Monday, March 31, 2008
Professor Stephen Zunes smears Hillary
That is Senator Hillary Clinton in Iraq in 2003. As Mike's "Super! Barack Obama loses a delegate!," C.I.'s "Foreign Policy in Focus: Think tank without thought" and The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Crackpot Stephen Zunes expressing Hillary Hatred" note, Professor Stephen Zunes feels so emboldened to attack Hillary that he does not even feel bound by facts which is why, last week, Foreigh Policy in Focus published his latest screed which dismissed Senator Clinton for only visiting Iraq once . . . in February 2005. Professor Zunes' article had an editor but apparently she was out to lunch too? Or is just further evidence of how any lie can be spread about Senator Clinton because the liars have already gotten away with so much that they honestly do not believe anyone will call them out at this point?
I will call Professor Zunes out. I will tell him that his 'scholarship' is shoddy and suggest that after what happened to poor Professor Ward Churchill, he might want to grasp that academic standards do matter and he might want to attempt pursuing those standards.
In the meantime, he can pleasure himself to the drawing below, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Stumbling for Maturity":
This is "Morning HUBdate: Too Short on Action" (HillaryClinton.com):
Too Short on Action: Clinton responds to "the Bush administration's plans to shake up U.S. financial market regulation" by saying the plans are "too short on action... there is still a very serious gap between what the administration is proposing and the immediate crisis that we face." Read more. Read Hillary’s plan.
Don't Stop Campaigning: A Washington Post editorial says that an "extended contest informs the electorate and serves to battle-test [both candidates]. We don't see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast..." Read more.
Stronger Across America: The New York Times describes the "enthusiasm [of] voters to have their voices heard." "No way should she get out of the race," said one Indiana voter, "She's stronger and her support is much stronger than what many people think.” Read more.
Voting Her Heart in Media, PA: Gertrude 'Geri' Clausen was "born in 1913 - before women had the right to vote…[she] was a loyal registered Republican for 73 years....Now she's a Democrat who wants to elect a woman president." Geri’s daughter says "her mother is channeling a lifetime of slights and hope into one vote." Read more.
Surprising Support: The NYT reports on the change of heart from Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of the Pittsburgh Review-Tribune. Despite strong criticism in the 90s, Scaife reflected on his recent meeting, describing Hillary as having "'exhibited an impressive command of many of today’s most pressing domestic and international issues.' Her answers, he added, 'were thoughtful, well-stated and often dead on.'" Read more.
Previewing Today: Hillary hosts "Solutions for the American Economy" events in Harrisburg, PA and Fairless Hills, PA where middle class tax cut will be the focus.
Canvassing for Hillary: First-time political volunteer Terry Gish writes about his first canvassing experience. "The doors did open, along with a flood of enthusiasm for this campaign. When I asked one lady if Hillary could count on her vote, she roared, 'You bet she can!'" Read more.
The Hillary I Know: Congresswoman Hilda Solis knows that with Hillary as president "women will have a true advocate in the White House and makes the changes our country and women everywhere need to move forward." Read more.
On Tap: This Wednesday, Hillary hosts an economic summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
And this is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" which contains a topic at the end that I will probably address tomorrow:
Monday, March 31, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a missing US soldier's remains are identified, al-Sadr continues his winning streak, what would make a magazine (falsely) claim that their tax status prevented them from covering news makers, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Camilo Mejia, chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War, tells his story in Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia and he also shares it in person. Saturday Dawson Raspuzzi (Vermont's Rutland Herald) reported that Mejia spoke to "a packed auditorium at Green Mountain College" last week:
When a student asked what needs to be done to end the war, Mejia answered that he doesn't believe any elected presidential candidate can end the war -- soldiers just need to stop fighting it.
"The first step in helping the rebuild their country is getting the hell out," he said.
[. . .]
"It's not patriotic to support the war, it's patriotic to stand against it," he told the audience, to a round of applause.
Sunday AP reported on Kristen Westerberg who enlisted "in October 2005" and "recruiters told her she would probably never see war duty." March 11, 2008 she was arrested (the article doesn't tell you how) and she is now at Fort Knox facing charges of desertion. Her family backs up her claims that she wouldn't have enlisted if she hadn't been told she wouldn't be shipped off to war and the military responds by declaring they don't "know why a recruiter would tell someone they wouldn't be sent to war." Jerome Burdi (South Florida Sun-Sentinel) reports Westerberg self-checked out in 2006 and quotes her father (Tom Westerberg) stating, "She doesn't agree with the war." Burdi also notes: "Palm Beach County sheriff's deputies found her in a vehicle behind a closed business after midnight March 11. They arrested her when they learned the Army had a warrant for her on a desertion charge." Why would they lie to a recruit? To make their quota. Joshua Key, another war resister in Canada, was told the same thing. Joshua Key tells his story in The Deserter's Tale (written by Key and Lawrence Hill).
Joshua Key self-checked out and is among many US war resisters currently in Canada who are attempting to seek asylum. They need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month. For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Turning to the continued assault on Basra in Iraq. On Saturday, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported that Moqtada al-Sadr was rejecting any call for a draw down "urging militiamen fighting Iraqi and U.S. forces to reject calls to disarm as American airstrikes continued." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) was reviewing puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki's decision Friday to stop demanding fighters disarm by Saturday. Counting corpses discovered on Saturday, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported at least 31 deaths throughout Iraq and at least twenty-two wounded with fifteen of the deaths resulting from US air strikes. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday's death toll as at least 22 across Iraq with at least twenty-five wounded. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on the Saturday efforts of the puppet government to get al-Sadr to call for a truce and how he had "rebuffed" those requests. But what happened on Sunday was a source of confusion.
Reuters reported that al-Sadr was calling for his followers to turn in their weapons. (No link, they've changed their online version with no note of a correction.) By Sunday evening, AP was explicitly stating that al-Sadr said no such thing. AP noted that Moqtada al-Sadr called for his followers to get off the street and and on the puppet government in Baghdad to cease "illegal and haphazard raids" as part of a nine-point plan. Many outlets are terming what followed a "lull." AP notes that a TV station in Basra was seized as Iraqi military troops ran from the building. In addition, Aqeel Hussein and Colin Freeman (Telegraph of London) reported that members of the Iraqi military forces were leaving the military and going over to al-Sadr's side in Basra. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports today, "Even after Sadr's declartion, residents hunkered down in their homes continued to hear fierce gunfire and explosions in central Basra and southwest of the city." Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) observed of Baghdad, "The mortar shells sailed across the sky Sunday evening and ripped through the corrugated tin roof of the barbershop. They shattered brick walls, mangled beams and knocked over leather chairs. Smoke, debris and glass covered the street outside." Fadel reports that members of the Iraqi parliament "traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said. . . . There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said." Meanwhile Mohammed Tawfeeq and Jonathan Wald (CNN) quote the mouthpiece (Sami al-Askari) of the puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) declaring "outlaws" will continue to be attacked in Basra but that the assault will wrap up by week's end.
Today Jenny Booth (Times of London) states, "Life appeared to be returning to normal in Basra and Baghdad today". AFP maintains, "Gun-toting fighters of hardline Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr melted away from Iraqi streets on Monday after week-long clashes with security forces that killed at least 461 people." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) notes that while there is talk of the edict issued by al-Sadr having effect in Basra "[a]t least three rockets or mortar rounds were fired at Baghdad's fortified Green Zone today, U.S. officials said, despite" al-Sadr's edict. Erica Goode and James Glanz (New York Times) note, "No serious clashes were reported in Basra on Monday." And that's all that's worth noting from an article that doesn't even grasp what happened in Iran and doesn't tell the readers what happened. (Even AP is noting "well-informed Iraqi political officials said the Iranians played a key role in hammering out the peace deal" -- it's just the Times playing their readers for fools.) Afif Sarhan (Al Jazeera) notes the impact on citizens in the populated area and quotes Abu Kareem explaining, "We need food and water. Electricity has been cut off [for] three days and all food we had in our refigerators has been lost. Many houses are being used [by] fighters to hide and yesterday they entered my home twice, raising the dangers of an air strike over us. My sons and wife are scared and when I tried to refuse their [fighters'] entrance, I was beaten." CBS and AP note, "In Basra some supermarkets and stores were open on Monday, but residents said few people were venturing out." The International Red Cross/Red Crescent notes that in addition to food and water needs, "Life-saving medical services have been affected by the fighting in Basra, Baghdad and elsewhere in the country" and that they are planning "to deliver eight tonnes of medical supplies to four hospitals in Baghdad and to hand over a futher six tonnes to the Department of Health in Kut for the Kut, Hilla and Najaf hospitals." Meanwhile AP reports that Tahseen al-Sheikhly, kidnapped Thursday, was released today (he is over security in Baghdad).
Sam Dagher (Christian Science Monitors) notes graffiti is popping up through Baghdad -- "The Charge of the Sadrs" -- which "mocks Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's security operation -- 'The Charge of the Knights'." Dagher concludes, "Mr. Sadr has demonstrated his power, dspite the blows dealt to his movement over the past few years . . . the widespread instances of surrender among the Iraqi forces and the seizure of their equipment and vehicles by the Mahdi Army shows that despite all the funding and training from the US, Iraq's soldiers remain greatly swayed by their sectarian and party loyalties and are incapable of standng up in a fight without US backing." AP evaluates the results as well noting that the puppet government was surprised by al-Sadr's response which "sent officials scrambling for a way out of the crisis. It enabled al-Sadr to show he remains a powerful force capable of challenging the Iraqi government, the Americans and mainstream Shi'ite parties that have sought for years to marginalise him." Maybe US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was jet lagged but he seems to miss the reality everyone else is getting. In Denmark today, he declared, "All of us in the government were pleased to see Prime Minister Maliki be willing to take this on and take the initiative and go down there himself with Iraqi forces to try and resolve the issue." Gates also insisted that Basra was "under the control of a bunch of thugs and gangs and militias".
Thugs? The "Awakening" Council. The thugs put on the US payroll ($300 each per month) because if you're going to attack people in your own country, you might as well get paid by the US to do so. They are the 'miracle' . . . or so the world was told. Keep rubbing that lamp and hoping for a genie because it's nearly two years since the PR efforts gained intense traction and nothing is working. Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports, "While public attention has been focused on Shiite-vs.-Shiite fighting in Basra and Baghdad, U.S. military leaders are taking a cold second look at the future intentions of the roughly 90,000 'Sons of Iraq' -- the locally recruited and primarily Sunni security forces that are armed and supported by the United States at $300 per person each month." Tax dollars at work. The same way the US government decided to arm the Sh'itie thugs who felt the best thing to do was to attack Iraqi women, destroy their rights and take Iraq back to the stone ages. The ongoing femicide in Iraq didn't just happen, it was US funded.
Turning to some of today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two police officers, a Falluja bicycle bombing that was an attack on "one of the Faulluja governing council members' car" that claimed 1 life -- a person who purchased "the car from the governming member yesterday" and wounded four more people, a Balad Ruz roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and a Moqdadiyah roadside bombing which was an attack on "the vice governor's convoy" and claimed the lives of 2 bodyguards.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 "Awakening" Council members were shot dead in Diyala Province.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 6 corpses were discovered outside Latifiya and 1 in Mahaweel.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed at when the vehicle he was riding in was struck by an improvised-explosive device approximately 4 p.m. in northeast Baghdad March 31." In addition, the Defense Department announced a change in status today: "The armed forces medical examiner confirmed on March 29, human remains recovered in Iraq were those of Staff Sgt. Keith M. Maupin, 24, of Batavia, Ohio. Maupin had been listed as missing-captured since April 16, 2004. His convoy came under attack by individuals using rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire on April 9, 2004." In their news briefs round-up in today's paper, the Washington Post notes that the deceased was known as "Matt" and that his father, "Keith Maupin said that an Army general told him Sunday that DNA was used to identify the remains of his on". AP quotes Matt Maupin's father stating, "My heart sinks, but I know they can't hurt him anymore" and the mother, Carolyn Maupin, declaring, "It hurts. After you go through almost four years of hope, and this is what happens, it's like a let down, so I'm trying to get through that right now." AP incorrectly states that two soldiers remain missing in Iraq. They note Michael Speicher (missing since 1991) and Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie whom they say "was abducted while visiting his Iraqi wife on Oct. 23, 2006" -- he got married while in Iraq. Alex R. Jimenez and Byron W. Fouty remain missing. You don't need to drop back to a previous war for them, they went missing in the May 12, 2007 attack.
Turning to US politics, US Senator Hillary Clinton notes the significance of today: "Today I join millions of Americans in commemorating the life of one of our great civil rights leaders, Cesar Chavez. Driven by his strong desire to ensure better quality of life for migrant farm workers across the country, Chavez helped found -- along with Dolores Huerta -- the United Farm Workers of America, arguably one of the first effective farm workers' union in the United States. Under his leadership -- highlighted by nonviolent protest -- thousands of farmers across the country were able to secure improved wages and benefits, humane living and working conditions, and better job security. Through his lifetime of service, he has paved the way for many, and provided inspiration for countless others. Cesar once said 'We can choose to use our lives for others to bring about a better and more just world for our children.' It is in that spirit that I join my friends and supporters Dolores Huerta, Cesar's brother Richard and grandson Cesar Chavez Jr., as well as many Americans across the country in celebration of his birthday. We honor a true American hero and a role model to all of us who are committed to bringing change and fight for justice." Hillary Clinton is running for president. Seth (Seth in the City) notes his support for her and lists reasons including, "I can't quite get past the fact that Senator Obama invited not one but several openly anti-gay individuals to join him on a political tour in South Carolina. Yes, he added an openly gay pastor to the tour, but only after he was heavily critized." The LGBT community was tossed under the bus by Obama and remain there still to his campaign. If you doubt it, Duane Wells (GayWired.com) reports on James T. Meeks who provides "spirtiual counsel" to Obama, is an Obama delegate to the DNC convention this August and was part of "Obama's exploratory committee for the presidency". Meeks, like Bambi, takes money from the federally indicted Antoin Rezko and 'reaches out' to the right (Focus on the Family among others). Where do the two men's similarities end? A question worth missing when Meeks is associated with a group who compares AIDS to lung cancer and labels same-sex sex the equivalent of smoking, when Meeks is infamous for statements such as condemning "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively works in the Illinaois legislature to disenfranchise LGBT Americans. You are who you stand with, Bambi. Wells notes:
But the question remains: At what point must a candidate for the highest office in the United States be held accountable for the small coterie of individuals who make up his or her inner circle and potentially bear influence on his interpretation of the constitution? And at what point does the benefit of the doubt give way to guilt by association? Moreover, how can a candidate cultivate a constituency like that of Rev. James Meek, essentially espousing a shared belief in their value system, become an effective and powerful advocate on behalf of issues like LGBT rights that run counter to fundamental agenda of that constituency without experiencing severe repercussions? The answer is he can't.
