into the hands of the American people?
And if you answer Ralph Nader, then drop $10 -- we need 1,000 of you -- our most loyal supporters -- to do that today.
And we'll reach our goal.
Watch the event.
And drive us home.
Remember, if you give $100 or more now, we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver rally, the Minneapolis rally, and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD offer ends tonight at 11:59 p.m.)Onward to November
The Nader Team

Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has multiple events tomorrow and Saturday in Wisconsin including a lunch (10:30 a.m.), a town hall (Walden III School, Racine) at one p.m., and a Park Six meet and greet starting at 4:30. Saturday she will be speaking at the Fighting Bob Festival (Baraboo, Wisconsin at 10:20 in the morning and will be hosting another meet and greet this time at High Noon Salloon in Madison beginning at 5:30 p.m.).

iraqchris ames
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi
joshua frank
the new york timeserica goode
the los angeles timesned parkertina susman
deborah haynes

this and that

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has said Baghdad is still seeking to ensure its sovereignty under a controversial US security deal.
"The government is waiting for an answer from the United States on the Iraqi suggestion to keep the sovereignty of Iraq and the interests of its people," AFP quoted Maliki as saying on Tuesady. Maliki said "The SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) will be sent to parliament within 10 days," but "The members of parliament will accept or reject the agreement."
The SOFA will decide the future presence of American forces in the war-torn country after their UN mandate expires on December 31. Under the deal US forces would also be granted immunity from legal prosecution in Iraq. The issue of immunity however is the main sticking point in the 27-point deal.
According to the Arabic-language text of the agreement published by Al-Iraq newspaper last week, Iraq has proposed that the United States has jurisdiction over its citizens both civilian and military "inside their bases and in areas used by them exclusively... unless they commit grave and deliberate mistakes."

that's from aljazeera magazine's 'iraq seeking sovereignty under u.s. deal.'

as c.i. points out in today's snapshot, that's the deal the press was telling us 3 weeks ago was done and about to be announced. they did that for about 3 days. the state department was saying that wasn't the case. but our press knew so much better. or did they?

looks like they didn't.

want to know another idiot?

rachel maddow.

she said mccain was going to drop sarah palin. palin wasn't going to make a speech, she was going to be dumped.

maybe rachel maddow has to predict the future (badly) because she has nothing else to offer?

she's not a journalist.

she's not even smart.

she's off in egg head land.

trying to pretend she's dionne warwick but, thing is, i bet rachel maddow doesn't know the way to san jose.

la la la la la.

flyboy called me over to the phone today. we were being hit up for money from an obama caller. flyboy laughed at him. he said they dialed the wrong number and wanted to know how the hell they got our number (unlisted) to begin with?

we're not giving a cent to the democratic party this year. not for obama, not any money that's going to float back. we're giving to state races, yes, that's it. i believe c.i.'s the 1 who has held the flow back for a lot of people.

i'm not joking on that. a number of big donors (of which c.i. is always 1) got together early on (while the primary was still going on) and decided if the nomination was stolen, we wouldn't help. this is about the democratic party. and about it's future. that goes far beyond barack obama.

my mother-in-law is the same way. only she checks with people every day. 'you haven't donated, have you?' she's doing the roll call, i guess you could say.

as the party drifts ever further right (and who knew it had much right to drift to still?), big donors are saying 'no' to it because they're not going to go along with it.

after the cult of bambi whimpers, it will be time to rebuild the democratic party. and real democrats are standing strong and saying no.


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

Wednesday, September 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, China gets a windfall, US forces and Iraqi forces clash, reporters remain targeted and more.

Starting with Monday's 'handover' of Al Anbar Province. The Los Angeles Times filed an interesting report . . . at the paper's blog Babylon & Beyond. The byline-less article (16 paragraphs) talks about the very clear tensions evident in the for-show ceremony itself with Abdul-Salam Ani ("head of the Anbar provincial council") stating the tribal leaders were "trying to stir up sedition with their claims that the Islamic Party leaders ar corrupt" and Sheik Ahmed B. Abu Risha, a tribal leader and "Awakening" Movement 'fellow' who claimed it was the other way around. The article reminds, "The sharp words at the podium highlight the reason that the original handover date, in late June, was delayed. There are concerns among locals and officials that the political animosity could lead to an unraveling of the security here. Despite the tribes' actions since 2006, they remain politically disadvantaged in Anbar because they did not take part in provincial elections in 2005. Hence, the Islamic Party holds 36 of the provincial council's 41 seats."

