The share of new recruits labeled "high quality" by the Army -- those with at least a high-school diploma and who rank in the top half of the military's qualification test -- has also dropped markedly since the Iraq war began, from 56.2% in 2005 to 44.6% last year. Recruits from families with annual incomes below $60,000 are over-represented in uniform, the study says, while those from families earning more are under-represented. The higher-income, better-educated recruits are especially prized by the Army because they have the skills needed to master the increasingly complex equipment that now accompanies a military force onto the battlefield. Army officials have acknowledged the steady slide in recruit quality, but insist that no unqualified soldiers are being sent into combat.
that's from mark thompson's 'Army Recruiting More Dropouts' (time magazine) and probably the only thing worth reading in the entire article. c.i.'s covering this in the snapshot today but i wanted to open with it because i want it to be the 1st thing you see.
most of my readers are in middle school, high school or college.
recruiters lie. c.i. e-mailed me an article a friend at a paper wanted a link to. c.i. said 'no way.' it's a really bad article. and in it there's a kid who just signed up and he's saying that recruiters don't lie because everything you need to know is in your contract. well, if you're supposed to read the contract, then of course they are lying.
but for the kid who thinks he's just so smart, did he read all of the contract and understand it? i doubt it or he wouldn't be praising the contract. there's a clause in there that says the military can change the rules anytime they want. it's not a binding contract for them. it is for any 1 who signs it.
if you sign it, you're not allowed to change the rules. but the military doesn't have to abide by the contract.
in a real democracy, that would have been addressed by the courts a long time ago.
it's a lie.
you're giving people verbal promises which aren't supported by the contract but you present it to them and they think, 'wow this must cover what we've discussed and finalize it.'
don't toss out that buyer beware nonsense. that goes to sales. when it comes to the u.s. government, we're all supposed to believe we can trust them.
but on top of that it's not a contract. a contract is an agreement 2 (or more) parties enter into. it is binding on both sides.
the military reserves the right to change the contract at any time, with no notice.
the only 1 bound by the 'contract' is the person signing it.
in a functioning democracy, the courts would have stepped up a long time ago and stated, 'this isn't a contract.' they also would have dealt with the verbal promise aspect because when a representative of the government (a recruiter) lies, it cheapens and betrays democracy.
c.i. forwarded me something that came out after the snapshot. this is from elana schor's 'Democrats demand veto power for US-Iraq proposal' (guardian of london):
Democrats in Congress opened a new front today in their battle to extricate the US from Iraq, pressing for veto power over a long-term security pact that the Bush administration is planning with Baghdad.
Under early terms of the pact that were agreed to by the two nations last fall, the US military is bound to help protect the Baghdad government for the foreseeable future.
Alarmed at the prospect of George Bush locking the US armed forces into defending Iraq even when America does not perceive a threat, Democrats responded by pushing for congressional oversight of the agreement.
as any 1 with knowledge of the constitution knows, bully boy can't do that. congress already has veto powers. they are so damn weak. they don't have to push for the right to say no, they just have to say 'no.'
they always argue from a weakened stand. instead of hollering, 'you are attempting to circumvent the constitution!' they beg and plead for powers - and they already have those powers.
c.i. talked about this in yesterday's snapshot (and has written about it repeatedly). c.i. also noted this from the monday debate in yesterday's snapshot:
Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.
on that, hillary is 100% correct and it was her 2nd strongest moment in the debate. (her 1st? rezko. he's in all the papers and on all the programs as bambi rushes to say 'i barely knew him.')
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, January 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq attempts to wrestle the title Land of Poppies from Afghanistan, the fifth year of the illegal war could cost $100 billion more than the first year, the US army has a recruiting problem, and more.
Starting with war resistance.
A Lieutenant in the army
in his heart and his soul he believes
in the land of the free
and the home of the brave
now he's standing on trial
for he will not behave
as they wish
ya-iya-a-wayy
He said "I believe the constitution
to dfend it and uphold
I will not fight your war for profit
no sir I will not go"
Imagine that.
So sings Melissa Ethridge on track fifteen ("Imagine That") of her lastest CD The Awakening about Ehren Watada. [The Awakening gets a strong review from Detorit's Metro Times.] Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He has rightly termed it an illegal war. After a kangaroo court-martial in February, Watada -- whose service contract ran out in December 2006 -- remains in the military as he waits to see what happens next. The Constitutional provision against double-jeopardy should mean he can't be court-martialed again and, thus far, the court of appeals has held that to be the case with Judge Benjamin Settle noting in November that Watada will likely win on the double-jeopardy clause.
Some war resisters refuse to go, some refuse to return. In both groups, some go to Canada and attempt to be granted asylum. On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."
Today Bryan Bender (Boston Globe) reports that the number of recruits to the US army who hold a high school diploma has reached "a 25-year-low" and had "dropped more than 12 percent between 2005 and 2007" -- "from almost 84 percent in 2005 to less than 71 percent last year" according to a new study conducted by the National Priorities Project. Let's flashback to the October 31, 2006 snapshot: "In ridiculous news, CBS and AP report that the White House (which can't even give an accurate count on how many US troops have died in Iraq -- not even one that matches their own Pentagon's count) is attacking US Senator John Kerry as a 'troop basher' because he noted in a California speech on Monday: 'You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.' The truth in those remarks (recruiters target the lower class with less hopes of a college education) struck to close to home with the White House leading Tony Snow to demand that Kerry apologize to all those serving. The apology should come right after Bully Boy apologizes for (a) starting the illegal war and (b) using Daddy's connections to get out of serving in Iraq and yet not even bothering to show up for his National Guard Training." The February 14, 2007 snapshot noted that 'moral' waivers to recruits who had criminal records had increased by 65% and that " Lizette Alvarez (New York Times) reports this increase has come in the last three years, that '[t]he number of waivers for felony convictions also increased, to 11 percent of the 8,129 moral waivers granted in 2006, from 8 percent,' and that '[t]he Defense Department has also expanded its applicant pool by accepting soldiers with criminal backgrounds and medical problems like asthma, high blood pressure and attention deficit disorder'." Today on KPFK's Uprising Radio, Sonali Kolhatkar addressed the findings noting that "the army's failure to meet the benchmark last year is part of a downward trend since 2005." What's not being noted are the lies the army only recently put out. Lolita C. Baldor (AP) reported on January 10th of this year that the army was singing the praises of their Active First program for recruits and "The Defense Department also announced that all services met or exceeded their recruiting goals in December." Really? A twenty-five year low on recruits with at least a high school diploma is 'meeting or exceeding' goals? As Kolhatkar noted the Department of Defense's goal was 90% and it didn't meet it. Exceeding goals? Josh White (Washington Post) notes that "Army officials confirmed that they have lowered their standards to meet high recruiting goals in the middle of two ongoing wars" and quotes the National Priorities Project's Anita Dancs stating, "The trend is clear. They're missing their benchmarks, and I think it's strongly linked to the impact [of] the Iraq war." Dancs was Kolhatkar's guest today for the first segment of Uprising Radio and they addressed how the Freedom of Information requests resulted in the data and other topics.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Now the army attributes this drop in getting high school recruits to declining high school graduation rates over all. Is that something that the National Priorities Project agrees with?
Anita Dancs: No. I think -- that may be a slight factor. But the real factor we're talking about is the impact of the Iraq War. This just, our analysis of army recruiting data, just points to the larger failure of the Iraq War. Increasingly youth are realizing that the Iraq War was an unneccessary war, it was one led by deception on the part of the administration, it's bad foreign policy, and youth -- and youth that have alternatives, other alternatives, are just much more reluctant to go into the army and fight in a war that is unnecessary and that, at this point, looks like it's never going to end.
Sonali Kolhatkar: Now I understand the military has had to increase the number of waivers and raise enlistment bonuses
Anita Dancs: Right
Sonali Kolhatkar: -- to try to entice people and I think at the same time, as I mentioned, your group found that upper-middle and high income neighborhoods were under-represented among US army recruits. Essentially, are we seeing a trend towards an army of poorer and poorer Americans?
Anita Dancs: Right. I think, I think the first time we did this study was with 2004 data and what we found was that the upper-middle and high income neighborhoods are under-represented but with this most recent study of the 2007 data we found that those neighborhoods are even less represented than they were in 2004. And low to middle income neighborhoods are even more over-represented and I think this really speaks to when you're looking at the strategies by the Department of Defense that has been increasing enlistment bonuses, increasing re-enlistment bonuses, introducing new bonus programs where kids in high school can sign up to join the army later and get paid a thousand dollars a month now. It's crazy but they're using economic incentives and it does appear that the youth with the fewest alternatives who maybe can't afford to go to college or maybe didn't make it through high school are being recruited into the army because they don't have other economic alternatives.
Part of alternatives is knowing that they are out there, a point Aimee Allison and David Solnit's Army Of None cover in their book. Dancs felt that counter-recruitment was having some effects but noted that the are up against the overwhelming US military budget (funded by tax payers). Earlier this month Brandi Cummings (South Carolina's WIStv -- link has text and video) reported on military recruiter Sgt. Robert Jordan going to the local Target and inserting cards in clothing there in violation of the "no solicitation" policy that Target has. Leigh Nichols tipped the station off after she bought her thirteen-year-old son a pair of pants and they found Jordan's business card. At the National Priorities Project you can find more information.
On the topic of governmental monies, yesterday Iraq's Parliament was unable to agree on their 2008 budget; however, they did agree on a flag. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) provides the background and the realities explaining that the 'big' vote was for a "tempoary" flag and "is another band-aid solution. The constitution requires that the parliament pass a new law to pick a flag for Iraq and a national anthem. . . . In technical terms Iraq still has no flag and no anthem. Little has been decided that lasts in Iraq. The heads of the political blocs put the problem off for another year. In a year maybe the problem will again be solved at a later date." As for the 2008 budget, Ammar Karim (AFP) reports on the stumbling blocks noting, "Most of the unease, however, stems from a decision to allocate 17 percent of the budget to the oil-rich autonomous Kurdish region and on top of that to pay for its peshmerga security force from the national defence budget."
And what of the theft of Iraqi oil with Big Oil set to meet with Iraqi Oil Minster Hussein al-Shahristani? Andy Rowell (Oil Change) notes, "Iraq has extended a deadline for international companies to register a bid for a role in developing some of the nation's prized oil fields, until February 18, the Oil Ministry has confirmed." The extension comes as a meeting has already taken place. Qassim Hidhir (Kurdish Globe) reports delegates from the Kurdistan Regional Government (northern Iraq) went to Baghdad today where they were to address "the Oil and Gas Law and the issue of oil contracts signed by the KRG with a number of foreign oil companies." The central government in Baghdad has stated those contracts are null and void. Hidhir reports that they are calling for a new Iraqi Oil Minister and that, "The KRG delegation said the U.S. Department of State Secretary Assistant for Oil Affairs, Robin Jeffery, will attend the meetings in an attempt to mediate between Baghdad and Kurdistan." Alsumaria notes that Falah Mostafa, Director of Foreign Relations Office in Kurdistan Cabinet, has refused to invite the Oil Minister to the talks. As for Iraq's Oil Minister, AP notes that Hussein al-Shahristani has announced he will take part in the Davos World Economic Forum where he "is expected to launch discussions with European gas consumers about the possibility of pumping gas from Akkas gas field in western Iraq to Europe through Syria."
While the theft of oil may be in doubt (in terms of the timeline), other things are very clear. Example, opium is a cash crop in Iraq. Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports, "The cultivation of opium poppies whose product is turned into heroin is spreading rapidly across Iraq as farmers find they can no longer make a living through growing traditional crops." Cockburn notes that it has spread from Diwaniyah Province to Diayala Province and:
The growing and smuggling of opium will be difficult to stop in Iraq because much of the country is controlled by criminalised militias. American successes in Iraq over the past year have been largely through encouraging the development of a 70,000-strong Sunni Arab militia, many of whose members are former insurgents linked to protection rackets, kidnapping and crime. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the powerful Shia militia, the Mehdi Army, says that criminals have infiltrated its ranks.