But watch the likes of self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders play dumb again, the way she did when he put homophobes on stage in South Carolina. Laura Flanders, quickly becoming the Tammy Bruce of the 'left.' Remember, kids, not only is she a self-loathing lesbian, she's also stuck her nose into Democratic presidential primaries, going so far as to endorse Barack Obama on Super Duper Tuesday when, in fact, she's not a Democrat. If he couldn't depend on support from outside the party, he'd have damn little support. Allison Stevens (Women's eNews) reports that Hillary Clinton can depend on the support of EMILY's List, "Next week EMILY's List will launch a major ground initiative on Clinton's behalf in and around Philadelphia ahead of the state's April 22 primary. The group will target 150,000 women in southeastern Pennsylvania with mailings and phone messages urging them to go to the polls and pull the lever for the former first lady. The messages -- aimed at working women, older women and female college students -- will promote Clinton as a more experienced candidate capable of handling the faltering economy, an issue of paramount importance in a state with a strong blue-collar base and one that played well in neighboring Ohio in its March 4 primary." As NOW PAC notes: "Clinton has been through fire and emerged stronger with each challenge. She can take anything her opponents and the press can dish out, and give it back double. The Democrats need her and the country needs her. Clinton is a national leader of the highest order, with the strength and dtermination and experience to deliver real change to our country. She has been a leader on women's right and civil rights for over 30 years. Clinton is an unparalled champion for women's reproductive rights, justice and health, which is why the NOW PAC endorsed her a year ago this month. Make no mistake, Clinton is the strongest candidate to win in November, and to set our country right. It will take someone with her economic depth and foreign policy experience to beat John McCain." Alida Brill (Women's Media Center) notes her mother's 100 birthday was on the day of Hillary's wins in Texas Ohio and as well as a frienship she (Alida Brill) has formed during the campaign, "I was stunned by his ability to decipher the subtle codes of sexism when the media was attempting to be sly. I was astounded when his anger was equal to mine over a Chicago Sun Times cartoon depicting Senator Clinton as a 'witch' in a boxing ring down for the count. I emailed him, 'who are you?' I learned he was a man whose mother and grandmothers had both died and that all of these women in his life had told him, at the first inauguration of Bill Clinton, that he should keep his eye on Hillary for the future. He was the feminist child I never had, but he was a young man and not a young woman. Perhaps that is when I understood that not only is her candidacy good for young women; it is essential for young men."
If you look at the links in the previous paragraph, you may notice an outlet missing: Ms. magazine. Ms. magazine is AWOL by choice. In one of the most hilarious claims put forward today, it was stated that Ms. couldn't cover Hillary Clinton and Cynthia McKinney's historic runs for their parties nominations -- the claims was they'd lose their tax status. Are you laughing yet. I haven't laughed so hard since a writer needing help with her book put a call to everyone and anyone and gave none credit. (Oh, I'm laughing so hard about that book. I'm laughing so hard because I know all about it. From the top of the sources all the way down to an e-mail regarding a recorded concert -- 'a great lady if ever there was one.' I can tell you -- to this day -- the name and the e-mail account of the person who supplied the author with that. Again, from the top of the source list to the bottom. And every morsel was used but no one got thanked -- in the book or out. I've known that story since . . . gee, back when the book was being researched. It's a funny story. I may have to share it some day.) (Yes, that is a personal message to the person repeating the current lie.) Ms.' tax free status DOES NOT prevent it from covering the presidential race. Ms., by it's very nature, is a magazine that tracks issues pertaining to women. There was nothing preventing Ms. from covering Hillary Clinton and Cynthia McKinney's campaigns to win their party's nomination. Ms. is supposed to be a periodical that offers journalism. Say it with me, "journalism." I was kind at Third. I won't be if the LIE that Ms. is prevented from doing journalism due to its tax-status continues to circulate. The magazine was AWOL by choice. Since I'm commenting, let me state that I happen to agree with Betty's comments in that piece for Third:
Betty: I'm sorry, I've got to jump back in and I'll try to be brief. I know when we're done with this, we're done [with the edition]. But Marcia is so right that false charges of racism were used and are used repeatedly by the Bambi campaign and its surrogates. They have charged Gloria Steinem with it and Robin Morgan with it. Guess what Ms., this Black woman thinks you did an awful job. This Black woman is currently ashamed to be seen reading you because when women were falsely attacked, when they were attacked nationally, to silence them, you chose to be silent. You should be ashamed. You've dug yourself a big hole and I'm not sure you can get out of it. I have no interest in reading your magazine at present. Short of a lengthy mea culpa, I can't imagine ever plunking down a nickel for your magazine. Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan have fought for all women and have been there for Ms. That Ms. couldn't return that favor, couldn't return for all women, many of whom are now scared to speak against Bambi for fear of being labeled racist, is appalling. Your silence is not just shameful, it encourages the attacks on other women. You should be embarrassed and you should be considering right now, seriously, whether you issue a mea culpa or just close shop because there really isn't much else you have to offer. Apologize or cease publication. It's gotten so bad that The Nation has posted that idiot Gary Younge's attack on women, on Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem specifically. When a British transplant, who can't even vote in the election, feels he can tear into those two women, it happens for a reason and that reason is that feminist outlets allowed men to think there was a space created where it was safe to attack women. Shame on you, Ms. magazine, shame on you.
Time would probably be better spent by the magazine working on a mea culpa and not attempting to invent laughable excuses this morning that their tax status prevents them from covering news events. That would be CENSORSHIP of journalism. And, no, it's not taking place. For those taken in by the popular lie of the day, burning up phone wires and e-mails, ask yourself about Nancy Pelosi making the cover of Ms. in 2007. If the tax status of Ms. prevented it from covering the news (it doesn't), they wouldn't have been able to put Pelosi on the cover in 2007 since they never put Dennis Hastert on the cover.
Pelosi made the cover because it was news. Hillary Clinton and Cynthia McKinney are newsmakers. Ms. doesn't have to endorse either to cover them. Don't believe the lies.
iraqcamilo mejiadawson raspuzzimcclatchy newspapersleila fadeltina susmanthe los angeles times
ageel husseincolin freeman
walter pincusthe washington post
thomas friedman is a great manseth in the citysickofitradlz
Friday, March 28, 2008
Media critics need to critique all
Norman Solomon has a piece entitled "NPR News: National Pentagon Radio?" and I will choose my words carefully. If Mr. Solomon wants to be taken seriously as a media critic, he needs to address the lies from independent media as well. I long to read Mr. Solomon writing about, for example, Amy Goodman's ethics problem.
That would include bringing on Barack Obama supporters, people who have declared for him publicly, and refusing to tell her audiences that. There was Melissa Harris Lacewell's first appearence. After Ms. Goodman let Ms. Lacewell go on and on about Senator Obama's 'marvelous' speech, it was especially incumbent for her to inform her audience that Ms. Harris was part of the Obama campaign. Ms. Goodman knew that. Ms. Goodman encountered Ms. Harris performing that role on Rev. Jesse Jackson's radio program and then elected to invite Ms. Harris on Democracy Now! There was her roundtable with a slew of Obama supporters including Frances Fox Piven who Ms. Goodman refused to inform listeners was evaluating candidates on-air but had already endorsed Senator Obama.
You will notice Ms. Goodman now makes a point to note when she has a supporter on. She only does that because Ava and C.I.'s reporting has been closely followed by NPR friends and circulated widely. Ms. Goodman is in serious danger of losing her outlets for the above and for presenting attack pieces on Senator Hillary Clinton where she offers no one supporting Senator Clinton or any statement from the campaign. You will notice she is now saying things like, "We attempted to get a statement from the Clinton campaign . . ."
Those two things, revealing when a guest has endorses and/or is working for a campaign and providing the opportunity for the other side to respond, are basic to journalism. Ms. Goodman probably hopes that her attempts at a quick fix in the last two months will save her program.
The reality is that without PBS and public radio, she has nothing to brag about. "Heard on Pacifica Radio . . ." That is really just five stations. Public access channels do not give the illusion that she has a professional show. "NPR and PBS" is what gets her booked by the Real Media and she knows that. She dropped Mumia's commentaries from her show due to fear of losing NPR. She did not worry about PBS but the show was not also a television program at that time.
It is equally true that Democratic members of Congress, supporting either candidate, have been shocked to learn what she and others at Pacifica have done. Such as the KPFA 'discussion' of the debate which was a two-hour broadcast and featured multiple guests. None of which supported Senator Clinton. How do you discuss a debate between two candidates and only book supporters of one candidate? You do that by not telling your audience that your guests have endorsed one of the candidates. It does not help that all their predictions passed off as 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' on Texas votes did not end up being correct. They largely ignored Ohio but Senator Clinton won that as well.
Pacifica's board should have gotten involved. They did not. It would not surprise to me to learn that one of the agendas for the next Congress will be exploring funding to public radio and examining the books of Pacifica. Is Amy Goodman really worth her multi-million dollar contract? Is there a reason she soaks up so much of the Pacifica budget? It is not to create oral history for Pacifica because they signed over all rights to the program they created to Ms. Goodman.
When Ms. Goodman begs for your money in various pledge drives, when she says her "only with you" speech, do listeners have a right to know that so much of their pledges go to her while so many other programs struggle?
Pacifica thinks it weathered a storm at the start of this decade. That may not turn out to be true. If they find themselves with less funding, broken up, or any other action, they will have honestly brought it upon themselves for refusing to live up to the beliefs under which Lewis Hill founded the network. No where has that been more obvious than the non-stop attacks on Senator Clinton which does not contrast well with the fawning over Senator Obama.
How does "free speech radio," how does "community radio," refuse, for example, to ever explore the issue of Senator Obama using homophobia in South Carolina?
If they find their gooses cooked, they will have to face the fact that they turned up the burner and hopped in the pot of boiling water all on their own.
Senator Clinton's "Morning HUBdate: Bold and Progressive" for today:
If You Read One Thing Today: Paul Krugman writes in today’s New York Times, “…[T]he substance of [Hillary’s] policy proposals on mortgages, like that of her health care plan, suggests a strong progressive sensibility.…[and] continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive." Read more.
Previewing Today: Hillary makes stops across Indiana, where she hosts a series of “Solutions for the American Economy” town hall and roundtable events.
Real Solutions: Yesterday in North Carolina, Hillary kicked off her six-day “Solutions for the American Economy” Tour with the announcement of a new $2.5 billion per year workforce training program. Read more.
If You Watch One Thing Today: Hillary says, “If the phone were ringing, [Senator McCain] would just let it ring and ring and ring.” Watch here.
Erie, Pennsylvania: Yesterday, more than 300 people packed the opening of Hillary’s newest office. Read more.
Fayetteville, North Carolina: Yesterday, more than 1,000 tarheels gathered to see Hillary at a town hall event here. One, a 25-year-old freshman at Fayetteville State University, said, “She showed she has the heart to help the average person. It made me go wild.” “It would be crazy not to vote her into office,” said another woman, who arrived for the speech at 6:30 a.m. to hear Hillary speak at 3:00. Read more.
By the Numbers: A new Rasmussen tacking poll shows Hillary leading Senator Obama nationally (46-44). See the results here.
The Hillary I Know: The Student Body President of West Virginia University on why he’s supporting Hillary: “To hear Hillary talk about the big goals she's setting for our country … really should inspire all of us to join with her to bring real change to America.” Read more.
On Tap: This Saturday, Hillary visits Louisville, Kentucky and attends the annual state Governor Ruby Laffoon Dinner in Madisonville.
Just the Facts: One week after Sen. Clinton called for a "second stimulus package" with $30 billion to help states and localities fight foreclosures, Sen. Obama announced a "second $30 billion stimulus package". Response from policy director Neera Tanden: “…When it comes to fixing the economy, we need leadership, not followership." Read more.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Friday, March 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Moqtada al-Sadr is still standing and then some, Patrick Leahy attacks democracy, Barack Obama tries out another story about his relationship with Jeremaih Wright, and more.
Moving quickly. War resisters in Canada are attempting to seek asylum. They need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month. For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
The assault on Basra continues. CBS and AP report that, added to the mix, "U.S. warplanes bombed sites in the southern Iraqi city of Basra overnight, targeting Shiite militia members". Robin Stringer and Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) cite UK Maj Tom Holloway stating that the US bombed "positively identified militia targets". Of course they did. And, no doubt, Basra being an inhabited city, they also cleared out all civilian populations as well, right? (No.) US planes aren't the only ones dropping bombs. Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reported this morning, "British warplanes have carried out bomb attacks on Shi'ite militia positions in Basra, directly entering the fray for the first time since the Iraqi army began the crackdown in the southern city." Meanwhile Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) report, "U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in the vast Shiite stronghold of Sadr City, and military officials said Friday that U.S. aircraft bombed militant positions in the southern city of Basra, as the American role in a campaign against party-backed militias appeared to expand." Appeared to expand?
Tuesday, the word was that the British were sitting it out. And from the start we've heard of 'Commander' Nouri, rushing to Basra, to oversee the battle. A decisive battle, we were told. CNN gushed, "Al-Maliki is said to be personally overseeing efforts to restore order in Basra". That was Tuesday. By Wednesday (when it was obviously a failed effort) the Pentagon was hoping to grab some bragging rights but it was still "It's All Nouri!" -- and meant it in a positive manner. By Thursday, displeasure wasn't being murmured, it was being stated clearly and on the record such as when Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) reported that "independent Kurdish legislator" Mahmoud Othman was quoted declaring, "Everybody is asking, 'Why now?' . . . . People have ill-advised Maliki. The militias like the timing. Iran likes the timing. They want to show there's no progress in Iraq." It was falling apart before the assault was ever launched. But as late as Thursday, that still wasn't grasped as evidenced by James Glanz (New York Times) reporting how "American officials have presented the Iraqi Army's attempts to secure the port city as an example of its ability to carry out a major operation against the insurgency on its own. A failure there would be a serious embarrassment for the Iraqi government and for the army, as well as for American forces eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively on their own."
Today, Bully Boy declared at the White House that "any government that presumes to represent the majority of people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law. And that's what's taking place in Basra and in other parts of Iraq. I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq. There have been other defining moments up to now, but this is a defining moment, as well. The decision to move troops -- Iraqi troops into Basra talks about Prime Minister Maliki's leadership." As usual, it would appear someone left Bully Boy out of the loop. "Criminal elements" echoes Nouri's statements throughout the week but let's note that if you're going to tackle alleged criminal elements, you give the Parliament a heads up. This is a turf war. Wednesday on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show featured McClatchy Newspapers' Leila Fadel.
Leila Fadel: Well Basra has been spiraling out of control for months now, the British military pulled out late last year basically handing it over to Shia militias in a city that are battling for power. Maliki, the prime minister here, finally declared a security operation on Monday night and the battle has been fierce mainly between Iraqi government forces and the Mehdi Army which is loyal to the Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Basra is a strong-hold for the Mehdi Army and the Sadrists are saying this is a battle against them to consolidate power for their Shia rivals, the Supreme Council here in Iraq.
The latter would be the party that provides Nouri with his largest support these days after his own Da'wa party. Provincial elections are supposed to be held at year's end and this is seen as one of the primary reasons for the assault on Basra. Another reason was that US Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are due to put on another show for Congress next month and Petraeus has actually grumbled publicly about al-Maliki. As have many Democrats and Republicans serving in the US Congress. If the puppet is fingered as one of the failures, how does that look for those pulling his strings? So this was a rock 'em, sock 'em p.r. bonanza. If you were an idiot.
Moqtada al-Sadr's power was at the weakest. He'd declared the cease-fire/truce with US and occupation forces in August of 2007. The truce was very unpopular in the Sadr City section of Bahgdad where al-Sadr's supporters were. al-Sadr wasn't there. al-Sadr was assumed to be in Najaf. So when Sadrists felt they were being openly targeted. Then came February when al-Sadr (still not home) declded to renwer the cease-fire/truce. Objections were strong before the truce was renewed and just the act of renewing it led "loyalists" to criticize al-Sar openly and to the press. al-Sadr's influence was diminishing. When a people feel attacked and their designated leader isn't with them, questions will naturally emerge and they were starting to. And possibly those in the US government who've long plotted the 'departure' of al-Sadr felt, "This is the perfect moment!" No, it wasn't. And whomever okayed the operation immediatly up to Bully Boy miscalculated (Bully Boy always miscalculates) because when someone you see as an enemy is naturally weakening themselves through their own actions, you do not 'assist' them by lifting them to a higher stature. That's what the assault on Basra did.
