sexism, 1 panhandle fool and more

The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.
Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.
The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."
"Stone her"? How biblical.
All this is at a time when women are regularly being raped as they try to cross the border into the United States; bloody, broken women haunt the emergency rooms of hospitals; and abuse and disrespect for women and girls is rising faster than bank bailouts. That is the atmosphere in which people, including women, choose to attempt to destroy a woman who is a legitimate political leader.
Agreement on issues is not required, but Palin merits respect.
It is dismaying that misogyny and sexism are so excessively m
arbleized into our daily interactions that some of us cannot even recognize their existence when confronted with it or when staring at it directly in the mirror.

that's from helen mccaffrey's 'Palin deserves our respect' (philadelphia inquirer) and it comes when one of the airs of the nation proves just what a tiny-dicked ass he is. this is abc world news tonight thursday night broadcast:

VARGAS: But the point being that you haven't been so bruised by some of the double standard, the sexism on the campaign trail, to say, "I've had it. I'm going back to Alaska."
PALIN: Absolutely not. I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught.

from that ari mebler (the nation) starts insisting palin's declared she's focusing on 2012 - from the above exchange. then the tiny-dicked, no-nuts ari wants to hedge his bets by saying cnn jumped to that conclusion.

the exchange indicates no such thing. ari wanted to push the LIE because he's a SEXIST pig.

and isn't it cute how they smear sarah palin with 'ambition.' heaven forbid a woman is ever ambitious! only a man can be, right! a little nothing piece of chicago gutter trash, 1 the rumors just swirl around (yeah, we've all heard those rumors) can serve 2 years in the senate and announce he's running for the presidency? but that's cool.

just like it's cool the way the entire press knows various rumors about barack that they're happy to whisper about both loathe to report.

but the press will lie for barack, will cover for barack. over and over.

and there's punk ass ari mebler repeating a falsehood about palin and then trying to blame it on cnn. what a weasly ass f**ker.

no surprise the puny rag he hails from is a barack bible that ignores real candidates of change. ralph nader's the real deal. his running mate has written a very important & informative essay:

The Trail of Broken Promises
By MATT GONZALEZ
Watching the Democrats in the final weeks of the presidential election has been a lesson in revisionist history. While they lament the terrible crimes perpetrated against the American people by George Bush and vow to keep fighting for our rights, they conveniently gloss over the fact that they have no standing to make such claims. Indeed, the Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, have actually voted with President Bush’s agenda, making them complicit in his acts, not valiant opponents defending our liberties.
PELOSI’S PROMISE TO END THE WAR
Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said that if she became the speaker of the House of Representatives she would end the war in Iraq. Remember that? The Boston Globe noted, "Pelosi vows no ‘blank check’ on Iraq funds.” (1/8/07). In her own words: "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new to him, because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions.” Rick Klein of the Globe noted "Pelosi’s comments mark the first suggestion by a Democratic congressional leader that Congress could use its authority over the nation’s finances to hasten an end to the war. Her remarks point toward an aggressive stance on Iraq from Congressional Democrats in their opening days of control of the House and Senate.”
Yet after she became the speaker of the House in Jan 2007, war appropriations actually went up by $50 billion, with no strings attached and no date for the withdrawal of troops. This year, 2008, they’ve gone up by another $25 billion for a two-year total of $350 billion, with no end in sight. So what happened to the promise of "no blank check?”
REID’S FILIBUSTER RULE
Sen. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, has complained that the Republicans have filibustered (a procedure used by the minority party to delay voting on legislation) more times in the last two years than in the entire history of the United States to explain why he can’t move forward a progressive agenda. First he said it was over 70 times, then adjusted it by saying it was 65 times (Las Vegas Sun 3/6/08); yet still the highest for any two-year period (the previous record was 57 filibusters) (Politico, 3/6/08; Gov.Track.us 4/15/08). But Sen. Reid’s frustration has proven to be a red-herring. Did you know that Reid lets the Republicans filibuster telephonically, meaning that he doesn’t require that they physically present themselves on the floor of the Senate? Why is he making it easy on them? Is this what an opposition party looks like?
REPUBLICAN CLASS ACTION REFORM
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee for president, has a long history of voting against the interest of the American people, and specifically, the working class. Before entering the presidential contest, he supported the Republican Class Action Reform Bill, which made it harder for class-action lawsuits to be brought in the state courts. State courts are exactly where consumer protection lawsuits and recent wage and hour claims have succeeded in improving the lives of workers and helped them obtain better wages and breaks during work hours have succeeded.
Progressive commentators at the time called it a thinly veiled special-interest extravaganza. Journalist David Sirota noted "Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop ‘frivolous’ lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers.” (The Nation, 6/26/06). So why did Obama vote for it?
PATRIOT ACT & FISA AMENDMENT
Sen. Obama supported one of the worst attacks on civil liberties in recent history, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which extended an earlier law granting law enforcement expanded powers to search telephone, e-mail, and financial and medical records, in addition to granting the federal government a host of other powers to combat so-called domestic terrorism. After saying he would oppose it if elected to the U.S. Senate (NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03), in July 2005, Obama voted for it.
But this wasn’t enough. After entering the presidential race and running on a "change” message, Obama vowed in February of 2008 to vote against—and filibuster if necessary—the FISA bill amendment (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that gave immunities to telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. This eavesdropping program clearly violated the privacy of law-abiding Americans at the behest of the president, and made the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover seem tame by comparison. Those voting in favor of the bill didn’t even first require full disclosure to see how deep the illegal conduct extended and agreed to apply the law retroactively.
Despite his promises to the contrary, and despite the vehement protests of many of his supporters, when the FISA bill came to the Senate for a vote this past July, Sen. Obama voted for it without explaining how this vote fit in with his change message or reconciled with his repeated claims he was going to protect the American people from repeated assaults on civil liberties by President Bush. Here was his chance to lead and make good on his promise, and what did he do?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the FISA bill "an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance" (ACLU press release, 7/9/08). Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office called the bill "a Constitutional nightmare” and noted "with one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant.”
Obama even voted to stop debate on the bill so he could get back to the campaign trail. How ironic is it that he was in a hurry to give more speeches about change and hope but couldn’t find the time or integrity to convert these ideas into action?
On the eve of the vote MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted "I’m betting that [Pres. Bush’s] wildest dreams did not include the prospect that Congress — a Democratic-led Congress — would help him cover up his crimes. Yet that is exactly what the US Senate is poised to do.” (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 7/8/08).
OFF-SHORE DRILLING
As Sen. John McCain started to call for domestic drilling to ease our dependence on foreign oil, rather than debate the scientific and economic illogic of the position, Sen. Obama announced that he agreed with McCain. Reversing a 25-year ban on off-shore oil drilling, Sen. Obama led his party’s reversal, offering no explanation for how this would ease oil prices, particularly as experts noted that drilling would likely have an almost imperceptible impact on oil prices in the near future.
As Lester Brown and Jonathan Dorn of the Earth Policy Institute noted in "Drilling For Oil Is Not The Answer” (9/30/08) "The U.S. Department of Energy projects that lifting the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) moratorium [of the lower 48 states] would not increase production before 2017 and that by 2030 production would only amount to 0.2 million barrels per day—less than 1 percent of current consumption.”
Furthermore "The U.S. Department of Energy projects that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would lower gasoline prices at the pump by a mere 2 cents per gallon.” Even if we combined the two regions in question, it wouldn’t amount to much of an impact on oil prices: "Lifting the moratoria on drilling in ANWR and the OCS would reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by at most 6 cents—and this would not be seen for at least another decade.”
Proponents of drilling have also exaggerated theenvironmental safety of current off-shore drilling and oil production technology in general. There is widespread evidence that current drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is already leading to serious pollution and spills. After reviewing data from the National Response Center, the Houston Chronicle found there had been 595 oil spills across four state coastlines, totaling roughly 9 million gallons spilled in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ("Spills from hurricanes staining the coast” by Dina Cappiello, 11/13/05). So why is Sen. Obama, who claims to care about the environment, now advocating off-shore drilling?
DEATH PENALTY
In June of 2008, the conservative Supreme Court struck down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape (Kennedy v. Louisiana held that states may not impose the death penalty for the commission of a crime that did not result in the death of the victim), a decision that surprised even death penalty opponents who hailed it as an important step toward full abolition of the death penalty. Sen. Obama’s response? He quickly called a press conference to denounce the decision. Obama stated that he agreed with the extreme conservative minority, comprised of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Despite the many known racial and class inequities inherent in the death penalty, a practice abolished and abhorred in most of the rest of the world, Obama celebrates that he has always been a supporter of it.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama likes to highlight death penalty legislation that he sponsored while a member of the Illinois legislature, to show his commitment to reform. But let’s be clear, he didn’t work on laws to address the disproportionate rate of death penalty convictions of African-Americans, but rather a law to require videotaped interrogations of death penalty suspects. Yes, something we can applaud, but something many critics have noted merely greases the wheels of this injustice.
Most disquieting of all, as a state legislator, Obama voted "to expand the list of death-eligible crimes” (Chicago Tribune, 5/2/07), despite admitting in his own allegedly soul-searching memoir that the death penalty "does little to deter crime.” (The Audacity of Hope, 2006).
AFGHANISTAN
On foreign policy, Sen. Obama’s approach is hawkish. He wants to deploy more soldiers to Afghanistan, which will only further destabilize the Afghan-Pakistani border. He simply ignores the historic reality that no invading army has ever managed to successfully win a war in this area or subjugate the Afghani people.
During its ill-fated 10-year war, between 1979 and 1989, the Soviet Union deployed 620,000 soldiers to Afghanistan and sustained 470,000 casualties (sick and wounded, including infectious diseases such as hepatitis and typhoid fever).
Why does Obama want to ignore these facts and risk further destabilizing the area and creating another Vietnam/Iraq occupation there?
IRAQ
With respect to Iraq, Sen. Obama has conceded the main argument of Sen. McCain’s campaign and said the so-called "surge” worked (despite significant evidence and analysis to the contrary). And he has vowed to keep soldiers in Iraq to fight counterterrorism. John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton who now leads the Center for American Progress, estimated this would take a 60,000 troop presence to achieve.
Moreover Obama "will not ‘rule out’ using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq” according to Democracy Now! Correspondent Jeremy Scahill. And Obama did not plan on signing on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of such forces by the U.S. government by January 2009, according to one of his senior foreign policy advisors. (Democracy Now! 2/28/08). (This is one promise Obama unfortunately has kept, refusing to sign onto the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont).
In an interview with Amy Goodman, Sen. Obama stated his intention of leaving 140,000 private contractors in Iraq because "we don’t have the troops to replace them.” He also stated the need to keep an additional "strike force in the region … in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity.” Summarizing the interview, Amy Goodman concluded that it sounded as if Obama "would leave more than 100,000 troops, close to 200,000 in Iraq. ‘Troops’ meaning U.S. soldiers and military contractors which some call mercenaries.” (4/1/08).
Even concerning a possible timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, Obama has diminished his promises. He now is committing only to "reducing the number of combat troops within 16 months,” presumably to "bolster efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.” (Obama/McCain debate, 9/26/08).
What we know for certain, though, is when given a chance to commit to a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Obama said "no.” When Tim Russert asked him, during a debate in New Hampshire in September 2007, if he could promise having American troops out of Iraq by 2013, he would not do so.
MILITARY SPENDING
According to military policy analysts at the Arms Control Center, in their report "U.S. Defense Spending, since 2001” military spending has risen from $333 billion in 2001 to $696 in 2008 (including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). It’s expected to rise even more in 2009, to $706 billion.
Despite this, Sen. Obama has joined Sen. McCain and called for increased military spending. "I’ve said that we have to increase the size of our military,” Obama told ABC’s This Week (9/7/08). The details of which he has previously noted in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs: "I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.” ("Obama surrenders on military spending” by Glen Ford, The Progressive, 1/15/08).
WALL STREET CRISIS
The current financial crisis has generated perhaps the most fascinating political rhetoric of all. Obama has blamed the Republicans for deregulation and in doing so, his poll numbers have given him a healthy lead as we approach the final days of the campaign. The only problem is that the economic crisis is not just the fault of the Republicans. It is the direct result of bipartisan bills enacted into law by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
In 1999 Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This repealed the last vestiges of an important Depression-era law, the Glass-Steagall Act (1933), which prohibited banking, brokerage, and insurance companies from merging together, thus compartmentalized the financial industry and protected it from future collapses.
Equally significant in 2000, President Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which repealed 20-year-old agreements between the Security and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, so that financial institutions could sell credit derivatives such as the now notorious "credit default swaps” without any oversight and with no regulation. Two of its cosponsors included Democratic Senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. The measure had such bipartisan support that it was never even debated in the Senate and was passed by unanimous consent.
This resulted in the repackaging of mortgages into securities and the failure to regulate institutions that then over-leveraged themselves as they sold credit derivatives to investors who wanted protection from risky investments. This is what led to this financial crisis whose ramifications we have only begun to understand.
Both Obama and McCain voted for the $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout despite the plea of 200 economists (including Nobel Prize winners) urging them not to do so (Open Letter to Congress regarding Treasury bailout plan, 9/24/08). Obama keeps emphasizing that the mess was the fault of Republicans alone. But how is this argument credible when the law responsible for the financial meltdown enjoyed unanimous support from both parties?
NAFTA
It was quite emblematic of Sen. Obama that he has changed his position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to suit whatever situation he is in. First, while running for the Senate in 2004, he said he supported NAFTA and thought there should be more trade agreements like it. (AP story 2/26/08). Then, while running against Hillary Clinton he blamed her for NAFTA’s impact on workers in the "rustbelt” states of Wisconsin and Ohio. But once he won the primary things changed. When asked if he would truly invoke the six-month clause in NAFTA for unilateral withdrawal, Obama showed his signature political reversal.
NAFTA created a trilateral trade bloc encompassing the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which was meant to foster greater trade between its members. It primarily lifted tariffs on goods shipped between the three countries but has caused economic turmoil both among American and Mexican labor, with unexpected loss of jobs and negative environmental impacts.
Nina Easton, a Washington editor for Fortune, noted in a June 18, 2008 article that "the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA,” something he had promised to do when locked in a close primary race with Sen. Hillary Clinton. Asked directly about whether he would move the U.S. out of the trade agreement, Obama said "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” Fortune magazine concluded that, despite once calling NAFTA "devastating” and "a big mistake,” Obama "was toning down his populist rhetoric” and had no intention of following through with his anti-NAFTA promises now that the primary battle was won.
In light of this evidence, can we believe any of the other commitments he‘s made?
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY
Those who think Sen. Obama will appoint good Supreme Court justices should just take note of his long history of supporting some of the worst Bush appointees to the federal bench, including Thomas Griffith (D.C. Cir.), Susan Blake Neilson (6th Cir.), Milan Smith (9th Cir.), Sandra Segal Ikuta (9th Cir.), and Kent Jordan (3rd Cir.). The Neilson vote was particularly troubling as both senators from her own state "blue slipped” her for being "too extreme.”
And even when he does manage to muster the courage to vote against conservative appointees, he does it in a lukewarm and perfunctory manner, refusing to join Democratic Party filibuster efforts. This is deeply troubling. He voted cloture (to end any voting delay) on Priscilla Owen (5th Cir.) and Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.) both extremely conservative jurists, thus ensuring they would be confirmed.
SEN. JOE BIDEN AS VICE-PRESIDENT
Obama’s selection of Sen. Joe Biden as a running mate is particularly troubling and does not bode well for the decisions Obama is likely to make if elected president. Obama has presented Biden as someone who never forgot his roots, is a working class, regular guy.
The only problem with this characterization is Sen. Biden’s voting record. He was one of the main supporters of the Republican Bankruptcy Reform Bill that Pres. Clinton vetoed twice, only to have it signed into law by Pres. Bush in 2005, with Sen. Biden’s ardent support.
Criticizing the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, Arianna Huffington noted that the bill "makes it harder for average people to file for bankruptcy protection [average annual income of Americans who file for bankruptcy is less than $30K]; it makes it easier for landlords to evict a bankrupt tenant; it endangers child-support payments by giving a wider array of creditors a shot at post-bankruptcy income; it allows millionaires to shield an unlimited amount of equity in homes and asset protection trusts; it makes it more difficult for small businesses to reorganize while opening new loopholes for the Enrons of the world; it allows creditors to provide misleading information; and it does nothing to rein in lending abuses.” (Salon.com, 3/05)
Jackson Williams noted, in "Joe Biden: No True Friend of Working Men and Women” (Huffington Post, 10/27/08), that Biden "didn’t just vote for it, he helped carry the water on it. Some Democrats tried to soften the bill with a series of amendments; for example, exempting military personnel at war in Iraq. Biden joined the majority of his colleagues—the Republicans and too many Democrats—in knocking down every possible change that was offered.”
Sen. Biden has built a reputation as someone who works tirelessly for credit card companies, with some critics even referring to him as the senator from Mastercard—rather than the senator from Delaware.
In addition, Biden voted for the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act, so it’s hard to understand how Sen. Biden is going to help bring about change in the new administration.
OTHER FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES
Obama called Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez an enemy of the United States and urged sanctions against him. (Interview with Jorge Ramos, El Mercurio, 6/11/08)
He heaped praise on the first George Bush saying, "You know, one of the things that I think George H.W. Bush doesn’t get enough credit for was his foreign policy team and the way that he helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us $20 billion dollars. That‘s all it cost. It was extremely successful. I think there were a lot of very wise people.” (Larry King Live 3/23/08).
And in a much-anticipated speech to America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Obama towed the typical pro-Israel line. He urged that Jerusalem would belong to Israel, despite peace efforts currently underway which would allow the holy city to be shared among both Israelis and Palestinians. He unequivocally stated "Israel’s security is sacrosanct.” And "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” (AIPAC speech, 6/08).
MAKING A DEMAND
Before you vote for someone with such a checkered voting record, it might be worthwhile to make some demands on him, don’t you think? Or at the very least we should ask him to explain why he’s capitulated so many times.
I’m sure Sen. Obama would find such questions uncomfortable. In fact, even progressives find such inquiry bothersome: they are aware of Obama’s lamentable history of capitulation on votes that take away our civil rights, but nevertheless cling to their wish that Obama will be something other than what he has already proven himself to be.
But it’s not likely that he will be a transformative leader. He’s already announced economic advisors whose ideas are at the heart of the economic meltdown, like Austan Goolsbee, an aggressive free trader and subprime loan advocate, and former Clinton advisors, David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman, supporters of market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues such as the partial privatization of Social Security. ("Subprime Obama” by Max Fraser, The Nation, 1/24/08).
He has foreign policy advisors who helped take us into war, like Colin Powell, who in 2003 addressed the United Nations on behalf of the Bush Administration, outlining the reasons the U.S. had to invade Iraq (he also disturbingly, as a young Army Major, worked to suppress key evidence about the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam).
But that’s not all. Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman spoke with journalists Allan Nairn and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos who discussed Obama’s foreign policy advisors (2/10/08). They noted that Obama proudly brought on to his team old cold warrior and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has boasted of having created the whole Afghan Jihadi movement; Anthony Lake, who was behind the U.S. invasion of Haiti during the Clinton years; General Merrill McPeak, who delivered U.S. fighter planes to Indonesia shortly after the Dili massacre in East Timor in 1991; and Dennis Ross who has pushed to subordinate the rights of Palestinians to the needs of the Israeli government.
What do you think the likelihood is that Obama will listen to us, once we’ve voted for him, without making any demands on him?
As Robert Scheer, a noted columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, noted on July 23, 2008, shortly after Obama voted for the FISA bill, "Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack.” And Scheer made these remarks before Obama decided to support off-shore drilling, denounce a Supreme Court death penalty decision, and before he voted for the Wall Street bailout.
CONCERNING RALPH NADER
But we don’t have to vote for either Senators Obama or McCain, do we? Ralph Nader has a more impressive legislative record as an outsider than do Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain combined. And he has a proven record of fighting the culture of Washington. Just think of the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Air, Clean Water, automotive safety, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet despite these accomplishments, Obama and McCain do not believe they should even have to debate him.
What they don’t tell you is that the so-called independent Commission on Presidential Debates is actually a private corporation run by former leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties. The Commission, which was formed in 1987, is currently led by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Kirk, the former head of the Democratic National Committee. No wonder they won’t debate Nader or anyone else.
Of course they justify this by saying Nader isn’t polling well enough to include him in the debates. Yet, interestingly, both McCain and Obama were losing their respective primary races until they were let into televised debates. And there are well-known examples of how letting a candidate debate "mainstream” candidates can lead to a different outcome. Jesse Ventura won the governor’s race in Minnesota in 1998 when he was allowed to debate the Republican and Democratic Party candidates, going from 9 or 10 percent in the polls to ultimately winning the contest.
Ralph Nader polled at five percent and above at least four different times this year in national polls, and he even reached 10 percent in one poll in the state of Michigan (conducted by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA, 4/15/08). This should have been sufficient to gain access to the presidential debates. Ross Perot got in the debates in 1992 even though he was polling below 10 percent. Perot went on to win 19 percent of the vote, and his warnings about NAFTA and deficit spending influenced Clinton policy and proved prescient. Afterwards, the two parties retaliated by creating a 15% threshold which ironically no candidate is likely to reach without being included in televised debates.
The worse part of the so-called presidential debates as they are currently produced is that two-party control ensures that the questions are not sufficiently hard-hitting. Isn’t it appalling that we saw three debates between Obama and McCain at a time our country is suffering its worst economic crisis, and no one asked these men "Why should Americans have any confidence either of you is the best choice to tackle these problems given that both of your political parties helped pass laws that made this crisis possible—or even inevitable?”
They also like to say that voting for Nader is throwing your vote away. The Democrats often cite the 2000 election to blame Nader for Bush’s victory. But they noticeably never mention the 1992 election, when Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot "spoiled” the race for George Bush’s father, an incumbent president. By the way, Clinton got only 43 percent of the vote in 1992 compared to 48 percent by Bush in 2000.
And they offer no explanation for why they haven’t worked on election reform since 2000. Imagine claiming your political party lost the presidency because the "winner” was declared even though he hadn’t won a majority of the votes cast? Then imagine doing nothing to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. Isn’t it odd that the Democrats haven’t worked on election reform in the past eight years?
They never will change the system because the way things are now, they can be assured that they will be in office roughly half the time. They also count on people to accept their arguments that Nader and other third parties aren’t polling high enough to get your vote; that the real contest is between just two candidates.
If all else fails, they argue that it’s the most important election of your lifetime. I’m 43 years old and I’ve heard this argument each time the presidential race has come up.
If you accept these arguments, you are in effect rewarding the two parties for not fixing how we do elections in this country. You reward them for creating the Commission on Debates. You guarantee that things will not change. And you ensure that candidates that support single-payer health care, decent wages and pensions for workers, controls on corporations and a foreign policy based on achieving peace rather than driven by self-interest, cannot ever be heard.
Nader wants a more humane and democratic society. He’s seen that you can’t get anything done in Washington because senators like Obama and McCain ignore what’s good for Americans in pursuit of their own interests. Sure McCain talks like a maverick and Obama talks like a revolutionary, but look closely and you will see repeatedcapitulations to the very entities our government needs to get away from if we are to build a more democratic society.
WOMAN’S SUFFRAGE & EUGENE DEBS
Eugene Debs ran for president several times in the early 20th century. He advocated the right of women to vote at a time when it was not popular to do so and while other more successful politicians openly argued against giving women the right to participate directly in elections.
The general attitude among men was exemplified by Elihu Root, a former cabinet secretary to presidents McKinley and Roosevelt and winner of the 1912 Nobel Peace prize who said: "Suffrage would be a loss for women. I think so because suffrage implies not merely the casting of the ballot, (…) but suffrage, if it means anything, means entering upon the field of political life, and politics is modified war. In politics there is a struggle, strife, contention, bitterness, heart-burning, excitement, agitation, everything which is adverse to the true character of woman. Woman in strife becomes hard, harsh, unlovable, repulsive…” (N.Y. Constitutional Convention, 1894).
President Theodore Roosevelt, himself, said "Personally I believe in woman’s suffrage, but I am not an enthusiastic advocate of it, because I do not regard it as a very important matter.” (Letter to Dr. Lyman Abbott, 11/10/1908). And President Grover Cleveland said, "Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote.” (1905).
Despite these sentiments Debs advocated this right. Yet he never obtained more than 6 percent of the vote. Let me ask you: Were the men who voted with Debs throwing their vote away? If you had lived in that era, would you have voted for him? Or would you have come up with an excuse for why it wasn’t important enough?
CONCLUSION
On the street when I am approached by an Obama/Biden volunteer or someone who tells me they’re voting for Obama, I usually ask "What about the FISA vote?” And each time I hear in return "What’s that?” Or if I say, "You know he supports the death penalty,” I usually hear in response, "No he doesn’t.”
At what point will there be intellectual honesty about what ishappening? People are voting for Obama because they find him to be an engaging public speaker and like his message regardless of his history of being part of the very problem he professes to want to fix. Most people don’t want the actual facts to interfere with the desperate hope that he is everything they want him to be.
Do you really want to vote for someone who has already voted to take away your civil liberties because of some vague wish that he’ll act differently as president? Obama himself, speaking of Sen. Hillary Clinton, made a remark that could just as easily apply to him, and, unwittingly makes the case for why no one should vote for him: "We can’t afford a president whose positions change with the politics of the moment. We need a president who knows that being ready on day one means getting it right from day one.” (Salem, OR, 3/21/08).
If voting for war appropriations and taking away civil liberties was bringing us closer to a more democratic and egalitarian society, well, I would advocate it. But it isn’t doing that.
What is your breaking point? At what point do you decide that you’ve had enough?
What do they have to do to lose your vote?
Matt Gonzalez is Ralph Nader’s Vice-Presidential running mate on an Independent ticket.
ShareThis


so that's going to be it from me. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, October 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the SOFA updates, Bully Boy's bored in the White House, Iraq launches an investigation into the attack on Syria, Palin talks energy, Gonzalez talks values, and more.