The provincial elections will most likely not take place in 2008. Time is running out to put them in place in what remains of this year. Over the weekend Leila Fadel (McClathy Newspapers) reported that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was said to be "on a roll, and American officials are getting worried." al-Maliki is the White House puppet. He wasn't the choice of Iraq. (He wasn't even the first-round pick in the puppet pageant.) But most puppets have some form of brain. Bully Boy's on the way out. Bully Boy can't protect him. The puppet does not the "Awakening" Council members in the Iraqi military or the Iraqi police. He controls both and has staffed them with Shi'ite thugs so he doesn't want to allow in Sunni thugs. Since the start of the illegal war the US has repeatedly sided with thugs within Iraq because it was hoped that a thug could 'snap' the people into 'order' quickly. So they leaned towards Shia extremists early on and the Sunni extremists came into play only after reports on the Interior Ministry's 'security' guards' actions and other issues became news. That leaves the "Awakening" Council as a very real threat to al-Maliki. They may be more of a threat currently than the White House. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported over the weekend that al-Maliki had tossed out the "negotiating team" that was representing his interests in the treaty with the US. So al-Maliki has a new team advising him? B-b-but we were told it was all taken care of! (Told by the press rushing to create a story where there was none and ignoring repeated remarks by the US State Dept that no agreement had been reached).

So al-Maliki has a new team. Where's the team fighting for Iraqis. Sarmad Ali (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) observes the US concerns over oil prices but has "a harder time understanding why Iraqis -- with their oases of crude oil reserves and untapped oilfields in the south and the north -- have had to put up with high oil prices and severe shortages of gasoline, diesel and cooking gas." Ali explains that "ordinary Iraqis still face fueld shortage and high rates . . . three-hour lines of cars queued up for gas . . ." Nouri al-Maliki (my point, not Ali's) sits on millions and refuses to use them to make life better for the Iraqis. And the money just keeps rolling in. Eric Watkins (Oil & Gas Journal) states the oil contract to China National Petroleum Co (CNPC) has been approved by the Iraqi Oil Ministry today. Today's Azzaman sees an exclusion of the US from the oil deals and insists this is due to pressure from Iran. David Berman (Globe & Mail) dismisses "the concern about China cornering Iraqi oil, it's nonsense". BBC via redOrbit documents the press conference in Baghdad today, presided over by Husayn al-Shahrastani

Reuters new photographer Ibrahim Jassam Mohammed has been held by the US since the first of the month. Reporters Without Borders is calling for Ibrahim's immediate release and notes: "Ibrahim Jassam was picked up from his home in the capital and soldiers took him to an unknown location after checking the ID of members of his family and seizing four cameras along with his phone and laptop computer. His family still do not know why he was arrested. Jassam had worked for Reuters for four years and had received a number of anonymous death threats. More than 20 journalists have been arrested in Iraq in similar circumstances since 1st January 2008, all of whom have been released after spending days or even months in custody without any charges being made against them." Reuters quotes their Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger, "We are concerned to hear about Jassam's detention, and urge the U.S. military to either charge or release him once an initial investigatory stage is concluded. Any accusation against a journalist should be aired publicly and dealt with fairly and swiftly, with the journalist having the right to counsel and present a defense. Iraqi journalists llike Jassam play a vital role in telling this story in the world."


Anna Johnson (AP) reports on a shootout between the US and Iraqi forces -- yes, "between" the two -- that resulted in the deaths of at least 6 Iraqis and involved US boats, US helicopters (two) and who knows what else. Johnson reports the dead includes 2 Iraqi police officers, 2 Iraqi soldiers and 2 "Awakening" Council members. Reuters reports 10 more Iraqis were wounded. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) contacted M-NF and received this comment, "We have initial reports that while coalition forces were conducting operations against suspected AQI there was an incident involving weapons fire between Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces north of Tarmiyah, Baghdad. Reports indicate ISF sustained casualties. Coalition aircraft were involved in this incident. It is always regrettable when incidents of mistaken fire occur on the battlefield; a review of the circumstances is under way."

In other of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left two people wounded, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi solider with four more wounded, 2 Mosul roadside bombings which claimed 1 life and left seven wounded and a Tikrit roadside bombing that left "[s]ome policemen injured".

Shootings?

Reuters reports 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul yesterday (as well as 1 civilian shot dead in Mosul). Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a US house raid in Salahuddin province that resulted in student Tahseen Mikhlif being shot dead.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.


