Thursday, July 31, 2008

Bill Moyers Journal and more

The Wave of "Capitol Crimes" Continues
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
Like the largesse he spread so bountifully to members of Congress and the White House staff -- countless fancy meals, skybox tickets to basketball games and U2 concerts, golfing sprees in Scotland -- Jack Abramoff is the gift that keeps on giving.The notorious lobbyist and his cohorts (including conservatives Tom Delay, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed) shook down Native American tribal councils and other clients for tens of millions of dollars, buying influence via a coalition of equally corrupt government officials and cronies dedicated to dismantling government by selling it off, making massive profits as they tore the principles of a representative democracy to shreds.
A report earlier this summer from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform builds on an earlier committee investigation that detailed some 485 contacts between Abramoff and the Bush administration. According to the new report, "Senior White House officials told the Committee that White House officials held Mr. Abramoff and members of his lobbying team in high regard and solicited recommendations from Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues on policy matters." Now Abramoff's doing time in Maryland, at a minimum security Federal prison, serving five years and ten months for unrelated, fraudulent business practices involving a fake wire transfer he and a partner fabricated to secure a loan to buy SunCruz Casinos, a line of Florida cruise ships that ferried high and low rollers into international waters to gamble (its original owner, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, was gunned down, Mafia-style, in February 2001). But come September, Abramoff will be sentenced for his larger-than-life role in one of the biggest scandals in American history, a collection of outrages that has already sent one member of Congress to jail, others into retirement and dozens of accomplices running for cover.Over the last couple of years he has been singing to the authorities, which is why he has been kept in a detention facility close to DC and the reason his sentencing for tax evasion, the defrauding of Indians and the bribing of Washington officials has been delayed -- the FBI is thought to be using Abramoff's testimony to build an ever-expanding case that may continue to shake those who live within the Beltway bubble for months and years to come.
Bill Moyers Journal is airing an updated edition of "Capitol Crimes," a special that was first produced for public television two years ago, relating the entire sordid story of the Abramoff scandals. Produced by Sherry Jones, the rebroadcast comes at a moment of renewed interest, with not only Abramoff's sentencing imminent, but the most important national elections in decades little more than three months away and continuing, seemingly daily revelations of further, profligate abuses of power.
Monday saw the publication of a 140-page report from the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, confirming that, as the Washington Post recounted, "For nearly two years, a young political aide sought to cultivate a 'farm system' for Republicans at the Justice Department, hiring scores of prosecutors and immigration judges who espoused conservative priorities and Christian lifestyle choices."
That aide, Monica M. Goodling, exercised what amounted to veto power over a wide range of critical jobs, asking candidates for their views on abortion and same-sex marriage and maneuvering around senior officials who outranked her, including the department's second-in-command... [The report] concluded yesterday that Goodling and others had broken civil service laws, run afoul of department policy and engaged in 'misconduct,' a finding that could expose them to further scrutiny and sanctions."
With the next day's sunrise came the indictment of Alaskan Republican Ted Stevens, the first sitting US Senator to face criminal charges in 15 years. Apparently, the senator was playing the home version of "The Price Is Right," for among the gifts a grand jury says were illegally rewarded him by the oil company VECO were a Viking gas grill, tool cabinet and a wraparound deck for his mountainside house in Anchorage. In fact, VECO allegedly gave the place an entire new first floor, with two bedrooms and a bath. How neighborly.
(By the way, just to round the circle, Senator Stevens received $1000 in campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff directly, which subsequently he donated to the Alaskan chapter of the Red Cross, and $16,500 from Native American tribes and others represented by Abramoff, which Stevens gave to other charities.)
Coincidentally, this week also marks the publication of a new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, written by Thomas Frank, the author of What's the Matter with Kansas? In an essay in the August issue of Harper's magazine, adapted from the book, Frank adroitly weaves the actions of Abramoff and his pals into a vastly larger ideological framework.
"Fantastic misgovernment is not an accident," he writes, "nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction; it believes in entrepreneurship not merely in commerce but in politics; and the inevitable results of its ascendance are, first, the capture of the state by business and, second, what follows from that: incompetence, graft, and all the other wretched flotsam that we've come to expect from Washington.
"... The conservatism that speaks to us through its actions in Washington is institutionally opposed to those baseline good intentions we learned about in elementary school. Its leaders laugh off the idea of the public interest as airy-fairy nonsense; they caution against bringing top-notch talent into government service; they declare war on public workers. They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis. The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job. Repairing it will require years of political action."
Have we the stamina, commitment -- or even the attention span -- to take such action? Abramoff may be cooling his heels in minimum security but his pals Delay, Norquist and Reed appear on television and radio whose hosts treat them as political savants with nary a nod to their past nefarious association with Abramoff. Few in the audience seem to notice or care. Former House majority leader Delay's awaiting trial on money laundering charges, and the incorrigible Ralph Reed, who played Christian pastors in Texas for suckers in enlisting their unwitting help for Abramoff's gambling clients, even has a political potboiler of a novel out -- Dark Horse, the story of a failed Democratic presidential candidate who finds God, then runs as an independent, funded, presumably, by the supreme being's political action committee.
"Do we Americans really want good government?" That's a question asked, not by Thomas Frank, but the muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens, writing more than a century ago in his book, The Shame of the Cities. He wrote, "We are a free and sovereign people, we govern ourselves and the government is ours. But that is the point. We are responsible, not our leaders, since we follow them. We let them divert our loyalty from the United States to some 'party;' we let them boss the party and turn our municipal democracies into autocracies and our republican nation into a plutocracy. We cheat our government and we let our leaders loot it, and we let them wheedle and bribe our sovereignty from us."
From more than a hundred years' distance, Steffens would recognize Abramoff & company for what they are. And we for who we are; a nation too easily distracted and looking the other way as everything rightfully ours is taken.