Maybe the hope was al-Sadr would stay silent. He didn't. He called it out. Who's winning hearts & minds in Iraq? Moqtada al-Sadr because, across Iraq, Iraqis saw only one person stand up to the occupation. Iraqis has seen Falluja slaughtered (twice), has seen their neighborhoods physically carved up with "Bremer" walls, they've seen that, five years after their country was invaded, not only are occupation forces still present (in direct opposition to the wishes of the Iraqi people) but Baghdad is pretty much off limits to most Iraqis. Who stood up? Moqtada al-Sadr.
Nouri al-Maliki painted himself into the corner as did the US. Wednesday on The Diane Rehm Show al-Maliki's ultimatums were noted.
Leila Fadel: Well Prime Minister Maliki is saying that he wants every weapon in the hands of the government. He wants all weapon smugglers, this is a very important city, 90% of Iraq's oil comes from there, it's a border town. It has the main port of Iraq there. And a lot of the weapon smuggling, oil smuggling happens there. And so the main families that deal with oil smuggling, weapon smuggling have been targeted in Basra. He has given what he calls outlaws 72 hours to surrender while the battle continues it seems that the main targets and the people fighting back are the Medhi army and the Sadrists are saying that they are the targets, the sole targets, of this operation.
al-Maliki was in no position to give ultimatums. But it was 'strong,' it was 'bravery' -- or that's how it was supposed to play. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) cited al-Maliki calling al-Sadr loyalists "criminal gangs". Leila Fadel (McClatchy) quoted Nouri insisting, "The government does not negotiate with a gang; the government does not sign understanding memorandums with outlaws." Big tough Nouri? Italy's AGI reports that Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, has now extended his 'deadline' (April 8th now and not Saturday) and Al Jazeera notes that he declared, "All those who have heavy and intermediate weapons are to deliver them to security sites and they will be rewarded financially." al-Maliki's reputation was on the line, as James Glanz noted, and the US government knew for sure that their puppet was going to be able to pull this off but only because they've deluded themselves into believing that Iraqis see Nouri as a legitimate ruler. They dodn't. Protests started the minute the assault on Basra began. When Moqtada al-Sadr spoke out, the protests only got heavier -- across Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr called for a political solution and Nouri al-Maliki insisted he doesn't deal with 'outlaws' (which would mean he ignores his own ministries). Today in Iraq, al-Sadr's not only the one who stood up to the occupying powers (a big thing in and of itself), he's the one who did so and got concessions.
China's Xinhua noted the "extraordinary session" in the Iraq Parliament that Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani called today and the press conference announcing it where he was joined by Ibrahim al-Jaafari (Iraq's previous prime minister) and others. AP reports that 78 members of Parliament were present and that the committee met for "about two hours" on the issue of Basra. Missing the point, as usual, at the White House Bully Boy was still issuing talking points, calling the assault "a test and a moment for the Iraqi government". If it was a test for Bully Boy he failed as he fell back on all his tired answers ("democracy" and mothers wanting their children to go to school are especially overused). Standing next to him was Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who avoided all questions on Iraq and only addressed that nation in his opening remarks where he mentioned "an assistance package of some $165 million" of which "a large slice" is planned to "train their people better in agriculture and in the wider economy." Train "their people better" in farming? Is Rudd unaware that Iraq was considered one of the breadbaskets of the MidEast?
Let's stay with Bully Boy and mistakes. Not last Monday, but the Monday before (March 17th), Michael R. Gordon presented the usual unsourced junk his infamous for. But because it was pleasing, many picked up on it. Amy Goodman pimped it but, apparently grasping even her declining audience wouldn't accept a report from Gordo, just credited it to the New York Times. We didn't link to it the morning of the 17th, we're not going to link to it now. We noted the morning of the 17th, "At the New York Times Gordo's raving about his insider interviews and access. No link to trash. The thrust is that L. Paul Bremer issued a decree that disbanded the Iraqi military (true) and that this was something Bremer came up with on his own. Collie Powell declares that he was out of the country and called Condi Rice about it to object and Rice explained that it had already been done. The big villian of the piece is Bremer and Bully Boy is painted as someone who was apparently in a daze. (Maybe he was thinking of My Pet Goat?) How true is it? Who knows? It's Gordo and the ship is sinking so the rats are bailing. If Powell knew it was a mistake (as he insists to Gordo), then Colin Powell should have something in real time -- even as an anomyous source. That's the least he should have done. Anyone with real courage would have stepped down and gone public. Again, the ship is sinking and since Bully Boy won't be working anywhere, they'll finger him as out of it (which is believable) and make Bremer the fall guy. While Bremer wins nothing but boos and hisses here, it is equally true that anyone -- not just Bully Boy -- could have objected. (That includes but is not limited to Rice.)" It wasn't news. The tip-off should have been the byline if not the whisper nature of the story. But the paper then had to offer an editorial 'loosely based' on Gordo's 'reporting' entitled "Mission Still Not Accomplished" and Paul Bremer responded to the apportioning of blame Monday March 24th in a letter to the editor (A24). Bremer's claiming that there was no military to disband and we're not in the mood for that nonsense but we will note some of his comments just because the disaster that is the illegal war has many parents and none should be left off the hook:
I take strong exception to your assertion that I "overrode" President Bush's national security team on disbanding the Iraqi Army. Whatever one's view on the issue, there should be no confusion about the process leading to this decision. President Bush's instructions to me were to report to him through Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. I did.
[. . .]
On May 9, two weeks before the decision was made, I sent a draft order based on these discussions to Mr. Rumsfeld, copied to Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the Central Command, and other senior defense officials. A copy went to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq.
All had ample opportunity to comment on this and subsequent drafts of the order before it was issued on May 23. Defense Department civilian leaders and military staffs provided only minor suggested revisions.
On May 22, I briefed the president at a National Security Council meeting attended by Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage; Secretary Rumsfeld; and General Myers. No one raised concerns or objections.
Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, says he was unaware of the plan; that is regrettable. But this suggests a problem with the interagency process in Washington.
General Myers told The New York Times (front page, March 17) that there had been no "robust debate" about the draft decree. If any top officials felt strongly at the time that the decision was misguided, as some of them now claim, they had every opportunity, and the responsibility, to make those concerns known to the Pentagon's leadership, or directly to the commander in chief.
Paul Bremer is correct that anyone wanting to claim they were out of the loop needs a better excuse. If Colin Powell wants to claim he was out of the loop, that's an issue with his then Deputy Secretary. Bremer is also correct that those opposed (none were) "had every opportunity, and the responsibility" to speak out. They chose not to. Now, as resume shock sets in and they realize what they own, it was very cowardly to try to add their blame to Bremer. Bremer's not innocent and bears responsiblity for his actions. But when you want to whisper and shove your blame off on someone else -- and you're in power -- you rush straight to Michael Gordon. And it's a sure sign of how pathetic Panhandle Media is that they merely stripped Gordo's name from it as they rushed to repeat it. Over and over. I'm unaware of anyone noting Bremer's reply which ran Monday and I waited until Friday to see if any would bother with "in an update to . . ." but none did.
Basra wasn't the only victim of a US air assault. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad bombings from the air with the US killing "3 gunmen, injuring 8" in the first instance and killing "12 people" with "60 injured" in the second. Robert H. Reid (AP) also notes the air bombings on Baghdad and refers to a Sadr City incident which may be the second one Issa noted or yet another bombing when "a U.S. aircraft fired a Hellfire missile in the Sadr City district -- the Baghdad stronghold of the Mahdi Army -- after gunmen there opened fire on an American patrol. The U.S. military said the missile strike killed four militants, but Iraqi officials said nine civilians were killed and nine others wounded."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack "near Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi's residence inside the Green Zone injuring 2 of his security detail," a Baghdad mortar attack on "the supension bridge (one of the entrances to the Green Zone) in Karrada" that wounded three people.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Qurna city resulted in 5 losing their lives and injured two. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports armed clashes in "Mahmoudiya, Nasiriyah and Kut" resulted in "[a]t least 26 people" dead. Reuters notes 3 dead in an armed clash in Kerbala, 6 in an armed clash in Hamza and that "the mayor of Ghmash neighbourhood in Diwaniya" was shot dead today.
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 kidnappings of police patrols in Baghdad -- in one instance two police officers were released, in the other three are missing.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 7 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Center Soldier was killed as a result of wounds sustained from an improvised explosive device attack south of Baghdad March 28."
Turning to US presidential politics. US Senator Patrick Leahy attacked democracy AND LIED today. Johanna Neuman (Los Angeles Times) reports that Leahy is calling "on Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out of the presidential race, saying there is no way the New York Senator can wrest the nomination from her rival Barack Obama." Let's remember that Leahy is the OLD FOOL who endorsed John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Now let's walk through slowly. A) If there's no way for Hillary to garner the nomination, what's the big concern with her dropping out? We'll come back to that. The Obama campaign got a spook today and are hoping the press doesn't get wind of it. B) If Barack has the nomination, it doesn't matter what Hillary does. C) Neither Hillary or Barack appeared able to reach the magic number of delegates from primaries or caucuses. Patrick Leahy needs to sit back down. His ass, like the rest of him, is obviously tired.
Let's cover the attack on Democracy angle. Vermont held their primary on March 4th. Leahy didn't think it was important to stop the process then, now did he? Today Bob Casey Jr. endorsed Barack. Let's see Bob Casey Jr. echo Leahy, let's see Bob Casey Jr. tell the voters of Pennsylvania that Hillary needs to drop out. Pennsylvania holds their primary on April 22nd so let's see Bob Casey Jr. stand with Leahy and see him tell the voters of his own state that they don't matter, that their votes don't matter and that their voice doesn't matter.
That is what Leahy is doing and everyone -- regardless of party -- should be offended by this attack on democracy. Now this nonsense was pulled on Al Gore privately in 2000. Leahy is so brazen that he thinks he can now do it publicly. Leahy is not the Director of Democracy and it's past time that he and others got that message. It's past time that someone held these little chiefs in check. And the people will. Leahy's not only offended Pennsylvania and all states and regions still to hold primary, he's also offending Vermont which is a state with a long history of allowing the process to go through. His offensive lies and attacks need to be called out.
Let's get it straight, the primary/caucus system is gamed over and over. But the lie those who don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire are told each election cycle is that their votes matter to. They're told that if it's ever close, they'll certainly get a say. They're told that just because the runway is cleared for Iowa and New Hampshire each year while everyone else is left in holding pattern, it's still fair, it's still equal. No, it's not. Which is why Bill Nelson is proposing legislation. But under the current system, the race continues. Under the current system, it's not expected that either Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will meet the magic number of delegates required to win the nomination. The super delegates would decide the nominee.
Everyone knows that. Leahy knows that though he lies to make it look better for his heart-throb Bambi. As someone who is lobbying super delegates, you better believe I know it. But while that battle's gone on, a new battle emerged today, totally unexpected. It sent the Barack Obama campaign into a tizzy. On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, a caller named John from Dallas, TX spoke. He explained he supported Barack Obama. He explained he voted for him. He explained he caucused for him. He explained he was selected as a delegate to represent Obama. Most importantly, he explained he could no longer support Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton won the primary in Texas.
That's why Leahy was sent out. Clamp down on this quick! Stop it before it bleeds further! Jeremy Wright is toxic and viral and it has destroyed Barack Obama. Not Hillary or anything she's said. The fact that Wright damned the United States of America is not going down easy despite media lies. The caller referenced an earlier section of the program and may have meant the embarrassing discussion of polls which included Obama's 'good' news from a PEW poll. 51% rated him well on his speech last week. But there's the other side which wasn't addressed on the broadcast. Seven percent didn't know. 42% rated Fair to Poor. The most heavily pimped speech of the campaign, by any candidate. The source of endless columns (bad columns) and non-stop gas baggery. The media was in full force on that speech, trying to shape the minds of Americans. But they didn't. 42% said Fair to Poor. (That's the general population but it's also the number for those self-describing as "Independent" in the poll.) When the US media decided to hop on board the selling of the illegal war, Bully Boy soared in the polls. 51% is very disappointing and that number is only going to continue to lower. Wright is toxic and viral and Obama showed no judgement.
That's what the caller told Rehm and her panel. And they characterized what he was going through as buyer's remorse. Wright has not gone away. He was back in the news for his "I will tour!" which didn't work out that well (it was cancelled for him but he tried to save face) and then came more offensive remarks including "garlic noses" for Italians. Jeffrey Weiss (Dallas Morning News) covers the religious beat and offers this prediction today: "Barack Obama will face more questions about Rev. Wright. Yes, Obama has disavowed the sentiments in the endlessly YouTubed excerpts. But the entire sermon offers a view of America and the American government that stands in sharp contrst to Obama's message. It's one thing for him to say he hadn't heard his pastor call God's wrath down on America that day. But surely some of the broader themes of that sermon about the role and history of the U.S. government were woven through other sermons? And we have not heard how or whether Obama took those up with his pastor and friend." On ABC's The View, Obama offered yet another version of conflicting stories passed off as truth. Today's lie is he would have left the church if Wright had "not retired" and that's a new one. It's equally true that it wouldn't take most people 20 years to make such a decision. Jake Tapper (ABC News) notes that he also claimed Wright "had said he had deeply offended people" and Tapper questions that only to get a "What he meant" from the campaign. Tapper notes:
Okay, except Obama wasn't "clearly" saying that at all.Here's a clear way to say that: 'Had the reverend not retired I would have confronted him about his remarks. If after that Wright still refused to acknowledge that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I think is the great character of this country -- for all its flaws -- then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.'
Taylor Marsh tracks Obama's changing story and how this new "I would have left if he hadn't been retiring" nonsense is just that. Brad Warthen (South Carolina's The State) explores the offense of the most famous sermon Wright delivered (and then sold online):
But what Mr. Wright said is clear. The six-minutes-plus of context that went before "G** Damn America" was exactly what I would have guessed went before it. Essentially, it was a review of history, mixed with a small dollop of political partisanship (the comparison of not-so-bad presidencies with the current one). Short version: The government has upheld oppression of black people during the course of American history.
Folks, I'm an American history major, and I've lived in this country for most of 54 years. What part of the rather sketchy overview in that sermon do you think I didn't know already? If I'd been sermonizing, I could have added a lot to it -- including the fact that the blood offering of the Civil War, as horrific as it was, seems to have been an inevitable sacrifice to expiate the sin of slavery. And I would have said the evil didn't end there, nor could it, there being original sin in the world, and no one of us since Jesus Christ born free of it.
But I wouldn't have said "G** Damn America." Not in a million years. For me, the point of bringing up evil is to try to overcome it -- as I believe two people Mr. Darby mentions (King and Bonhoeffer) were trying to do.
Sorry, but I can't accept that the Rev. Wright was saying "things that challenge America to rise above its sins of prejudice and greed." No, if he'd said America was in danger of damnation, or headed straight thataway, rather as Jesus said to the Pharisees in the example cited by my colleague Warren Bolton this week, that might have been seen as a challenge, perhaps even a well-intentioned warning. (Personally, although he had more right, being God, than anyone else to do so, I don't remember Jesus ever damning anything more sentient than a fig tree.)
But Mr. Wright didn't call on us to do anything. Instead, he called on G** to damn America.
Wright isn't going away. And let's be clear that what happened today was an Obama delegate -- voted for him in the primary, caucused for him -- announced on NPR that he wasn't able to support Obama and wouldn't be, that he was switching his vote to someone else. It's the story the campaign doesn't want noted.
Meanwhile, the following US military retired endose Hillary:
General Wesley Clark General Henry Hugh Shelton Admiral William Owens Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak, Jr. Major General Roger R. Blunt Major General George Buskirk, Jr. Major General Paul D. Eaton Major General Antonio M. Taguba Brigadier General Michael Dunn Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard Brigadier General Jack Yeager Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. Rear Admiral Roland G. Guilbault Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt Rear Admiral David Stone
The lettter reads:
As retired flag and general officers, we have devoted our lives to our country. We have hundreds of thousands of men and women on the front lines that have done the same. At this critical time in our nation's history, our men and women in uniform deserve better than a presidential debate mired in trivia. The stakes are simply too high. As we are poised to choose our next Commander-in-Chief, we should not allow the media to divert attention from the real issues. What matters is who is ready and inspired to lead -- who can be Commander-in -Chief on Day One.