Turning to two journalists. John Pilger will tale questions at an event this Friday in London (Institute of Education). For ticket prices and other details click here for the notice by the UK Socialist Worker. (Click here for Pilger's most recent article at The New Statesman.) Second, independent journalist David Bacon details (at Truth Out) an immigration raid in Mississippi and quotes the National Immigration Law Center's Marielena Hincapie stating that "raids drive down wages because they intimidate workers, even citizens and legal residents. The employer brings in another batch of employees and continues business as usual, while people who protest get targeted and workers get deported. Raids really demonstrate the employer's power." Bacon's latest book has just been released: Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).

Ralph's Daily Audio is a segment of the Nader-Gonzalez presidential campaign that offers audio commentaries. This is "Nixon and Ford Now Seem Progressive:"

This is Ralph Nader. In recent weeks, I've been making the point that if voters don't condition their vote on some response by the candidates to the priority issues on the voter's minds, every four years both parties will become worse. Because, twenty-four seven, the corporate lobbies are pulling on both parties and if voters who are liberal or progressive are not pulling in the other way to make the least worse candidate accord with the important priorities favored by a majority of the American people, then the corporate interests have a pull without any pull in the other direction and you know where that leads. I was reading the other day some of the policies by Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford in the 1970s. Richard Nixon, for example, besides signing into law with enthusiastic statements, the EPA Bill, the OSHA Bill, the Product Safety Bill, among other legislation we pressed through Congress in those heady days. He offered a policy on drugs in the streets and addiction that emphasized rehabilitation of drug addicts, not incarceration and imprisonment. He proposed a health insurance plan that observers say was better than the Clinton plan, He supported and articulated a minimum income plan to move the country toward abolishing poverty No other president has done that since. And he favored vocally the voting rights for the disenfranchised citizens of the District of Columbia.
Can you imagine a president today demanding an excess profit tax on the oil companies and demanding higher fuel efficiency for motor vehicles in no uncertain terms? Well that's what President Gerald Ford did following Richard Nixon in the 1970s.
See what I mean about both parties getting worse when we as voters freak out, vote for the least worst and let the least worst be pulled by the corporate interest closer to the worst every four years? This is Ralph Nader.

And this is "Corporate Hands in Your Pockets:"

This is Ralph Nader. I was watching the CBS national Evening News with Katie Couric on Friday. And she came on with an interesting segment about how people are charged for services they never receive. She highlighted one woman who had a back operation and She was billed about $60,000 and it turned out $40,000 of that $60,000 were for phantom charges -- things she never received, were never treated with. Well that's just the tip of the iceberg. The General Accounting Office years ago estimated that billing fraud in the health care industry is 10% the entire health care bill of the whole nation. This year that would mean $230 billion.
Imagine $230 billion dollars. Malcom Sparrow the applied mathametician at Harvard who specialises in health care billing fraud thinks that that is the most conservative estimate. Have you ever heard any of the presidential candidates talk about billing fraud phenomena year after year that costs more than the war in Iraq?
Have you ever heard any of the presidential candidates -- John McCain, Barack Obama, or the primary candidates for that matter in the Republican-Democratic Party ever mention or pay attention to a rip-off phenomon that is costing more than the Iraq War at least in dollas --
Well that's why the Nader - Gonzales is so necessary to provide the contrast, the alternative to focus on the need to crack down on corporate crime, fraud and abuse that is looting or draining trillions of dollars from consumers, worker-pensions, savers, mutual funds
It's all reported in the mainstream press except this billing fraud that I just mentioned from Enron to Wall St. and yet John McCain and Barack Obama have no program to engage in the necessary resources and willpower to crack down and prevent corporate crime fraud and abuse including corporate crime ripping off Medicare in the billions of dollars.
Just another difference between Nader-Gonzalez and McCain-Obama the corporate candidate. Thank you.

Ralph Nader in the independent presidential candidate. Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party's presidential candidate. Cynthia willl be on C-Span1's Road to the White House this Sunday (September 7th) which will air at 6:30 p.m. EST (repeating at 9:30 p.m. EST the same night). Among those supporting Cynthia's run are the one and only Roseanne, Black Agenda Report and Carolyn of MakeThemAccountable. In the August 26th snapshot, we noted her interview with Gabriel San Roman (Uprising Radio). Gabriel San Roman provides a text version of that audio interview at Black Agenda Report this week:

GSR: How do you seek to redefine sources of electoral power come November?CM: My political career started in the state of Georgia as a member of the Georgia Legislature. When I ran for that particular position, the corporate press all touted the fact that I was not going to win and yet we were able to win. We won because of people power. We went outside the existing electorate. We brought new people in. That is, of course, one of the hopes that we have with this campaign. We hope we are going to bring new people into the political process and let them see the efficacy of their vote. Now how is it that we can do that? We have to talk about the fact that we are operating in a political environment that lacks election integrity. One of the things I have been able to say quite convincingly because of the precedent set four years ago by the Green Party and David Cobb is that the day after the election when there are reports of disfranchisement and fraud, the Green Party is going to be there when the Democratic Party capitulates. It was in 2000 that we know that the voters of this country gave the Democrats the White House and instead they didn't even fight for the victory that the voters gave them. They capitulated to the Republicans and allowed George W. Bush to assume the presidency. Again in 2004, John Kerry promised that we would not see this kind of action on behalf of the Democratic Party that took place in 2000. In 2004, on the very next day, even as the reports were coming in from Ohio, John Kerry conceded. He gave up once again. He gave up the White House, so that George W. Bush could continue this reign of terror on people inside of this country and outside this country.
So now comes 2008. We understand that there are already efforts afoot to disenfranchise certain populations through the Voter ID laws that have been passed in various legislatures as well as with voter caging. Voter caging is just a fancy way of saying you show up at the polls on election day and you find out that your name is not on the voter list. What is your recourse? You have none. You don't get to vote. If you have the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot, there's no guarantee that the provisional ballot will be counted. We still have to deal with the electronic voting machines. The ills of the 2000 election remain with us. The ills of the 2004 election remain with us. New ills have been placed on top of those ills for the 2008 election. It will be the Green Party and activists across this country who will demand election integrity and who will move from protest to resistance. That is what we have to do now.

GSR: You mentioned protest. Define a vote for Cynthia McKinney in this election. Is it a protest vote or something more substantive?CM: It's a values vote. What we are asking people to do is vote their values. I am so proud to say that at a recent meeting with Rosanne Barr she said, "I'm sick and tired of being put in a box. I'm going to vote my values. I'm going to vote Green." We invite people to join the Power to the People campaign. This is a campaign that seeks to include everyone. We want to draw from every population that feels that somehow their values are not represented by the powers that be. They are not represented by the two corporate parties. They are not represented by any other way, shape, fashion or form. And so perhaps the Power to the People campaign and the Green Party can express the views and the values of people who want peace for a change. They want ecological wisdom for a change. They want social justice for a change. They want real democracy for a change. That's what the Green Party vote represents and so I invite everyone to vote your values and vote Green.
Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) explains, "Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are running for president and vice-president on the Green Party ticket, but their larger goal is to reignite a mass movement based on principles that are anathema to the financiers that call the shots in the Obama campaign. They are among the voices that have not been silenced in this deformed election cycle." Meanwhile Chris Hedges encourages people to examine the health care plan Barack is proposing and to show spine, "We on the left, those who should be out there fighting for universal health care and total and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, sit like lap dogs on the short leashes of our Democratic (read corporate) masters. We yap now and then, but we have forgotten how to snarl and bite. We have been domesticated. And until we punish the two main parties the way big corporations do, by withdrawing support and funding when our issues are ignored, we will remain irrelevant and impotent. I detest Bill O'Reilly, but he is right on one thing-we liberals are a spineless lot. . . . We need to throw our support behind alternative candidates who champion what we care about, whether Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader."

iraq
david bacon
john pilger
glen fordblack agenda report
uprising radio
chris hedges
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
leila fadel
the los angeles timesned parker
sarmad ali
the wall st. journal
cbs evening newskatie couric

it's not about republican or democratic

be sure to read elaine's 'I don't support the War Resisters Support Campaign...,' marcia's 'Laura Kaminker: Her own little fan club' and betty's 'The sock puppet master calls.' all 3 posts are wonderful. how about that crazy kaminker, huh? kaminker and her sock puppets. if she didn't have her sock puppets, she wouldn't have any audience, would she?

and exactly how long is the ineffective war resisters support campaign going to use her as a 'face' - it's a scary face, granted, and it's becoming a dangerous face.

i'll move to other topics. let's go to the topic. this is from joan vennochi's 'For Jane Swift, harsh spotlight on Palin has familiar feel' (boston globe):