So that is a commentary from Bill Moyers Journal and it tells you what is coming up Friday on the PBS show. Speaking of commentary, "Other Items" contains an amazing commentary by C.I.

I have the backstory on that from Jess. They left late last night to be in D.C. for a hearing on food safety today. "They" is Dona, Jess, Ava, C.I., Wally and Mike. Ava and C.I. were going to be there (and are covering it for El Spirito). Wally is always up for a dash-in to D.C. Dona and Jess know that this is a big issue. Mainly due to the tremendous response to "No, you're not safe" which is the most popular feature at Third this year that was not an Ava and C.I. commentary, a piece on the illegal war or an article on feminism. Mike wanted to be there because he really advocated for that piece. But this is a huge issue. I think most of us can grasp that food safety is a big issue but it is also a huge with people. Because Ava and C.I. are on the road every week (this week was their 'break' and they still went around California speaking and, today, to D.C.), they really do have a firm grasp of what people are talking about and concerned with across the country. That is why they argued for the piece and, as I said earlier, it was very popular.

Jess explained C.I. was rushing to get those entries written this morning (and the first one includes a portion of Bully Boy's speech that he was about to deliver -- a phone call came in asking, "Do you want this?" and C.I. grabbed it) and the second entry had to include the nonsense from the misogynist rapper.

I thought C.I. handled that beautifully, calling out Barack Obama for not issuing his own statement. He will not do that. He has refused to do it the entire campaign. And, if you read the snapshot, you will see that Mr. Obama went hat in hand to the rapper nearly two months before he told the American people that he was running for the Democratic nomination.

This is not just some supporter of Mr. Obama's. This is someone whom the candidate sought out and brought in.

And women are sick of it. We are sick of being scapegoated by the Obama campaign. We are sick of being ripped apart and disrespected so that he can rise to the top. He could have called it out at any time but did not do that because it benefited him and, it appears, he agreed with it. He certainly used sexism himself. He set the tone for what went down in 2008 and he started setting that tone in 2007. He seeded it in the press long before it surfaced.

And C.I. is correct about the boycott. I have been present when that has been floated by women's group and C.I. does not take sides on it. But this really is getting out of hand and our 'leaders' are not calling it out.

Which is why it keeps getting worse. As C.I. points out, this is not even about Hillary at this point, it is about the way women are being trashed, disrespected, and used as kindling for the fire.