It is imperative that our new President knows how and when to use force and diplomacy judiciously, to know how to deploy the olive branch and the arrow. The President needs to be ready to act swiftly and decisively in a crisis. And we think our next President must restore our moral authority and leadership around the world with the courage to meet with our adversaries when appropriate, and the wisdom to pursue diplomacy wisely.
It is especially important to understand the military and diplomatic challenges facing us in Iraq, and to end the Iraq war responsibly and safely. It is also important to rededicate ourselves to winning in Afghanistan, the forgotten front line in our fight against terrorism.
In these critical areas, it is clear to us that Senator Clinton is the candidate best qualified to be our nation's next Commander-in-Chief.
We believe that she has real understanding of the military through her diligent service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has worked tirelessly to ensure our men and women in uniform are properly trained and equipped to be sent to battle. And she has fought to make certain that they are treated with dignity when they return home. We have personally and closely observed her respect for our armed forces, and she has earned their respect. And ours.
We hope that as a country, we will now turn our attention to the critical issues that will determine the future of our great nation.
iraq
the diane rehm shownpr
sudarsan raghavanthe washington post
mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadelnancy a. youssef
tina susmanthe los angeles times
That would include bringing on Barack Obama supporters, people who have declared for him publicly, and refusing to tell her audiences that. There was Melissa Harris Lacewell's first appearence. After Ms. Goodman let Ms. Lacewell go on and on about Senator Obama's 'marvelous' speech, it was especially incumbent for her to inform her audience that Ms. Harris was part of the Obama campaign. Ms. Goodman knew that. Ms. Goodman encountered Ms. Harris performing that role on Rev. Jesse Jackson's radio program and then elected to invite Ms. Harris on Democracy Now! There was her roundtable with a slew of Obama supporters including Frances Fox Piven who Ms. Goodman refused to inform listeners was evaluating candidates on-air but had already endorsed Senator Obama.
You will notice Ms. Goodman now makes a point to note when she has a supporter on. She only does that because Ava and C.I.'s reporting has been closely followed by NPR friends and circulated widely. Ms. Goodman is in serious danger of losing her outlets for the above and for presenting attack pieces on Senator Hillary Clinton where she offers no one supporting Senator Clinton or any statement from the campaign. You will notice she is now saying things like, "We attempted to get a statement from the Clinton campaign . . ."
Those two things, revealing when a guest has endorses and/or is working for a campaign and providing the opportunity for the other side to respond, are basic to journalism. Ms. Goodman probably hopes that her attempts at a quick fix in the last two months will save her program.
The reality is that without PBS and public radio, she has nothing to brag about. "Heard on Pacifica Radio . . ." That is really just five stations. Public access channels do not give the illusion that she has a professional show. "NPR and PBS" is what gets her booked by the Real Media and she knows that. She dropped Mumia's commentaries from her show due to fear of losing NPR. She did not worry about PBS but the show was not also a television program at that time.
It is equally true that Democratic members of Congress, supporting either candidate, have been shocked to learn what she and others at Pacifica have done. Such as the KPFA 'discussion' of the debate which was a two-hour broadcast and featured multiple guests. None of which supported Senator Clinton. How do you discuss a debate between two candidates and only book supporters of one candidate? You do that by not telling your audience that your guests have endorsed one of the candidates. It does not help that all their predictions passed off as 'wisdom' and 'knowledge' on Texas votes did not end up being correct. They largely ignored Ohio but Senator Clinton won that as well.
Pacifica's board should have gotten involved. They did not. It would not surprise to me to learn that one of the agendas for the next Congress will be exploring funding to public radio and examining the books of Pacifica. Is Amy Goodman really worth her multi-million dollar contract? Is there a reason she soaks up so much of the Pacifica budget? It is not to create oral history for Pacifica because they signed over all rights to the program they created to Ms. Goodman.
When Ms. Goodman begs for your money in various pledge drives, when she says her "only with you" speech, do listeners have a right to know that so much of their pledges go to her while so many other programs struggle?
Pacifica thinks it weathered a storm at the start of this decade. That may not turn out to be true. If they find themselves with less funding, broken up, or any other action, they will have honestly brought it upon themselves for refusing to live up to the beliefs under which Lewis Hill founded the network. No where has that been more obvious than the non-stop attacks on Senator Clinton which does not contrast well with the fawning over Senator Obama.
How does "free speech radio," how does "community radio," refuse, for example, to ever explore the issue of Senator Obama using homophobia in South Carolina?
If they find their gooses cooked, they will have to face the fact that they turned up the burner and hopped in the pot of boiling water all on their own.
Senator Clinton's "Morning HUBdate: Bold and Progressive" for today:
If You Read One Thing Today: Paul Krugman writes in today’s New York Times, “…[T]he substance of [Hillary’s] policy proposals on mortgages, like that of her health care plan, suggests a strong progressive sensibility.…[and] continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive." Read more.
Previewing Today: Hillary makes stops across Indiana, where she hosts a series of “Solutions for the American Economy” town hall and roundtable events.
Real Solutions: Yesterday in North Carolina, Hillary kicked off her six-day “Solutions for the American Economy” Tour with the announcement of a new $2.5 billion per year workforce training program. Read more.
If You Watch One Thing Today: Hillary says, “If the phone were ringing, [Senator McCain] would just let it ring and ring and ring.” Watch here.
Erie, Pennsylvania: Yesterday, more than 300 people packed the opening of Hillary’s newest office. Read more.
Fayetteville, North Carolina: Yesterday, more than 1,000 tarheels gathered to see Hillary at a town hall event here. One, a 25-year-old freshman at Fayetteville State University, said, “She showed she has the heart to help the average person. It made me go wild.” “It would be crazy not to vote her into office,” said another woman, who arrived for the speech at 6:30 a.m. to hear Hillary speak at 3:00. Read more.
By the Numbers: A new Rasmussen tacking poll shows Hillary leading Senator Obama nationally (46-44). See the results here.
The Hillary I Know: The Student Body President of West Virginia University on why he’s supporting Hillary: “To hear Hillary talk about the big goals she's setting for our country … really should inspire all of us to join with her to bring real change to America.” Read more.
On Tap: This Saturday, Hillary visits Louisville, Kentucky and attends the annual state Governor Ruby Laffoon Dinner in Madisonville.
Just the Facts: One week after Sen. Clinton called for a "second stimulus package" with $30 billion to help states and localities fight foreclosures, Sen. Obama announced a "second $30 billion stimulus package". Response from policy director Neera Tanden: “…When it comes to fixing the economy, we need leadership, not followership." Read more.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Friday, March 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Moqtada al-Sadr is still standing and then some, Patrick Leahy attacks democracy, Barack Obama tries out another story about his relationship with Jeremaih Wright, and more.
Moving quickly. War resisters in Canada are attempting to seek asylum. They need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month. For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
The assault on Basra continues. CBS and AP report that, added to the mix, "U.S. warplanes bombed sites in the southern Iraqi city of Basra overnight, targeting Shiite militia members". Robin Stringer and Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) cite UK Maj Tom Holloway stating that the US bombed "positively identified militia targets". Of course they did. And, no doubt, Basra being an inhabited city, they also cleared out all civilian populations as well, right? (No.) US planes aren't the only ones dropping bombs. Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reported this morning, "British warplanes have carried out bomb attacks on Shi'ite militia positions in Basra, directly entering the fray for the first time since the Iraqi army began the crackdown in the southern city." Meanwhile Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) report, "U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in the vast Shiite stronghold of Sadr City, and military officials said Friday that U.S. aircraft bombed militant positions in the southern city of Basra, as the American role in a campaign against party-backed militias appeared to expand." Appeared to expand?
Tuesday, the word was that the British were sitting it out. And from the start we've heard of 'Commander' Nouri, rushing to Basra, to oversee the battle. A decisive battle, we were told. CNN gushed, "Al-Maliki is said to be personally overseeing efforts to restore order in Basra". That was Tuesday. By Wednesday (when it was obviously a failed effort) the Pentagon was hoping to grab some bragging rights but it was still "It's All Nouri!" -- and meant it in a positive manner. By Thursday, displeasure wasn't being murmured, it was being stated clearly and on the record such as when Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) reported that "independent Kurdish legislator" Mahmoud Othman was quoted declaring, "Everybody is asking, 'Why now?' . . . . People have ill-advised Maliki. The militias like the timing. Iran likes the timing. They want to show there's no progress in Iraq." It was falling apart before the assault was ever launched. But as late as Thursday, that still wasn't grasped as evidenced by James Glanz (New York Times) reporting how "American officials have presented the Iraqi Army's attempts to secure the port city as an example of its ability to carry out a major operation against the insurgency on its own. A failure there would be a serious embarrassment for the Iraqi government and for the army, as well as for American forces eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively on their own."
Today, Bully Boy declared at the White House that "any government that presumes to represent the majority of people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law. And that's what's taking place in Basra and in other parts of Iraq. I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq. There have been other defining moments up to now, but this is a defining moment, as well. The decision to move troops -- Iraqi troops into Basra talks about Prime Minister Maliki's leadership." As usual, it would appear someone left Bully Boy out of the loop. "Criminal elements" echoes Nouri's statements throughout the week but let's note that if you're going to tackle alleged criminal elements, you give the Parliament a heads up. This is a turf war. Wednesday on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show featured McClatchy Newspapers' Leila Fadel.
Leila Fadel: Well Basra has been spiraling out of control for months now, the British military pulled out late last year basically handing it over to Shia militias in a city that are battling for power. Maliki, the prime minister here, finally declared a security operation on Monday night and the battle has been fierce mainly between Iraqi government forces and the Mehdi Army which is loyal to the Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Basra is a strong-hold for the Mehdi Army and the Sadrists are saying this is a battle against them to consolidate power for their Shia rivals, the Supreme Council here in Iraq.
The latter would be the party that provides Nouri with his largest support these days after his own Da'wa party. Provincial elections are supposed to be held at year's end and this is seen as one of the primary reasons for the assault on Basra. Another reason was that US Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are due to put on another show for Congress next month and Petraeus has actually grumbled publicly about al-Maliki. As have many Democrats and Republicans serving in the US Congress. If the puppet is fingered as one of the failures, how does that look for those pulling his strings? So this was a rock 'em, sock 'em p.r. bonanza. If you were an idiot.
Moqtada al-Sadr's power was at the weakest. He'd declared the cease-fire/truce with US and occupation forces in August of 2007. The truce was very unpopular in the Sadr City section of Bahgdad where al-Sadr's supporters were. al-Sadr wasn't there. al-Sadr was assumed to be in Najaf. So when Sadrists felt they were being openly targeted. Then came February when al-Sadr (still not home) declded to renwer the cease-fire/truce. Objections were strong before the truce was renewed and just the act of renewing it led "loyalists" to criticize al-Sar openly and to the press. al-Sadr's influence was diminishing. When a people feel attacked and their designated leader isn't with them, questions will naturally emerge and they were starting to. And possibly those in the US government who've long plotted the 'departure' of al-Sadr felt, "This is the perfect moment!" No, it wasn't. And whomever okayed the operation immediatly up to Bully Boy miscalculated (Bully Boy always miscalculates) because when someone you see as an enemy is naturally weakening themselves through their own actions, you do not 'assist' them by lifting them to a higher stature. That's what the assault on Basra did.
Maybe the hope was al-Sadr would stay silent. He didn't. He called it out. Who's winning hearts & minds in Iraq? Moqtada al-Sadr because, across Iraq, Iraqis saw only one person stand up to the occupation. Iraqis has seen Falluja slaughtered (twice), has seen their neighborhoods physically carved up with "Bremer" walls, they've seen that, five years after their country was invaded, not only are occupation forces still present (in direct opposition to the wishes of the Iraqi people) but Baghdad is pretty much off limits to most Iraqis. Who stood up? Moqtada al-Sadr.
Nouri al-Maliki painted himself into the corner as did the US. Wednesday on The Diane Rehm Show al-Maliki's ultimatums were noted.
Leila Fadel: Well Prime Minister Maliki is saying that he wants every weapon in the hands of the government. He wants all weapon smugglers, this is a very important city, 90% of Iraq's oil comes from there, it's a border town. It has the main port of Iraq there. And a lot of the weapon smuggling, oil smuggling happens there. And so the main families that deal with oil smuggling, weapon smuggling have been targeted in Basra. He has given what he calls outlaws 72 hours to surrender while the battle continues it seems that the main targets and the people fighting back are the Medhi army and the Sadrists are saying that they are the targets, the sole targets, of this operation.
al-Maliki was in no position to give ultimatums. But it was 'strong,' it was 'bravery' -- or that's how it was supposed to play. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) cited al-Maliki calling al-Sadr loyalists "criminal gangs". Leila Fadel (McClatchy) quoted Nouri insisting, "The government does not negotiate with a gang; the government does not sign understanding memorandums with outlaws." Big tough Nouri? Italy's AGI reports that Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, has now extended his 'deadline' (April 8th now and not Saturday) and Al Jazeera notes that he declared, "All those who have heavy and intermediate weapons are to deliver them to security sites and they will be rewarded financially." al-Maliki's reputation was on the line, as James Glanz noted, and the US government knew for sure that their puppet was going to be able to pull this off but only because they've deluded themselves into believing that Iraqis see Nouri as a legitimate ruler. They dodn't. Protests started the minute the assault on Basra began. When Moqtada al-Sadr spoke out, the protests only got heavier -- across Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr called for a political solution and Nouri al-Maliki insisted he doesn't deal with 'outlaws' (which would mean he ignores his own ministries). Today in Iraq, al-Sadr's not only the one who stood up to the occupying powers (a big thing in and of itself), he's the one who did so and got concessions.
China's Xinhua noted the "extraordinary session" in the Iraq Parliament that Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani called today and the press conference announcing it where he was joined by Ibrahim al-Jaafari (Iraq's previous prime minister) and others. AP reports that 78 members of Parliament were present and that the committee met for "about two hours" on the issue of Basra. Missing the point, as usual, at the White House Bully Boy was still issuing talking points, calling the assault "a test and a moment for the Iraqi government". If it was a test for Bully Boy he failed as he fell back on all his tired answers ("democracy" and mothers wanting their children to go to school are especially overused). Standing next to him was Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who avoided all questions on Iraq and only addressed that nation in his opening remarks where he mentioned "an assistance package of some $165 million" of which "a large slice" is planned to "train their people better in agriculture and in the wider economy." Train "their people better" in farming? Is Rudd unaware that Iraq was considered one of the breadbaskets of the MidEast?