The move of local warlords, both Sunni and Shia, into opium farming is a menacing development in Iraq, where local political leaders are often allied to gangsters.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba roadside bombing targeting US collaborators in the "Awakening" Council that left two members wounded, a Kirkuk car bombing that claimed 5 lives and left twelve people, a roadside bombing attack on Col. Yadgar Shukr Abdu Allah. In addition, there's the Mosul bombing. AFP notes an Al-Dibis car bombing that claimed 6 lives. CNN says five but notes the police expect the number to increase. Al Jazeera notes, "Witnesses to Wednesday's blast said it was one of the biggest explosions to hit Mosul, the capital of Ninawa province and 390km north of Baghdad." AFP explains, "Police Brigadier General Abdul al-Juburi said a powerful blast ripped through an empty three-storey apartment block in Mosul, Iraq's main northern city, bringing the building down and shattering adjoining houses." Paul Tait and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) count 15 dead and 132 injured and "Heavy equipment had been brought in to dig for survivors." CBS and AP note that the death toll is now 17 and they quote Um Mohammed who was in the midst of preparing dinner when the bombing took place, "Everything on the kitchen shelves fell on me, and I started to scream for help until my husband came and took me to the hospital."
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Iraqi soldiers shot dead in Baghdad with two more wounded, Munthir Ridha (Baghdad University's "dean of Dental medicine") shot dead in Baghdad and yesterday the Iraqi military shot dead a man in Mosul "and confiscated his car" and, also yesterday, Mosul University's Ali Suleiman Mohammad was shot dead in the continued attacks on educators.
Kidnappings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports engineer Ali Mahmood was kidnapped in Basra and two people were kidnapped outside of Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
From deaths to the lies that caused it, Gil Kaufman (MTV News) reports on the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism's study, "For years, the Bush administration has faced charges that it bent the truth or flat-out misled the public about Iraq's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of the country. Now, a study by two nonprofit journalism organizations claims that President Bush and top officials in his administration issued nearly 1,000 false statements about the security threat posed by Iraq in the wake of 9/11. The total is 935 lies and 259 of them were made by the Bully Boy. Next highest ranking? Dick Cheney? Condi? No. The Blot -- Colin Powell with 244. "False Pretenses" is the study written by Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith:
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
MTV News quotes Steve Carpinelli explaining that "The difference" with the new sudy "is that while there have many intelligence reports that came out that contradicted a lot of statements from administration officials, there's been nothing that could show you how it was a coordinated effort."
The release of that study comes as news of pre-war claims in England garners some attention. Michael Evans (Times of London) reports, "The Government was yesterday ordered to make public a secret document about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which was drawn up by the head of information at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2002. A ruling by the Information Tribunal rejected an appeal by Foreign Office lawyers who had claimed that the contents of the document were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."
Meanwhile, in the US, the Congressional Budget Office has released a study. Reuters reports that it has found a huge increase in funding of the illegal war: "War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote." The $193 billion tof this year would mean $100 billion more than it cost the first year of the illegal war.
1/23/2008
1/22/2008
primaries & more
when the cell phone pics of michelle showed up awhile back, i really wanted to go there. but you really don't go there with a spouse, do you? so i've ignored michelle obama. but barack obama couldn't stop insulting bill clinton in the debate last night. that's a no-no. he's a spouse, he's not obama's rival. so i was so happy that elaine chose to write about that trashy dress michelle obama wore (i believe it was red) in 'We don't need your 'side boob'' tonight.
no, we do not need to see michelle obama's side-boob. maybe oprah does. but the rest of us not only don't want to see it, we won't find it 'first lady' contact. as elaine says, if the dress you're planning to wear doesn't allow you to wear a bra, don't wear it, not if you're trying to become the 1st lady. doesn't work that way.
maybe running with the kingpin in chicago, rezko, doesn't teach you what's expected? i don't know. but i know that dress was trashy and not becoming for a 1st lady because we really don't want to think about the 1st couple having sex let alone be forced to see 1/2 of a 1st lady's boob.
we all were shocked by those pics but were going to leave it alone. but if obama's declaring open season on candidates' spouses, then some 1 tell michelle obama no 1 wants to see her side boob.
it's really trashy. she's not christina going through her 'dirty' phase, she's an alleged professional woman attempting to become 1st lady.
please read trina's wonderful ' Basic in the Kitchen' and check out wally's 'THIS JUST IN! CHECKING IN WITH ACTORS THOMPSON & GOODMAN!' & cedric's 'The Old & The Tired' which addresses the disgraceful performance (and it's a performance) of amy goodman these days as well as the fact that fred thompson has dropped out of the g.o.p. race for presidential nomination.
in nevada, ron paul came in 2nd. i'm not a ron paul supporter. but i thought i'd note that because i didn't see pictures of him in the papers after nevada.
mike offers 'Edwards wins' and we were on the phone today talking about last night's democratic debate and we disagree about who won. i understand why mike thinks edwards won (and he may be right) but i say hillary won, just for introducing rezko into the conversation, she won.
bambi's been able to slide and glide over that long term friendship that resulted not only in years of contributions to his campaigns but also in the house he has. rezko's wife bought the vacant lot next to the house. the owner wanted to sell it and the house together. bambi didn't have the money for both. not only did rezko's wife buy it, she paid list price. bambi got a discount. and when bambi wanted some of the lot, they sold him 1/6 of it - and that was below market price and after it was already known that tony rezko was under federal indictment.
bambi's hands are not clean. and this better come out now and not after the primary. people need to grasp that bambi was in business with the kingpin and as guilty as rezko of those slums that rezko was the slum lord of.
for that reason alone, i say hillary won the debate.
i also say she won it (and remember that i am not planning on voting for hillary, i don't like her) because she was so in control. bambi was sarcastic and a smart mouth (and patronizing to john edwards over and over). hillary was untouchable. in a way i can understand that because she can hold her own. but even with that, she won the debate in my opinion because bambi was being nasty 1 moment and throwing a tantrum the next and it didn't phase her. she didn't let it get to her. she just kept coming back to his record.
i should say 'record' because bambi really doesn't have a record.
if amy goodman and all the whores of indymedia didn't prop bambi up, he would have already fallen over.
marlene asked me to provide links to 'Roundtable' and 'The Truth About Gloria' (pieces we did at third) and again to ava & c.i.'s most excellent 'TV: Democracy Sometimes?' - on the last 1, marlene noted that amy goodman appeared to wake up this morning and ask, 'how can i show every 1 how right ava and c.i. are?' then she figured out how and did so.
at the nation air mebler just knows that john kerry's latest e-mail is going to help obama: 'The swiftboating shows no signs of abating, but Obama is betting that many of John Kerry's supporters learned from the mistakes of 2004.' really?
bad news for air, the thing didn't go out. not to every 1. c.i. gave to kerry's campaign in the primary and in the general election (max i'm sure for both). elaine & i gave during the general. we get all of kerry's e-mails to 'supporters' and none of us read them. but i just checked my personal e-mail account and nothing. i called elaine and c.i. and nothing. elaine said mike was signed up as well because he gave some during the primary and general and mike got nothing.
so sorry air, the e-mail didn't go out to every 1.
but even if it had, most wouldn't read it. kerry's dead to most of us. (c.i. is probably the only exception.)
marlene was among the 1s thanking me for yesterday's late post. don't thank me. thank you for reading.
c.i. forwarded this e-mail from the feminist majority foundation (i really should sign up myself) because i'd noted them on friday:
Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade legalized a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion, we are painfully aware of the ever-present threat to reproductive rights in the United States. When all is said and done, remembrance is simply not enough—We must act.
Dr. George Tiller is fighting an uphill battle against extremists and needs your help! Since last week many of you have helped us raise funds needed to help defray Dr. Tiller's mounting legal costs and to support the Feminist Majority Foundation's National Clinic Access Project. We must do more!
Despite over 20 years of anti-abortion harassment, intimidation, and violence, his clinic was bombed in 1986 and he was shot five times in 1993, Dr. Tiller remains steadfast in his mission to provide compassionate and quality healthcare to women seeking late term abortions because of illness or very troubled pregnancies. He is there when few other doctors will help.
The Feminist Majority Foundation's National Clinic Access Project, the oldest and largest in the country, has worked with Dr. Tiller for more than 15 years to counter the constant attacks and threats of anti-abortion activists. We must make it clear now that we will not allow a small group of zealots pervert the law to advance their extremist agenda.
As Roe v. Wade continues to be attacked, we continue to fight. Please donate today - half of your contribution will go directly to Dr. Tiller to defray legal costs and half will go to our clinic defense team working to protect this clinic as well as many other women's health clinics across the nation.
Please also show your support by sending Dr. Tiller and his staff at Women's Health Care Services a letter, letting them know how much you appreciate their continued work to protect women's health and lives in the face of continuing attacks on their clinic.
Donate now to help Dr. Tiller and the Feminist Majority Foundation keep clinics safe, open, and free of harassment and intimidation.
Please send Dr. Tiller and his staff a letter of support, reminding them how many feminists stand behind them in their fight for women's lives.
For Women's Lives,
Eleanor Smeal
President
Katherine Spillar
Executive Vice President
and in 1 of the few endorsements that actually matters, cbs reports this on hillary:
Hillary Clinton's west coast trip brought her the national United Farm Workers' Union endorsement, representing 27,000 members, most of which are Hispanic. Mrs. Clinton took the stage to large a large applause and chants of "Si se puede, Si se puede!" or "Yes we can! Yes we can!"
barack has alienated a lot of people. it's his own fault. ava and c.i. outlined what was going on when we were all writing and jim wants to hit it next week but they'd prefer to wait (so as not to assist his campaign in correcting course). that is a huge endorsement. it's bigger than most unions. it really matters. hillary got it. that's bad news for bambi.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, January 22, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Amy Goodman continues to turn over a news broadcast to Bambi Love, the US military announces another death, the theft of Iraqi oil gets closer, Iraq is raised in Democrat debate, and more.
Starting with war resistance. As UPI noted yesterday, it was 30 years ago that "President Jimmy Carter pardoned American Vietnam War-era draft evaders and ordered a case-by-case study of deserters." 30 years ago. This week actions take place allowing us to show support for some of today's war resisters.
A number of war resisters have gone to Canada and attempted to be granted asylum.
November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."
Dropping back to Friday when NPR's Anne Garrels (Morning Edition) followed up on the claim by Iraq's Minister of Defense claiming US forces would be needed in Iraq "until 2018" by speaking with "Iraqi ground forces" who "say their units are under strength and that better weapons are needed." Garrels noted complaints about training, complaints about the quality of recruits, the fact that the Iraqi air force still doesn't fly missions, high desertion rates, lack of treatment for Iraq soldiers wounded in battle, no death benefits for Iraqi soldiers who die in battle, infiltration and host of other issues. How the US addresses the above is important and some aspects were raised in a debate yesterday; however, indymedia's too busy propping up Bambi to go into reality.
On Sunday, Deborah Sontag (New York Times) followed up her earlier report (with Lizzette Alvarez) on crimes being committed by veterans who are being failed by the White House wants to pass off as 'health care' by zooming in on the case of Walter R. Smith who saw combat in Iraq ("We were opening fire on civilians. We were taking out women and children because it was them or us," he remembered of one incident) and disintegrated leading to him being discharged and left with no care program which may very well be why he now is on trial for murdering of the mother of his children, Nicole Marie Speirs. Meanwhile Mary McCarty and Margo Rutledge Kissel (The Dayton Daily News) explain the reactions to the death -- assumed murder -- of US marine Maria Lauterbach's whose pregnant corpse was discovered buried in the backyard of the man she had accused of raping her, Cesar Laurean, with Marsha Williams delcaring, "Absolutely she would still be alive if the Marines had taken her seriously. She was missing for three weeks yet it took them until Jan. 7 to come to that house? That's too much of a gap." Mary Lauterbach, Maria's mother, speaks to the reporters and clears up some of the distortions that have been put out by the presss and also quotes her stating, "My instinct tells me the majority of rapes are not reported. For a woman to come forward and complain about a rape takes a lot. It took Maria a lot." Another person who had to show tremendous courage to step foward was Suzanne Swift who was harassed, abused, assaulted and the victim of command rape while serving in Iraq. No Congressional investigation ever resulted from the crimes against Suzanne. None will probably result from the death of Maria Lauterbach. But, probably after the illegal war ends, there will be some show hearings in the US Congress where members pretend to be shocked by what's going on. We've seen that repeatedly. Congress refuses to utilize its oversight and the US military command knows they can ignore rape charges.