Yesterday US Secretary of State Condi Rice met in DC with Massud Barzani who is president of the Kurdish region of Iraq and he told the press that the main point stressed by Rice was the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Today Barzani went to the White House to meet with the Bully Boy.

Seated side-by-side, the two provided an Oval Office photo op and Bully Boy declared, "We had a discussion today on uh on several major topics. We talked about the progress on the election law and on the hydrocarbon law, but we also talked about the strategi -- Status Of Forces Agreement, called the SOFA. President Barzani has been a very strong advocate of the Iraqi government passing the SOFA, and I appreciate that. I informed the President we received amendments today from the government. We're analyzing those amendments. We obviously want to be uh we want to be uh helpful and constructive without undermining basic principles. And I remain very hopeful and confident that the SOFA will get passed. And Mr. President, you get a lot of credit for your leadership on that issue." Barzani chose to speak through a translator. His final statement (other than "thank you") was translated into English as: "And in terms of SOFA, we do believe that it is in the interest of the Iraqi government, it's in the interest of this country, and we have been and we will continue to support it and support its ratification." That led to Barzani correcting the translator with "Iraqi people."

Translator: And in terms of SOFA, we do believe that it is in the interest of the Iraqi government --

Massud Barzani: Iraqi people.

Translator: -- it's in the interest of this country and we have been and we will continue to support it and support its ratification.

That is not a minor point especially considering the seperation impulses re: the Iraqi government on the part of the KRG. Dan Eggen (Washington Post) describes Bully Boy's remarks and attitude as "mild encouragement" which comes after "strong suggestions from other administration officials that a compromise is unlikely. White House press secretary Dana Perino said on Tuesday, for example, that the "door is pretty much shut" on further negotiations." "Mild encouragement" might be too strong. When speaking Bully Boy rarely looked at Barzani and when Barzani spoke (except during the "thank you" sentence), Bully Boy was looking everywhere else and making weird grimaces (most notable when Barzani referred to "some major problems").


Yesterday at the US State Dept, deputy spokesperson Robert Wood refused to comment on the amendments being reported stating he had no seen them: "But until the Iraqi government compiles these concerns into a, you know, onto a piece of paper and forward it to us officially I can't really respond." Today spokesperson Sean McCormack handled the press briefing and the amendments were the first thing raised by the press. We did we received some comments from the Iraqi government. . . . The SOFA, yes, indeed we did. However, you'll be disappointed, I suspect, in my response Matt [Matthew Lee, Associated Press]. Since we just received these today we're going to take a careful look at them, give it a thoughtful review and once we have had a chance to assess them we'll provide a reply to the Iraqi government. So the process continues." [This echoed Dana Perino's earlier comment at the White House today, "I've not seen them. Our negotiating team in Baghdad has them. It's possible somebody else here in the building has, but I have not seen them. And we're going to decline to comment on the content of them and our reaction to them until we have a little bit more time to look at them more closely.") Matthew Lee pointed out how little time was left ("you've got a two-month lifespan" before the UN mandate expires December 31st) and McCormack replied, "I'm not aware of any substantial work at all on any alternative." He then clarified that with, "I don't think anybody's put pen to paper on anything."


Unrelated to Iraq -- unless you ask a question about Iraq -- the US State Dept does take seriously those random polls. And they are trying to provide more video content. State Dept spokesperson Sean McCormack wants you to ask questions directly and to do so by video ("less than 60 seconds"). They're calling it "Briefing 2.0."

Sean McCormack: The idea is that you will be able to ask questions of me directly by posting a video on YouTube. So what you need to do in order to participate in this is go to the State Dept channel on YouTube, click on this video and follow the instructions after that. It's pretty easy. This should be a lot of fun. I know it's going to be fun for me. I get to hear from the press corps and their questions every single day and give them answers. This is opportunity for me to hear directly from you and for you to hear directly from me, whatever happens to be on your mind. So give it a try. We're going to try to get to as many of your questions as we possibly can. If we don't get to it first time around, keep trying. So go to www.youtube/statevideo and follow the instructions after that.


Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported this morning on the proposed amendments to the treaty which "would give Iraqi authorities the right to determine whether a U.S. service member was on- or off-duty when he or she committed an alleged crime outside American bases, where such an American would be tried. It also would allow authorities to inspect all U.S. cargo enterting the nation. Iraqi politicians see the changes as a way to preserve Iraqi sovereignty." Mary Beth Sheridan and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) explain al-Maliki's "cabinet now wants the agreement to include language to 'confirm that Iraqi land would not be the center for aggression' against its neighbors, said Planning Minister Ali Baban, who attended Tuesday's meeting. . . . The inspection demand, along with an explicit ban on attacks on neighboring countries, reflects concerns that the United States might launch an attack on Iran from Iraqi territory." Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes that the changes sought by Baghdad include killing the clause that allows Iraqis to ask the US to remain in their country past 2011. Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshya Zebari told the BBC today, "The Americans have accepted to look seriously into this amendment. Some of them, actually, are language-related formulations, not substantive, but some other amendments are substantive changes, which I personally doubt will go down well with the American side." Arash Parsa (Iran's Press TV) explains, "Iraqi groups have reacted to the security pact in different ways. For example, certain ultranationalist Kurdish leaders have welcomed SOFA and the US military presence, in line with their traditional policy, just because they believe it might lay the groundwork for realizing their dream of an 'independent Kurdish country'. However, Iraqi Sunni groups which mainly rely on an Arab nationalist ideology, see the US military presence in their country as a serious infringement on Iraq's sovereignty, hence they are reluctant to get too close to the Americans. Shia groups have also a clear picture of the situation in their mind; after the Shia clergy adopted an uncompromising stance against the pact, every Shia politician is aware that he or she must pay a heavy price for supporting such a humilating pact. Of course, that is, if there were any Shia politicians who are ready to sacrifice their country's sovereignty for short-term interests."


At the State Dept today, Sean McCormack also declared that despite the announcements by the Syrian government, the US school and cultural center remain open. That he knew or said he did. But will the US Embassy in Syria shut down today? He didn't know. Will the US Embassy close due to protests that were scheduled for today? He didn't know. He said that was something each embassy determines based on their own security assessment. Earlier at the White House, Dana Perino had directed the press to the State Dept for questions regarding "the possible closure of the embassy". Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) quotes al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh declaring, "The Iraqi government rejects the strike by the U.S. planes on Syrian territories as part of the policy of the Iraqi government and its constitution which does not allow the Iraqi land as a base to conduct such attacks on neighboring countries. The Iraqi government has initiated an investigation on this incident and called for the U.S. forces not to repeat such an act." Parker also notes Iraq's Parliament also condemned the US attack on Syria. Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) reported this morning on a letter to the United Nation and its Security Council that Syria delivered which "urged Iraq to investigate the U.S. raid and said the attack came as Syria had been increasing efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq." The Iraqis are going to investigate and Reuters reveals that Iraq's National Media Center declared today, "The Syrian side will be provided with all details and information when investigation is concluded."

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

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 people working for the Ministry of Education, a Baquba roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left fifteen people wounded and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer. Reuters notes six other police offiers were wounded in the Mosul car bombing and notes another Mosul bombing that wounded three Iraqi soldiers and another Mosul roadside bombing which left three police officers injured, a Ramadi roadside bombing claimed 1 life and wounded another person, and a Kirkuk sticky bomb resulted in two police officers being injured. Reuters also notes a roadside bombing near an ice cream shop claimed 5 lives and left seventeen people wounded.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Balad Ruz home invasion in which 3 people were murdered ("the father of the Sahwa leader, his daughter and her husband") and fourteen more ere wounded. Reuters notes 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul and 1 Iraqi police officer shot dead in Mosul.

Iraq doesn't have sovereignty currently, let's not assume it has justice. Two years ago three American service members were killed: Thomas Tucker, Kristian Menchaca and David Babineau. Tim Cocks and Peter Graff (Reuters) explain that two of the three accused in the attack "were found not guilty" yesterday but the third, Ibrahim Karim al-Qaraghuli, was judged to be guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. Whether he's guilty or not, who knows? Whether there's justice in Iraq is debatable. However, David Babineua was killed while Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker were spirited off and tortured before they were killed. So we'll note the conviction. Equally true is that statements were made connecting the assault to the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old
Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, the murder of her 5-year-old sister and both parents by US soldiers (not Babineua, Menchaca or Tucker). In 2006, Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reported on how Justin Watt (who was not part of the conspiracy) came forward with what he had been hearing. This was while US soldiers Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker were missing and, though the two were not involved in the war crimes, they were the ones chosen for 'punishment' as The Sunday Telegraph revealed in December 2006. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) explains today, "The attack was one chapter in a brutal history of this army unit. Just four months earlier, American soldiers from the same unit raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and then killed her, her parents and sister, burning the bodies afterward.
Four soldiers were convicted and sentenced in the rape case and a fifth soldier was discharged from the military. A sixth had already left the military when the others were court-martialed; he is scheduled to be tried in federal court. None of the soldiers captured and killed on June 16 were among those implicated in the rape and murder case." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) also notes Abeer and explains that the trial involved testimony "from witnesses who were unwilling to show up in court." October 22nd, Mike wrote, "Abeer is the 14-year-old girl who was gang-raped while her parents and five-year-old sister were killed in the next room. Then Abeer was murdered. All the US soldiers involved in the war crimes have been punished except for Steven D. Green." Mike noted Brett Barrouquere (AP) reporting on what happened after Steven D. Green was taken into custody -- he became a "chatterbox" and was "voluntarily making nearly two dozen statements while in custody". Green, who was admitted in the military on one of their moral waivers, has been fingered by the other soldiers as the ring leader. He has maintained he is innocent in the past but his lawyers are now floating an insanity plea. Unlike the other soldiers, Green had already been discharged before the war crimes were revealed. For that reason, he will be tried in a civilian court.