Let's stay with Bully Boy and mistakes. Not last Monday, but the Monday before (March 17th), Michael R. Gordon presented the usual unsourced junk his infamous for. But because it was pleasing, many picked up on it. Amy Goodman pimped it but, apparently grasping even her declining audience wouldn't accept a report from Gordo, just credited it to the New York Times. We didn't link to it the morning of the 17th, we're not going to link to it now. We noted the morning of the 17th, "At the New York Times Gordo's raving about his insider interviews and access. No link to trash. The thrust is that L. Paul Bremer issued a decree that disbanded the Iraqi military (true) and that this was something Bremer came up with on his own. Collie Powell declares that he was out of the country and called Condi Rice about it to object and Rice explained that it had already been done. The big villian of the piece is Bremer and Bully Boy is painted as someone who was apparently in a daze. (Maybe he was thinking of My Pet Goat?) How true is it? Who knows? It's Gordo and the ship is sinking so the rats are bailing. If Powell knew it was a mistake (as he insists to Gordo), then Colin Powell should have something in real time -- even as an anomyous source. That's the least he should have done. Anyone with real courage would have stepped down and gone public. Again, the ship is sinking and since Bully Boy won't be working anywhere, they'll finger him as out of it (which is believable) and make Bremer the fall guy. While Bremer wins nothing but boos and hisses here, it is equally true that anyone -- not just Bully Boy -- could have objected. (That includes but is not limited to Rice.)" It wasn't news. The tip-off should have been the byline if not the whisper nature of the story. But the paper then had to offer an editorial 'loosely based' on Gordo's 'reporting' entitled "Mission Still Not Accomplished" and Paul Bremer responded to the apportioning of blame Monday March 24th in a letter to the editor (A24). Bremer's claiming that there was no military to disband and we're not in the mood for that nonsense but we will note some of his comments just because the disaster that is the illegal war has many parents and none should be left off the hook:
I take strong exception to your assertion that I "overrode" President Bush's national security team on disbanding the Iraqi Army. Whatever one's view on the issue, there should be no confusion about the process leading to this decision. President Bush's instructions to me were to report to him through Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. I did.
[. . .]
On May 9, two weeks before the decision was made, I sent a draft order based on these discussions to Mr. Rumsfeld, copied to Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the Central Command, and other senior defense officials. A copy went to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq.
All had ample opportunity to comment on this and subsequent drafts of the order before it was issued on May 23. Defense Department civilian leaders and military staffs provided only minor suggested revisions.
On May 22, I briefed the president at a National Security Council meeting attended by Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage; Secretary Rumsfeld; and General Myers. No one raised concerns or objections.
Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, says he was unaware of the plan; that is regrettable. But this suggests a problem with the interagency process in Washington.
General Myers told The New York Times (front page, March 17) that there had been no "robust debate" about the draft decree. If any top officials felt strongly at the time that the decision was misguided, as some of them now claim, they had every opportunity, and the responsibility, to make those concerns known to the Pentagon's leadership, or directly to the commander in chief.
Paul Bremer is correct that anyone wanting to claim they were out of the loop needs a better excuse. If Colin Powell wants to claim he was out of the loop, that's an issue with his then Deputy Secretary. Bremer is also correct that those opposed (none were) "had every opportunity, and the responsibility" to speak out. They chose not to. Now, as resume shock sets in and they realize what they own, it was very cowardly to try to add their blame to Bremer. Bremer's not innocent and bears responsiblity for his actions. But when you want to whisper and shove your blame off on someone else -- and you're in power -- you rush straight to Michael Gordon. And it's a sure sign of how pathetic Panhandle Media is that they merely stripped Gordo's name from it as they rushed to repeat it. Over and over. I'm unaware of anyone noting Bremer's reply which ran Monday and I waited until Friday to see if any would bother with "in an update to . . ." but none did.
Basra wasn't the only victim of a US air assault. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad bombings from the air with the US killing "3 gunmen, injuring 8" in the first instance and killing "12 people" with "60 injured" in the second. Robert H. Reid (AP) also notes the air bombings on Baghdad and refers to a Sadr City incident which may be the second one Issa noted or yet another bombing when "a U.S. aircraft fired a Hellfire missile in the Sadr City district -- the Baghdad stronghold of the Mahdi Army -- after gunmen there opened fire on an American patrol. The U.S. military said the missile strike killed four militants, but Iraqi officials said nine civilians were killed and nine others wounded."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack "near Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi's residence inside the Green Zone injuring 2 of his security detail," a Baghdad mortar attack on "the supension bridge (one of the entrances to the Green Zone) in Karrada" that wounded three people.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Qurna city resulted in 5 losing their lives and injured two. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports armed clashes in "Mahmoudiya, Nasiriyah and Kut" resulted in "[a]t least 26 people" dead. Reuters notes 3 dead in an armed clash in Kerbala, 6 in an armed clash in Hamza and that "the mayor of Ghmash neighbourhood in Diwaniya" was shot dead today.
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 kidnappings of police patrols in Baghdad -- in one instance two police officers were released, in the other three are missing.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 7 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Center Soldier was killed as a result of wounds sustained from an improvised explosive device attack south of Baghdad March 28."
Turning to US presidential politics. US Senator Patrick Leahy attacked democracy AND LIED today. Johanna Neuman (Los Angeles Times) reports that Leahy is calling "on Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out of the presidential race, saying there is no way the New York Senator can wrest the nomination from her rival Barack Obama." Let's remember that Leahy is the OLD FOOL who endorsed John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Now let's walk through slowly. A) If there's no way for Hillary to garner the nomination, what's the big concern with her dropping out? We'll come back to that. The Obama campaign got a spook today and are hoping the press doesn't get wind of it. B) If Barack has the nomination, it doesn't matter what Hillary does. C) Neither Hillary or Barack appeared able to reach the magic number of delegates from primaries or caucuses. Patrick Leahy needs to sit back down. His ass, like the rest of him, is obviously tired.
Let's cover the attack on Democracy angle. Vermont held their primary on March 4th. Leahy didn't think it was important to stop the process then, now did he? Today Bob Casey Jr. endorsed Barack. Let's see Bob Casey Jr. echo Leahy, let's see Bob Casey Jr. tell the voters of Pennsylvania that Hillary needs to drop out. Pennsylvania holds their primary on April 22nd so let's see Bob Casey Jr. stand with Leahy and see him tell the voters of his own state that they don't matter, that their votes don't matter and that their voice doesn't matter.
That is what Leahy is doing and everyone -- regardless of party -- should be offended by this attack on democracy. Now this nonsense was pulled on Al Gore privately in 2000. Leahy is so brazen that he thinks he can now do it publicly. Leahy is not the Director of Democracy and it's past time that he and others got that message. It's past time that someone held these little chiefs in check. And the people will. Leahy's not only offended Pennsylvania and all states and regions still to hold primary, he's also offending Vermont which is a state with a long history of allowing the process to go through. His offensive lies and attacks need to be called out.
Let's get it straight, the primary/caucus system is gamed over and over. But the lie those who don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire are told each election cycle is that their votes matter to. They're told that if it's ever close, they'll certainly get a say. They're told that just because the runway is cleared for Iowa and New Hampshire each year while everyone else is left in holding pattern, it's still fair, it's still equal. No, it's not. Which is why Bill Nelson is proposing legislation. But under the current system, the race continues. Under the current system, it's not expected that either Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will meet the magic number of delegates required to win the nomination. The super delegates would decide the nominee.
Everyone knows that. Leahy knows that though he lies to make it look better for his heart-throb Bambi. As someone who is lobbying super delegates, you better believe I know it. But while that battle's gone on, a new battle emerged today, totally unexpected. It sent the Barack Obama campaign into a tizzy. On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, a caller named John from Dallas, TX spoke. He explained he supported Barack Obama. He explained he voted for him. He explained he caucused for him. He explained he was selected as a delegate to represent Obama. Most importantly, he explained he could no longer support Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton won the primary in Texas.
That's why Leahy was sent out. Clamp down on this quick! Stop it before it bleeds further! Jeremy Wright is toxic and viral and it has destroyed Barack Obama. Not Hillary or anything she's said. The fact that Wright damned the United States of America is not going down easy despite media lies. The caller referenced an earlier section of the program and may have meant the embarrassing discussion of polls which included Obama's 'good' news from a PEW poll. 51% rated him well on his speech last week. But there's the other side which wasn't addressed on the broadcast. Seven percent didn't know. 42% rated Fair to Poor. The most heavily pimped speech of the campaign, by any candidate. The source of endless columns (bad columns) and non-stop gas baggery. The media was in full force on that speech, trying to shape the minds of Americans. But they didn't. 42% said Fair to Poor. (That's the general population but it's also the number for those self-describing as "Independent" in the poll.) When the US media decided to hop on board the selling of the illegal war, Bully Boy soared in the polls. 51% is very disappointing and that number is only going to continue to lower. Wright is toxic and viral and Obama showed no judgement.
That's what the caller told Rehm and her panel. And they characterized what he was going through as buyer's remorse. Wright has not gone away. He was back in the news for his "I will tour!" which didn't work out that well (it was cancelled for him but he tried to save face) and then came more offensive remarks including "garlic noses" for Italians. Jeffrey Weiss (Dallas Morning News) covers the religious beat and offers this prediction today: "Barack Obama will face more questions about Rev. Wright. Yes, Obama has disavowed the sentiments in the endlessly YouTubed excerpts. But the entire sermon offers a view of America and the American government that stands in sharp contrst to Obama's message. It's one thing for him to say he hadn't heard his pastor call God's wrath down on America that day. But surely some of the broader themes of that sermon about the role and history of the U.S. government were woven through other sermons? And we have not heard how or whether Obama took those up with his pastor and friend." On ABC's The View, Obama offered yet another version of conflicting stories passed off as truth. Today's lie is he would have left the church if Wright had "not retired" and that's a new one. It's equally true that it wouldn't take most people 20 years to make such a decision. Jake Tapper (ABC News) notes that he also claimed Wright "had said he had deeply offended people" and Tapper questions that only to get a "What he meant" from the campaign. Tapper notes:
Okay, except Obama wasn't "clearly" saying that at all.Here's a clear way to say that: 'Had the reverend not retired I would have confronted him about his remarks. If after that Wright still refused to acknowledge that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I think is the great character of this country -- for all its flaws -- then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.'
Taylor Marsh tracks Obama's changing story and how this new "I would have left if he hadn't been retiring" nonsense is just that. Brad Warthen (South Carolina's The State) explores the offense of the most famous sermon Wright delivered (and then sold online):
But what Mr. Wright said is clear. The six-minutes-plus of context that went before "G** Damn America" was exactly what I would have guessed went before it. Essentially, it was a review of history, mixed with a small dollop of political partisanship (the comparison of not-so-bad presidencies with the current one). Short version: The government has upheld oppression of black people during the course of American history.
Folks, I'm an American history major, and I've lived in this country for most of 54 years. What part of the rather sketchy overview in that sermon do you think I didn't know already? If I'd been sermonizing, I could have added a lot to it -- including the fact that the blood offering of the Civil War, as horrific as it was, seems to have been an inevitable sacrifice to expiate the sin of slavery. And I would have said the evil didn't end there, nor could it, there being original sin in the world, and no one of us since Jesus Christ born free of it.
But I wouldn't have said "G** Damn America." Not in a million years. For me, the point of bringing up evil is to try to overcome it -- as I believe two people Mr. Darby mentions (King and Bonhoeffer) were trying to do.
Sorry, but I can't accept that the Rev. Wright was saying "things that challenge America to rise above its sins of prejudice and greed." No, if he'd said America was in danger of damnation, or headed straight thataway, rather as Jesus said to the Pharisees in the example cited by my colleague Warren Bolton this week, that might have been seen as a challenge, perhaps even a well-intentioned warning. (Personally, although he had more right, being God, than anyone else to do so, I don't remember Jesus ever damning anything more sentient than a fig tree.)
But Mr. Wright didn't call on us to do anything. Instead, he called on G** to damn America.
Wright isn't going away. And let's be clear that what happened today was an Obama delegate -- voted for him in the primary, caucused for him -- announced on NPR that he wasn't able to support Obama and wouldn't be, that he was switching his vote to someone else. It's the story the campaign doesn't want noted.
Meanwhile, the following US military retired endose Hillary:
General Wesley Clark General Henry Hugh Shelton Admiral William Owens Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak, Jr. Major General Roger R. Blunt Major General George Buskirk, Jr. Major General Paul D. Eaton Major General Antonio M. Taguba Brigadier General Michael Dunn Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard Brigadier General Jack Yeager Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. Rear Admiral Roland G. Guilbault Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt Rear Admiral David Stone
The lettter reads:
As retired flag and general officers, we have devoted our lives to our country. We have hundreds of thousands of men and women on the front lines that have done the same. At this critical time in our nation's history, our men and women in uniform deserve better than a presidential debate mired in trivia. The stakes are simply too high. As we are poised to choose our next Commander-in-Chief, we should not allow the media to divert attention from the real issues. What matters is who is ready and inspired to lead -- who can be Commander-in -Chief on Day One.
It is imperative that our new President knows how and when to use force and diplomacy judiciously, to know how to deploy the olive branch and the arrow. The President needs to be ready to act swiftly and decisively in a crisis. And we think our next President must restore our moral authority and leadership around the world with the courage to meet with our adversaries when appropriate, and the wisdom to pursue diplomacy wisely.
It is especially important to understand the military and diplomatic challenges facing us in Iraq, and to end the Iraq war responsibly and safely. It is also important to rededicate ourselves to winning in Afghanistan, the forgotten front line in our fight against terrorism.
In these critical areas, it is clear to us that Senator Clinton is the candidate best qualified to be our nation's next Commander-in-Chief.
We believe that she has real understanding of the military through her diligent service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has worked tirelessly to ensure our men and women in uniform are properly trained and equipped to be sent to battle. And she has fought to make certain that they are treated with dignity when they return home. We have personally and closely observed her respect for our armed forces, and she has earned their respect. And ours.
We hope that as a country, we will now turn our attention to the critical issues that will determine the future of our great nation.
iraq
the diane rehm shownpr
sudarsan raghavanthe washington post
mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadelnancy a. youssef
tina susmanthe los angeles times
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Quiz
Quiz:
a) It's because knowledge is not a base line and progress is never complete. For those reasons, any country will always have embarrassments in their past and good for that because otherwise you're saying that people don't evolve, that understanding doesn't increase from generation to generation. You're saying human development is static.
b) It's that he spoke as if our society was static, as if no progress has been made, as if this country--a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino, Asian, rich, poor, young and old--is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.
Catch the similarities? And there are more. A) Is C.I. the Sunday before Senator Barack Obama's speech in "Roundtable." B) Is Obama two days later. C.I. is speaking off the cuff and Barack had time to craft C.I.'s points (due to a friend with the Obama campaign who did admit he passed on those points). Jim wrote about the theft in "Theft, C.I.'s not Bambi's speechwriter" and the excuse given by the person with Obama's campaign was that C.I. "is one of our toughest critics." That is the excuse for reading possibly but it is no excuse to 'pass on' to Senator Obama for use and Senator Obama already has a really hard problem crediting others.
I did not plan to write about this. But I read a column by Gene Lyons which I agree with ("Wright's anger is part of the problem") except for the point about where Mr. Lyons is pointing to the "b" passage above. The "b" passage is stolen. I win no points for pointing that out. I know C.I. demanded Jim leave out the conversation Jim had with the Obama staffer when Jim called him on the carpet about the theft. I know C.I. really does not want it mentioned and only noted it in an aside in yesterday's snapshot due to the fact that it would stop the e-mails from members saying, "It needs to be noted." Mentioning it in yesterday's snapshot was supposed to be the last word and I know this post of mine will irritate C.I. (who will never complain to me or treat me any differently for it). But reality is reality and Senator Obama's speech was pretty lousy but if there is something praiseworthy in it, it was the re-working of C.I.'s statements. Credit where it is due.
But you will never get credit where it is due from the Obama campaign as "Obama Copies Hillary's 'Second Stimulus'" notes:
Last Thursday, Senator Clinton called for a "second stimulus package" with $30 billion to help states and localities fight foreclosures. One week later, Senator Obama announced a "second $30 billion stimulus package".
Clinton policy director Neera Tanden: "If Senator Obama has to copy policy ideas when he's a candidate on the campaign trail, how is he going to solve people's problems if he's president? When it comes to fixing the economy, we need leadership, not followership."