On Monday, War Pornographer Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt (New York Times) reported that Davey Peteraeus -- who is both commander in Iraq and the one whose fanciful tales to Congress in September have now fallen apart -- is in line for a promotion: chief of NATO. Reuters reports today, "The Pentagon sought on Tuesday to cool talk about future assignments for Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. Commander in Iraq, following reports he was a candidate for the top NATO command post." The Pentagon's press secretary Geoff Morrell briefed reporters today and the issue of Army General John Creddock -- current head of NATO -- came up: "Does the secreatry [of Defense, Robert Gates] expect General Craddock to serve the standard three-year term as Supreme Allied Commander Europe?" Morrell responded, "As it stands right now, the secretary is very pleased with the leadership that's being provided by General Craddock in his current role. He's very pleased, obviously, with the leadership that's being provided by General Petraeus in his current role. And until the secretary recommends to the president otherwise and the president approves otherwise, those two commanders will continue in the roles that they now have." He dismissed talk of anything else as mere "contingency plans" noting they have them "for virtually everything in the world." That doesn't mean Gordo was wrong.
In another press briefing at the Pentagon, General Mark Hertling appeared via video link (from Iraq) to take questions from reporters. He sang the praises of the "Awakening" Councils, declaring that there were 14,900 Iraqis signed up approximately and, "We think of that -- and in fact as we've signed up new concerned local citizens, we literally give them a paper to fill out, a form to fill out, and we ask them how many of them would prefer to go in there to Iraqi security forces. We're getting, on average, depending on the twon, anywhere from 15 to 20 percent who say they would like to stay in some type of Iraqi security force." He spoke of how some wanted to become part of the Iraqi police, some the army, la-di-da, la-di-dah. What he didn't speak of was the realities of those willing to turn for a buck.
Yesterday, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported an al Hajjaj bomber killed himself and 15 others (eight more injured) while attempting "to assassinate the security deputy of Salahuddin province Ahmed Abdullah was was in the mourning tent of his dead uncle". Dean Yates (Reuters) reported the number wounded in the attack on the US collaborator jumped from eight to ten and notes, "Monday's attack took place in al-Hajaj village, 5 km south of Baiji, home to Iraq's biggest oil refinery. The city, 180 km (112 miles) north of Baghdad, has been the scene of a number of bombings in the past few months. On Dec. 25, a suicide bomber killed more than 20 people in the city." Today, Reuters reports the death toll from the bombing was 17. And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported today, "Meanwhile, in the wake of a suicide bombing on Sunday near Falluja in Anbar Province local tribesmen burned the house of the young suicide bombger's family and prevented a female cousin from collecting the bomber's head for burial." Those "local tribesmen," as Rubin words it, are members of the "Awakening" Council. The bomber, a young teenage boy, blew himself up, but the thugs thirst for blood was so great, they burned the family's home down and refused the boy's head for a burial. Those are the thugs who, if offered coin, will turn at least temporarily.
In news of the air war, Reuters noted yesterday, "U.S. military aircraft hit more than 30 targets with 35 bombs weighing a total of 19,000 pounds in air strikes in Al Jabour".
Monday the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi-National Force - West was killed while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province Jan. 19." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier was killed in an improvised explosive device attack in Arab Jabour Jan. 19. " Today, the US military announced, "A Multi-National Division - North Soldier died from injuries sustained during a vehicle rollover while conducting operations in Kirkuk Jan. 22. Additionally, one other Soldier was wounded and evacuated to a Coalition hospital." ICCC's totals currently stand at 27 for the month adn 3931 since the start of the illegal war.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one police officer, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left six workers for the transportation ministry wounded and a bomber "blew himself up near Al Mutatawira high school in Baquba, injuring 21 among them four women teachers and 5 students." AP's Christopher Chester notes, "The target of the latest bombing was unclear: The school is next to the provincial governor's office and a municipal building in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad."
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police officer was shot dead in Basra while "one body guard of Salahuddin police chief" was shot dead and another wounded in Al Shirqat.
Kidnappings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 school teachers were kidnapped in Tikrit.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports three corpses discovered in Baghdad and a woman's corpse found in Kirkuk. Reuters reports 7 corpses -- family members -- were discovered "outside Iraq's volatile city of Baquba" -- "a father and his five sons as well as a nephew" with "all bearing signs of torture and shot execution-style".
Turning to Iraq's Parliament, Aseel Kami and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports that the 2008 budget has still not been passed, that there are disputes about where the money will be allocated and that Speaker Mahmoud Mashhadani is urging members of Parliament to pass it when they meet next on Thursday. Earlier today Waleed Ibrahim reported that the Iraqi Parliament had made time to decide on a new flag.
In economic and theft news, Dow Jones reports, "An Iraqi Oil Ministry delegation will meet in Amman later this week with senior executives from five oil majors to discuss the possibility of signing technical support agreements to help develop five oil fields, an Iraqi oil ministry spokesman said Tuesday." Citing an unnamed source, they list the five companies as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total.
Turning to the US, in South Carolina yesterday the Democratic party's presidential debate took place, participating were John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Noting that Senator Crazy (aka John McCain) loved the escalation in Iraq, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Edwards why McCain was wrong?
John Edwards: He's wrong because George Bush himself said the entire reason for the surge was to create an environment for political progress. Everyone from the Iraq Study Group, to even Bush recognized -- and if Bush recognizes it, man, it's really got to be out there. Even President Bush recognizes that unless the Sunni and Shia reach some political reconiciliation, there cannot be stability in Iraq. And the problem with this definition and evaluation of where the progress has been made is that there has been no meaningful political progress. There has been a little bit, in fairness. A little bit, but very little. And I don't think it changes anything. The one thing I would say is -- and I would actually like for both of them to have a chance to respond to is this -- what I have said very clearly, all of us has said, we would end the war. And I don't have any doubt that all of us are committed to that, I don't doubt that. But how aggressively and how quickly is an important question. And I have said in the first year that I am president, I will have all combat troops out of Iraq. All combat missions will end in Iraq, and there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq. I have no heard -- now, admittedly, just to be fair, I don't hear everything they say on the campaign trail, but I have no heard either of them say that definitively. So I would be interested in knowing whether they will commit to having all combat troops out and ending combat missions in the first year.
Barack Obama responded first and, as usual, he used a lot of words. The answer was "no," Bambi can't commit to that (he offered maybe "some time in 2009"). And that's just combat troops. Please note, combat troops pulling out of Iraq does not mean "TROOPS HOME NOW!" But Bambi couldn't commit to it. While Bambi meandered, Hillary Clinton's first two sentences gave her answer: "What I have said is that I will move as quickly as possible. I hope to have nearly all out within a year." She then raised the issue that an independent media with an ounce of life left in it would have made the focus daily.
Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.
Both of the above are important. Naturally Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) ignored both. She did, however, elect to promote Bambi full time and even offered a lengthy interview with Grace Lee Boggs, a noted intellectual -- and someone who has done a lifetime of amazing work -- but who states there is no difference in the records of the front runners for the Democratic Party therefore people should vote for Obama because of the engineered mania around him or, as Grace Lee Boggs put it at one point, because "he has unleased that, though his policies are not that different from Clinton, but he has unleashed an energy" -- when elders start trying to play rate-a-record on American Bandstand, it's not pretty. Hitler unleashed an energy, Mussolini unleashed an energy. Bambi is about high-voltage as Pat Boone. What does the candidate stand for and what does s/he say? Pointing those factors out qualify as "wisdom." Anything else is just being a disappointment, a huge disappointment. Even more so considering what Amy Goodman (naturally) didn't explore Rezko -- we'll get to him.
The segment also continues Goodman's practice, noted and charted at length by Ava and myself at The Third Estate Sunday Review Sunday, of shutting out Hillary Clinton supporters, booking Barack supporters with no opposition voices and asking on difficult questions of them. Is Democracy Now! ever planning to explore the issues raised by Hillary Clinton above? Or does the program intend to continue to stack the deck and call that 'fair'?
We've noted this before here, the arrangement Bully Boy and al-Maliki are trying to force on two countries is against the constitutions of both the United States and Iraq. It is a big issue. It is a violation of the laws of both countries, it is a violation of the seperation of powers in both countries. It's just not important to Amy Goodman. She's into covering for slum lords. Here's Hillary after she's talked about Bambi praising the Republican movement of the 80s (and she didn't mention Reagan's name, check the record -- Bambi lied again), "It certainly came across in the way that it was presented, as though the Republicans had been standing up against conventional wisdom with their ideas. I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas. . . Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."
All the Bambi groupies tremble (apparently including Amy Goodman). Rezko, Antoin "Tony the crook" Rezko. Under federal indictment, accused of buying influence, kickbacks and much more. Taylor Marsh (TalyorMarsh.com) observes, "Clinton took what was aimed at her and gave it back. Obama said Wal-Mart. She countered with Rezko. Clinton also didn't flinch at the heckling and booing at her when she mentioned 'slum lord' and Rezko, the word the press still hasn't found how to spell. . . . The other big problem for Obama was his answer on Rezko. That's because he didn't answer it. He talked about being an associate laer, but that's not good enough, especially once the trial heats uup. It's not going to be enough when the stories start hitting the front pages." On Sunday, David Jackson (Chicago Tribune) reported, "Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday that his campaign would give charities $40,350 in donations linked to his former friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko, a Chicago businessman who has pleaded not guilty to federal influence-peddling and bank fraud charges." Jackson noted Obama "was the unnamed 'political candidate' referred to in a Dec. 21 court document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in 'sham' finder's fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama's successful run for the Senate in the name of Glenview enterpreneur Joseph Armanda, the story said." Jackson goes on to report that, in 2005, Obama would hire Joseph Armanda's son as an intern for his DC office "after Rezko recommended him."
Tim Novak (Chicago Sun-Times) reported on Bambi and the Kingpin in April of last year (not Novak's first report) and noted that, in 1997, refusing to turn on the heat for the apartments Rezko and partner Daniel Mahru were the slumlords of: "Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on. But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose districts included the unheated building. Obama has been friends with Rezko for 17 years." Novak notes Bambi "took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collpassing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers." Novak explains how Bambi's law firm steered "more than $43 million in government funding to" Rezko.
Bob Somerby (Daily Howler) notes Rezko (as well as pointing out that Bambi praised Reagan in his first book), "But for Dems, it's a good idea to bring Rezko out now, just as it would have been good for Demas -- and for Michael Dukakis, a superlative person -- to explore the prison furlough program during the 1988 primaries." How bad was it? Even Hillary Hater Ruth Conniff (The Progressive) had to note, "Still, some of Hillary's points were valid: Obama did praise Ronald Reagan, and not just in the qualified terms he claimed in the debate. He did have a business relationship with Tony Rezko, the indicted businessman Clinton called a 'slum landlord.' Not only did Obama do legal work for Rezko in association was a 'church group' that had a parternship with him, as he explained in the debate, he also bought land from Rezko, and the now-indicted REzko has been a longtime contributor. The relationship has been a problem for Obama, because Rezko is such a shady character and because it is more than a passing association, as a detailed investigation by The Chicago Sun Times reveals." Conniff is wrong about Edwards performance -- Edwards was challenging Obama on his voting records and other issues. Mike will be covering that tonight while Elaine will be explaining why Obama doesn't need to bring Bill Clinton's names into debates.