Jane Swift, the former acting governor of Massachusetts, hopes voters will start focusing on Sarah Palin's record as governor of Alaska and stop focusing on questions about her family.
But Swift is not surprised that, first, "folks are obsessing with the personal aspects of her life."
Swift, an early John McCain supporter, is protective about his surprise pick for running mate, especially when it comes to the media frenzy over Palin's family.
"I wish people showed more discretion with me," said Swift. She wishes the same for Palin.
The focus on Palin's 17-year-old, pregnant, unmarried daughter "is so far beyond the pale of what's appropriate," she said.
To Swift, the harsh spotlight on Palin has a familiar feel. Swift was pregnant with twins when, as lieutenant governor, she took over for Paul Cellucci when he left the governor's office before his term was up. Her personal life was criticized and her qualifications questioned.

i'm going to talk about the above in brief. i'm not going to focus on the daughter.

i'm going to focus on the fact that, until last year, i had multiple pregnacies which all resulted in miscarriages.

had i gotten pregnant at 17, it wouldn't have been the end of my life. my life would have been different.

it wouldn't be what it is today, to be sure.

whether it would be better or worse, i don't know.

and neither does any 1 else.

so when people think the way to make 'political sport' is to go after a 17-year-old girl in public, what they are saying is that they don't think she has a future and that it's more than worthy to humiliate her in order to score a few points for barack.

the 17-year-old girl is living her life and the last thing anyone pregnant needs is to be made the focus of trash talk. there's no reason for it.

this is the 1st and last time i intend to mention it at my site.

but i want all the 1s who are talking trash about that young girl to think about something: i had repeated miscarriages.

i had them and other women can as well. a 17-year-old girl already has enough pressure on herself without you tongue wagging and clucking. it is none of your damn business. and if you add stress to her and, god forbid, anything goes wrong in her pregnancy, you will be partly responsible.

you need to think about that before you trash her again.

it's not about republican or democratic. it is about respecting some 1's privacy. (and for any drive-bys, i am voting for ralph nader.)

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

Tuesday, September 2, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, propaganda continues, the US military announces a death and more.


On Monday, Al Anbar Province was 'turned' over to the Iraqis (don't try to define that term -- it's in dispute) and M-NF (Multi-National Forces) issued a press release officially and unofficially in the New York Times via their backchannel boy Dexy Filkins. There's not a great deal of difference between the two, there never is. The US military spits and Dexy's mouth is open trying to catch it. Nowhere in that overly long article does he even acknowledge that the 'handover' was repeatedly announced and repeatedly postponed. It's all rah-rah from Dexy. Reality, the US military long ago realized that they couldn't have any impact on Anbar. Which is why the "Awakening" Councils (Sunni thugs placed on the US payroll) were originally created. If the US couldn't scare the hell of out of the inhabitants, lets put thugs on the payroll, put them in charge and let that scare the hell out of the inhabitants. It's not a 'success' strategy but, hey, Dexy got to attend a parade and who knows how much praise he'll get from the US military for his 'reporting' this go-round. He certainly got plenty last time and, as Thomas E. Ricks revealed in the Washington Post (after Dexy left Iraq the first time), the US military considered Dexy to be their go-to-guy. As Christian Parenti long ago noted (2005), the reality is that Dexy of the paper and Dexy in person bear no recognizable relationship to one another. As if to prove that point made earlier today, this afternoon The Atlantic has published Jeffy Goldberg and Dexy's dishing in Q&A form and there's Dexy saying "I don't think so" (to whether Iraq is a democracy") and offering this on 'progress' and 'safety': "A couple of days later I went to Sadr City, also at dusk. Sadr City is a vast slum that takes in about three million people. It's the stronghold of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia, and it's been the scene of heavy fighting, as recently as a few months ago. I was with some Iraqi friends. It felt perfectly normal. Then one of my Iraqi friends said to me, 'What do you think would happen if you were alone?' And I said, 'What?' And he and the other Iraqis laughed and said: 'You'd be dead in ten seconds'." Go down, Dexy indeed.

In order to sell Anbar as 'progress' a number of facts need to be forgotten such as how many times Anbar was already supposed to have been handed over (last June most prominently). Forgetting is also required of last Thursday's Baghdad press confrence when 'freedom of the press' got a little too 'free' for US Lt Gen Frank G Helmick as he barked "one question, please, at a time" when realities began emerging about Anbar in the questions. Among the many hard-to-find-rah-rah-in-that statements was Iraq's Interior Minister Jawad al-Bulani's insistence that, "We're having a plan to develop the capability of Anbar police through providing them with arms." Good to know you're having a plan, to bad it's a bad plan and one that's not even implemented. AFP quotes US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker (whom they call "US ambassador to Bagdhad" -- which is certainly more telling) declaring limited success with Gen David Petraeus at the Monday events as the Americans cautioned that they were just withdrawing to their base and would still be around 'as needed' should the need arise. (Think the UK and Basra.) AP quotes US Maj Gen John Kelly at the same ceremonies declaring, "Al Qaeda has not been entirely defeated in Anbar, but their end is near and they know it." And, apparently, so does Psychic John.