Turning to the US presidential race. Julia Preston (New York Times) reports Democratic presidential nominee Barack "Obama embraces new law-and-order language adopted in the Democratic Party platform at the convention. Although Americans are 'welcoming and generous,' the platform states, 'those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law.' Instead of the Democrats' emphasis, as recently as last year on integrating illegal immigrants into society, the platform says, 'We must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law.' Heather Higginbottom, the Obama campaign's director for policy, said Mr. Obama had not altered his basic views. If elected, Mr. Obama would insist that illegal immigrants pay back taxes and fines, learn English and go to the back of the immigration line to become legal." That is so offensive but not at all surprising. Latinos didn't favor Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary a 'little,' they favored her overwhelmingly and it was because there was a relationship and a record. It was ignored by the liars of Panhandle Media but Latinos can always be discarded and trashed by the likes of Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders, et al. (Phillip Rodriguez' Latinos '08 documentary told the truth the liars of Panhandle Media refused to.) So it's no surprise that the vindictive Obama political machine would create one of the most offensive party planks regarding undocumented workers as a form of punishment. Independent journalist David Bacon has long covered the challenges immigrants to the US face and his latest written report is "Silence on Immigration" (Foreign Policy In Focus) which notes of the next president, whomever he or she is, "Something is clearly wrong with the priorities of immigration enforcement. Hungry and desperate workers go to jail and get deported. The government protects employers and seeks to turn a family-based immigration system into a managed labor supply for business. Yet national political campaigns say less and less about it. Immigrant Latino and Asian communities feel increasingly afraid and frustrated. Politicians want their votes, but avoid talking about the rising wave of arrests, imprisonment, and deportations." Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) and it was published last month. Yesterday Dissident Voice featured Lance Selfa calling out PDA (Pathetic Democrats of America). Today Joshua Frank offers "Note to Progressives for Obama: What Happens After Election Day?" which includes the following:


Does [Norman] Solomon even understand what it means to "put up a fight"? And what's with the notion that progressives will "apply pressure" once Obama wins? They have no cash and he's already going to receive most of their votes. What are they going to do to pressure him, poke him in his ribs? Cause a stink by farting through the halls of Congress? Obama may actually listen to us if he thought progressives were considering to vote for a guy like Ralph Nader, which is the point Nader seems to be making by campaigning in swing states this week. Nader knows how to put up a real fight, one not mired in hypotheticals and fear-mongering, so he's pressuring Obama where it matters most.
Of course, such a direct confrontation to Obama's backward policies ruffles the slacks of many devout liberals. But that is the point. Progressives are not flush with cash and as we all should know, flashing the almighty buck is usually the best way to grab a politician's attention. But the only thing we have at our immediate disposal now is votes. These crooks need us to get elected. Obama already has the majority of left-wing support shored up despite his resistance to embrace our concerns. Imagine if he had to earn our votes instead of receiving our support without having to do a thing for it?
So let's prepare for what's ahead. Obama may win next Tuesday, but what will happen to the movements that have been sidelined in order to help get the Democrats elected? What will become of the environmental movement after January 20? Will it step up to oppose Obama's quest for nuclear power and clean coal? Will the antiwar movement work to force Obama to take a softer approach toward Iran? Will they stop the troop increase in Afghanistan?
These are but a few of the questions I'd like progressive supporters of Obama to answer. I've yet to hear exactly how they will pressure an Obama administration. In fact, I don't think they will. George W. Bush will be gone and that will be enough for most. Progressives faced a similar confrontation in 1992 when Bill Clinton took office, but without much of a fight we saw neoliberalism take hold in the form of NAFTA and we endured the Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform, a forest plan written by the logging industry, the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the Iraq Liberation Act, and much much more.
What makes the Democrats believe that they even deserve our support now? President Bush has indeed been bad, but his most egregious policies were upheld and supported by the majority of Democrats. They gave Bush the green light to whack Saddam while they controlled the Senate. They supported the PATRIOT Act (Obama voted for its reconfirmation), the War on Terror, Bush's increased Pentagon budget, a no-strings Wall Street bailout and two awful Supreme Court confirmations. You may also remember that two years ago we ushered Democrats back into office with the belief that they might actually fight Bush on Iraq. Instead we've had nothing but complicity, with Democrats time and again supporting increased war funds.

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Staying on a the topic of the foolish such as Norman Solomon, we'll note this from Team Nader:

Donate $3 now to Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
Three is the number of principled journalists who this week recognized the long term benefit behind Ralph's run for President. (That's a big number for the week before the election -- trust us.)
Before we get to the three, check out one Norman Solomon, who again this week makes the tired old argument that Obama is the least worst of the two major party candidates.
And therefore educated citizens should not risk a vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Compare this lily-livered Norman Solomon approach to the three principled ones who weighed in on the Nader/Obama/McCain contest.
Number one, we have Alexander Cockburn, writing in this week's issue of The Nation magazine.
Cockburn has been looking this month for one positive reason to vote for Obama. He's still looking.
In an article titled "Against Obama," Cockburn makes the point that:
"Abroad, Obama stands for imperial renaissance. He has groveled before the Israel lobby and pandered to the sourest reflexes of the cold war era. At home he has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful."
Number two, we have William Greider.
Greider wrote an article, also in The Nation this week, titled "Nader's Stubborn Idealism."
In it, Greider argues that Ralph is "a man of political substance trapped in an era of easy lies."
Greider quotes Ralph as saying "So long as progressives are willing to settle for the least worst alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power."
And number three, we have Allison Kilkenny who makes a similar point in the Huffington Post this week, in an article titled "The Least Worst Trap."
So, you have your three principled journalists.
And your Norman Solomon style unprincipled ones.
The principled ones will join with us -- the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and you, our loyal supporters -- on the winning side of history.
With the end of corrupt political party domination of our soci ety.
When Obama/Biden engage in another risky foreign war.
When a Democratic Congress rubber stamps their rightward drift.
But to build toward victory, we need your help now.
To drive upward our vote totals.
And to send a message to corporate Washington -- we're here, we're organized, we're not going away.
So, donate your $3 today.
Join Nader/Gonzalez on the winning side of history.
Onward to November


Meanwhile Jake Tapper (ABC News) covers the Los Angeles Times refusal to release the videotape of Barack partying with unsavory types. John Bentley (CBS News) notes Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the paper to release the 2003 videotape which includes Barack with that man he barely knows Bill Ayers as well as Bernardine Dohrn: "We should know about their relationship, including, apparently information that is held by the Los Angeles Times concerning an event that Mr. Ayers attended with a PLO spokesman. The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public." Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Governor Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, raised the issue:

"What we don't know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support," Palin said.
Over the chorus of loud boos from the crowd, Palin pointed out that the Los Angeles Times has refused to release the videotape of the banquet, which was explained in detail in the story that the newspaper published over six months ago.
"Maybe some politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own," she said. "In this case, we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public's right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed."

This comes as McCain-Palin releases a new advertisement. At the campaign's official blog, Matt Lira explains (link also has the video for the ad): "Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest web ad, entitled "Preconditions." The ad highlights that while Barack Obama has pledged to meet with Iran and other state sponsors of terror without preconditions, Iran has outlined several preconditions of their own. For a meeting, Iran is demanding that the United States cease its support of Israel and that all American forces must leave the Middle East. The question is what will Barack Obama do?" Meanwhile the Christ-child climbed back on the cross today. Jake Tapper reports Barack whined that John McCain has "been spending these last few days calling me every name in the book." He went on to claim that McCain will next call him "a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten!" McCain spokesperson Tucker Bonds responded, "No one cares what Barack Obama does with his toys, but Americans do care that he wants to raise taxes, add a trillion dollars in new spending and redistribute your hard-earned paycheck as he sees fit." On the plus, it should be noted that -- unlike MSNBC stooge Rachel Maddow -- Barack grasps that there is a difference between a Socialist and a Communist.

Palin gave a speech on energy today in Toledo Ohio and Julie Bosman (New York Times) is one of the few reporting on that:

Standing on a riser above a concrete floor, under the glare of fluorescent lighting, Ms. Palin addressed fewer than 200 people, mostly employees of Xunlight Corporation, a spin-off from the University of Toledo that manufactures solar energy implements.
She called for greater energy independence, blaming decades of presidents and legislators for failing to achieve it.
"It's been 30 years' worth of failed energy policies in Washington, 30 years where we've had opportunities to become less reliant on foreign sources, and 30 years of failure in that area," Ms. Palin said. "We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly 20 Congresses and seven presidents."
Ms. Palin also laid the blame at the feet of her Democratic counterpart, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has opposed offshore drilling. Mr. Biden was overheard telling a supporter on the campaign trail that he did not support clean-coal technology in the United States.

AP states she "called for a 'clean-break' from Bush energy policies, which she said have relied too much on imported oil." CNN reports that McCain will appear on Larry King Live tonight.

Meanwhile, Ralph's running mate Matt Gonzalez issues his own important statements:


Watching the Democrats in the final weeks of the presidential election has been a lesson in revisionist history. While they lament the terrible crimes perpetrated against the American people by George Bush and vow to keep fighting for our rights, they conveniently gloss over the fact that they have no standing to make such claims. Indeed, the Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, have actually voted with President Bush's agenda, making them complicit in his acts, not valiant opponents defending our liberties.
PELOSI'S PROMISE TO END THE WAR
Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said that if she became the speaker of the House of Representatives she would end the war in Iraq. Remember that? The Boston Globe noted, "Pelosi vows no 'blank check' on Iraq funds." (1/8/07). In her own words: "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new to him, because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions." Rick Klein of the Globe noted "Pelosi's comments mark the first suggestion by a Democratic congressional leader that Congress could use its authority over the nation's finances to hasten an end to the war. Her remarks point toward an aggressive stance on Iraq from Congressional Democrats in their opening days of control of the House and Senate."
Yet after she became the speaker of the House in Jan 2007, war appropriations actually went up by $50 billion, with no strings attached and no date for the withdrawal of troops. This year, 2008, they've gone up by another $25 billion for a two-year total of $350 billion, with no end in sight. So what happened to the promise of "no blank check?"
REID'S FILIBUSTER RULE
Sen. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, has complained that the Republicans have filibustered (a procedure used by the minority party to delay voting on legislation) more times in the last two years than in the entire history of the United States to explain why he can't move forward a progressive agenda. First he said it was over 70 times, then adjusted it by saying it was 65 times (Las Vegas Sun 3/6/08); yet still the highest for any two-year period (the previous record was 57 filibusters) (Politico, 3/6/08; Gov.Track.us 4/15/08). But Sen. Reid's frustration has proven to be a red-herring. Did you know that Reid lets the Republicans filibuster telephonically, meaning that he doesn't require that they physically present themselves on the floor of the Senate? Why is he making it easy on them? Is this what an opposition party looks like?
REPUBLICAN CLASS ACTION REFORM
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee for president, has a long history of voting against the interest of the American people, and specifically, the working class. Before entering the presidential contest, he supported the Republican Class Action Reform Bill, which made it harder for class-action lawsuits to be brought in the state courts. State courts are exactly where consumer protection lawsuits and recent wage and hour claims have succeeded in improving the lives of workers and helped them obtain better wages and breaks during work hours have succeeded.
Progressive commentators at the time called it a thinly veiled special-interest extravaganza. Journalist David Sirota noted "Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop 'frivolous' lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers." (The Nation, 6/26/06). So why did Obama vote for it?
PATRIOT ACT & FISA AMENDMENT
Sen. Obama supported one of the worst attacks on civil liberties in recent history, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which extended an earlier law granting law enforcement expanded powers to search telephone, e-mail, and financial and medical records, in addition to granting the federal government a host of other powers to combat so-called domestic terrorism. After saying he would oppose it if elected to the U.S. Senate (NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03), in July 2005, Obama voted for it.
But this wasn't enough. After entering the presidential race and running on a "change" message, Obama vowed in February of 2008 to vote against—and filibuster if necessary--the FISA bill amendment (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that gave immunities to telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. This eavesdropping program clearly violated the privacy of law-abiding Americans at the behest of the president, and made the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover seem tame by comparison. Those voting in favor of the bill didn't even first require full disclosure to see how deep the illegal conduct extended and agreed to apply the law retroactively.
Despite his promises to the contrary, and despite the vehement protests of many of his supporters, when the FISA bill came to the Senate for a vote this past July, Sen. Obama voted for it without explaining how this vote fit in with his change message or reconciled with his repeated claims he was going to protect the American people from repeated assaults on civil liberties by President Bush. Here was his chance to lead and make good on his promise, and what did he do?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the FISA bill "an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance" (ACLU press release, 7/9/08). Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office called the bill "a Constitutional nightmare" and noted "with one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant."
Obama even voted to stop debate on the bill so he could get back to the campaign trail. How ironic is it that he was in a hurry to give more speeches about change and hope but couldn't find the time or integrity to convert these ideas into action?
On the eve of the vote MSNBC's Rachel Maddow noted "I'm betting that [Pres. Bush's] wildest dreams did not include the prospect that Congress -- a Democratic-led Congress -- would help him cover up his rimes. Yet that is exactly what the US Senate is poised to do." (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 7/8/08).
OFF-SHORE DRILLING
As Sen. John McCain started to call for domestic drilling to ease our dependence on foreign oil, rather than debate the scientific and economic illogic of the position, Sen. Obama announced that he agreed with McCain. Reversing a 25-year ban on off-shore oil drilling, Sen. Obama led his party's reversal, offering no explanation for how this would ease oil prices, particularly as experts noted that drilling would likely have an almost imperceptible impact on oil prices in the near future.
As Lester Brown and Jonathan Dorn of the Earth Policy Institute noted in "Drilling For Oil Is Not The Answer" (9/30/08) "The U.S. Department of Energy projects that lifting the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) moratorium [of the lower 48 states] would not increase production before 2017 and that by 2030 production would only amount to 0.2 million barrels per day--less than 1 percent of current consumption."
Furthermore "The U.S. Department of Energy projects that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would lower gasoline prices at the pump by a mere 2 cents per gallon." Even if we combined the two regions in question, it wouldn't amount to much of an impact on oil prices: "Lifting the moratoria on drilling in ANWR and the OCS would reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by at most 6 cents--and this would not be seen for at least another decade."
Proponents of drilling have also exaggerated theenvironmental safety of current off-shore drilling and oil production technology in general. There is widespread evidence that current drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is already leading to serious pollution and spills. After reviewing data from the National Response Center, the Houston Chronicle found there had been 595 oil spills across four state coastlines, totaling roughly 9 million gallons spilled in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ("Spills from hurricanes staining the coast" by Dina Cappiello, 11/13/05). So why is Sen. Obama, who claims to care about the environment, now advocating off-shore drilling?
DEATH PENALTY
In June of 2008, the conservative Supreme Court struck down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape (Kennedy v. Louisiana held that states may not impose the death penalty for the commission of a crime that did not result in the death of the victim), a decision that surprised even death penalty opponents who hailed it as an important step toward full abolition of the death penalty. Sen. Obama's response? He quickly called a press conference to denounce the decision. Obama stated that he agreed with the extreme conservative minority, comprised of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Despite the many known racial and class inequities inherent in the death penalty, a practice abolished and abhorred in most of the rest of the world, Obama celebrates that he has always been a supporter of it.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama likes to highlight death penalty legislation that he sponsored while a member of the Illinois legislature, to show his commitment to reform. But let's be clear, he didn't work on laws to address the disproportionate rate of death penalty convictions of African-Americans, but rather a law to require videotaped interrogations of death penalty suspects. Yes, something we can applaud, but something many critics have noted merely greases the wheels of this injustice.
Most disquieting of all, as a state legislator, Obama voted "to expand the list of death-eligible crimes" (Chicago Tribune, 5/2/07), despite admitting in his own allegedly soul-searching memoir that the death penalty "does little to deter crime." (The Audacity of Hope, 2006).