Amy Goodman wasn't interested in exploring Rezko or even noting him. Nor was she interested in airing a clip from John Edwards. This is the same Goodman who devoted an entire broadcast to one candidate (Kucinich) because he was 'shut out' of a debate. What she did have time for, what she wanted the world to know that Grace Lee Boggs -- based on feel-good 'energy' -- was endorsing Bambi. Bambi got another endorsement Goodman left out. Taylor Marsh notes Bambi continues his practice of "embracing homophobics" with his endorsement from Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell who believes in homophobia and puts it online, "But this latest development is very interesting. Now Rev. Caldwell's ministry, after he endorsed Obama, has nuked the page everyone was linking to yesterday that outlines his church's mission statement, which trumpets homosexuality as something a person 'seeking freedom' from 'habitual sins' should seek out." Ruth Rendon (Houston Chronicle) reported Saturday, "The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, longtime spiritual adviser to President George W. Bush and senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, plans to campaign on behalf of Illionis Sen. Barack Obama." Noting the pattern of Bambi's homophobia, "Charli" commented, "This issue seems to be coming up frequently with regard to Barack Obama and begs the question of whether he truly believes in equality under the law for all or in some cases simply for those who are 'saved' from their sins."
Sorry, "Charli," Bambi believes in "equality" as given by church denominations. As Ava and I explained two Sundays ago:
Loving v. Virginia was a breakthrough, a legal landmark, for the United States. In a debate, Barack Obama was asked, "Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?" Obama mouthed a lot of nonsense about 'equality' and then went on to state it's a decision for different denominations to make. There should have been a gasp heard round the country.Barack is a lawyer, a trained legal mind. Though we find it difficult to believe he's never studied Loving v. Viriginia (as difficult to believe as Clarence Thomas Senate testimony that he'd never thought about Roe v. Wade), we'll allow that maybe it fell into some gap in his education. But as a trained legal mind, he does grasp court billing. "v. Virginia" means versus state. Not versus a denomination.In that historic case, the Supreme Court of the United States found the laws of the state of Virginia to be unconstitutional and illegal. That finding meant that all states could no longer refuse to issue marriage certificates to couples of different races. Obama's weak-ass response should have been considered weak ass. (John Edwards also embarrassed himself in that debate noting he was against "gay marriage" and "I do not" support it leading us to shout back at the screen, "Gee, John, we weren't aware you were being inundated with proposals!") But it was also dishonest. A law student, forget the former president of the Harvard Law Review, grasps that Loving v. Virginia was not about whether "denominations" could make a decision, it was about what the government could do. To provide perspective, imagine the issue was illegal search and seizure on the part of the government (forbidden by the Constitution) and Obama had responded, "I think it's up to denominations." The government was discriminating and the Supreme Court stood up for the rights of all. A trained legal mind should grasp that. If Obama didn't, he's either not much of a student or he's a really bad liar.
CNN has the transcripts in three parts, here, here and here. In addition, they have video highlighting Edwards and Obama 'debating' Iraq (Bambi's in his feel good mode).
no, we do not need to see michelle obama's side-boob. maybe oprah does. but the rest of us not only don't want to see it, we won't find it 'first lady' contact. as elaine says, if the dress you're planning to wear doesn't allow you to wear a bra, don't wear it, not if you're trying to become the 1st lady. doesn't work that way.
maybe running with the kingpin in chicago, rezko, doesn't teach you what's expected? i don't know. but i know that dress was trashy and not becoming for a 1st lady because we really don't want to think about the 1st couple having sex let alone be forced to see 1/2 of a 1st lady's boob.
we all were shocked by those pics but were going to leave it alone. but if obama's declaring open season on candidates' spouses, then some 1 tell michelle obama no 1 wants to see her side boob.
it's really trashy. she's not christina going through her 'dirty' phase, she's an alleged professional woman attempting to become 1st lady.
please read trina's wonderful ' Basic in the Kitchen' and check out wally's 'THIS JUST IN! CHECKING IN WITH ACTORS THOMPSON & GOODMAN!' & cedric's 'The Old & The Tired' which addresses the disgraceful performance (and it's a performance) of amy goodman these days as well as the fact that fred thompson has dropped out of the g.o.p. race for presidential nomination.
in nevada, ron paul came in 2nd. i'm not a ron paul supporter. but i thought i'd note that because i didn't see pictures of him in the papers after nevada.
mike offers 'Edwards wins' and we were on the phone today talking about last night's democratic debate and we disagree about who won. i understand why mike thinks edwards won (and he may be right) but i say hillary won, just for introducing rezko into the conversation, she won.
bambi's been able to slide and glide over that long term friendship that resulted not only in years of contributions to his campaigns but also in the house he has. rezko's wife bought the vacant lot next to the house. the owner wanted to sell it and the house together. bambi didn't have the money for both. not only did rezko's wife buy it, she paid list price. bambi got a discount. and when bambi wanted some of the lot, they sold him 1/6 of it - and that was below market price and after it was already known that tony rezko was under federal indictment.
bambi's hands are not clean. and this better come out now and not after the primary. people need to grasp that bambi was in business with the kingpin and as guilty as rezko of those slums that rezko was the slum lord of.
for that reason alone, i say hillary won the debate.
i also say she won it (and remember that i am not planning on voting for hillary, i don't like her) because she was so in control. bambi was sarcastic and a smart mouth (and patronizing to john edwards over and over). hillary was untouchable. in a way i can understand that because she can hold her own. but even with that, she won the debate in my opinion because bambi was being nasty 1 moment and throwing a tantrum the next and it didn't phase her. she didn't let it get to her. she just kept coming back to his record.
i should say 'record' because bambi really doesn't have a record.
if amy goodman and all the whores of indymedia didn't prop bambi up, he would have already fallen over.
marlene asked me to provide links to 'Roundtable' and 'The Truth About Gloria' (pieces we did at third) and again to ava & c.i.'s most excellent 'TV: Democracy Sometimes?' - on the last 1, marlene noted that amy goodman appeared to wake up this morning and ask, 'how can i show every 1 how right ava and c.i. are?' then she figured out how and did so.
at the nation air mebler just knows that john kerry's latest e-mail is going to help obama: 'The swiftboating shows no signs of abating, but Obama is betting that many of John Kerry's supporters learned from the mistakes of 2004.' really?
bad news for air, the thing didn't go out. not to every 1. c.i. gave to kerry's campaign in the primary and in the general election (max i'm sure for both). elaine & i gave during the general. we get all of kerry's e-mails to 'supporters' and none of us read them. but i just checked my personal e-mail account and nothing. i called elaine and c.i. and nothing. elaine said mike was signed up as well because he gave some during the primary and general and mike got nothing.
so sorry air, the e-mail didn't go out to every 1.
but even if it had, most wouldn't read it. kerry's dead to most of us. (c.i. is probably the only exception.)
marlene was among the 1s thanking me for yesterday's late post. don't thank me. thank you for reading.
c.i. forwarded this e-mail from the feminist majority foundation (i really should sign up myself) because i'd noted them on friday:
Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade legalized a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion, we are painfully aware of the ever-present threat to reproductive rights in the United States. When all is said and done, remembrance is simply not enough—We must act.
Dr. George Tiller is fighting an uphill battle against extremists and needs your help! Since last week many of you have helped us raise funds needed to help defray Dr. Tiller's mounting legal costs and to support the Feminist Majority Foundation's National Clinic Access Project. We must do more!
Despite over 20 years of anti-abortion harassment, intimidation, and violence, his clinic was bombed in 1986 and he was shot five times in 1993, Dr. Tiller remains steadfast in his mission to provide compassionate and quality healthcare to women seeking late term abortions because of illness or very troubled pregnancies. He is there when few other doctors will help.
The Feminist Majority Foundation's National Clinic Access Project, the oldest and largest in the country, has worked with Dr. Tiller for more than 15 years to counter the constant attacks and threats of anti-abortion activists. We must make it clear now that we will not allow a small group of zealots pervert the law to advance their extremist agenda.
As Roe v. Wade continues to be attacked, we continue to fight. Please donate today - half of your contribution will go directly to Dr. Tiller to defray legal costs and half will go to our clinic defense team working to protect this clinic as well as many other women's health clinics across the nation.
Please also show your support by sending Dr. Tiller and his staff at Women's Health Care Services a letter, letting them know how much you appreciate their continued work to protect women's health and lives in the face of continuing attacks on their clinic.
Donate now to help Dr. Tiller and the Feminist Majority Foundation keep clinics safe, open, and free of harassment and intimidation.
Please send Dr. Tiller and his staff a letter of support, reminding them how many feminists stand behind them in their fight for women's lives.
For Women's Lives,
Eleanor Smeal
President
Katherine Spillar
Executive Vice President
and in 1 of the few endorsements that actually matters, cbs reports this on hillary:
Hillary Clinton's west coast trip brought her the national United Farm Workers' Union endorsement, representing 27,000 members, most of which are Hispanic. Mrs. Clinton took the stage to large a large applause and chants of "Si se puede, Si se puede!" or "Yes we can! Yes we can!"
barack has alienated a lot of people. it's his own fault. ava and c.i. outlined what was going on when we were all writing and jim wants to hit it next week but they'd prefer to wait (so as not to assist his campaign in correcting course). that is a huge endorsement. it's bigger than most unions. it really matters. hillary got it. that's bad news for bambi.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, January 22, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Amy Goodman continues to turn over a news broadcast to Bambi Love, the US military announces another death, the theft of Iraqi oil gets closer, Iraq is raised in Democrat debate, and more.
Starting with war resistance. As UPI noted yesterday, it was 30 years ago that "President Jimmy Carter pardoned American Vietnam War-era draft evaders and ordered a case-by-case study of deserters." 30 years ago. This week actions take place allowing us to show support for some of today's war resisters.
A number of war resisters have gone to Canada and attempted to be granted asylum.
November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."
Dropping back to Friday when NPR's Anne Garrels (Morning Edition) followed up on the claim by Iraq's Minister of Defense claiming US forces would be needed in Iraq "until 2018" by speaking with "Iraqi ground forces" who "say their units are under strength and that better weapons are needed." Garrels noted complaints about training, complaints about the quality of recruits, the fact that the Iraqi air force still doesn't fly missions, high desertion rates, lack of treatment for Iraq soldiers wounded in battle, no death benefits for Iraqi soldiers who die in battle, infiltration and host of other issues. How the US addresses the above is important and some aspects were raised in a debate yesterday; however, indymedia's too busy propping up Bambi to go into reality.
On Sunday, Deborah Sontag (New York Times) followed up her earlier report (with Lizzette Alvarez) on crimes being committed by veterans who are being failed by the White House wants to pass off as 'health care' by zooming in on the case of Walter R. Smith who saw combat in Iraq ("We were opening fire on civilians. We were taking out women and children because it was them or us," he remembered of one incident) and disintegrated leading to him being discharged and left with no care program which may very well be why he now is on trial for murdering of the mother of his children, Nicole Marie Speirs. Meanwhile Mary McCarty and Margo Rutledge Kissel (The Dayton Daily News) explain the reactions to the death -- assumed murder -- of US marine Maria Lauterbach's whose pregnant corpse was discovered buried in the backyard of the man she had accused of raping her, Cesar Laurean, with Marsha Williams delcaring, "Absolutely she would still be alive if the Marines had taken her seriously. She was missing for three weeks yet it took them until Jan. 7 to come to that house? That's too much of a gap." Mary Lauterbach, Maria's mother, speaks to the reporters and clears up some of the distortions that have been put out by the presss and also quotes her stating, "My instinct tells me the majority of rapes are not reported. For a woman to come forward and complain about a rape takes a lot. It took Maria a lot." Another person who had to show tremendous courage to step foward was Suzanne Swift who was harassed, abused, assaulted and the victim of command rape while serving in Iraq. No Congressional investigation ever resulted from the crimes against Suzanne. None will probably result from the death of Maria Lauterbach. But, probably after the illegal war ends, there will be some show hearings in the US Congress where members pretend to be shocked by what's going on. We've seen that repeatedly. Congress refuses to utilize its oversight and the US military command knows they can ignore rape charges.