1) Hillary called for a $30 billion fund to help states and localities to fight foreclosure in their communities. [Clinton Campaign Press Release,3/20/08]
One week later, Barack Obama called for an economic stimulus package of $30 billion to provide ‘immediate relief to areas hardest hit by the housing crisis.’[Reuters, 3/27/08]
2) Hillary’s plan introduces idea of ‘second stimulus.’ “That is why Senator Clinton is calling on Congress and the President to pass a second stimulus package. This time around, the primary focus should be on addressing the growing housing crisis. And by investing new, temporary resources in a housing-focused stimulus package, we can avoid the worst fall-out from the current downturn, keep families in their homes and stabilize communities.” [Clinton Campaign Press Release, 3/20/08]
Obama’s plan uses the exact same language: ‘Enact a Second $30 Billion Stimulus Package to Address the Mortgage Crisis, Protect Vulnerable Families and Strengthen the Economy.’ [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets ,3/27/08]
3) Hillary's plan reiterated her support for increasing unemployment insurance: "While this second stimulus package should focus predominantly on the housing crisis, Congress should also consider temporary measures to help struggling workers like extending unemployment insurance." [Clinton Campaign Press Release ,3/20/08]
Obama's plan includes the same call for increasing unemployment insurance: "Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment." [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets,3/27/08]
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Thursday, March 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Puppet al-Maliki painted in a corner, Bully Boy apparently high, fighting continues in Basra and throughout Iraq, and more.
Lawrence Toppman (Charlotte Observer) disses Kimberly Peirce's brave new film Stop-Loss but we'll noting his opening paragraph, "Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Born on the Bayou" sears the soundtrack, a young man chooses between a tour of duty overseas and exile in Canada, an unpopular president sends people to war against their will -- did I fall into a time machine before the screening of 'Stop-Loss'? It felt as if I'd flown back 40 years, as I watched somebody go AWOL while dealing with a "de facto draft" that shoves soldiers into combat more than once." Stop-Loss opens tomorrow.
In the meantime, war resisters in Canada need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month. For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Before we get to Basra, a factoid from UPI's "The almanac" worth noting, on this day "In 2003, U.S. President George Bush, seeking to calm concerns that the war in Iraq is proving tougher than expected after its first week, said the United States and Britain will battle Saddam Hussein's forces 'however long it takes to win'." And you can be sure that, five years ago, some idiots not only applauded, they high-fived.
Turning to Iraq where the assault on Basra receives more criticism. This morning Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) reported that "independent Kurdish legislator" Mahmoud Othman was staing that there was no discussion of the assault "with parliament or other political groups" and is quoted declaring, "Everybody is aksing, 'Why now?' . . . . People have ill-advised Maliki. The militias like the timing. Iran likes the timing. They wnat to show there's no progress in Iraq." People have ill-advised puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki? Who could do advise a puppet? Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the US government is concerned over bragging rights with both the White House and the Pentagon rushing forward yesterday to attempt to grab "partial credit for the Iraqi government's new military offensive". This despite the fact that, as Youssef notes, "There was no sign from the ground, however, that the new offensive, which involves 15,000 Iraqi troops and police units, was suceeding." Let's see, even Gen David Petraeus, due to 'report' to Congress next month, is calling out al-Maliki. Democrats and Republicans in both houses of the US Congress are calling out the puppet. Who would think a 'show of strength' would go over well? The US administration. How's it going over in Iraq?
Sudarsan Raghavan, Sholnn Freeman and Howard Schneider (Washington Post) report, "Thousands of supporters of hard-line cleric Moqtada al-Sadr poured into the streets of the Iraqi capital Thursday to protest an ongoing security crackdown against Sadr's militia . . . Demonstrators rallied in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City and the neighborhood of Kazimiyah, carrying a coffin decorated with a picture of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- a symbol of the political risks Maliki has run by ordering Iraqi security forces to move against Sadr's Mahdi Army and other politically backed armed gangs in Basra." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explains that on the coffin, under the photo, "were the words 'The New Dictator'." Today's chant goes, "Maliki, keep your hands off. People do not want you." Leila Fadel and Ali al Basri (McClatchy Newspapers) described a popular chant in Najaf on Tuesday, "Oh Nouri, you coward. You spy of the Americans." James Glanz and Graham Bowley (New York Times) note, "In direct confrontation with the American-backed government in Iraq, thousands of supporters of the powerful Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia took to the streets of Baghdad on Thursday to protest the Iraqi Army's asault on the southern port city of Basra, an intense fighting continued there for a third day." The photo by Joao Silva of those demonstrating should make the front page of the Times tomorrow -- note how many are marching. Adam Brookes and Crispin Thorold (BBC) quote a Baghdad protestor declaring, "We are very patient but if the government does not respond to our demands, something bad will happen" and the demands are defined "the prime minister must resign; foreign troops must leave Iraq; the operation in Basra must be halted." Glanz and Bowley quote demonstrator Jabbar Azem Hassan: "They are killing our sons and they are harming innocent people. We need to reform the national government from all parts of the Iraqi populace."
CNN plays stupid so before we get to the violence and its effects on the Iraqi people, let's address the nonsense Michael Ware pushes that "the Iranians" have a relationship with Moqtada al-Sadr. No more so than with al-Maliki. But the reality that's being missed is that al-Sadr was neutralized and on his way to little importance before the assault. It was widely accepted that, as he continued his education, he was a hotel clerk in Najaf. Not the stuff of legendary rebels (even allowing for the "Pirate Jenny" aspect). He was out of Baghdad and that had turned some followers against him for the basic reason that while he was seen as 'getting on with' his own life, they felt they were under daily attack from al-Maliki's forces and militias. The break-aways going public and criticizing were doing a very natural thing -- if your leader abandons you and the movement (and that's how it looked), he is no longer in charge. Had the Basra assault not taken place, al-Sadr would have continued to decrease in influence. What al-Maliki has done is 'rebrand' al-Sadr, turn him into Moqtada! and make him even more influential (regardless of the outcome) than he was before. His influence was fading and it had nothing to do with "the Iranians" which CNN chatters on about (having absorbed that crap from the US military brass). Basic realities, when a leader and his/her followers are apart and the leader appears to have things easier, the followers toss him or her aside. al-Sadr's strength was waining and without the assault on Basra someone (more likely someones) would step forward claiming to be the true leader of Sadr City in Baghdad. That person would have to gather strength slowly (and ward off rivals). That was six to eight months time the US and al-Maliki would have had without any real issues. Instead, they've armed al-Sadr by turning him into a rebel all over again. No matter what happens in Basra, al-Sadr now has more power today than he ever had and that power will only continue. Should he be killed, he will only be even more power and mythic. But as it is, he is now seen as the one person in Iraq who is defending the Iraqis, defending the country. This elevates him higher than in 2004 because in 2004 he had others on the scene to compete with. Today, thanks to actions by the US and the puppet, he is Iraq.
Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) underscores how al-Maliki has yet against set himself against the people of Iraq in his referring to those associated with al-Sadr was "criminal gangs". Leila Fadel (McClatchy) quotes Nouri insisting, "The government does not negotiate with a gang; the government does not sign understanding memorandums with outlaws." Not only has the assault increased al-Sadr's power, it's weakened al-Maliki's. This morning, James Glanz (New York Times) reported, "American officials have presented the Iraqi Army's attempts to secure the port city as an example of its ability to carry out a major operation against the insurgency on its own. A failure there would be a serious embarrassment for the Iraqi government and for the army, as well as for American forces eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively on their own." Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) offers, "A new civil war is threatening to explode in Iraq as American-backed Iraqi government forces fight Shia militiamen for control of Basra and parts of Baghdad. . . . The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq's majority Shia community -- which replaced Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime -- is splitting apart for the first time."
A point missed by the Bully Boy of the United States. Speaking at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base's National Museum of the United States Air Force today, Bully Boy declared, "The military achievements in Iraq have been accompanied by a political transformation." Whatever he's smoking, shouldn't he be arrested for it? He spoke of non-existant political gains and claimed his 'surge' was a success ("But this much is clear: The surge is doing what it was designed to do.") With Tony Blair and John Howard gone from power, Bully Boy needs a new boy-crush so he inflates and elevates Nouri, "And as we speak, Iraqi security forces are waging a tough battle against militia fighters and criminals in Basra -- many of whom have received arms and training and funding from Iran. Prime Minister Maliki's bold decision -- and it was a bold decision -- to go after the illegal groups in Basra shows his leadership, and his committment to enforce the law in an even-handed manner. . . . Prime Minister Maliki has traveled to Basra to oversee it firsthand." That last statement may have been a speechwriter getting in a jab over Bully Boy's failure "to oversee" the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina "firsthand." In terms of Iran, there is still no proof, only baseless accusations intended to sell another illegal war. As Ruth noted yesterday, the New York Times' Steven Lee Myers appeared on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and continued to insist -- with no proof -- that the Iranian government was supplying weapons to Iraqi resistance fighters. He needed to insist on that even when, as Ruth noted, Rehm pointed out that weapons tend to travel over borders all on their own without government assistance of any kind leading Myers to reply that this was true which was why he wasn't sure which branch of the Iranian government was passing on the weapons but . . . He has no proof and repeatedly lied to claim a connection he can't back up. Bully Boy did the same today. The paper has enlisted in selling the next war. Anna Mulrine (US News & World Reports) notes the "postive spin" Bully Boy attempted today and that US military officials do not share his upbeat evaulation. One is quoted explaining, "It' snot a sign of success. . . . It's too early to tell." Adam Brookes and Crisipin Thorold (BBC) note that Nouri's deadline has less than 48 hours left yet "the militiamen -- in particular those of Mehdi Army, loyal to the cleric Moqtada Sadr -- show no signs of doing so. . . . Mehdi militiamen are holding key points around Basra, say local sources, and are harassing Iraqi troops from alleyways and back streets, where armoured vehicles find it hard to manoeuvre." Sam Dagher and Abdul-Karim al-Samer (Christian Science Monitor) report, "At the moment, witnesses in Basra say there appears to be no sign of any letup in fighting between government forces and the Shiite gunmen, who are said to still control 75 percent of the city."
On the ground, Alexandra Zavis and Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) observe, "Basra residents trapped in their homes by raging gun battles worried that food was running out with no end in sight to the clashes between Iraqi security forces and followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr and other armed factions." At McClatchy's Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent explains that their mother's eye surgery was scheduled for Tuesday but due to the strikes in Baghdad, the clinic the surgery was to take place had shut down and they had to make multiple trips just to get to a hospital (Sadrists turned them away on the first three attempts). Charles Levinson (USA Today) observes, "Al-Sadr's ironclad control over Iraq's health system and other key ministries has come under renewed scrutiny following recent clashes between his Mahdi Army militia and the Iraqi army. . . . The Health Ministry has been under al-Sadr's control since 2005, when his political party gained more seats than any other group." AFP counts "[a]t least 105 people" who "have died countrywide in clashes since" the assault on Basra began. Richard Beeston (Times of London) cautions, "The battle for Basra now raging on the streets of Iraq's second city shows every sign of turning into a nightmare for the dwindling British forces near by" and notes that British troops might have to be added to the region or "[t]he only other option would be for Britain to admit finally that it has lost the fight in southern Iraq."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an east Baghdad mortar attack that claimed 1 life and wounded two people, a central Baghdad mortar attack that wounded one person, a Baghdad car bombing damaged one wall of the Red Crescent office, the Baghdad Da'wa Party (al-Maliki's party) was "torched, causing only material damage" a Baghdad mortar attack on a bus station claimed 2 lives and left fifteen wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack on a commercial area wounded two people, a Baghdad mortar attack on the Ministry of Interior claimed 1 life (an employee) and left four more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack on an apartment complex wounded two people, an RPG attack on Amara's Badr Organization Bureau which left a civilian wounded, a Baiji bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, a Khanaqin roadside bombing wounded two people, a Kirkuk car bombing claimed the life of Capt. Tayib Mahmoud ("a Kurd security intelligence agency" officer) and wounded two "of his security detail" plus five more people, the torching of the Hilla "offices of al-Da'wa and the Supreme Council" that resulted in the deaths of 3 police officers (four more wounded) and, on Wednesday, Mona Ajaj was killed from a Baiji mortar attack that also wounded two adults and three children. This morning Reuters reported: "A giant column of black smoke was visible near the U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone on Thursday after an apparent mortar strike, a Reuters reporter said." CBS and AP note 1 "American was killed . . . a government employee whose identity was being withheld" and CBS News Lara Logan "reports the Green Zone, not long ago one of the safest areas of Baghdad, has become in recent days one of the deadliest. In a visit to one of the foreign embassies inside the area, Logan says she and her crew had to quickly move into protecitve bunkers four times with one hour due to the relentless rocket fire. She says all non-essential movement of personnel within the Green Zone has been restricted." AFP notes a Basra car bombing targeting Maj Gen Abdul Jalil Khalaf (police chief) that he walked away from but in which 3 police officers died.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the Commander of Garmian Peshmerga Forces" was shot dead along with 4 members "of his security detail," 5 Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Basra, a Salahuddin Province home invasion targeting a member of the "Awakening" Counil that claimed the life of the US collaborator and his son (wounding two women), 2 people were shot dead at Yugoslav Bridge (seven more wounded) from the crossfire exchanged by the Iraqi and Mahdia armies, 1 Iraqi soldier and 2 police officers shot dead in Hilla during an armed clash that also wounded thirty others, seventeen Iraqi soldiers were wounded in Basra (and transferred to Baghdad for treatment), three Iraqi soldiers were wounded in Baghdad, in Talbiyah's armed clash eight Iraqi soldiers received injuries, 1 father a thirteen-year-old son were shot dead in Talbiyah and a Baghdad shooting that wounded one person. Reuters notes 3 police officers killed (three more wounded) in Hamza
Kidnappings?
Sudarsan Raghavan, Sholnn Freeman and Howard Schneider (Washington Post) report "gunmen seized a well-known member of Maliki's government, storming the home of Tahseen al-Sheikihli and taking him prisoner. Sheikhli is a chief spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, in charge of a big to build public support for Iraqi efforts to quell violence in the city." It does not appear that his job has worked. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) notes that "at least one of" his bodyguards is reported wounded during the kidnapping and that "Sheikhly has appeared frequently at news conferences alongside U.S. officials discussing what they consider progress of the security plan. The bold abduction, in the middle of the afternoon, was a sign of the spreading insecurity since the Basra offensive began."
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 5 discovered outside Baquba, 4 were discovered "south of the town of Baladruz," and 4 corpses were discovered "south of the town of Baladruz."
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed at approximately 4:30 p.m. March 27 after being struck by an improvised explosive device in eastern Baghdad while conducting a combat patrol." The announcement brings the number of US service members to 4004 killed in the illegal war since it started.
Returning to the violence and economcis. Mark Mooney (ABC News) notes "a bomb blasted a crucial oil pipeline in Basra, triggering a massive fire and threatening the country's ability to export oil" causing the price of crude oil barrel to rise to $107. Remember the shock months ago when oil reached a hundred dollars a barrel? Atul Aneja (The Hindu) states that the bombing's impact will be huge, "Oil exports are expected to be affected in a big way as Zubair 1 -- the main pumping station -- has also been shut down. Nearly one-third of the oil produced in the area is transported through the affected pipeline." Mark Shenk (Bloomberg News) states that prices have actually risen "above $107 barrel". Australia's Sydney Morning Herald notes, "US crude oil futures ended higher for the third consecutive day on Thursday, fueled by a rally in heating oil futures and as traders remained edgy over a major oil pipeline explosing in Iraq."