There is more, that's all that will fit into the snapshot.

iraqmcclatchy newspapersleila fadelthe washington postmary beth sheridankaren deyoung
dan eggen
ernesto londono
ellen knickmeyerthe los angeles timesned parkerdamien mcelroy
jake tapper
david bacon
pbs
joshua frank
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
scott conroycbs news
mikey likes it

nader, nader, nader

team nader breaks it down:

Solomon v. Greider/Cockburn/Kilkenney
Posted by The Nader Team on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 07:26:00 PM
ShareThis
Donate $3 now to Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
Three is the number of principled journalists who this week recognized the long term benefit behind Ralph’s run for President. (That’s a big number for the week before the election — trust us.)
Before we get to the three, check out one Norman Solomon, who again this week makes the tired old argument that Obama is the least worst of the two major party candidates.
And therefore educated citizens should not risk a vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Compare this lily-livered Norman Solomon approach to the three principled ones who weighed in on the Nader/Obama/McCain contest.
Number one, we have Alexander Cockburn, writing in this week’s issue of The Nation magazine.
Cockburn has been looking this month for one positive reason to vote for Obama. He’s still looking.
In an article titled "Against Obama," Cockburn makes the point that:
"Abroad, Obama stands for imperial renaissance. He has groveled before the Israel lobby and pandered to the sourest reflexes of the cold war era. At home he has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful."
Number two, we have William Greider.
Greider wrote an article, also in The Nation this week, titled "Nader’s Stubborn Idealism."
In it, Greider argues that Ralph is "a man of political substance trapped in an era of easy lies."
Greider quotes Ralph as saying "So long as progressives are willing to settle for the least worst alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power."
And number three, we have Allison Kilkenny who makes a similar point in the Huffington Post this week, in an article titled "The Least Worst Trap."

So, you have your three principled journalists.
And your Norman Solomon style unprincipled ones.
The principled ones will join with us — the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and you, our loyal supporters — on the winning side of history.
With the end of corrupt political party domination of our society.
When Obama/Biden engage in another risky foreign war.
When a Democratic Congress rubber stamps their rightward drift.
But to build toward victory, we need your help now.
To drive upward our vote totals.
And to send a message to corporate Washington — we’re here, we’re organized, we’re not going away.
So, donate your $3 today.
Join Nader/Gonzalez on the winning side of history.
Onward to November
The Nader Team
PS: Remember, if you donate $100 or more, we will ship to you the hard cover 40th Anniversary edition of Unsafe at Any Speed — Ralph’s historic expose of the American automobile industry — autographed by the man himself. It was the book that launched the American consumer movement and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. This autographed edition is b
ound to become a rare collector’s item after the election. So, get it now. Only a limited number left. (This book offer ends November 4, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.)
ShareThis

good for team nader. norman solomon's a joke. and so is his precious little fair. they sent out a top ten list that i've already told jim i want to carry over to 3rd this weekend or i'd be doing it here but i will tell you get ready to laugh at the liars and hypocrites of so-called fair. in fact laughing at the hypocrites is probably true of so many on the left.

like howard zinn. howie wants you to know that barack is who you have to vote for.

have to, howie?

howie's an old man where it hurts: on the inside.

he's scared and no longer able to dream.

so he tries to herd his followers into the barack tent and tries to pass selling out off as a sign of maturity. maybe senility but not maturity.

if all these losers had used even 1/4 of their barack loving time just to cover barack we'd be looking at a completely different election.

i'm voting for ralph and i'm proud to do so.

i'm voting for ralph because i refuse to give up on myself or give in to fear.

i'm voting for ralph because i believe in a future full of promises, not ever more restrictions.

i'm voting for ralph because he is standinng up and when some 1 stands up you can stand with them or play like you don't know them. i know nader. he is the heart of this country that demands fairness, equality and forward movement.

this is from news4jax.com's 'Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader Campaigns In Jax:'

Nader explained some of his differing viewpoints at an area library on Tuesday, for instance he favors Medicare insurance for everyone.
He said he wants to reduce the military budget and devote more money locally to things like road repairs. He said he would implement a six-month withdrawal plan from Iraq.


however, you vote, make sure it's what you can live with. that's it for me tonight. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, October 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the White House speaks of two US soldiers who died in Iraq yesterday . . . even though there were no reported deaths, the treaty continues to create tensions as does the US attack on Syria, and more.

Yesterday in Turkey, Hurriyet reports, General Ilker Basbug became "the first Chief of General Staff to ever attend a cabinet meeting" when he briefed the Council of Ministers on the country's "ongoing fight against terrorism". Deutsche Welle notes, "The Turkish Air Force conducted bombing raids Tuesday on suspected Kurdish separatist positions in nothern Iraq in the latest upsurge of violence between the two sides." RTT News adds, "The army said that its warplanes succssfully carried out a bombing operation on Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) hideouts in the regions of Hakurk, Avashin-Basyan and Zap in northern Iraq. The army said that the air raid was backed by heavy artillery firing, but did not mention the causalities among the rebel ranks." Iran's Press TV reminds, "Turkey has stepped up operations against PKK since the rebels attacked a Turkish border outpost in October 3 and killed 17 soliders." Middle East Online does the math, "It was the sixth Turkish air raid in nothern Iraq since October 3 when PKK rebels crossing from their base in the region attacked a Turkish border outpost, backed by heavy weapons fir from the other side of the border." At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Robert Wood declared, "Look, we, our case, look, the PKK is a terrorist group, we've said over and over again that it needs to go out of business, our position hasn't changed on this." AFP notes, "Earlier this month, Turkey's parliament extended by one year the government's mandate to order cross-border military action agains the PKK in northern Iraq, which has been in effect since October 17, 2007." The tensions and attacks have been going on since the start of the illegal war; however, this month was supposed to see some changes including alleged talks between Ankara, Baghdad and DC according to Ali Babacan, Turkey's Foreign Minister. Hurriyet explains potential changes, "The weekend U.S. raid into Syrian territory will hamper Turkey's efforts to create a more stable Middle East through mediating between rival Israel and Syria, according to experts." Hurriyet maintains Turkey had no advance knowledge of the attack on Syria and notes, "Turkey has so far hosted four rounds of indirect talks between Israel and Syria with the aim of bringing the bitter enemies together for direct talks. The fifth round, originally scheduled for Septemeber, was postponed after former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resigned amid corruption claims. . . . Washington has remained silent on the Olmert-led Israeli government's initiative to engage in indirect talks with Syria under Turkish auspices."

This is the Bully Boy of the United States speaking to the United Nations September 23rd:

Sixty-three years ago, representatives from around the world gathered in San Francisco to complete the founding of the Charter of the United Nations. They met in the shadow of a devastating war, with grave new dangers on the horizon. They agreed on a historic pledge: "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, and unite their strength to maintain international peace and security."
This noble pledge has endured trying hours in the United Nations' history, and it still guides our work today. Yet the ideals of the Charter are now facing a challenge as serious as any since the U.N.'s founding -- a global movement of violent extremists. By deliberately murdering the innocent to advance their aims, these extremists defy the fundamental principles of international order. They show contempt for all who respect life and value human dignity. They reject the words of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or any standard of conscience or morality. They imperil the values of justice and human rights that gave birth to the United Nations -- values that have fueled an unprecedented expansion of freedom across the world.
To uphold the words of the Charter in the face of this challenge, every nation in this chamber has responsibilities. As sovereign states, we have an obligation to govern responsibly, and solve problems before they spill across borders. We have an obligation to prevent our territory from being used as a sanctuary for terrorism and proliferation and human trafficking and organized crime. We have an obligation to respect the rights and respond to the needs of our people.

Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker (New York Times) cite the above (beginning with "As soveriegn states . . .") as what unnamed "administation officials" cub "the clearest articulation" of the White House's position. The clearest articulation is international law and the US is in violation of it when it enters another country without the host country's permission to conduct any activity. The idea that unnamed weasels can point to remarks made regarding "sovereign states" without anyone (including Schmitty and Shanks) pointing out that "sovereign states" have "sovereignty." But what's to be expected when Schmmitty and Shanks writes, "This month, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former top commander in Iraq, said that the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq has dwindled to less than 20 a month from a peak of more than 120 a month a year ago." Really? The US is now only sending 20 a month? Because, pay attention Boom-Boom Boys, the US make up "foreign fighters." All non-Iraqis security/military forces on Iraqi soil are "foreign fighters." But you have to write with a strong sense of entitlement if you're not going to cite any legal objections to the created-out-of-whole-cloth 'logic' for bypassing a nation-state's sovereignty. The first clue that there's no real legal underpinning is that the writers have to cite Israel as an example -- actions condemned widely in the international community.

Unnamed officials whispering to the press say that the illegal raid was targeting 'terrorists' and some say it was CIA-led. Were that the case, it would need to be addressed with the American people frankly as would the White House's notion that they can create their own legal 'understanding'. If you factor in recent remarks by Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden -- on how if Barack Obama's elected president he will be tested and you won't like his 'solutions' but you must go along like good soldiers and you will eventually see the wisdom of his ways -- the attack on Syria is even more appalling and even more frightening. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports Syria's response today included closing an "American school and cultural center in Damascus" and she reports that Ali al-Dabbagh, speaking on behalf of the Baghdad government, "denounced the helicopter raid" declaring, "The Iraqi government rejects the U.S. aircraft bombardment on Syria territory, considering that Iraq's constitution doesn't allow its land to be used as a base for launching attacks on neighboring countries." At the US State Dept today, Robert A. Wood briefed the press and, asked about the closings, stated, "I've seen, actually heard about the reports but we have not been officially notified by the Syrian government. So until we do, I don't have much further to say on it." Wood then attempted to stick with his intent not to comment stating, "I'm not going to comment on it" and then, "Nothing to add." However, he then went on to make a statement.