On Monday, War Pornographer Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt (New York Times) reported that Davey Peteraeus -- who is both commander in Iraq and the one whose fanciful tales to Congress in September have now fallen apart -- is in line for a promotion: chief of NATO. Reuters reports today, "The Pentagon sought on Tuesday to cool talk about future assignments for Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. Commander in Iraq, following reports he was a candidate for the top NATO command post." The Pentagon's press secretary Geoff Morrell briefed reporters today and the issue of Army General John Creddock -- current head of NATO -- came up: "Does the secreatry [of Defense, Robert Gates] expect General Craddock to serve the standard three-year term as Supreme Allied Commander Europe?" Morrell responded, "As it stands right now, the secretary is very pleased with the leadership that's being provided by General Craddock in his current role. He's very pleased, obviously, with the leadership that's being provided by General Petraeus in his current role. And until the secretary recommends to the president otherwise and the president approves otherwise, those two commanders will continue in the roles that they now have." He dismissed talk of anything else as mere "contingency plans" noting they have them "for virtually everything in the world." That doesn't mean Gordo was wrong.
In another press briefing at the Pentagon, General Mark Hertling appeared via video link (from Iraq) to take questions from reporters. He sang the praises of the "Awakening" Councils, declaring that there were 14,900 Iraqis signed up approximately and, "We think of that -- and in fact as we've signed up new concerned local citizens, we literally give them a paper to fill out, a form to fill out, and we ask them how many of them would prefer to go in there to Iraqi security forces. We're getting, on average, depending on the twon, anywhere from 15 to 20 percent who say they would like to stay in some type of Iraqi security force." He spoke of how some wanted to become part of the Iraqi police, some the army, la-di-da, la-di-dah. What he didn't speak of was the realities of those willing to turn for a buck.
Yesterday, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported an al Hajjaj bomber killed himself and 15 others (eight more injured) while attempting "to assassinate the security deputy of Salahuddin province Ahmed Abdullah was was in the mourning tent of his dead uncle". Dean Yates (Reuters) reported the number wounded in the attack on the US collaborator jumped from eight to ten and notes, "Monday's attack took place in al-Hajaj village, 5 km south of Baiji, home to Iraq's biggest oil refinery. The city, 180 km (112 miles) north of Baghdad, has been the scene of a number of bombings in the past few months. On Dec. 25, a suicide bomber killed more than 20 people in the city." Today, Reuters reports the death toll from the bombing was 17. And Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported today, "Meanwhile, in the wake of a suicide bombing on Sunday near Falluja in Anbar Province local tribesmen burned the house of the young suicide bombger's family and prevented a female cousin from collecting the bomber's head for burial." Those "local tribesmen," as Rubin words it, are members of the "Awakening" Council. The bomber, a young teenage boy, blew himself up, but the thugs thirst for blood was so great, they burned the family's home down and refused the boy's head for a burial. Those are the thugs who, if offered coin, will turn at least temporarily.
In news of the air war, Reuters noted yesterday, "U.S. military aircraft hit more than 30 targets with 35 bombs weighing a total of 19,000 pounds in air strikes in Al Jabour".
Monday the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi-National Force - West was killed while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province Jan. 19." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier was killed in an improvised explosive device attack in Arab Jabour Jan. 19. " Today, the US military announced, "A Multi-National Division - North Soldier died from injuries sustained during a vehicle rollover while conducting operations in Kirkuk Jan. 22. Additionally, one other Soldier was wounded and evacuated to a Coalition hospital." ICCC's totals currently stand at 27 for the month adn 3931 since the start of the illegal war.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one police officer, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left six workers for the transportation ministry wounded and a bomber "blew himself up near Al Mutatawira high school in Baquba, injuring 21 among them four women teachers and 5 students." AP's Christopher Chester notes, "The target of the latest bombing was unclear: The school is next to the provincial governor's office and a municipal building in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad."
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police officer was shot dead in Basra while "one body guard of Salahuddin police chief" was shot dead and another wounded in Al Shirqat.
Kidnappings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 school teachers were kidnapped in Tikrit.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports three corpses discovered in Baghdad and a woman's corpse found in Kirkuk. Reuters reports 7 corpses -- family members -- were discovered "outside Iraq's volatile city of Baquba" -- "a father and his five sons as well as a nephew" with "all bearing signs of torture and shot execution-style".
Turning to Iraq's Parliament, Aseel Kami and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports that the 2008 budget has still not been passed, that there are disputes about where the money will be allocated and that Speaker Mahmoud Mashhadani is urging members of Parliament to pass it when they meet next on Thursday. Earlier today Waleed Ibrahim reported that the Iraqi Parliament had made time to decide on a new flag.
In economic and theft news, Dow Jones reports, "An Iraqi Oil Ministry delegation will meet in Amman later this week with senior executives from five oil majors to discuss the possibility of signing technical support agreements to help develop five oil fields, an Iraqi oil ministry spokesman said Tuesday." Citing an unnamed source, they list the five companies as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total.
Turning to the US, in South Carolina yesterday the Democratic party's presidential debate took place, participating were John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Noting that Senator Crazy (aka John McCain) loved the escalation in Iraq, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Edwards why McCain was wrong?
John Edwards: He's wrong because George Bush himself said the entire reason for the surge was to create an environment for political progress. Everyone from the Iraq Study Group, to even Bush recognized -- and if Bush recognizes it, man, it's really got to be out there. Even President Bush recognizes that unless the Sunni and Shia reach some political reconiciliation, there cannot be stability in Iraq. And the problem with this definition and evaluation of where the progress has been made is that there has been no meaningful political progress. There has been a little bit, in fairness. A little bit, but very little. And I don't think it changes anything. The one thing I would say is -- and I would actually like for both of them to have a chance to respond to is this -- what I have said very clearly, all of us has said, we would end the war. And I don't have any doubt that all of us are committed to that, I don't doubt that. But how aggressively and how quickly is an important question. And I have said in the first year that I am president, I will have all combat troops out of Iraq. All combat missions will end in Iraq, and there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq. I have no heard -- now, admittedly, just to be fair, I don't hear everything they say on the campaign trail, but I have no heard either of them say that definitively. So I would be interested in knowing whether they will commit to having all combat troops out and ending combat missions in the first year.
Barack Obama responded first and, as usual, he used a lot of words. The answer was "no," Bambi can't commit to that (he offered maybe "some time in 2009"). And that's just combat troops. Please note, combat troops pulling out of Iraq does not mean "TROOPS HOME NOW!" But Bambi couldn't commit to it. While Bambi meandered, Hillary Clinton's first two sentences gave her answer: "What I have said is that I will move as quickly as possible. I hope to have nearly all out within a year." She then raised the issue that an independent media with an ounce of life left in it would have made the focus daily.
Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.
Both of the above are important. Naturally Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) ignored both. She did, however, elect to promote Bambi full time and even offered a lengthy interview with Grace Lee Boggs, a noted intellectual -- and someone who has done a lifetime of amazing work -- but who states there is no difference in the records of the front runners for the Democratic Party therefore people should vote for Obama because of the engineered mania around him or, as Grace Lee Boggs put it at one point, because "he has unleased that, though his policies are not that different from Clinton, but he has unleashed an energy" -- when elders start trying to play rate-a-record on American Bandstand, it's not pretty. Hitler unleashed an energy, Mussolini unleashed an energy. Bambi is about high-voltage as Pat Boone. What does the candidate stand for and what does s/he say? Pointing those factors out qualify as "wisdom." Anything else is just being a disappointment, a huge disappointment. Even more so considering what Amy Goodman (naturally) didn't explore Rezko -- we'll get to him.
The segment also continues Goodman's practice, noted and charted at length by Ava and myself at The Third Estate Sunday Review Sunday, of shutting out Hillary Clinton supporters, booking Barack supporters with no opposition voices and asking on difficult questions of them. Is Democracy Now! ever planning to explore the issues raised by Hillary Clinton above? Or does the program intend to continue to stack the deck and call that 'fair'?
We've noted this before here, the arrangement Bully Boy and al-Maliki are trying to force on two countries is against the constitutions of both the United States and Iraq. It is a big issue. It is a violation of the laws of both countries, it is a violation of the seperation of powers in both countries. It's just not important to Amy Goodman. She's into covering for slum lords. Here's Hillary after she's talked about Bambi praising the Republican movement of the 80s (and she didn't mention Reagan's name, check the record -- Bambi lied again), "It certainly came across in the way that it was presented, as though the Republicans had been standing up against conventional wisdom with their ideas. I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas. . . Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."
All the Bambi groupies tremble (apparently including Amy Goodman). Rezko, Antoin "Tony the crook" Rezko. Under federal indictment, accused of buying influence, kickbacks and much more. Taylor Marsh (TalyorMarsh.com) observes, "Clinton took what was aimed at her and gave it back. Obama said Wal-Mart. She countered with Rezko. Clinton also didn't flinch at the heckling and booing at her when she mentioned 'slum lord' and Rezko, the word the press still hasn't found how to spell. . . . The other big problem for Obama was his answer on Rezko. That's because he didn't answer it. He talked about being an associate laer, but that's not good enough, especially once the trial heats uup. It's not going to be enough when the stories start hitting the front pages." On Sunday, David Jackson (Chicago Tribune) reported, "Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday that his campaign would give charities $40,350 in donations linked to his former friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko, a Chicago businessman who has pleaded not guilty to federal influence-peddling and bank fraud charges." Jackson noted Obama "was the unnamed 'political candidate' referred to in a Dec. 21 court document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in 'sham' finder's fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama's successful run for the Senate in the name of Glenview enterpreneur Joseph Armanda, the story said." Jackson goes on to report that, in 2005, Obama would hire Joseph Armanda's son as an intern for his DC office "after Rezko recommended him."
Tim Novak (Chicago Sun-Times) reported on Bambi and the Kingpin in April of last year (not Novak's first report) and noted that, in 1997, refusing to turn on the heat for the apartments Rezko and partner Daniel Mahru were the slumlords of: "Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on. But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose districts included the unheated building. Obama has been friends with Rezko for 17 years." Novak notes Bambi "took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collpassing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers." Novak explains how Bambi's law firm steered "more than $43 million in government funding to" Rezko.
Bob Somerby (Daily Howler) notes Rezko (as well as pointing out that Bambi praised Reagan in his first book), "But for Dems, it's a good idea to bring Rezko out now, just as it would have been good for Demas -- and for Michael Dukakis, a superlative person -- to explore the prison furlough program during the 1988 primaries." How bad was it? Even Hillary Hater Ruth Conniff (The Progressive) had to note, "Still, some of Hillary's points were valid: Obama did praise Ronald Reagan, and not just in the qualified terms he claimed in the debate. He did have a business relationship with Tony Rezko, the indicted businessman Clinton called a 'slum landlord.' Not only did Obama do legal work for Rezko in association was a 'church group' that had a parternship with him, as he explained in the debate, he also bought land from Rezko, and the now-indicted REzko has been a longtime contributor. The relationship has been a problem for Obama, because Rezko is such a shady character and because it is more than a passing association, as a detailed investigation by The Chicago Sun Times reveals." Conniff is wrong about Edwards performance -- Edwards was challenging Obama on his voting records and other issues. Mike will be covering that tonight while Elaine will be explaining why Obama doesn't need to bring Bill Clinton's names into debates.