On the Nader-Gonzalez campaign, this is the update with additional incentives:

Join an invite-only call with Ralph and Matt
Posted by Jason Kafoury on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM
ShareThisShareThis
Dear supporter,
We've just finished another hectic day here in the D.C. office and I wanted to dash off a quick udpate about the "
Dinner with Ralph" e-mail contest. The whole team (including Ralph, who came up with the idea!) is blown away to see so many people sign-up as contestants, and even more as participants and supporters.
Over the last five days, over 200 of our supporters have reached out to more than 10,000 of their friends -- clearly there's nothing like a little of the good ol' competitive spirit!
So -- quickly -- I want to remind you that it's not to late to participate in the contest. The contest doesn't end until August 7th, so there's lots of time left to win dinner with Ralph, or Matt, or to win one of the many other
prizes that are available.
And, we've just added two new prizes:
For anyone who enters and
recruits at least five friends: take part in an invitation-only conference call with Ralph and Matt. That's right -- just recruit five friends to join our movement and you're in on the conference call, and a chance to ask your questions to Matt or Ralph.
And, if you
recruit 20 friends to join our "people fighting back" campaign: your choice of a t-shirt from our Web store (and we have lots of new designs on the way). People who reach 25 friends will get a t-shirt and a copy of the Declaration of Independence.
Reach out to friends. Win prizes. It's really that easy. And we make it even easier by providing a way for you to
invite up to 30 friends at a time from your address book -- you can go back and invite more friends as often as you'd like.
The people who are currently in the lead -- Ramy Mousa of Baton Rouge, LA; Anna Chambers of Fort Payne, AL; Scott Keddy of Cambridge, MA -- all got there in just five days. Not only is there enough time to catch up, but with over 10 days left in the contest, there's time to be queen (of king) of the hill. (The
contest leader board is one of the most popular pages on our site right now!)
We really need more people to get in on the competition. Why? Because this is our chance to reach out beyond "the choir" and to speak to the people you know who may not even be aware of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign. They may not realize that Nader/Gonzalez is ready to stand up for the issues that matter in this election; issues like single payer health care, reversal of U.S. policy in the Middle East, and military withdrawal from Iraq. These are issues that need to be on the table this year.
That's about it for today. Remember:
It's not too late to
enter the contest
Anyone who recruits at least five friends wins
There's lots of time left (contest ends on August 7th -- that's 10 days away!)
The current contest leaders got there in JUST FIVE DAYS
We want more people to participate so our message can reach beyond the choir
Onward,
Jason.
-- Jason Kafoury, National Coordinator Nader for President 2008 P.O. Box 34103 Washington, D.C. 20043
www.votenader.org
ShareThisShareThis

And because I am rushing tonight, let me borrow from Kat and note that I have mentioned the following in this post:


The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, and Ava,

C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,

Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),

Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,

Mike of Mikey Likes It!,

Wally of The Daily Jot.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:


Thursday, July 31, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces two deaths, the White House fakes-out the press, Barack's support continues to be revealing, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Yovany Rivero ("Geo") is an Iraq War veteran who has been twice deployed to Iraq. While serving, his faith deepened and he applied for Conscientious Objector status -- please note, CO status does not depend on religious status (a fact noted in the US military's own written guidelines -- but one those 'determining' frequently ignore). June 14th, he received a peace prize from The Rheinland-Pfalz Peace Adovacty Group. Early this month,
John Vandiver (Stars and Stripes) reported on Rivero "who enlisted in the Army in 2001 when he was 18" and notes:

Michael Sharp, who works closely with Rivero as an adviser with the Germany-based
Military Counseling Network, said the soldier wants to keep a low profile and isn't looking to bring attention to his case. In particular, Rivero doesn't want his fellow soldiers, whom he respects, to misinterpret his position as a sign of disrespect, Sharp said.
Though Sharp also declined to discuss Rivero's case in detail, citing Rivero's desire to avoid publicity, MCN has been working closely with numerous soldiers since the start of the Iraq war.
Perhaps the best-known case connected with MCN was that of Agustin Aguayo, a combat medic who was found guilty in 2007 of deserting the Schweinfurt, Germany-based 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division as it prepared to deploy to Iraq in 2006. Aguayo returned to California last year after serving a brief prison sentence. Others, however, have found their conscientious objector claims supported: In 2006, seven soldiers who worked with MCN had their requests approved.