Robert A. Wood: No, I don't. But let me just say as Sean [McCormack] said yesterday with regard to, you know, the flow of foreign fighters across the border. The Syrians have made in the past, taken some steps in the right direction, but there's a lot they need to do. And we have spoken to Syria about what they need to do. One of those things that we'd like to see happen is for them to better screen individuals coming inot Damascus Airport. For them to better patrol their borders. And, uh, you know, we want them, third, on this third point, we want them to deny foreign fighters safe haven in Syria. And so Syrians know what they need to do. We want to see those things happen. And that's just a general overview of what we'd like the Syrians to do with regards to foreign fighters.

"These are things we've been saying for some time," Wood declared when he was asked why the State Dept couldn't make those comments yesterday and he added that this is general policy with regards to Syria and has been "for some time."

Wood was also asked about the treaty masquerading as Status Of Forces Agreement in terms of had the Iraqis proposed any changes and he stated t

Robert A. Wood: As we've said many times, as I've said over and over again last week, this is a good agreement. It was carefully negotiated by both sides, if the Iraqis have some concerns about the text, they can certainly compile those recommendations and forward them on to us officially. That has not yet happened. There are lots of voices in Iraq that you know have problems with various aspects of the agreement. That's understandable. Iraq's a democracy. But until the Iraqi government compiles these concerns into a, you know, onto a piece of paper and forward it to us officially I can't really respond.

He then went on to declare, "I never talk about deadlines on anything but we obviously have a December 31st deadline, that's the only real deadline." December 31st is when the United Nations mandate that allows foreign fighters to be on the ground in Iraq. Without the mandate, there is no legal basis for the US to remain in Iraq. At the White House this morning, spokesperson Dana Perino was asked about any "Plan B" should the treaty not go through and would they pursue a renewal of the United Nations mandate?
Dana Perino: It's certainly not our preference. It wouldn't be what we want to do. We want to be able to move forward with both a strategic framework agreement that we've organized with the Iraqis that talks about the broad contours of our relationship, both economic and diplomatic and also political. So we want to be able to move forward with that with them. But when it comes to the strategic -- I'm sorry, the Status Of Forces Agreement, we remain confident that we'll be able to get one. However, if we don't, there will be consequences for that. And Secretary [of State Condi] Rice and Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates have both talked about that. And I don't think there are Iraqis -- I don't there are any Iraqis who think that they are ready to do this all on their own -- deep down. They might say that and it might help politically for them in their own country domestically to be able to say that they could do it on their own, but even just yesterday we saw two of our soldiers who were killed in a suicide bombing, So Iraq still has a lot of violence that they have to deal with. Our soldiers are the ones who are there to help them deal with it, and they're going to need our help for some time. And that's how we got to the agreement that we have, with the broad outlines that you've seen reported in the press. So we'll continue to work with them. We'll see what the amendments say. There might be something that we can work with, it might not. So I need to see those amendments and I need to hear from Abassador Crocker before I say any more.

Before we got any further, what is Perino speaking of regarding "yesterday"? ". . . even just yesterday we saw two of our soldiers who were killed in a suicide bombing . . ." She said that today. There's been no announcement of any US service members dying in Iraq yesterday. What is she talking about? Are their two deaths that haven't been announced? Did she misspeak? ICCC lists the last US service member death as having taken place October 24th (Cody J. Eggleston). (4188 is the current total of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.)

Returning to the treaty, Wood wants something in writing before he will comments. He may soon get it. Mariam Karouny and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) report that amendments to the proposal were drawn up today and "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will now send U.S. negotiators the proposed amendments to the security deal, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports of the amendments, "Iraq has demanded a clear commitment from the US that its forces will have left its soil by the end of 2011. The stance was revealed in a newly toughened-up version of a draft military pact that could eventually see the US presence forced to make their exit much sooner." CNN states it's "unclear" when the proposed amendments would be submitted. Today Leila Fadel updates her Sunday report with Roy Gutman "U.S. threatens to halt services to Iraq without troop accord" (McClatchy Newspapers) which informs that Gen Ray Odierno is the heavy throwing around threats to Iraqis that they'll lose $6.3 million in US aid as well as "$10 billion a year in foreign military sales" if they do not accept the treaty (or the UN mandate is not renewed) and that the US would no longer share intelligence "and would cease to provide air traffic control, air defense, SWAT team training or advisers in government ministries". And that's only one of the pressures on the puppet government regarding the treaty. The attack on Syria has created another and Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) covers the bind al-Maliki is thought to be in with regards to Iran: "If Maliki pushes the U.S.-Iraq security agreement through parliament without support from his Shiite partners, 'the Iranians will turn his life into hell. He will have no chance of winning in the south,' Attiyah, the political analyst, said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said the Iraqi people have a 'duty' to resist the Americans. The Iranian parliament speaker, Sli Larijani, wanred of 'unpleasent impacts' is Iraq sings the deal. And a senior cleric with ties to Iraq's Shiites, Ayatollah Kadhim al-Husseini al-Haeri, has pronounced the accord 'haram,' or forbidden under Islam."


US Secretary of State Condi Rice met with Massud Barzani, president of Iraq's Kurdish region, in DC today. AFP quotes him stating, "The issue of the strategic agreement was the main theme of the meeting." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported this morning on the failure of the oil law which was rejected and on the Kurds rejection of al-Maliki's efforts to create a new form of "Awakening" Councils for the areas that the central government in Baghdad and Kurds dispute: "It has become an article of faith for Kurdish political leaders that the Kurds have a right to fold Kirkuk into Kurdistan. The Kurds are also seeking to maintain influence over a number of other disputed areas along their borders with the rest of Iraq. The centeral government has long opposed Kurdistna's claims to Kirkuk because it wants access to the region's oil wealth, and also because historically many other people have lived there: Turkmens, Arabs and Christians, many of them Assyrians." The paper's Sam Dagher reported that "al-Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of the Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending the national police and army from Baghdad and trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in the province, who have deep-seated feuds with the Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massoud Barzani." On the issue of Iraqi Christians in that region, Dagher notes:

Mr. [Atheel al-] Nujaifi and his brother Osama, a member of Parliament in Baghdad, blame the Kurds for instigating a campaign against the Christians in Mosul to deflect the central government's pressure. One Kurdish leader called the accusations "ludicrous," and the United States military said it was most likely the work of militants linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. But a group of Christian leaders who met with General Thomas last week in the town of Qosh, outside Mosul, blamed the struggle between the central government and Kurdistan for the plight of their people. Sweeping out both sides, they said, may be the only way to restore calm and trust."You have done a great job removing Saddam's regime," the Rev. Bashar Warda told the general. "Continue with removing this regime, and start over again."

Meanwhile Reuters reports that Yunadim Kanna (MP, Christian) states "a few hundred" of the approximately 2,200 Iraqi Christian families who fled Mosul have returned to their home while Jawdat Ismail of the Displacement and Migration Ministry in Mosul places the number as being around eighty.

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

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left four people wounded, another that wounded three people, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left thirteen more people wounded, a second Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left five more injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing that injured two people, a Tuz roadside bombing targeting LT Col Shamal Mohammed (who survived), a Diyala Province roadside bombing that wounded three people and an Al Anbar Province bomber ("explosive vest") who took his/her life as well as the lives of 2 police officers with three more wounded.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Nineveh Province attack on police recruits in which 4 recruits were killed and four more were injured, an armed clash in Kirkuk that resulted in two participants being injured, also in Kirkuk a driver for an "Iraqi Christian lawmaker" (Yonadim Kanna) was wounded in a shooting,

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. China's Xinhua notes 20 corpses were discovered in Nineveh Province ("80 km west of the provincial capital of Mosul") and they remind that 34 corpses were discovered last week outside of al-Qaim. Hammouci explinas they were found in a house's basement on a tip "from local residents." Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Tal Afar and another (police officer) was found in Hilla.

Next week the US elects a new president. The Republican presidential candidate is John McCain, Sarah Palin is his running mate. Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports that Joe Wurzelbacher -- better known as "Joe the Plumber" -- has made his endorsement: "Wurzelbacher campaigned for McCain in Columbus, Ohio this morning. He said Barack Obama wants to redistribute wealth and would make America a socialist nation, according to the Associated Press. He also said he believes Obama will raise taxes on the middle class, despite Obama's promises to cut their taxes." Jake Tapper and Matthew Jaffe (ABC News' Political Punch) report that Joe Biden introduced himself in Florida stating, "I'm Joe -- not the plumber -- Joe the Biden." Tapper and Jaffe also note a polling setback for Barack and wonder how that . . . "Oh, right …his running mate said the world would test the mettle of a young President Obama with an international crisis and it wouldn't be apparent initially that the Obama response was the correct one." Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports weather and bus breakdowns on the road with the Palin camp. Conroy also notes that Governor "Palin will deliver a policy speech on energy security Wednesday morning in Toledo, Ohio". Will that get coverage? Her speech Friday on special-needs children didn't. And let's be really clear that the press refusal to cover that and instead focus on a woman's clothes said much more about their own bias and immaturity.

The McCain - Palin campaign has released a new ad:

McCain-Palin 2008 Launches New Television Ad: "Compare"
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest television ad, entitled "Compare." The ad highlights the clear choice Americans have at the polls this year. For higher taxes, policies that spread the wealth around, increased government spending and pain for small business, Barack Obama is the clear choice in this election. For policies that promote economic growth, help working Americans, lower taxes and eliminates government waste, the choice is John McCain. The ad will be televised in key states.VIEW THE AD HERE: Script For "Compare" (TV :30)ANNCR: Your choice...For higher taxes ... for workin' Joe's.Spread your income ... keep what's yours.A trillion in new spending ... freeze spending, eliminate waste.Pain for small business ... economic growth.Risky ... proven.For a stronger America, McCain.JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

In other political advertisement news, Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign announces their own media buy:

Today is a big day for Nader/Gonzalez.
Thanks to you, beginning today -- our radio ads will air in 22 markets in 12 states.
Click here to listen to the 30 second version and 60 second version of the radio ads.
Today through election day -- the ads will run six times a day on radio stations in the following areas:
Upstate New York
Northern California
Michigan
Ohio
Connecticut
Oregon
Florida
Minnesota
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Virginia
Please forward these radio ads to your address book, friends and family.
Also, we'd like to move these ads into as many markets as possible.
We can make it happen.
But we'd need to raise a boatload of money.
And soon.
So, if you haven't given yet, please donate whatever you can to Nader/Gonzalez today.
Our goal is to hit $4 million by election day.
We're about $190,000 away.
So, let's crank it up.
And help drive our last widget upward to the finish line.
Onward to November.

Team Nader also issued a request today:


We need your videos.
And we need them now.
With one week to go, we need your help to convince undecided voters to vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Over the last seven months, we've received countless stories and written testimonials from you -- our loyal supporters -- about why you plan to vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Now, we need you to help us show the country the full spectrum of Nader/Gonzalez supporters -- among them Independents, Republicans, Democrats and Greens.
So, we've come up with a video contest.
You send us your video testimonial telling us why you are voting for Nader/Gonzalez.
We'll pick our favorite ones and post them to our official Nader/Gonzalez YouTube channel.
And then we'll send them to our supporters to forward to their friends.
So, here is how it's going to work:
In your video, tell us your name, where you live, a little bit about yourself and your family, and most importantly, why you are voting for Nader/Gonzalez.
Your video testimonial should be 60 seconds or less.
Make the video.
You can do it from your webcam on your computer, from your videocam, high quality, low quality -- it's the message, not the quality, that we're looking for.
We need your video testimonials to convince America that it's time to break away from the corrupt two political parties.
So, send along your "Why I'm Voting for Nader/Gonzalez" videos now.
And we'll post the best ones later this week.