No one's supposed to notice that Monday's big to do about nothing was to cover the fact that Iraq is no closer to holding provincial elections (a White House imposed benchmark) before the end of the year. AFP reports that there are exactly two weeks left for Iraqi lawmakers to come to agreement or else there will be no elections until next year,

Turning to the "Awakening" Councils. They are the thugs on the US payroll (men are paid $300 a month, women are paid far less -- and on one lodged an objection to that). They are the thugs who sold their allegience for coin. al-Maliki has surrounded himself with Shi'ite thugs and has always been threatened by the prospect of their Sunni counter-parts. He's made clear that the bulk of them will not be absorbed into any Iraqi body (police or military) and, in fact, has launched attacks on the Diyala Province. Erica Goode (New York Times) reports the al-Maliki government says it will begin issuing payment at the first of October and she quotes "Awakening" commander in Baghdad Ali Bahjet dismissing all the Happy Talk by noting that he has been "assured" by the US military "that 'our contracts will be renewed for the next six months, beginning Sept. 1'" and quotes him adding, "We are sure that the American will continue financing our program because this program . . ."

Turning to some of today's reported violence.

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that claimed 4 lives and left twenty-three wounded, a Ninevah car bombing that claimed 7 lives and left seven peopl injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Kirkuk roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 child and left his father and brother wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul car bombing that claimed 4 lives (plus the drive) and left six people wounded.

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "a mother and her two children" were kidnapped in Nineveh.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 2 corpses were discoverd in Suwayra.

Today the US military announces: "Multi-National Division -- Center reported a non-combat related death in Baghdad Sept. 2." It's the first death M-NF has announced for Septemeber (which doesn't mean it's the first death, especially considering how often they forget to do their job of announcing) and it brings the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4152.

Barbara Starr (CNN) reports US Secretary of Defense "Robert Gates is expected to present proposals to cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq to President Bush, along with proposals for beefing up American forces in Afghanistan". Barring some huge change of direction at this week's Republican Party convention, the two major parties will both be offering the American people cuts and calling them "withdrawal." Turning to the US presidential race, not content to disgrace themselves on the front page of the New York Times today, the press decided to do so at the White House. "One last question for you," a reporter who will remain nameless asks, "because this is another on that you hear a lot -- this issue is raising a lot of questions and sort of prompting a lot of debate about -- the idea of Sarah Palin, mother of five, soon to be grandmother of one, coming to Washington potentially as a vice president, in the most demanding job one could imagine. Any issues raised there about the whole motherhood-work divide?" Pay attention to Dana Perino (White House flack) responding because even WMC blows it (and Feminist Wire Daily still doesn't appear to have noticed a woman had been named as a running mate), " You know, I don't think that those questions would be asked if it was Todd Palin that was the nominee. And I think that Sarah Palin has proven that you can choose as a woman to be a mother and be a strong executive, and to have a wonderful, loving family. And that's what she's chosen to do. And I think that's why the party has rallied around her so fully." Exactly right. Dana Perino got something 100% right today -- a rare thing for her. But not only was it rare for her, it's too much for many 'lefties.' The question WOULD NOT and HAS NOT been asked of a man. But Palin, John McCain's running mate pick if he gets the GOP nomination, is being 'probed' in what should damn well remind many of the crap Kimba Woods and others had to put up with over 15 years ago. It wasn't right then, it's not now. The paper of little record tries to hide behind "Mommy Wars" to 'cover' the non-story. Susan (Random Thoughts) gets right to the point, noting no one gives a damn about Barak's two children while he's on a ticket but Palin is supposed to be uanble to have kids and run for VP: "The article reeks of sexism. The message is clear: If you're a woman and you've just had kids, don't bother running for high political office." Joseph (Cannonfire) notes the garbage that's been thrown at Palin already (false rumors) and where it's coming from: The Daily Toilet Scrubber and Andrew Bareback Mountain Sullivan. Somehow Bob Somerby, covering similar terrain, can only hiss at Andy Sullivan -- well Somerby's always been scared of his own shadow. As for a non-rumor regarding Palin's family that is also non-news, my opinion is here and Anglachel offers her own here. It's a real shame that Stephanie Miller (who wants no one digging through her closets) has chosen to demonstrate just how trashy she is on this topic and it's even sadder that Women's Media Center finds her to be a voice worth quoting in an article. As pointed out here last night, "And 'scoring' a 'win' for Barack via smut only further adds to the perception that he has nothing to run on and no qualifications. Why else would you be tearing into a young girl?"