Amy Goodman wasn't interested in exploring Rezko or even noting him. Nor was she interested in airing a clip from John Edwards. This is the same Goodman who devoted an entire broadcast to one candidate (Kucinich) because he was 'shut out' of a debate. What she did have time for, what she wanted the world to know that Grace Lee Boggs -- based on feel-good 'energy' -- was endorsing Bambi. Bambi got another endorsement Goodman left out. Taylor Marsh notes Bambi continues his practice of "embracing homophobics" with his endorsement from Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell who believes in homophobia and puts it online, "But this latest development is very interesting. Now Rev. Caldwell's ministry, after he endorsed Obama, has nuked the page everyone was linking to yesterday that outlines his church's mission statement, which trumpets homosexuality as something a person 'seeking freedom' from 'habitual sins' should seek out." Ruth Rendon (Houston Chronicle) reported Saturday, "The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, longtime spiritual adviser to President George W. Bush and senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, plans to campaign on behalf of Illionis Sen. Barack Obama." Noting the pattern of Bambi's homophobia, "Charli" commented, "This issue seems to be coming up frequently with regard to Barack Obama and begs the question of whether he truly believes in equality under the law for all or in some cases simply for those who are 'saved' from their sins."
Sorry, "Charli," Bambi believes in "equality" as given by church denominations. As Ava and I explained two Sundays ago:
Loving v. Virginia was a breakthrough, a legal landmark, for the United States. In a debate, Barack Obama was asked, "Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?" Obama mouthed a lot of nonsense about 'equality' and then went on to state it's a decision for different denominations to make. There should have been a gasp heard round the country.Barack is a lawyer, a trained legal mind. Though we find it difficult to believe he's never studied Loving v. Viriginia (as difficult to believe as Clarence Thomas Senate testimony that he'd never thought about Roe v. Wade), we'll allow that maybe it fell into some gap in his education. But as a trained legal mind, he does grasp court billing. "v. Virginia" means versus state. Not versus a denomination.In that historic case, the Supreme Court of the United States found the laws of the state of Virginia to be unconstitutional and illegal. That finding meant that all states could no longer refuse to issue marriage certificates to couples of different races. Obama's weak-ass response should have been considered weak ass. (John Edwards also embarrassed himself in that debate noting he was against "gay marriage" and "I do not" support it leading us to shout back at the screen, "Gee, John, we weren't aware you were being inundated with proposals!") But it was also dishonest. A law student, forget the former president of the Harvard Law Review, grasps that Loving v. Virginia was not about whether "denominations" could make a decision, it was about what the government could do. To provide perspective, imagine the issue was illegal search and seizure on the part of the government (forbidden by the Constitution) and Obama had responded, "I think it's up to denominations." The government was discriminating and the Supreme Court stood up for the rights of all. A trained legal mind should grasp that. If Obama didn't, he's either not much of a student or he's a really bad liar.
CNN has the transcripts in three parts, here, here and here. In addition, they have video highlighting Edwards and Obama 'debating' Iraq (Bambi's in his feel good mode).
1/21/2008
monday thoughts
Barack Obama raised some eyebrows when he cited Ronald Reagan as an example of a political leader who "changed the trajectory of America." Though Obama now says he wasn't endorsing Reagan's policies -- only recognizing Reagan's historic importance -- the comment begs the question of what change Reagan actually wrought.
a guy e-mailed that to me. it's either robert parry writing about bambi or a synopsis. who cares? bambi had his love-in for ronnie reagan and it was in the news january 18th. on the 20th (saturday), robert parry finally gets around to the topic?
as i noted friday the 19th, a m.s.m. press guy who is a friend of c.i.'s and worked with parry in the m.s.m. had e-mailed c.i. (c.i.'s personal account, not e-mailed 'the common ills') to laugh about what a fool robert parry was turning himself into out of bambi love.
if that former co-worker was laughing, you can be sure others were as well. maybe 1 of them said something to parry? maybe that's why he shows up on saturday to finally write about the topic?
i'm sure he minimizes it. just that bit that was e-mailed to me (noted in full above) sounds like a white-wash. (click here for reality from paul krugman.)
every 1 - except c.i. - took the day off today. i wasn't going to blog either. but i thought about isaiah's remarks in 'Talking with Isaiah' and thought about how, yeah, i was 1 of the early sites. folding star might have been before me with the now-defunct a winding road (folding star closed shop due to the threating e-mails). but 1 of us was the 2nd community site. it may have been me. so as 1 of the 'older' 1s, i felt like i should write something today.
the baby's down for the night (i hope) and flyboy's got cat power's the greatest playing (click here for kat's review of it).
flyboy's reading some tome, some 700+ page book. he was reading from it to the baby today too. it's a history book, by the way, not a children's book. not a complaint. glad he's reading to the baby.
as c.i. notes, 2 more u.s. service members were announced dead in iraq today by the u.s. military. there was no 'iraq snapshot' today (a) due to the holiday and (b) due to the fact that the feeling when we were all working on the writing edition for the third estate sunday review of 'if you do a snapshot on monday, i'll post.' which, if you think about it, comes off as (it's not meant that way), 'i'll have a day off if you'll please not do a snapshot.'
we've all got our lives, burdens, etc. betty's got 3 kids so i can't whine about my newborn (and wouldn't, i wanted a child for all my adult life - and before).
but every 1's got a full plate and the only time we take off is on a holiday (and c.i. doesn't even get holidays off). third 'just' publishes on sunday but look at how much they publish and how long it takes to write.
so i was thinking about isaiah's remarks during the interview and all the time that's passed in 3 years for me (i started my site in january 2005) and thinking about how if we all do go dark after the november election i'm probably comfortable with that.
i think we've achieved a lot and i think we've offered truth amidst a world of lies.
i don't need money. i made a ton in my own business (and of course flyboy comes from money). but i think about how c.i. repeatedly turned down interview requests (c.i. doesn't need money) and i think that's really great.
because of c.i.'s stand, we all pretty much followed. (i only turned down 2 requests for an interview and both were print, not on air.) if we hadn't done that, we'd be like every 1 else: afraid to tell the truth because we might not get on radio, tv or in print.
that's a point bob somerby makes at his site today and i read it and thought 2 things: (1) he's right on that; (2) he doesn't know his own past work.
i won't explain "(2)" other than to note, he's been down the rachel maddow road before (in 2004) but apparently has forgotten his own 'incomprable archives.'
he didn't cover it - because he really doesn't know who she is - but rachel, of course, stabbed lizz winstead in the back to stay on air america radio.
the woman hosted unfiltered on air america with chuck d. both women were informed that in a little over a month's time, their program would be pulled and replaced with jerry springer. lizz walked. rachel?
she took part in the lie that lizz was sick and that's why she wasn't on air. then she refused to mention lizz even when the show's blog was in an uproar of 'where is lizz?' she did that for weeks. she did so because she had no problem lying to keep a job.
lizz wasn't going to go on the air and play funny and act like the show wasn't being cancelled and being replaced with trash. but rachel was happy to do that. she did it.
then she finally tells the truth on air, a few days before it goes off air and when a.a.r. is about to release their statement explaining 'springer is part of the a.a.r. family' (translation, she had permission to note it) and does that 'i want my own show' and has her dad on the blog saying 'e-mail so rachel can get her own show.'
rachel's show was already in the works. the only issue was when it would air. that's what 'e-mail a.a.r. about my daughter' was all about - to get her a daily show and not buried on the weekend which is what a.a.r. offered her originally.
so the game somerby accuses maddow of playing is 1 she's played her entire professional career.
(her 1st solo show, just for the record, was 1 hour, monday through friday and in the early morning hours when no 1 was listening. but she proved she could be a good corporate lackey and with lizz suing a.a.r., they needed to keep rachel on the payroll.)
but she played it and so do many others, the game.
what was 1 of the biggest lies that led to the illegal war?
that iraq was linked to 9-11. it was a lie, a false link.
and independent media called it, right?
wrong.
b-b-but rebecca, they called out judith miller.
miller wasn't the reporter who got it on the front page of the new york times and 'reported' on it for p.b.s. that reporter was chris hedges.
and you'll note independent media's silence on that.
he wrote a story that was lies. the u.s. government and chalabi's group fed him 2 'witnesses,' 2 'insiders.' he wrote it up - training camps for hijacking air planes in iraq. (there were none.)
it's the story that really got the ball rolling on that lie and it did so in october of 2001.
it did see on the front page of the new york times and on p.b.s. which partnered with the times for that article.
in 2006, mother jones took a look at that story and found that 1 of the 'experts' was a complete fake. hedges mumbled a few words. but didn't provide them with the name of the 2nd. (his story clearly states he spoke to 2 iraqi 'experts.')
funny thing was when counterspin interviewed the author of the mother jones piece, they did so without ever using the name 'chris hedges.' the article wrote itself, apparently.
and of course, chris hedges is still seen as 'credible' in independent media.
they don't call him out.
big media or little media, they all play that same game.
to do your best to tell the truth, you have to have nothing vested.
if you're hoping to turn it into a career or be part of the crowd, you have to lie.
and it's lying.
it's not just biting the tongue.
the false link between iraq and 9/11 is at the root of the lies told to start the illegal war. the other lies build on it. 'saddam has w.m.d.!' so what. he didn't have them. but iraq had never attacked the u.s. unless - pay attention - the advance lies put out by chris hedges (and others) had been accepted as at least possible. so the lies are entwined and all worked with each other.
and chris hedges has never really been called out for his part.
most people don't even know about his part today.
and independent media rushes to give him money - the nation let's him co-write a piece on iraq, his bad columns run at truthdig, go down the list. of course amy goodman has him on her show.
no 1 ever says, 'chris, tell us about that story. tell us who your sources were. tell us the truth.'
they just don't mention it.
and pretend like it was all judith miller.
if chris hedges were the great truth teller, the great reporter, he's presented as, don't you think he would have already written an explosive piece on how he came to write the 'training camps to hijack u.s. airplanes in iraq!' lie?
but he never has, has he?
and independent media plays dumb.
during iran-contra, for 1 brief moment, 1 half a day, barbara walters was being called out. it's forgotten history now. because the press circled the wagons.
as chris hedges demonstrates, that doesn't just happen in big media.
i love ava and c.i.'s 'TV: Democracy Sometimes?' - because it is truth telling, because it is funny, because it is powerful.
the weekend before last, when c.i. was sick, it was from the bug i had (sorry, c.i.) but it was also from the proof that amy goodman was booking barack obama supporters on her show knowingly while not revealing to the audience that they were barack obama supporters.
it was happeneing and c.i. had written of it months before. but c.i. had also noted the belief that amy goodman didn't know. goodman's done many questionable things but c.i. refused to believe that goodman would do that.
then came the proof that goodman was doing it, did know, and that was a huge blow.
and it takes truth tellers like ava and c.i. to tell that story.
it takes liars to cover it up.
it's like the nation printing 491 men and only 149 women in 2007. ava and c.i. tracked that starting with the 1st january 2007 issue. it was regularly noted at third. in july, we all know the six months results at our sites. in december, ava and c.i. returned with the results for the year.
did the mud flap gals of feministing call it out?
of course not. little jessica's bad book didn't sell and by staying silent she was able to be a 'blogger' at the nation for a month.
david swanson refused to allow it in a comment. i'd have to go back to find the guy's name but a guy e-mailed me about how swanson had posted some of katrina vanden heuvel's bland writing and he'd left in the comments a link to third's piece.
it was pulled. swanson and i exchanged e-mails over this (i may be writing more about that topic shortly) and he claims he only censors if something is abusive.
i have no idea how it's 'abusive' to censor a link to a study.
but maybe he's got bills to pay and dreams of the big time. like rachel maddow.
those articles (all of them) on the nation's institutional sexism were huge. i don't just mean because of the writing (which was wonderful) but i mean their impact and it just goes to show you that it doesn't take a circle-jerk (which is all 'independent' media is) to amplify the truth. those articles found a huge audience and did so while the so-called independents played dumb and ignored reality.
when the common ills started, i didn't know. elaine did. c.i. wasn't telling people, 'come read my site!' elaine kept telling me, read it. and i kept thinking of a reason not to. i always have a reason not to do something. then on thanksgiving 2004, she tells me, 'that's c.i.'s site.'
of course, i went there right away. (and still feel bad for not going there before.)
and because my field was public relations, i had a thousand 'you must's to offer c.i. about 'promotion.' i'm talking about after i read the wonderful 'when npr fails you, who you gonna call, not the ombudsman' and c.i. listens patiently and then says, 'becky, what did you think about the piece?'