Ralph's running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Ralph gets some attention at CBS News' website via a reposting of William Greider from The Nation, "Why Ralph Nader Runs:"Nader stood at the podium and read from a lengthy speech describing the corporate dominance of politics, the stranglehold exercised on dissent by the two-party system, the presidential candidates packaged like soap and cars, the failure of left-liberal progressives (including The Nation) to demand conditions on their support for the Democratic candidate. "The hypocrisy of liberals, which may in some ways be unconscious, is empowering the forces that are destroying our nation," Nader asserted in an even-tempered voice. "The left in this country has been successfully cowed by the Democratic Party," he continued. "The votes of progressives are taken for granted by Democrats.... By allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we have demonstrated that we have no moral substance. We have no line that can be never be crossed, no stance so sacred and important that we are willing to stand up and fight back."So long as progressives are willing to settle for the "least worst" alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power, he suggested. This kind of talk from Nader drives some people to rage against him. He returns the favor by discussing "the rage that many in our nation feel towards liberals." Barack Obama, he insists, does not intend to alter anything fundamental about the causes. "This rage is a legitimate expression of very real betrayal," Nader explained. "The working class, most of whom do not vote, watch Democratic candidate after Democratic candidate run for office promising to support labor and protect jobs and then, once elected, trot off to Washington to pass the corporate-friendly legislation drawn up by the 35,000 lobbyists who work for our shadow government."

Meanwhile Lance Selfa (Socialist Worker via Dissident Voice) calls out the 'progressives' insisting upon providing non-stop cover for Barack:

What has unfolded is a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, minimize or ignore Obama's gestures or actions that fly in the face of progressive values. On the other, accentuate the differences between him and McCain, no matter how small they might be on particular issues.
A good example of the former was the reaction of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) to the recent Wall Street bailout bill and Obama's support for it.
To its credit, PDA opposed the legislation as a "sellout to greedy fat cats," as PDA National Director Tim Carpenter called it in an October 2 press release. Carpenter pointed out that Senate changes to the bill (what he called "lipstick") and renaming it a "rescue plan" didn't change its essence as a "blank check bailout."
Yet two days later, Congress passed that blank-check bailout. The administration's efforts to round up support got a boost from Obama, who campaigned for the bill and persuaded leading members of the Congressional Black Caucus to switch from "no" to "yes."
In many ways, Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership led the way to the bill's passage. And what did PDA say about that? Nothing. Its next official press release, dated October 10, quoted Carpenter as saying, "We're stepping up our efforts during these closing weeks to elect Obama and a more progressive Congress. We've already started. New-voter registration coordinator Bruce Taub and a team of Massachusetts volunteers just returned from a four-day trip to Pennsylvania."
Given that PDA and other progressive Democrats are invested in an Obama win and substantial Democratic coattails, it's unlikely they would have taken the opportunity to denounce Obama or the Democrats.
But then, that's not their modus operandi anyway. Progressives for Obama initiator Tom Hayden even explained: "I have no problem with Barack Obama supporting the bailout package as long as it keeps him on track to the presidency. He needs to be critical, to offer amendments, and to promise to return to the crisis the day after November 4."
[. . .]
This is the way "progressive" politics oriented on the Democratic Party is played -- because when all is said and done, it is no more than liberal gloss on the politics of the "lesser of two evils."

iraqroy gutmanleaila fadel
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the new york timesalissa j. rubin
sam dagherthe washington postmary beth sheridancorinne reillywilliam greider

dear james, try reporting

above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Me, Joe Biden" and that's our laugh. but we've got another: james rowley.

rowley writes 'McCain Criticizes Obama on `Wealth-Inequality' Talk (Update1)' for bloomberg news. can you figue out what that is because it's not reporting.

a 2001 radio broadcast included barack as a guest. john mccain states barack told about redistribution of wealth.

now let me stop real quick because most of you know about barack's 1995 tv interview where he did that as well. apparently the press hasn't caught on to that. this is not the tv interview, this is a radio interview.

so what did barack say?

that's where james confuses us.

he tells us what a guy who was on the program with barack (and who also gave $500 to barack's 2008 campaign) says what barack means.

i guess barack was the guy's boyfriend.

i mean that's always the excuse, right? we say, 'i know he said ---- but he meant ---'. that's what we do with our boyfriends.

so i guess barack was the guy's boyfriend.

but i saw the video on youtube when i was looking at a mccain campaign video last week - it was a side bar. [ here's a site that i think it right-wing but it's got the video embedded in it (and that's easier for me to find than going through mccain campaign videos while waiting for the interview to pop up on the side at youtube). -- not taking this out but my link was wrong. here's a link to the video.]

so james, why don't you watch the video. it's from 1995. forget what the blogger says, tell us what barack says there.

and james, if you want to report, that means you tell us what barack said.

you didn't do that in your bloomberg article, now did you?

no.

where is the direct quote from barack, the full quote?

you offer defense from people who know barack.

but you forget to quote what he actually said.

how about you do that. and how about you explain why i know the topic better than you do?

you're supposed to be a reporter. try acting like 1.

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


Monday, October 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq has new 'neighbor problems,' Dana Perino will not comment -- she won't -- she really, really won't, Iraqi Christians get some global attention and more.

Iraq has serious problems with its neighbors. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that northern Iraq was bombed by Turkey today and last night. The tensions between Turkey and the northern region of Iraq have been ongoing. World Bulletin News reports a political development that emerged last week and was little noticed, US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama weighed in with an announcement at his campaign website last week which spoke of "resotring the strategic partnership with Turkey" and in which he said, "That relationship has been deeply strained in recent years, most importantly by the Bush administration's misguided and mismanaged intervention in Iraq, which has helped revive the militanst threat posed to Turkey by the PKK. . . . Barack Obama and Joe Biden will lead a diplomatic effort to bring together Turkish and Iraqi Kurdish leaders and negotiate a comprehensive agreement that deals with the PKK threat, guarantees Turkey's territorial integrity, and facilitates badly needed Turkish investment in and trade with the Kurds of nothern Iraq." How that will play out with some of Barack's Cult members in the US is unknown. A number of them with outlets (especially in the northern west) have been public in their ardent support for the PKK. Meanwhile Turkish Daily News reports that former CIA agent Charles Sam Faddis' book Operation Hotel California: The Clandestine War Inside Iraq asserts that, "Turkish soldiers and CIA teams were nearly involved in an armed clash during America's invasion of Iraq in 2003".

Turkey is Iraq's northern neighbor and this week it takes second place on the tensions list. Syria is Iraq's western neighbor (actually, northwestern). Yesterday Reuters reported that US and Iraqi officials were summed by the Syrian Foriegn Ministry following an attack which the Telegraph of London described as follows: "In an echo of the Israeli air strikes which last year targeted a suspected Syrian nuclear facility, US military helicopters were reported to have crossed into Syria to drop troops who then executed the mission.The state news agency Sana reported that eight civilians had been killed in the raid. 'Four American helicopters violated Syrian airspace around 16:45 local time (1345 GMT) on Sunday,' it said. 'American soldiers' who had emerged from helicopters 'attacked a civilian building under construction and fired at workmen inside, causing eight deaths. The helicopters then left Syrian territory towards Iraqi territory,' Sana said." Tony Perry (Babylon and Beyond, Los Angeles Times) wondered, "Was the weekend raid a way for the U.S. to warn the insurgents, and their Syrian cohorts, that although the U.S. is retreating from the border, it is still on watch and able to strike?" Today Ellen Knickmeyer and Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) explained, "U.S. attacks inside Syria are extremely rare, though the U.S. military has stepped up security along Iraq's border with Syria in recent months to stem the traffic of fighters and weapons into Iraq. U.S. officials say many insurgents, particularly suicide bombers, arrive in Iraq via the Syrian border." Reuters reports: "A deadly raid on the Syrian side of Iraq's border, blamed by Syria on the United States, targeted an area used by insurgents for attacks on Iraq, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said on Monday." CNN cites Sgt Brooke Murphy as one military spokesperson stonewalling: "Unfortunately, we cannot confirm anything at the moment." Borzou Daragahi and Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) explain, "In Washington, several military representatives who were asked about the operation did not deny that a raid had taken place. Although they would not confirm the attack, they used language typically employed after raids conducted by secretive special operations forces." AFP quotes an unnamed "American official" who states "The operation was successful" and claims the attack was targeting a 'terrorist'. Martin Sieff (UPI) reminds, "Cross-border attacks in any conflict carry the risk of widening it uncontrollably. That is especially the case here, since Syria is the main Middle East ally of Iran, and tensions between the United States and Iran remain high over Tehran's drive to acquire long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. And the risks of escalation are far greater when ground troops are involved in the incident, not just airstrikes."

At the White House this morning, spokesperson Dana Perino repeatedly refused to comment although she did, at one point, invite the press to attempt to physically force a comment out of her. Here are Perino's responses to questions about the attack on Syria:

*"The United States government has not commented on reports about that and I'm not able to here either."

*"I can't comment on it at all, no."

*"I'm not going to comment in any way on this; I'm not able to comment on that."

*"I'm not going to comment on the reports about this, no, I'm not. Anybody else?"

*"I'm not going to comment on it at all. This could be a really short briefing."

*"I don't know. I don't know."

*"Jim, all I can tell you is that I am not able to comment on reports about this reported incident and I'm not going to do so. You can come up here and try to beat it out of me, but I will not be commenting on this in any way, shape or form today."

*"I don't believe anybody is commenting on this at all."

*"To give you an answer to that would be commenting in some way on it and I'm not going to it."

*"Nothing."

"*I understand the reports are serious but it's not something I'm going to comment on in any way."

While the White House refuses to comment, all tongues are not being held. Caroline Alexander and Thomas Penny (Bloomberg News) quotes Walid al-Moualem, Syria's Foreign Minister, stating, "We consider this criminal and terrorist aggression. We put the responsibility on the American government and they need to investigate and return back to us with the result the investigation of why they did it." Al Jazeera quotes al-Moualem stating, "All of them were unarmed and they are on the Syrian territories. This killing of civilians in international law means a terrorist aggression. The Americans do it in the daylight, this means it is not a mistake it is by determination, by planned determination. [Some sources spell the name differently such as Moullem and Muallem -- we're using the United Nations' spelling: Moualem.] BBC informs that Syria's spokesperson Jihad Makdissi tells them the attack is "an outrageous crime and an act of aggression. If [the US has] any proof of any insurgency, instead of applying the law of the jungle and penetrating, unprovoked, a sovereign country, they should come to the Syrians first and share this information." And Syria's reaction is not isolated. Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim (Babylon & Beyond, Los Angeles Times) report, "The pro-U.S. faction within the Lebanese government condemned the U.S. move. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora accused the U.S., which funds his military, of an 'unacceptable' violation of Syrian sovereignty. 'Any military attack against an Arab country or on a small country by a larger country is an act we reject,' said a statement issued by his office." And the situation has created fallout outside of Syria. Catherine Philp and Deborah Haynes (Times of London -- link has text and video) explain that "Britian and Syria cancelled a planned joint press conference of their foreign ministers in London today as the fall-out continued over an American military raid into Syrian territory that left eight civilians dead.

"But Syria is problematic for me but, more importantly, for the Iraqis because it doesn't seem that there's much being done on the other side of the border to assist this country in terms of maintaing the border and the integrity of, you know, Iraqi sovereignty." That may be the most recent statement on Syria from someone speaking on behalf of the US government. US Gen John Kelly made that statement (from Iraq via videolink) in a press briefing at the Pentagon October 23, 2008. Among his other comments regarding Syria was in noting a physical barrier was being constructed: "Syria, different story; it's a long border. It's the longest border really. There hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years. We're in the process of rebuilding. And that's really at this point just building a large berm of sand and some ditching to keep certain vehicles from crossing the border and from the Jordanian border all the way up north. And we're working our way north, past the Euphrates River."