Turning to US presidential politics, why does Amy Goodman distort for Bambi? (We know why.) Today on her crap-ass show, which she claims informs (she also claims she's an author but Ava and I will put that lie to rest next month at Third), she declared, "In other campaign news, Senator Obama's former pastor has canceled scheduled appearances in Texas set for this weekend. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has come under heavy criticism from political pundits for linking the attacks of September 11 to US foreign policy in the Middle East and for saying the United States was founded on racism. In a statement, Reverend Wright cited safety concerns for his decision to cancel his appearances." Jeremiah Wright has come under heavy criticism for damning the United States. Amy Goodman may pretend otherwsie but that is what he's under fire for. As for his cancelling apperances, those appearances were cancelled for him. When institutions that had invited you make it clear that you're no longer wanted, you really don't need to cancel. In the real world, MSNBC's First Read notes that Barack Obama is attempting to target Pennsylvania's 30% Catholic voters (not a chance) and will do so so by attempting to "play down the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue." The issue's not going away. Play it up, play it down. It's here to say and liars like Amy Goodman (who is in real danger of losing NPR outlets due to her 'ethics') can keep lying through their yellowed teeth but the controversy will continue. First Read also notes that "Clinton backers Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Robert F. Kenney Jr. last week wrote a letter to Pennsylvania Catholics emphasizing her plans on health care, mortgage foreclosures and fuel costs." Bruce Fisher (ArtVoice) appears to right the obituary for the Obama campaign today and cites Jeremiah Wright. Joe Wilson (via No Quarter's reposting) notes, "Among other things, Wright preaches that the United States government unleashed the HIV virus in Africa to kill blacks. (Having worked in African for much of my adult life, including with one of the early AIDS researches, Dr. Jonathan Mann, I can safely say that there is absolutely no evidence to sustain Wright's reckless charge.) Obama had no choice but to address his 20-year close relationship with a man he still considers, as he made clear in his speech, a mentor." Joe Klein (Time magazine) weighs in on the topic of what he calls "Jeremiah 'G-- damn America'" Wright. Democrats will soon learn how damaging that relationship might be in a general election." And this morning on NBC's Today, Andrea Mitchell offered some of the latest:
Andrea Mitchell: And now even more controversy regarding Rev. Wright. An internet search reveals church bulletines over the past year with controversial pastor pages from the reverand. Some reprint anti-Israel writings from a range of people -- from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to an advisor to Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farkahn of the Nation of Islam and Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook. One of Marzook's columns, reprinted by the church from the Los Angeles Times, says "Why should any Palestinian recognize the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?" Obama told the Jerusalem Post the church was outrageously wrong to reprint the article and he denounced Hamas. And Trumpet, a magazine run by Wright's daughters quotes him as saying "White supremacy is clearly in charge" and slurring Italian's quote "garlic noses" and he also calls Jesus' crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."
And that, which is offensive, is the only thing that Michal Tomasky (American writing for the Guardian of London -- no link to Tomasky's trash) is bothered by, calling the slur against Italians "inconceivable". Mitchell also a noted a Wall St. Journal - NBC poll which we're not interested because of the oversampling error Taylor Marsh draws to everyone's attention. It wouldn't fly in any research and methodology class and it's amazing that the two outlets didn't scrap the poll when they learned of the oversampling. In other campaign news, Taylor Marsh highlights MSNBC's Race for the White House where Richard Woffe (a Brit still nursing his political crush on Joe Lieberman) gets called to the carpet by Joe Scarborough who pounces on Wright's "we" to point out, "We? You said that's how 'we' decided it? If that's the way the Democratic Party decided it then they wouldn't have super delegates! Let me tell you what 'we' love to do. 'We' in the media love to tell everybody, which 'we' have been telling everybody for months that the numbers don't add for Hillary Clinton, she can't get enough delegates . . . Well guess what? The numbers don't add up for Barack Obama but 'we' don't tell that side of the story, do 'we'?" The super delegates are the rules of the Democratic Party and they can go any way they want."
In other news, Mike Gravel has left the Democratic Party. AP reported yesterday that Gravel sent out an e-mail to supporters stating that the party "no longer represents my vision for our great party. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views. . . . I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views." Meanwhile Cynthia McKinney, who also left the Democratic Party, is running for the Green Party presidential nomination. Larry Pinkney (Black Commentator) notes, "Sister Cynthia McKinney has both the credibility and the capacity to truly excite the people in a substantive vs. superficial fashion; and can inspire people to see that they themselves/we oursevles are the only viable solution to the Republicrats and their flawed and corrupt electoral system. We must move the people from being excited about meaningless superficialities that do nothing to address systemic change -- to being excited about substance that is the catalyst for systemic change." The indepdent Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez ticket is collecting signatures for ballot access and have currently set up a location in Albuquerque where they are gathering signatures.
And we'll note this statement from the Hillary Clinton campaign:
Yesterday, a Pennsylvania editorial board asked Sen. Clinton how she would have "responded if [her] pastor had said some of the things that Rev. Wright said?" In response, she said Rev. Wright would not have been her pastor, an honest view shared by many Americans.
The Obama campaign's response? Attack Sen. Clinton and accuse her of trying to divert attention from the Bosnia trip story and her record of foreign policy experience.
Sen. Clinton's response was sincere. The Obama attack was disingenuous.
We are happy to discuss Sen. Clinton's foreign policy experience and her record overall. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign doesn't want to discuss its candidate's record and prefers personal attacks instead.
Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.
He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.
Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.
He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.
He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.
Sen. Obama seems to think disingenuous attacks on Sen. Clinton will address the concerns voters have about his record and readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief and the steward of our economy. They won't.
In the end, Sen. Obama's words cannot erase Hillary's 35-year record of action because when all is said and done, words aren't action. They are just words.
Meanwhile West Virigina University's student body president Jason Parsons explains his support for Hillary's presidential campaign, "As the student body president at West Virginia University and as an ordinary college student, I talk to my friends everyday who are saddled down with debt and college loans. They face the dilemma of tuition going up while financial aid is going down, and many have fallen victim to predatory student loan companies. Hillary Clinton, throughout the course of her presidential campaign, has talked consistently about the challenges college aged people face and she has offered solutions. That's why I support her. The 35 years of experience she brings to this race is so important at a time when our country needs real change and when young people need to believe that our best days are still ahead." To be creeped about by Obama groupies, check out the video noted by intranets (Corrente) which is like a Hitler moment and there's no other word for it. As intranets notes, it is "creepy". Truly, like Hitler campaign propaganda. (If you view, pay attention to the background and not the cult-like testimonials, pay attention to the subliminals. It truly is the GOP's 2000 campaign.) And as the topic returns to Bambi, Anibal Acevedo Vila, governor of Puerto Rico and pledged super delegate for Barack Obama "was charged Thursday with 19 counts in a campaign finance probe, including conspiracy to violate U.S. federal campaign laws and giving false testimony to the FBI."
iraq
the diane rehm shownpr
the new york timesjames glanzmcclatchy newspapers
leila fadelnancy a. youssef
tina susmanthe los angeles timesalexandra zavissudarsan raghavanthe washington post
ruths report
a) It's because knowledge is not a base line and progress is never complete. For those reasons, any country will always have embarrassments in their past and good for that because otherwise you're saying that people don't evolve, that understanding doesn't increase from generation to generation. You're saying human development is static.
b) It's that he spoke as if our society was static, as if no progress has been made, as if this country--a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino, Asian, rich, poor, young and old--is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past.
Catch the similarities? And there are more. A) Is C.I. the Sunday before Senator Barack Obama's speech in "Roundtable." B) Is Obama two days later. C.I. is speaking off the cuff and Barack had time to craft C.I.'s points (due to a friend with the Obama campaign who did admit he passed on those points). Jim wrote about the theft in "Theft, C.I.'s not Bambi's speechwriter" and the excuse given by the person with Obama's campaign was that C.I. "is one of our toughest critics." That is the excuse for reading possibly but it is no excuse to 'pass on' to Senator Obama for use and Senator Obama already has a really hard problem crediting others.
I did not plan to write about this. But I read a column by Gene Lyons which I agree with ("Wright's anger is part of the problem") except for the point about where Mr. Lyons is pointing to the "b" passage above. The "b" passage is stolen. I win no points for pointing that out. I know C.I. demanded Jim leave out the conversation Jim had with the Obama staffer when Jim called him on the carpet about the theft. I know C.I. really does not want it mentioned and only noted it in an aside in yesterday's snapshot due to the fact that it would stop the e-mails from members saying, "It needs to be noted." Mentioning it in yesterday's snapshot was supposed to be the last word and I know this post of mine will irritate C.I. (who will never complain to me or treat me any differently for it). But reality is reality and Senator Obama's speech was pretty lousy but if there is something praiseworthy in it, it was the re-working of C.I.'s statements. Credit where it is due.
But you will never get credit where it is due from the Obama campaign as "Obama Copies Hillary's 'Second Stimulus'" notes:
Last Thursday, Senator Clinton called for a "second stimulus package" with $30 billion to help states and localities fight foreclosures. One week later, Senator Obama announced a "second $30 billion stimulus package".
Clinton policy director Neera Tanden: "If Senator Obama has to copy policy ideas when he's a candidate on the campaign trail, how is he going to solve people's problems if he's president? When it comes to fixing the economy, we need leadership, not followership."
1) Hillary called for a $30 billion fund to help states and localities to fight foreclosure in their communities. [Clinton Campaign Press Release,3/20/08]
One week later, Barack Obama called for an economic stimulus package of $30 billion to provide ‘immediate relief to areas hardest hit by the housing crisis.’[Reuters, 3/27/08]
2) Hillary’s plan introduces idea of ‘second stimulus.’ “That is why Senator Clinton is calling on Congress and the President to pass a second stimulus package. This time around, the primary focus should be on addressing the growing housing crisis. And by investing new, temporary resources in a housing-focused stimulus package, we can avoid the worst fall-out from the current downturn, keep families in their homes and stabilize communities.” [Clinton Campaign Press Release, 3/20/08]
Obama’s plan uses the exact same language: ‘Enact a Second $30 Billion Stimulus Package to Address the Mortgage Crisis, Protect Vulnerable Families and Strengthen the Economy.’ [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets ,3/27/08]
3) Hillary's plan reiterated her support for increasing unemployment insurance: "While this second stimulus package should focus predominantly on the housing crisis, Congress should also consider temporary measures to help struggling workers like extending unemployment insurance." [Clinton Campaign Press Release ,3/20/08]
Obama's plan includes the same call for increasing unemployment insurance: "Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment." [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets,3/27/08]
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Thursday, March 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Puppet al-Maliki painted in a corner, Bully Boy apparently high, fighting continues in Basra and throughout Iraq, and more.
Lawrence Toppman (Charlotte Observer) disses Kimberly Peirce's brave new film Stop-Loss but we'll noting his opening paragraph, "Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Born on the Bayou" sears the soundtrack, a young man chooses between a tour of duty overseas and exile in Canada, an unpopular president sends people to war against their will -- did I fall into a time machine before the screening of 'Stop-Loss'? It felt as if I'd flown back 40 years, as I watched somebody go AWOL while dealing with a "de facto draft" that shoves soldiers into combat more than once." Stop-Loss opens tomorrow.
In the meantime, war resisters in Canada need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month. For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Before we get to Basra, a factoid from UPI's "The almanac" worth noting, on this day "In 2003, U.S. President George Bush, seeking to calm concerns that the war in Iraq is proving tougher than expected after its first week, said the United States and Britain will battle Saddam Hussein's forces 'however long it takes to win'." And you can be sure that, five years ago, some idiots not only applauded, they high-fived.
Turning to Iraq where the assault on Basra receives more criticism. This morning Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) reported that "independent Kurdish legislator" Mahmoud Othman was staing that there was no discussion of the assault "with parliament or other political groups" and is quoted declaring, "Everybody is aksing, 'Why now?' . . . . People have ill-advised Maliki. The militias like the timing. Iran likes the timing. They wnat to show there's no progress in Iraq." People have ill-advised puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki? Who could do advise a puppet? Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the US government is concerned over bragging rights with both the White House and the Pentagon rushing forward yesterday to attempt to grab "partial credit for the Iraqi government's new military offensive". This despite the fact that, as Youssef notes, "There was no sign from the ground, however, that the new offensive, which involves 15,000 Iraqi troops and police units, was suceeding." Let's see, even Gen David Petraeus, due to 'report' to Congress next month, is calling out al-Maliki. Democrats and Republicans in both houses of the US Congress are calling out the puppet. Who would think a 'show of strength' would go over well? The US administration. How's it going over in Iraq?
Sudarsan Raghavan, Sholnn Freeman and Howard Schneider (Washington Post) report, "Thousands of supporters of hard-line cleric Moqtada al-Sadr poured into the streets of the Iraqi capital Thursday to protest an ongoing security crackdown against Sadr's militia . . . Demonstrators rallied in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City and the neighborhood of Kazimiyah, carrying a coffin decorated with a picture of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- a symbol of the political risks Maliki has run by ordering Iraqi security forces to move against Sadr's Mahdi Army and other politically backed armed gangs in Basra." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explains that on the coffin, under the photo, "were the words 'The New Dictator'." Today's chant goes, "Maliki, keep your hands off. People do not want you." Leila Fadel and Ali al Basri (McClatchy Newspapers) described a popular chant in Najaf on Tuesday, "Oh Nouri, you coward. You spy of the Americans." James Glanz and Graham Bowley (New York Times) note, "In direct confrontation with the American-backed government in Iraq, thousands of supporters of the powerful Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia took to the streets of Baghdad on Thursday to protest the Iraqi Army's asault on the southern port city of Basra, an intense fighting continued there for a third day." The photo by Joao Silva of those demonstrating should make the front page of the Times tomorrow -- note how many are marching. Adam Brookes and Crispin Thorold (BBC) quote a Baghdad protestor declaring, "We are very patient but if the government does not respond to our demands, something bad will happen" and the demands are defined "the prime minister must resign; foreign troops must leave Iraq; the operation in Basra must be halted." Glanz and Bowley quote demonstrator Jabbar Azem Hassan: "They are killing our sons and they are harming innocent people. We need to reform the national government from all parts of the Iraqi populace."
CNN plays stupid so before we get to the violence and its effects on the Iraqi people, let's address the nonsense Michael Ware pushes that "the Iranians" have a relationship with Moqtada al-Sadr. No more so than with al-Maliki. But the reality that's being missed is that al-Sadr was neutralized and on his way to little importance before the assault. It was widely accepted that, as he continued his education, he was a hotel clerk in Najaf. Not the stuff of legendary rebels (even allowing for the "Pirate Jenny" aspect). He was out of Baghdad and that had turned some followers against him for the basic reason that while he was seen as 'getting on with' his own life, they felt they were under daily attack from al-Maliki's forces and militias. The break-aways going public and criticizing were doing a very natural thing -- if your leader abandons you and the movement (and that's how it looked), he is no longer in charge. Had the Basra assault not taken place, al-Sadr would have continued to decrease in influence. What al-Maliki has done is 'rebrand' al-Sadr, turn him into Moqtada! and make him even more influential (regardless of the outcome) than he was before. His influence was fading and it had nothing to do with "the Iranians" which CNN chatters on about (having absorbed that crap from the US military brass). Basic realities, when a leader and his/her followers are apart and the leader appears to have things easier, the followers toss him or her aside. al-Sadr's strength was waining and without the assault on Basra someone (more likely someones) would step forward claiming to be the true leader of Sadr City in Baghdad. That person would have to gather strength slowly (and ward off rivals). That was six to eight months time the US and al-Maliki would have had without any real issues. Instead, they've armed al-Sadr by turning him into a rebel all over again. No matter what happens in Basra, al-Sadr now has more power today than he ever had and that power will only continue. Should he be killed, he will only be even more power and mythic. But as it is, he is now seen as the one person in Iraq who is defending the Iraqis, defending the country. This elevates him higher than in 2004 because in 2004 he had others on the scene to compete with. Today, thanks to actions by the US and the puppet, he is Iraq.
Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) underscores how al-Maliki has yet against set himself against the people of Iraq in his referring to those associated with al-Sadr was "criminal gangs". Leila Fadel (McClatchy) quotes Nouri insisting, "The government does not negotiate with a gang; the government does not sign understanding memorandums with outlaws." Not only has the assault increased al-Sadr's power, it's weakened al-Maliki's. This morning, James Glanz (New York Times) reported, "American officials have presented the Iraqi Army's attempts to secure the port city as an example of its ability to carry out a major operation against the insurgency on its own. A failure there would be a serious embarrassment for the Iraqi government and for the army, as well as for American forces eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively on their own." Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) offers, "A new civil war is threatening to explode in Iraq as American-backed Iraqi government forces fight Shia militiamen for control of Basra and parts of Baghdad. . . . The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq's majority Shia community -- which replaced Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime -- is splitting apart for the first time."
A point missed by the Bully Boy of the United States. Speaking at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base's National Museum of the United States Air Force today, Bully Boy declared, "The military achievements in Iraq have been accompanied by a political transformation." Whatever he's smoking, shouldn't he be arrested for it? He spoke of non-existant political gains and claimed his 'surge' was a success ("But this much is clear: The surge is doing what it was designed to do.") With Tony Blair and John Howard gone from power, Bully Boy needs a new boy-crush so he inflates and elevates Nouri, "And as we speak, Iraqi security forces are waging a tough battle against militia fighters and criminals in Basra -- many of whom have received arms and training and funding from Iran. Prime Minister Maliki's bold decision -- and it was a bold decision -- to go after the illegal groups in Basra shows his leadership, and his committment to enforce the law in an even-handed manner. . . . Prime Minister Maliki has traveled to Basra to oversee it firsthand." That last statement may have been a speechwriter getting in a jab over Bully Boy's failure "to oversee" the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina "firsthand." In terms of Iran, there is still no proof, only baseless accusations intended to sell another illegal war. As Ruth noted yesterday, the New York Times' Steven Lee Myers appeared on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and continued to insist -- with no proof -- that the Iranian government was supplying weapons to Iraqi resistance fighters. He needed to insist on that even when, as Ruth noted, Rehm pointed out that weapons tend to travel over borders all on their own without government assistance of any kind leading Myers to reply that this was true which was why he wasn't sure which branch of the Iranian government was passing on the weapons but . . . He has no proof and repeatedly lied to claim a connection he can't back up. Bully Boy did the same today. The paper has enlisted in selling the next war. Anna Mulrine (US News & World Reports) notes the "postive spin" Bully Boy attempted today and that US military officials do not share his upbeat evaulation. One is quoted explaining, "It' snot a sign of success. . . . It's too early to tell." Adam Brookes and Crisipin Thorold (BBC) note that Nouri's deadline has less than 48 hours left yet "the militiamen -- in particular those of Mehdi Army, loyal to the cleric Moqtada Sadr -- show no signs of doing so. . . . Mehdi militiamen are holding key points around Basra, say local sources, and are harassing Iraqi troops from alleyways and back streets, where armoured vehicles find it hard to manoeuvre." Sam Dagher and Abdul-Karim al-Samer (Christian Science Monitor) report, "At the moment, witnesses in Basra say there appears to be no sign of any letup in fighting between government forces and the Shiite gunmen, who are said to still control 75 percent of the city."
On the ground, Alexandra Zavis and Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) observe, "Basra residents trapped in their homes by raging gun battles worried that food was running out with no end in sight to the clashes between Iraqi security forces and followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr and other armed factions." At McClatchy's Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent explains that their mother's eye surgery was scheduled for Tuesday but due to the strikes in Baghdad, the clinic the surgery was to take place had shut down and they had to make multiple trips just to get to a hospital (Sadrists turned them away on the first three attempts). Charles Levinson (USA Today) observes, "Al-Sadr's ironclad control over Iraq's health system and other key ministries has come under renewed scrutiny following recent clashes between his Mahdi Army militia and the Iraqi army. . . . The Health Ministry has been under al-Sadr's control since 2005, when his political party gained more seats than any other group." AFP counts "[a]t least 105 people" who "have died countrywide in clashes since" the assault on Basra began. Richard Beeston (Times of London) cautions, "The battle for Basra now raging on the streets of Iraq's second city shows every sign of turning into a nightmare for the dwindling British forces near by" and notes that British troops might have to be added to the region or "[t]he only other option would be for Britain to admit finally that it has lost the fight in southern Iraq."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an east Baghdad mortar attack that claimed 1 life and wounded two people, a central Baghdad mortar attack that wounded one person, a Baghdad car bombing damaged one wall of the Red Crescent office, the Baghdad Da'wa Party (al-Maliki's party) was "torched, causing only material damage" a Baghdad mortar attack on a bus station claimed 2 lives and left fifteen wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack on a commercial area wounded two people, a Baghdad mortar attack on the Ministry of Interior claimed 1 life (an employee) and left four more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack on an apartment complex wounded two people, an RPG attack on Amara's Badr Organization Bureau which left a civilian wounded, a Baiji bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, a Khanaqin roadside bombing wounded two people, a Kirkuk car bombing claimed the life of Capt. Tayib Mahmoud ("a Kurd security intelligence agency" officer) and wounded two "of his security detail" plus five more people, the torching of the Hilla "offices of al-Da'wa and the Supreme Council" that resulted in the deaths of 3 police officers (four more wounded) and, on Wednesday, Mona Ajaj was killed from a Baiji mortar attack that also wounded two adults and three children. This morning Reuters reported: "A giant column of black smoke was visible near the U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone on Thursday after an apparent mortar strike, a Reuters reporter said." CBS and AP note 1 "American was killed . . . a government employee whose identity was being withheld" and CBS News Lara Logan "reports the Green Zone, not long ago one of the safest areas of Baghdad, has become in recent days one of the deadliest. In a visit to one of the foreign embassies inside the area, Logan says she and her crew had to quickly move into protecitve bunkers four times with one hour due to the relentless rocket fire. She says all non-essential movement of personnel within the Green Zone has been restricted." AFP notes a Basra car bombing targeting Maj Gen Abdul Jalil Khalaf (police chief) that he walked away from but in which 3 police officers died.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the Commander of Garmian Peshmerga Forces" was shot dead along with 4 members "of his security detail," 5 Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Basra, a Salahuddin Province home invasion targeting a member of the "Awakening" Counil that claimed the life of the US collaborator and his son (wounding two women), 2 people were shot dead at Yugoslav Bridge (seven more wounded) from the crossfire exchanged by the Iraqi and Mahdia armies, 1 Iraqi soldier and 2 police officers shot dead in Hilla during an armed clash that also wounded thirty others, seventeen Iraqi soldiers were wounded in Basra (and transferred to Baghdad for treatment), three Iraqi soldiers were wounded in Baghdad, in Talbiyah's armed clash eight Iraqi soldiers received injuries, 1 father a thirteen-year-old son were shot dead in Talbiyah and a Baghdad shooting that wounded one person. Reuters notes 3 police officers killed (three more wounded) in Hamza
Kidnappings?
Sudarsan Raghavan, Sholnn Freeman and Howard Schneider (Washington Post) report "gunmen seized a well-known member of Maliki's government, storming the home of Tahseen al-Sheikihli and taking him prisoner. Sheikhli is a chief spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, in charge of a big to build public support for Iraqi efforts to quell violence in the city." It does not appear that his job has worked. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) notes that "at least one of" his bodyguards is reported wounded during the kidnapping and that "Sheikhly has appeared frequently at news conferences alongside U.S. officials discussing what they consider progress of the security plan. The bold abduction, in the middle of the afternoon, was a sign of the spreading insecurity since the Basra offensive began."
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 5 discovered outside Baquba, 4 were discovered "south of the town of Baladruz," and 4 corpses were discovered "south of the town of Baladruz."
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed at approximately 4:30 p.m. March 27 after being struck by an improvised explosive device in eastern Baghdad while conducting a combat patrol." The announcement brings the number of US service members to 4004 killed in the illegal war since it started.
Returning to the violence and economcis. Mark Mooney (ABC News) notes "a bomb blasted a crucial oil pipeline in Basra, triggering a massive fire and threatening the country's ability to export oil" causing the price of crude oil barrel to rise to $107. Remember the shock months ago when oil reached a hundred dollars a barrel? Atul Aneja (The Hindu) states that the bombing's impact will be huge, "Oil exports are expected to be affected in a big way as Zubair 1 -- the main pumping station -- has also been shut down. Nearly one-third of the oil produced in the area is transported through the affected pipeline." Mark Shenk (Bloomberg News) states that prices have actually risen "above $107 barrel". Australia's Sydney Morning Herald notes, "US crude oil futures ended higher for the third consecutive day on Thursday, fueled by a rally in heating oil futures and as traders remained edgy over a major oil pipeline explosing in Iraq."
Turning to US presidential politics, why does Amy Goodman distort for Bambi? (We know why.) Today on her crap-ass show, which she claims informs (she also claims she's an author but Ava and I will put that lie to rest next month at Third), she declared, "In other campaign news, Senator Obama's former pastor has canceled scheduled appearances in Texas set for this weekend. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has come under heavy criticism from political pundits for linking the attacks of September 11 to US foreign policy in the Middle East and for saying the United States was founded on racism. In a statement, Reverend Wright cited safety concerns for his decision to cancel his appearances." Jeremiah Wright has come under heavy criticism for damning the United States. Amy Goodman may pretend otherwsie but that is what he's under fire for. As for his cancelling apperances, those appearances were cancelled for him. When institutions that had invited you make it clear that you're no longer wanted, you really don't need to cancel. In the real world, MSNBC's First Read notes that Barack Obama is attempting to target Pennsylvania's 30% Catholic voters (not a chance) and will do so so by attempting to "play down the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue." The issue's not going away. Play it up, play it down. It's here to say and liars like Amy Goodman (who is in real danger of losing NPR outlets due to her 'ethics') can keep lying through their yellowed teeth but the controversy will continue. First Read also notes that "Clinton backers Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Robert F. Kenney Jr. last week wrote a letter to Pennsylvania Catholics emphasizing her plans on health care, mortgage foreclosures and fuel costs." Bruce Fisher (ArtVoice) appears to right the obituary for the Obama campaign today and cites Jeremiah Wright. Joe Wilson (via No Quarter's reposting) notes, "Among other things, Wright preaches that the United States government unleashed the HIV virus in Africa to kill blacks. (Having worked in African for much of my adult life, including with one of the early AIDS researches, Dr. Jonathan Mann, I can safely say that there is absolutely no evidence to sustain Wright's reckless charge.) Obama had no choice but to address his 20-year close relationship with a man he still considers, as he made clear in his speech, a mentor." Joe Klein (Time magazine) weighs in on the topic of what he calls "Jeremiah 'G-- damn America'" Wright. Democrats will soon learn how damaging that relationship might be in a general election." And this morning on NBC's Today, Andrea Mitchell offered some of the latest:
Andrea Mitchell: And now even more controversy regarding Rev. Wright. An internet search reveals church bulletines over the past year with controversial pastor pages from the reverand. Some reprint anti-Israel writings from a range of people -- from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to an advisor to Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farkahn of the Nation of Islam and Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook. One of Marzook's columns, reprinted by the church from the Los Angeles Times, says "Why should any Palestinian recognize the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?" Obama told the Jerusalem Post the church was outrageously wrong to reprint the article and he denounced Hamas. And Trumpet, a magazine run by Wright's daughters quotes him as saying "White supremacy is clearly in charge" and slurring Italian's quote "garlic noses" and he also calls Jesus' crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."
And that, which is offensive, is the only thing that Michal Tomasky (American writing for the Guardian of London -- no link to Tomasky's trash) is bothered by, calling the slur against Italians "inconceivable". Mitchell also a noted a Wall St. Journal - NBC poll which we're not interested because of the oversampling error Taylor Marsh draws to everyone's attention. It wouldn't fly in any research and methodology class and it's amazing that the two outlets didn't scrap the poll when they learned of the oversampling. In other campaign news, Taylor Marsh highlights MSNBC's Race for the White House where Richard Woffe (a Brit still nursing his political crush on Joe Lieberman) gets called to the carpet by Joe Scarborough who pounces on Wright's "we" to point out, "We? You said that's how 'we' decided it? If that's the way the Democratic Party decided it then they wouldn't have super delegates! Let me tell you what 'we' love to do. 'We' in the media love to tell everybody, which 'we' have been telling everybody for months that the numbers don't add for Hillary Clinton, she can't get enough delegates . . . Well guess what? The numbers don't add up for Barack Obama but 'we' don't tell that side of the story, do 'we'?" The super delegates are the rules of the Democratic Party and they can go any way they want."
In other news, Mike Gravel has left the Democratic Party. AP reported yesterday that Gravel sent out an e-mail to supporters stating that the party "no longer represents my vision for our great party. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views. . . . I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views." Meanwhile Cynthia McKinney, who also left the Democratic Party, is running for the Green Party presidential nomination. Larry Pinkney (Black Commentator) notes, "Sister Cynthia McKinney has both the credibility and the capacity to truly excite the people in a substantive vs. superficial fashion; and can inspire people to see that they themselves/we oursevles are the only viable solution to the Republicrats and their flawed and corrupt electoral system. We must move the people from being excited about meaningless superficialities that do nothing to address systemic change -- to being excited about substance that is the catalyst for systemic change." The indepdent Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez ticket is collecting signatures for ballot access and have currently set up a location in Albuquerque where they are gathering signatures.
And we'll note this statement from the Hillary Clinton campaign:
Yesterday, a Pennsylvania editorial board asked Sen. Clinton how she would have "responded if [her] pastor had said some of the things that Rev. Wright said?" In response, she said Rev. Wright would not have been her pastor, an honest view shared by many Americans.
The Obama campaign's response? Attack Sen. Clinton and accuse her of trying to divert attention from the Bosnia trip story and her record of foreign policy experience.
Sen. Clinton's response was sincere. The Obama attack was disingenuous.
We are happy to discuss Sen. Clinton's foreign policy experience and her record overall. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign doesn't want to discuss its candidate's record and prefers personal attacks instead.
Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.
He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.
Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.
He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.
He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.
Sen. Obama seems to think disingenuous attacks on Sen. Clinton will address the concerns voters have about his record and readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief and the steward of our economy. They won't.
In the end, Sen. Obama's words cannot erase Hillary's 35-year record of action because when all is said and done, words aren't action. They are just words.
Meanwhile West Virigina University's student body president Jason Parsons explains his support for Hillary's presidential campaign, "As the student body president at West Virginia University and as an ordinary college student, I talk to my friends everyday who are saddled down with debt and college loans. They face the dilemma of tuition going up while financial aid is going down, and many have fallen victim to predatory student loan companies. Hillary Clinton, throughout the course of her presidential campaign, has talked consistently about the challenges college aged people face and she has offered solutions. That's why I support her. The 35 years of experience she brings to this race is so important at a time when our country needs real change and when young people need to believe that our best days are still ahead." To be creeped about by Obama groupies, check out the video noted by intranets (Corrente) which is like a Hitler moment and there's no other word for it. As intranets notes, it is "creepy". Truly, like Hitler campaign propaganda. (If you view, pay attention to the background and not the cult-like testimonials, pay attention to the subliminals. It truly is the GOP's 2000 campaign.) And as the topic returns to Bambi, Anibal Acevedo Vila, governor of Puerto Rico and pledged super delegate for Barack Obama "was charged Thursday with 19 counts in a campaign finance probe, including conspiracy to violate U.S. federal campaign laws and giving false testimony to the FBI."
iraq
the diane rehm shownpr
the new york timesjames glanzmcclatchy newspapers
leila fadelnancy a. youssef
tina susmanthe los angeles timesalexandra zavissudarsan raghavanthe washington post
ruths report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)