i'd gone on and on for about 30 minutes outlining how to promote the site. i'd never focused on what it offered.
ouch. i got the point.
and c.i. just did the site. didn't self-promote it. and it grew and grew. (it was already growing before i finally visited it the 1st time.)
a friend at n.p.r. did get it plugged in 2005 on n.p.r. c.i. was so offended. c.i. was all 'don't ever do that again.'
and it grew on its own.
without promotion.
it grew because of the work.
it grew larger than c.i. wanted.
and that just demonstrates how their is a need for reality.
not a circle jerk, for reality.
and it's the last thing in the world c.i. wanted to do. there are families members who are sure c.i.'s going to come into the family business in some way now. they're convinced that as soon as the site goes dark, c.i.'s going to 'come into the fold.'
when reality is, it's not happening.
c.i. rejected journalism long ago.
in high school, c.i. did a little. mainly the academic contests. i saw all those awards. c.i. stuck to feature writing for that. (i should clarify, i saw those awards due to c.i.'s mother.) but they all thought it was a fluke, a wild streak, an oddity and that c.i. would go to hard news.
when they found out, before the 1st semester of college, that c.i. wasn't going to major in journalism (something i've been told by family members was stated repeatedly but ignored), c.i. got all funding pulled. they thought, 'we'll force this.' they were wrong.
c.i. ended up working for those 1st 3 years of college. not 1 job. usually 3 jobs and sometimes 4.
and there is a sense now, due to the common ills, that after it folds, c.i.'s finally coming into the family fold but it's not happening.
c.i.'s reasons for rejecting it were always the same: the games & the lies.
in the m.s.m., there's only so much truth that can be told.
c.i. has huge respect for molly bingham who co-made Meeting Resistance. she's told truth all along and she hit a wall. she's gone on to tell truth and make that amazing documentary. but she knows the score. she grew up in a newspaper family. for those who forgot or don't remember, molly bingham's the 1 who outed dexter filkins as the ultimate embed - cancelling an interview with iraqi insurgents after a military commander - whom dexy bragged to about the interview - made a scowling face. that's all it took for dexy to cancel the interview. he takes direction well.
so when i was thinking about isaiah's remarks and about all that's been done in the last few years, i started thinking about c.i. and the work done at the common ills.
i think there's been wonderful work.
amazing work.
c.i.'s called out people when they deserved it.
there wasn't playing favorites.
i've written before, right after my 2006 miscarriage, about how much c.i. likes (i'd say loves) norman solomon. but c.i.'s not bit the tongue when solomon has done nonsense.
and stuff like that kills c.i. calling out katrina vanden heuvel was tough (especially considering c.i. vouched for her to roone when katrina was trying to get started -- pointing out, i was present for that - that roone always attacked the way every 1 dressed and katrina had the money to dress well and 'because she has the money, she's not going to be 1 of the 1s you're always whining about begging for a raise.' if you'd seen his face, you'd know how much those remarks registered.) but norman solomon?
of people alive and working in the print, there's probably no 1 c.i. has more love and respect for than norman. but c.i. didn't play favorites. c.i. didn't invent 2 sets of standards.
c.i.'s written things and gotten sick in the process because they weren't things easy to write or things wanted to write. but that's truth telling.
mike wrote about 1 time when c.i. had to call some 1 out on a friday and c.i. was puking before and afterward. that's because c.i. was tired and didn't want to call the person out. but they needed calling out.
i've never known any 1 with a stronger ethical code than c.i. it's not just words mouthed, it's a life lived. and it's been there at the common ills.
in terms of iraq, c.i. started speaking out before the illegal war started, in feb. 2003. and c.i. was doing that to fill in for a friend who'd agreed to some campus engagements but then had offers for some bigger campuses where there would be a chance of reaching even more people. so c.i. agreed to grab the spots and thought, 'i'll fill in and i'm done.'
didn't happen that way. word got out and friends who were professors started asking c.i., 'well could you speak to my' class or group. and c.i. said fine. that continued it through april and beyond. but then c.i. started working the campus organizations (that c.i. had been a member of back in the day) and lining up others. all of those, by the way, were without payment. no payment for speaking, no payment for travel, no lodging expenses. it's true that c.i. is wealthy (hugely wealthy) but it's why elaine had her panic last year when she started computing all the speaking c.i.'s done, all the travel expenses, and said, 'you are not giving to independent media.' (c.i. gave everything away during vietnam. the trust fund, every thing.)
c.i. thought the speaking would end in 2004 after the election. it was probably october 2003 when c.i. realized how much speaking had taken place. at that point, c.i. told me on the phone, 'i'm done after the election.' (c.i. wasn't promoting john kerry or any candidate. it was always about iraq.)
then kerry lost and the big pow-wow took place about what happened and what was done (on iraq and/or kerry) and that's when c.i. started the common ills.
and continued speaking.
that's included for all the 1s who say, 'i don't want the common ills to end!'
it may not.
the speaking was supposed to end after the 2004 election.
c.i. was exhausted in october 2003 and needed an end date to get through.
the same way an exit date is needed today.
but it may not be kept. i know c.i. wants it to be.
if it does end, ava and c.i. have already agreed that they will still give 2009 to speaking out against the illegal war.
and i just marvel over that because next month will be 5 years of c.i. on the road. in the slowest month, c.i. was only the road 2 weeks a month. there are no slow periods these days.
doing that meant rejecting work. doing that meant rejecting serious relationships.
c.i. ended what i thought would have been the perfect relationship in 2003. c.i. didn't think it was fair to him since c.i. was all over the country speaking.
that really was the perfect relationship. elaine and i both understood but were shocked. we were so happy for c.i. and, after having buried 1 husband, we were just thrilled that finally there was some 1 c.i. was serious about. we hadn't seen that coming because c.i.'s always gone more for the short-term lover.
and i don't want to imply the c.i. just ended it rationally and that was that. c.i. cried over that decision.
5 years next month and c.i.'s turned down work.
c.i.'s put everything on hold due to the illegal war.
there's been no 'r&r', no 'furlough' from the illegal war.
and i really do marvel over that.
elaine and c.i. did that during vietnam as well.
i didn't have money and had to get a job. but i don't know that i would have done it even if i had the money. it takes a huge committment.
elaine goes back and forth over whether she should close her practice and hit the road with c.i. that's a constant issue with her. she's doing great work and nearly every 1 of her patients today is a veteran and they're all pro-bono. she's not making a cent off her practice. the work she does is really important.
but i look at myself and i don't judge myself so well.
i'm back with flyboy and have this wonderful marriage (after many bad marriages - including our 1st - i do know what a wonderful marriage is if only by contrast) and now i finally have a child.
and that's so wonderful.
and i go to bed in my own bed. comfortable and loved.
i tell myself that i do my part but, honestly, my part is half-assed. i go out with ava, c.i. and kat on fridays to speak. i do speak out in my circle and i do go to t's salon and talk the war with the women getting their hair done and their nails done. (that's not an insult to them. they do care.)
but i haven't really put anything on the line.
and i know that.
i've been talking a lot about that with flyboy and we're both agreed that it's past time for us to do more. so when the baby turns 1-year-old (in april) we are going to start hitting the road (with the baby) with ava and c.i.
i think of all that i have and how iraqis and u.s. service members are trapped in that illegal war and it honestly embarrasses me.
so those are my thoughts for tonight.
a guy e-mailed that to me. it's either robert parry writing about bambi or a synopsis. who cares? bambi had his love-in for ronnie reagan and it was in the news january 18th. on the 20th (saturday), robert parry finally gets around to the topic?
as i noted friday the 19th, a m.s.m. press guy who is a friend of c.i.'s and worked with parry in the m.s.m. had e-mailed c.i. (c.i.'s personal account, not e-mailed 'the common ills') to laugh about what a fool robert parry was turning himself into out of bambi love.
if that former co-worker was laughing, you can be sure others were as well. maybe 1 of them said something to parry? maybe that's why he shows up on saturday to finally write about the topic?
i'm sure he minimizes it. just that bit that was e-mailed to me (noted in full above) sounds like a white-wash. (click here for reality from paul krugman.)
every 1 - except c.i. - took the day off today. i wasn't going to blog either. but i thought about isaiah's remarks in 'Talking with Isaiah' and thought about how, yeah, i was 1 of the early sites. folding star might have been before me with the now-defunct a winding road (folding star closed shop due to the threating e-mails). but 1 of us was the 2nd community site. it may have been me. so as 1 of the 'older' 1s, i felt like i should write something today.
the baby's down for the night (i hope) and flyboy's got cat power's the greatest playing (click here for kat's review of it).
flyboy's reading some tome, some 700+ page book. he was reading from it to the baby today too. it's a history book, by the way, not a children's book. not a complaint. glad he's reading to the baby.
as c.i. notes, 2 more u.s. service members were announced dead in iraq today by the u.s. military. there was no 'iraq snapshot' today (a) due to the holiday and (b) due to the fact that the feeling when we were all working on the writing edition for the third estate sunday review of 'if you do a snapshot on monday, i'll post.' which, if you think about it, comes off as (it's not meant that way), 'i'll have a day off if you'll please not do a snapshot.'
we've all got our lives, burdens, etc. betty's got 3 kids so i can't whine about my newborn (and wouldn't, i wanted a child for all my adult life - and before).
but every 1's got a full plate and the only time we take off is on a holiday (and c.i. doesn't even get holidays off). third 'just' publishes on sunday but look at how much they publish and how long it takes to write.
so i was thinking about isaiah's remarks during the interview and all the time that's passed in 3 years for me (i started my site in january 2005) and thinking about how if we all do go dark after the november election i'm probably comfortable with that.
i think we've achieved a lot and i think we've offered truth amidst a world of lies.
i don't need money. i made a ton in my own business (and of course flyboy comes from money). but i think about how c.i. repeatedly turned down interview requests (c.i. doesn't need money) and i think that's really great.
because of c.i.'s stand, we all pretty much followed. (i only turned down 2 requests for an interview and both were print, not on air.) if we hadn't done that, we'd be like every 1 else: afraid to tell the truth because we might not get on radio, tv or in print.
that's a point bob somerby makes at his site today and i read it and thought 2 things: (1) he's right on that; (2) he doesn't know his own past work.
i won't explain "(2)" other than to note, he's been down the rachel maddow road before (in 2004) but apparently has forgotten his own 'incomprable archives.'
he didn't cover it - because he really doesn't know who she is - but rachel, of course, stabbed lizz winstead in the back to stay on air america radio.
the woman hosted unfiltered on air america with chuck d. both women were informed that in a little over a month's time, their program would be pulled and replaced with jerry springer. lizz walked. rachel?
she took part in the lie that lizz was sick and that's why she wasn't on air. then she refused to mention lizz even when the show's blog was in an uproar of 'where is lizz?' she did that for weeks. she did so because she had no problem lying to keep a job.
lizz wasn't going to go on the air and play funny and act like the show wasn't being cancelled and being replaced with trash. but rachel was happy to do that. she did it.
then she finally tells the truth on air, a few days before it goes off air and when a.a.r. is about to release their statement explaining 'springer is part of the a.a.r. family' (translation, she had permission to note it) and does that 'i want my own show' and has her dad on the blog saying 'e-mail so rachel can get her own show.'
rachel's show was already in the works. the only issue was when it would air. that's what 'e-mail a.a.r. about my daughter' was all about - to get her a daily show and not buried on the weekend which is what a.a.r. offered her originally.
so the game somerby accuses maddow of playing is 1 she's played her entire professional career.