The RNC is currently holding their convention and will select their presidential nominee (presumably John McCain). Amy Goodman's already found attention getting stunts to get her name in the headlines. She could have pulled the same stunts in Denver and faced the same police treatment. But Denver was about her selling the Democratic Party and Minneapolis is about her tarring and feathering the RNC. (Most years, we generally let the RNC tar and feather itself. But it's CrackPot time these days.) Ava and I addressed Goody's garbage Sunday but two things need to be noted Obama Groupie Patricia Wilson-Smith LIED on air and got away with it. She said early on (sticking with the talking point) that she was for Hillary originally, as she became more heated she wanted the whole world to know about the work she's been doing: ". . . I've been working so tirelessly over the last year and a half for Senator Obama". It's not both ways. Wilson-Smith lied. Get used to it. You'll see a lot more woman trying to tell you they were Hillary supporters at the start and then went over to Barack with the implication being that you can as well! Don't believe liars. Do what you want, but don't believe liars. The second thing is that, as noted, there was no convention bounce for Barack. As Ava and I noted:

The Thursday speech was a whimper (and as we feared last week, no one taught Barack to modulate). The entire week was a Love-In. Only, unlike past love-ins, it wasn't about "us" (however, you define the noun), it was about Barack. Try to get it if you support Barack (we don't) because you (his supporters and the media) continue to hurt his chances of winning in November. Americans want to elect a president to work for them. Americans aren't electing a Love God, a Second Coming, a Homecoming King. James Carville has famously (and rightly) called the first night as a disaster. It was a disaster. The disaster continued all week, with few exceptions. The convention was supposed to bring America on board. What was being sold? It wasn't the Democratic Party. It wasn't a need to make the country better. It was Barack, Barack, Barack, Barack. Over and over. Here's reality that the campaign better start accepting: Barack is not experienced. That's a reality. America will gladly take a chance on a candidate if they believe the candidate has something to offer them. You need to accept the reality and you need to drop the testimonials. If you're serious about getting Barack into the White House (we plan to offer advice when we cover the GOP convention as well), you need to start making it about America and not about Barack. It was a vanity parade. It was grown adults embarrassing themselves like Baby Soxers. It was never about where American can go, only that Barack could lead.
"Change to what?" was the question created during the primaries by the campaign refusing to be specific. "Lead us where?" is the question they replaced it with as a result of the convention. And, just like during the primaries, they had no answer to the question their actions raised. Four nights of non-stop infomercials told you there was a product named Barack and that you should buy it. But no one could ever tell you what Barack could or would do. Now people may buy a number of things from infomercials. They might buy a treadmill or a hair care product or anything else. But the infomerical has to tell you what it does. Repeating "It's great!" over and over doesn't sell the product. And the convention didn't sell to America. It may have picked up a few converts. It didn't provide what Barack needed or anything he could build on. Four percent is what we're told the 'bounce' was. Four percent isn't a bounce and isn't even beyond the statistical margin of error. In other words, four four days, a non-stop infomercial ran and it didn't sell a damn thing.

Yesterday, Cedric's "The polling doth not riseth" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! CHRIST-CHILD FALTERS!" noted the polls being released reflected no bounce. This is where reasonable take their heads out of their asses and begin to notice there is a problem -- yes, even if they are Barack supporters. Someone who is not a Barack supporter is Eric Patton (Dissident Voice) and he demonstrates how the right plays to win and the left plays to lose

The right wing makes their candidates earn their support. They don't beg and plead. On the other hand, it seems like the only thing liberals know how to do is piss, whine, cry, moan, complain -- and especially beg and plead.
If you have to do a "Progressives for ," instead of doing it after the candidate has wrapped up the nomination, a better strategy -- if you really want to win -- would be to pick a candidate like Kucinich (whom I personally am not enamored with for reasons that go beyond the scope of this essay; however, there is no doubt he was the farthest left of the Democratic candidates, and massive left support for him would not have been, I don't think, a bad tactical move) and get behind him strongly at least two years before the election, if not sooner.
Let's put this another way: Suppose McCain wins, which I think is likely. If you must support somebody, then begin in December 2008 planning for the election in November 2012. Find out if Kucinich is planning on running again. If he is, start your Progressives for Kucinich website then, bust your ass for four years, and see what happens.
So why didn't the liberals behind Progressives for Obama do that? Because for them, it's not about winning change -- it's about electing Democrats. It's about the home team. It's about the gang colors. As Obama was making his expected (by radicals) moves to the right, the phenomenal left-wing writer Paul Street asked Obama supporters how far was too far? Their answer was, in effect, that it made no difference.

Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are running for president and both candidates want a real end to the illegal war, not smoke and mirrors, not word games, just the illegal war ended. At McKinney's website John Judge outlines the differences between the Green ticket and the Democrat ticket:

As the Democratic National Convention continued, Green Party leaders called attention to sharp differences between the Democratic ticket and Green nominees Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente.
Greens congratulated Mr. Obama on his historic nomination as the first African American presidential candidate of an established party in the US. But Greens noted that the nomination of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente in July is also historically significant -- the first time a national political party has chosen two women of color. Ms. McKinney is African American and Ms. Clemente is Black Puerto Rican.
"There's a whole list of urgent issues that Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are talking about, while Barack Obama and Joe Biden remain silent," said Cliff Thornton, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States and co-founder of Efficacy, Inc. (http://www.Efficacy-online.org). "The Democrats don't want to discuss the
devastation caused by the failed War on Drugs, or abuses by the police, courts, and Homeland Security authorities. They won't mention the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections by the Republicans or address the mass displacement of poor and African American people from New Orleans. For Cynthia and Rosa, these are major issues affecting the future of our country."

Meanwhile, the Ralph Nader-Matt Gonzalez ticket files for the ballot in Kentucky tomorrow and their state coordinator, Jim Wiese, will hold a news conference at the Secretary of State's office at three o'clock in the afternoon tomorrow: "A broad range of issues face Kentucky voters this election. Kentucky has one of the nation's highest illiteracy rates, compounded by fluctuating, and sometimes frozen, teacher salaries. Coal strip mining continues in Eastern Kentucky, despite its devastating effects on the environment. Lastly, a universal health care plan is definitely needed in a state which holds a high incidence of diabetes cases. The Nader/Gonzalez Campaign offers solutions to these and many other problems facing the working families of Kentucky that Obama /McCain fail to offer. For example, Nader and Gonzalez will guarantee a decent education for all, ban mountaintop removal and launch a "Marshall Plan" to repair the Nation's crumbling schools, clinic, roads, bridges and other important infrastructure, creating millions of new jobs. Nader/Gonzalez favors a Canadian-style, private delivery, free choice of hospital and doctor, public health insurance system." Team Nader notes:

The general election campaign kicks off today.
To rev up our engines, drop $8 on Nader/Gonzalez now.
That's one dollar a week between now and election day--November 4.
I've worked on all three Nader campaigns--2000, 2004, and 2008.
And trust me on this one. This year, we have the best chance to break through.
Why?
There's a serious and growing independent movement away from the corporate Democrats and Republicans.
We're going to be on more state ballots this year -- 45 states (plus the District of Columbia) compared to 34 in 2004 and 44 in 2000.
We're heading toward double digits in a number of key state polls.
And because we are going to implement a nationwide get out the vote drive that will put 2000 and 2004 to shame.
Translation -- we're shooting for a three way race.
The last sixty days between now and election day will be a blur.
We have our Minneapolis rally coming up later this week. (If we don't all get arrested first -- apparently the police in Minneapolis arrest you for political organizing.)
We're in the process of transferring our ballot access crew over to our nationwide get out the vote drive.
And then it's going to be all out, pedal to the metal --- precinct by precinct drive --- until November 4--to let the American people know that they have a choice.
It's been one helluva year so far.
And it's going one knock down drag out fight.
Bring it on.
But first things first.
Thanks to your help, we have not missed one fundraising goal this year. And we don't plan to start now.
We're entering the home stretch of our most recent drive.
We're at $55,000.
But we need to hit $100,000 in three days -- by this coming Thursday September 4. That's $15,000 a day. It's go time.
So, give whatever you can afford now -- $10, $20, $50, $100.
And remember, if you give $100 or more now, we'll send you three DVDs -- the Denver rally, the Minneapolis rally, and a special debate DVD. (Three DVD offer ends September 4 at 11:59 p.m.)
Onward to November.
And what we hope will be a three-way race.
Jason Kafoury, National Campaign Coordinator

iraq
the new york timeserica goode
dexter filkins
mohammed al dulaimy
mcclatchy newspapers
the third estate sunday review
the daily jotcedrics big mix