Syria's Foreign Minister raised the issue of the treaty masquerading as a SOFA today, "Also the question arises here: Is this the production of the agreement between the administration and Iraq, the defensive agreement, where many Iraqis are saying that the sovereignty of Iraq is at stake and the American will use the Iraq's territories to launch aggression against neighbouring countries? These are question marks." A question mark is the Status Of Forces Agreement itself but Syria wasn't the only raising questions regarding the SOFA as a result of the attack on Sunday. Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports Labi Abbawi (Iraq's Foreign Ministery undersecretary) stated, "We are trying to contain the fallout from the incident. It is regrettable and we are sorry it happened," and that the attack will be used by "some . . . for the argument against the agreement." Much arguing over the treaty in Iraq already. Over the weekend, Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki would not sign the treaty without "national consensus" according to Sheikh Jalal al Din al Sagheer. The US reaction was not pretty. Leila Fadel and Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reported last night that the US was threatening to "shut down military operations and other vital services" in Iraq unless the treaty is signed off on and that Iraqis (rightly) see this as "political blackmail": "In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq's economy, educational sector and other areas - "everything" - said Tariq al-Hashimi, the country's Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn't know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

The US attack on Syria wasn't the only one over the weekend with fall-out. Al Jazeera reports that a US attack on Falluja Friday resulted in Saturday assertions by the Iraqi Islamic Party ("biggest Sunni Arab political party" and head by Iraq's Sunni vice president Tareq al-Hashemi) stated there was a "hidden political motive" behind the killing of one Iraqi so, as a result, the party "suspended dealings with American military personnel and civilians". Staying with Falluja, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a new report which included details of a sewage treatment plant for Falluja. Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) explains how $100 million can be spent on doing nothing in Falluja: "Sewage continues to run in the streets, and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that the system may never be properly connected to individual homes, lacks the necessary fuel to operate and is unlikely to ever cover the full city." Though budgeted for 32.5 million, the cost now stand at $98 million. Kim Gamel and Pauline Jenkins (AP) add: "The report describes U.S. Embassy officials frozen in 'indecision' over how to finish and pay for the project. Last Nov. 2, 'after more than 15 months of meetings, briefing charts, official memorandums, and countless e-mail exchanges,' the report says, the officials decided to terminate outstanding contracts that were to be paid for by Iraqis and complete the remaining work with U.S. money, but make the project smaller." Ernesto London (Washington Post) adds, "South Carolina-based FluorAMEC began work in July 2004. By September 2005, amid concerns over delays and unforeseen costs, the contract was terminated. U.S. officials awarded 45 contracts to Iraqi companies to finish the work. The report does not allege that money was stolen and does not fault FluorAMEC." In related floundering, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) examined the issue of what happens to Iraqi prisoners as Iraq takes over control of its own country, "Under the proposed new rules, the United States military would need Iraqi permission to make arrests and then would have to turn suspects over to the Iraqi authorities within 24 hours. Less clear, however, is what will happen to those already in detention -- about 1,000 people in all." And staying with corruption, Saturday James Risen (New York Times) covered a new finding by the Pentagon that KBR is in "serious contractual noncompliance" and the paper ads that there are more records about safety violations than were previously known (at least 18 lives have been lost due to electrical 'work' by US contractors in Iraq).


On the subject of crisis confronting Iraqi Christians, Pope Benedict XVI publicly addressed the crisis again yesterday. Catholic News Agency reports:Following Mass in St Peter's Basilica that concluded the Bishops' Synod, Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday defended Christians in Iraq and India who are "victims of intolerance and violence."Greeting the thousands of faithful present in St. Peter's Square, the Holy Father noted that the synodal assembly is a clear example of ecclesial communion because the Word of God, that is the person of Christ, is the center of attention. According to the meaning of the word "church," the Pope expounded, "We experienced the joy of being gathered around the Word." Pope Benedict reflected on the relationship the Word of God and Sacred Scripture. The Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum teaches that good biblical exegesis includes both the historical-critical method and the theological because "Sacred Scripture is the Word of God in human words." Each text must be read and interpreted remembering the "unity of Scripture, the living tradition of the Church and the light of faith." Scientific exegesis and lectio divina are both necessary and complementary to understand the spiritual meaning that "God wishes to communicate to us today."

Vatican Radio reported yesterday (audio link), "Pope Benedict announced today he will be visiting Cameroon and Angola in March of next year. He was speaking during the final mass of the Senate of Bishops where he also appealed for the defense of Christian minorities in Iraq and India. Chris Altieri has this report."

Chris Altieri: The Holy Father made the announcement in his homily during mass on the 30th Sunday during Ordinary Time in St. Peters Basilica which he celebrated with over three hundred bishops and priest con-celebrate to mark the closing of the 12th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. After mass in St. Peters' Basilica, Pope Benedict prayed the Sunday Angelus with the faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square. In remarks before the Angelus Prayer, Pope Benedict spoke of the suffering of Christians in several places around the world especially recalling the persecutions of the faithful underway in Iraq and India. The Pope said he makes his own the appeal launched by the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches on the final day of Synod deliberations in which the pratriarchs sought to bring the tragedy underway in certain countries of the east to the attention of the international community of religious leaders and all persons of good will. The Holy Father said Christians there are victims of intolerance and cruel violence. They're murdered, threatened and constrained to abandon their homes in search of refuge. The Pope said that he's sure that the ancient and noble peoples of those countries where Christians are a minority have learned over the course of the centuries to appreciate the contribution the small but diligent and industrious communities of the faithful make to the common good. Pope Benedict called on civil and religious authorities in all nations to make every effort to ensure that the rule of law and civil concord be restored as quickly as possible and that honest citizens be able to count on adequate protection from the institutions of the state. In his homily, the Holy Father said that all those who participated in the work of the Synod will bring home the renewed knowledge that the Church's principle task at the start of this new millenium is above all to let itself be nourished by the word of God in order to make the new evangilazation more effective. The Pope said it is now necessary that the Ecclesiastical Experience of the Synod reach every community and that all the faithful must understand the need there is of translating the word we have heard into gestures of love because this is the only way to make the Gospel Proclamation credible despite human weaknesses that mark individuals. I'm Chris Altieri.

Asia News also quotes the Pope declaring, "I am certain that the ancient and noble populations of these nations have learnt through centuries of respectful coexistence to appreciate the contribution made by the small but hard-working and skilled Christian minorities to the development of their common homeland. They do not ask for privileges; they only want to continue to live in their own country alongside with their fellow countrymen and women, as they have always done." Deborah Hayndes (Times of London) reports, "The mass exodus from Mosul, which was condemned yesterday by the Pope, has eased but many families remain too traumatised to follow the lead of Abu Masarra, 39, preferring to squat in monasteries and the spare rooms of houses in towns and villages to the north and east of the city. Questions also remained about who carried out the attacks, which left more than a dozen Christian men dead and three houses destroyed. Allegations ranged from al-Qaeda fighters, who have killed Christians in the past, to power-hungry elements linked to the northernmost Kurdish region of Iraq. The Kurdish authorities denied any connection." Luca Galassi (Italy's Peace Reporter) adds, "The attacks have motivations that are both religious and political. Anti-Christian pamphlets have surfaced in the city in recent days. Last Saturday, armed men blew up three houses owned by Christians in the al-Sukar district. The houses were empty: at least a thousand families have fled from Ninive province, an exodus which, according to the governor Duraid Kashmulah, is destined to continue, if not increase." Lebanon's Daily Star editorializes, "There is another disturbing element to the latest round of ethnic cleansing to take place in Iraq since its government was overthrown by the US-led invasion in 2003: The loudest Arab voices trying to call attention to the crisis are here in tiny Lebanon, where Christian religious and political leaders have been joined by their Muslim counterparts, both Sunni and Shiite, in condemning the attacks and demanding action to stop them. That speaks well (for once) of this country's frequently divided elites, but it says something far less flattering about most of the Arab world. It will be recalled that during the run-up to the illegal invasion that led to years of bloodletting in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Western capitals and other cities to voice their rejection of the entire project. Most of them were Christians, and there they were standing up for the rights and interests of mostly Muslim Iraqis whose fates were about to be tossed into the maelstrom of war." Catholic Culture notes two other voices issuing calls -- Cardinal Emmanuel-Karim Delly ("patriarch of the Chaledean Catholic Church) declared of the international community, "Up to now you have been silent and you have not spoken about us despite all of the sufferings we have had to bear the past three or four years and more than half a century"; while Bishop Rabban Al Qas of Arbil "took a harder line, saying that the Iraqi government and its American defenders share the blame for allowing the intimidation to continue unchecked." Kenneth Timmerman (Global Research) asserts, "The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) has taken the Assyrian Christians in Ainkawa and in the Nineveh Plains hostage in their efforts to win more territory in the coming votes on the status of Mosul and Kirkuk. On Oct. 17, Iraqi security forces arrested six men in connection with the most recent targeted killings of Christians, and found four of them had ties back to the KRG militia, not al Qaeda. While Kurdish leaders protest they have made efforts to protect freedom of religion and have allowed evangelical Christians to proselytize in Muslim areas, nevertheless they are engaged in a cynical effort to use the Assyrian Christians as political pawns to expand their own power."

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack on US service members in Baghdad which lead to a raid later in the day. In some of the other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 3 lives and left five wounded, another that left two wounded, a Baghdad 'sticky' bombing that claimed 2 lives and left seven injured and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of the driver and 1 police officer with two more police officers wounded. Reuters notes a Dour roadside bombing that claimed 1 life (government employee) with six more wounded and a Tuz Khurmato bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Iraqi soldiers wounded in a Mosul shooting and 1 person shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

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


Turning to the US presidential race. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Team Nader's Loralynne Krobetzky is collecting "Breaking Point" stories for the campaign and shares this one today:


Ralph and Matt,I just wanted to drop you a line from here in Florida. I am proud to have voted for you today. It is the first time I have voted since 1992…and I know that you represent me and millions of others who have been seeking truth and liberty. I voted in Lee County Florida and the turn-out at my precinct was in my estimation a record. I waited in line for aproximately 1 1/2 hours (which was well worth it) and as luck would have it there was a guy in from of who had an Obama button on. He asked me who I was voting for and I said, "I am voting for a third party." He said, "You can tell me, you're voting Nader right?" I thought OK I'll play his game.He went on to ask me the obvious question. (I saw it coming--I was licking my chops!!) He asked me why I would vote for a candidate who can't win. I said because "today I am voting my conscience and not the Evil of two lessers." I told him I would not vote for either corporate candidate -- Obama or McCain. By the time I was through explaining to him about the erosion of the Constitution, the MSM Blackout, Wall Street Bail Out, etc, I had him thinking at the very least.Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez, it has been a gratifying experience for me to have watched you two unite millions of Americans behind truth, justice, liberty and the foundation of the Constitution. "We The People"…WE Will Decide!!!Sincerely,
-- Patrick Brian Lee

Staying with Ralph (and this is what Ava and I wrote Sunday with one word changed), Saturday Ralph was trying for a world record: Most speeches in a 24-hour time period. Early this morning (midnight), they announced Ralph had made the world record. 15 speeches were required (each at least 10 minutes long) and -- no surprise for the campaign whose motto should be "Surpasses All Expectations" -- they made the work with 21 speeches. Always going the extra mile, Ralph Nader. Team Nader notes, "In the coming days, the Nader/Gonzalez campaign will submit all the paperwork, photography and video footage to Guinness World Records to be evaluated and decided upon. For more information and to see a full itinerary, please visit http://www.votenader.org/events/marathon/".

John McCain is the GOP presidential candidate and Sarah Palin is his running mate. Jimmy Orr (Christian Science Monitor) reports, "The Republican nominee for President slammed Barack Obama for comments Obama made in a radio program seven years ago which surfaced early this morning. The McCain campaign says these remarks are further proof that Obama's fundamental philosophy is one of higher taxes in order to spread the wealth around." Orr quotes McCain stating, "It is amazing that even at this late hour, we are still learning more about Senator Obama and his agenda. In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote -- 'tragedies' of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society. That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor. It means taking your money and giving it to someone else."

Today the McCain - Palin campaign released a new ad. Click here for video, text below:

JOHN MCCAIN: The last eight years haven't worked very well, have they?
I'll make the next four better.
I know your life savings have been hit hard, but we'll rebuild them.
Barack Obama wants to increase taxes on your savings.
You can't afford that.
He's quite a talker.
But that's just bad judgment.
ANNCR: Experience. Leadership. McCain.
JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

"By the way, I love this weather because it reminds me of home," Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Palin saying as she spoke in Fredericksburg where a drizzle turned to a steady down pour: "As the rain came down harder, some in the crowd ducked under trees and others covered their heads using campaign signs, but Palin didn't even request an umbrella as she stood on stage, calmly reading through her prepared remarks." Someone must have forgot to pass on the whisper campaign being launched against her by the likes of the New York Times.
iraq
the washington postellen knickmeyerernesto londonoborzou daragahijulian e. barnesthe los angeles timesthe new york timeskatherine zoepfpeter hamby
roy gutmanleaila fadeldeborah hayneshussein kadhimmohammed al-dulaimymcclatchy newspapers
alissa j. rubinjames risen
scott conroycbs news