(her 1st solo show, just for the record, was 1 hour, monday through friday and in the early morning hours when no 1 was listening. but she proved she could be a good corporate lackey and with lizz suing a.a.r., they needed to keep rachel on the payroll.)
but she played it and so do many others, the game.
what was 1 of the biggest lies that led to the illegal war?
that iraq was linked to 9-11. it was a lie, a false link.
and independent media called it, right?
wrong.
b-b-but rebecca, they called out judith miller.
miller wasn't the reporter who got it on the front page of the new york times and 'reported' on it for p.b.s. that reporter was chris hedges.
and you'll note independent media's silence on that.
he wrote a story that was lies. the u.s. government and chalabi's group fed him 2 'witnesses,' 2 'insiders.' he wrote it up - training camps for hijacking air planes in iraq. (there were none.)
it's the story that really got the ball rolling on that lie and it did so in october of 2001.
it did see on the front page of the new york times and on p.b.s. which partnered with the times for that article.
in 2006, mother jones took a look at that story and found that 1 of the 'experts' was a complete fake. hedges mumbled a few words. but didn't provide them with the name of the 2nd. (his story clearly states he spoke to 2 iraqi 'experts.')
funny thing was when counterspin interviewed the author of the mother jones piece, they did so without ever using the name 'chris hedges.' the article wrote itself, apparently.
and of course, chris hedges is still seen as 'credible' in independent media.
they don't call him out.
big media or little media, they all play that same game.
to do your best to tell the truth, you have to have nothing vested.
if you're hoping to turn it into a career or be part of the crowd, you have to lie.
and it's lying.
it's not just biting the tongue.
the false link between iraq and 9/11 is at the root of the lies told to start the illegal war. the other lies build on it. 'saddam has w.m.d.!' so what. he didn't have them. but iraq had never attacked the u.s. unless - pay attention - the advance lies put out by chris hedges (and others) had been accepted as at least possible. so the lies are entwined and all worked with each other.
and chris hedges has never really been called out for his part.
most people don't even know about his part today.
and independent media rushes to give him money - the nation let's him co-write a piece on iraq, his bad columns run at truthdig, go down the list. of course amy goodman has him on her show.
no 1 ever says, 'chris, tell us about that story. tell us who your sources were. tell us the truth.'
they just don't mention it.
and pretend like it was all judith miller.
if chris hedges were the great truth teller, the great reporter, he's presented as, don't you think he would have already written an explosive piece on how he came to write the 'training camps to hijack u.s. airplanes in iraq!' lie?
but he never has, has he?
and independent media plays dumb.
during iran-contra, for 1 brief moment, 1 half a day, barbara walters was being called out. it's forgotten history now. because the press circled the wagons.
as chris hedges demonstrates, that doesn't just happen in big media.
i love ava and c.i.'s 'TV: Democracy Sometimes?' - because it is truth telling, because it is funny, because it is powerful.
the weekend before last, when c.i. was sick, it was from the bug i had (sorry, c.i.) but it was also from the proof that amy goodman was booking barack obama supporters on her show knowingly while not revealing to the audience that they were barack obama supporters.
it was happeneing and c.i. had written of it months before. but c.i. had also noted the belief that amy goodman didn't know. goodman's done many questionable things but c.i. refused to believe that goodman would do that.
then came the proof that goodman was doing it, did know, and that was a huge blow.
and it takes truth tellers like ava and c.i. to tell that story.
it takes liars to cover it up.
it's like the nation printing 491 men and only 149 women in 2007. ava and c.i. tracked that starting with the 1st january 2007 issue. it was regularly noted at third. in july, we all know the six months results at our sites. in december, ava and c.i. returned with the results for the year.
did the mud flap gals of feministing call it out?
of course not. little jessica's bad book didn't sell and by staying silent she was able to be a 'blogger' at the nation for a month.
david swanson refused to allow it in a comment. i'd have to go back to find the guy's name but a guy e-mailed me about how swanson had posted some of katrina vanden heuvel's bland writing and he'd left in the comments a link to third's piece.
it was pulled. swanson and i exchanged e-mails over this (i may be writing more about that topic shortly) and he claims he only censors if something is abusive.
i have no idea how it's 'abusive' to censor a link to a study.
but maybe he's got bills to pay and dreams of the big time. like rachel maddow.
those articles (all of them) on the nation's institutional sexism were huge. i don't just mean because of the writing (which was wonderful) but i mean their impact and it just goes to show you that it doesn't take a circle-jerk (which is all 'independent' media is) to amplify the truth. those articles found a huge audience and did so while the so-called independents played dumb and ignored reality.
when the common ills started, i didn't know. elaine did. c.i. wasn't telling people, 'come read my site!' elaine kept telling me, read it. and i kept thinking of a reason not to. i always have a reason not to do something. then on thanksgiving 2004, she tells me, 'that's c.i.'s site.'
of course, i went there right away. (and still feel bad for not going there before.)
and because my field was public relations, i had a thousand 'you must's to offer c.i. about 'promotion.' i'm talking about after i read the wonderful 'when npr fails you, who you gonna call, not the ombudsman' and c.i. listens patiently and then says, 'becky, what did you think about the piece?'
i'd gone on and on for about 30 minutes outlining how to promote the site. i'd never focused on what it offered.
ouch. i got the point.
and c.i. just did the site. didn't self-promote it. and it grew and grew. (it was already growing before i finally visited it the 1st time.)
a friend at n.p.r. did get it plugged in 2005 on n.p.r. c.i. was so offended. c.i. was all 'don't ever do that again.'
and it grew on its own.
without promotion.
it grew because of the work.
it grew larger than c.i. wanted.
and that just demonstrates how their is a need for reality.
not a circle jerk, for reality.
and it's the last thing in the world c.i. wanted to do. there are families members who are sure c.i.'s going to come into the family business in some way now. they're convinced that as soon as the site goes dark, c.i.'s going to 'come into the fold.'
when reality is, it's not happening.
c.i. rejected journalism long ago.
in high school, c.i. did a little. mainly the academic contests. i saw all those awards. c.i. stuck to feature writing for that. (i should clarify, i saw those awards due to c.i.'s mother.) but they all thought it was a fluke, a wild streak, an oddity and that c.i. would go to hard news.
when they found out, before the 1st semester of college, that c.i. wasn't going to major in journalism (something i've been told by family members was stated repeatedly but ignored), c.i. got all funding pulled. they thought, 'we'll force this.' they were wrong.
c.i. ended up working for those 1st 3 years of college. not 1 job. usually 3 jobs and sometimes 4.
and there is a sense now, due to the common ills, that after it folds, c.i.'s finally coming into the family fold but it's not happening.
c.i.'s reasons for rejecting it were always the same: the games & the lies.
in the m.s.m., there's only so much truth that can be told.
c.i. has huge respect for molly bingham who co-made Meeting Resistance. she's told truth all along and she hit a wall. she's gone on to tell truth and make that amazing documentary. but she knows the score. she grew up in a newspaper family. for those who forgot or don't remember, molly bingham's the 1 who outed dexter filkins as the ultimate embed - cancelling an interview with iraqi insurgents after a military commander - whom dexy bragged to about the interview - made a scowling face. that's all it took for dexy to cancel the interview. he takes direction well.
so when i was thinking about isaiah's remarks and about all that's been done in the last few years, i started thinking about c.i. and the work done at the common ills.
i think there's been wonderful work.
amazing work.
c.i.'s called out people when they deserved it.
there wasn't playing favorites.
i've written before, right after my 2006 miscarriage, about how much c.i. likes (i'd say loves) norman solomon. but c.i.'s not bit the tongue when solomon has done nonsense.
and stuff like that kills c.i. calling out katrina vanden heuvel was tough (especially considering c.i. vouched for her to roone when katrina was trying to get started -- pointing out, i was present for that - that roone always attacked the way every 1 dressed and katrina had the money to dress well and 'because she has the money, she's not going to be 1 of the 1s you're always whining about begging for a raise.' if you'd seen his face, you'd know how much those remarks registered.) but norman solomon?
of people alive and working in the print, there's probably no 1 c.i. has more love and respect for than norman. but c.i. didn't play favorites. c.i. didn't invent 2 sets of standards.
c.i.'s written things and gotten sick in the process because they weren't things easy to write or things wanted to write. but that's truth telling.
mike wrote about 1 time when c.i. had to call some 1 out on a friday and c.i. was puking before and afterward. that's because c.i. was tired and didn't want to call the person out. but they needed calling out.
i've never known any 1 with a stronger ethical code than c.i. it's not just words mouthed, it's a life lived. and it's been there at the common ills.
in terms of iraq, c.i. started speaking out before the illegal war started, in feb. 2003. and c.i. was doing that to fill in for a friend who'd agreed to some campus engagements but then had offers for some bigger campuses where there would be a chance of reaching even more people. so c.i. agreed to grab the spots and thought, 'i'll fill in and i'm done.'
didn't happen that way. word got out and friends who were professors started asking c.i., 'well could you speak to my' class or group. and c.i. said fine. that continued it through april and beyond. but then c.i. started working the campus organizations (that c.i. had been a member of back in the day) and lining up others. all of those, by the way, were without payment. no payment for speaking, no payment for travel, no lodging expenses. it's true that c.i. is wealthy (hugely wealthy) but it's why elaine had her panic last year when she started computing all the speaking c.i.'s done, all the travel expenses, and said, 'you are not giving to independent media.' (c.i. gave everything away during vietnam. the trust fund, every thing.)
c.i. thought the speaking would end in 2004 after the election. it was probably october 2003 when c.i. realized how much speaking had taken place. at that point, c.i. told me on the phone, 'i'm done after the election.' (c.i. wasn't promoting john kerry or any candidate. it was always about iraq.)
then kerry lost and the big pow-wow took place about what happened and what was done (on iraq and/or kerry) and that's when c.i. started the common ills.
and continued speaking.
that's included for all the 1s who say, 'i don't want the common ills to end!'
it may not.
the speaking was supposed to end after the 2004 election.
c.i. was exhausted in october 2003 and needed an end date to get through.
the same way an exit date is needed today.
but it may not be kept. i know c.i. wants it to be.
if it does end, ava and c.i. have already agreed that they will still give 2009 to speaking out against the illegal war.
and i just marvel over that because next month will be 5 years of c.i. on the road. in the slowest month, c.i. was only the road 2 weeks a month. there are no slow periods these days.
doing that meant rejecting work. doing that meant rejecting serious relationships.
c.i. ended what i thought would have been the perfect relationship in 2003. c.i. didn't think it was fair to him since c.i. was all over the country speaking.
that really was the perfect relationship. elaine and i both understood but were shocked. we were so happy for c.i. and, after having buried 1 husband, we were just thrilled that finally there was some 1 c.i. was serious about. we hadn't seen that coming because c.i.'s always gone more for the short-term lover.
and i don't want to imply the c.i. just ended it rationally and that was that. c.i. cried over that decision.
5 years next month and c.i.'s turned down work.
c.i.'s put everything on hold due to the illegal war.
there's been no 'r&r', no 'furlough' from the illegal war.
and i really do marvel over that.
elaine and c.i. did that during vietnam as well.
i didn't have money and had to get a job. but i don't know that i would have done it even if i had the money. it takes a huge committment.
elaine goes back and forth over whether she should close her practice and hit the road with c.i. that's a constant issue with her. she's doing great work and nearly every 1 of her patients today is a veteran and they're all pro-bono. she's not making a cent off her practice. the work she does is really important.
but i look at myself and i don't judge myself so well.
i'm back with flyboy and have this wonderful marriage (after many bad marriages - including our 1st - i do know what a wonderful marriage is if only by contrast) and now i finally have a child.
and that's so wonderful.
and i go to bed in my own bed. comfortable and loved.
i tell myself that i do my part but, honestly, my part is half-assed. i go out with ava, c.i. and kat on fridays to speak. i do speak out in my circle and i do go to t's salon and talk the war with the women getting their hair done and their nails done. (that's not an insult to them. they do care.)
but i haven't really put anything on the line.
and i know that.
i've been talking a lot about that with flyboy and we're both agreed that it's past time for us to do more. so when the baby turns 1-year-old (in april) we are going to start hitting the road (with the baby) with ava and c.i.
i think of all that i have and how iraqis and u.s. service members are trapped in that illegal war and it honestly embarrasses me.
so those are my thoughts for tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)