Last month
Courage to Resist interviewed Iraq War veteran and war resister William Shearer. Shearer enlisted at 17-years in 2002 and ended up with a non-deployable unit ("teaching units what they needed to know before they went over to a combat area, we pretty much put them through a month long simulation of combat") but that changed in 2004. Asked about his time in Iraq, Sharer responded, "It was more of like -- There wasn't a lot of action. It was more of -- It's hard to explain down there. Action over there is like getting IED or maybe getting shot at a few times or a car bomb goes off. It's not exactly what you're expecting. It's more like hunting season, you're the deer."

While serving in Iraq, Shearer faced a number of problems, "In my case I had lost a lot while I was over there. And it just started -- The more you lose and the less they do for you the more you start to see how jacked up things really are." The problems included his new wife having a semi-public affair "with an MP on post" and he was hearing about it from his platoon sergeant who heard about it from his wife who lived across the street from Shearer's wife. "And the army did nothing," Shearer states. "And there's plenty they could do. And they just they did nothing. I lost a lot of money, I lost my family while I was there you know pretty much. And when I get back, I'd lost so much, it was like I needed to start over." He returned from Iraq "like two days later . . . I got served divorce papers".

William Shearer: And the more things that pile up, it would just start detiriorating me as a soldier. It would make me look worse and worse It would get harder and harder. They didn't care. That's what I'm trying to get across. They don't care. And if they don't care and nobody's helping you out, you start to not care. You start to -- you just look at everything as bad, you have no positive whatsoever coming in. And so me and the military is pretty much diminishing quick.

Courage to Resist: So you're saying that not only didn't you get support while you were in a combat zone, you didn't get any support when you were back home either?

William Shearer: No, not really. I was checked out for PTSD. I got -- when I got home -- They put you through all of these tests, talk to a bunch of doctors I was diagnosed with PTSD, depression and a couple like sleep disorders and other things. And pretty much all they did was just start throwing me pills. Kind of like to shut me up, put me in a I-don't-care vegetative state. Pretty much just to have me there.

His PTSD 'counseling' was completely lacking in targets, goals or medical supervision. It was pair him up with an over-sixty-years-old retired military person and 'rap.' Someone who had not served in Iraq.

William Shearer: They give you this idea they're going to take of you and things are just one big family you know So I was thinking to myself "Man, I got to have a reset. I got to find a way to get myself out of this and start over -- start my life over, you know. I have nothing to work with." So I pretty much started going through the things, asking around 'Hey, what happened to this guy for doing this?' when he -- you know -- did he get an article 15? I was mainly not so worried about the disciplinary actions but the discharge that's what I was really worried about. I was asking around and AWOL was one of the things, I heard a couple of things. But the one thing that came up for me was failing the urinalysis. I-I- I just couldn't fathom anybody you deploy with or anybody who says they care about you so much -- like your batallion commanders do -- would put you out with a bad discharge after you showing for four years all the honorable deeds you've done. So it seemed to me that that was the best route for me. I wasn't so sure about AWOL. So I knew -- I knew for a fact that if I failed the urinalysis, I would be able to get out and I was pretty confident that I wouldn't get anything less than a general discharge

Courage to Resist: And your concern about the type of discharge had to do with veterans' beneifts?

William Shearer: That and how am I going to live the rest of my life, you know, how am I going to have a career? I just -- I -- There was a lot of things going through my head. You know -- as a matter of fact -- the very reason I was worried is actually what I'm doing now. You know. I'm not -- There's nothing I have no options really. It's survival.

Courage to Resist: So you made a decision to fail a urinalysis test, is that right?

William Shearer: When I went home on leave I was just like "This is how I'm going to do it." Because as soon as you come back from leave you know that the very next day you're going to get a urinalysis test.

He no longer supports the war and his thoughts on it today are:

I feel like they're exploiting those healthy young bucks that are just getting out of high school or going to be getting out of high school, you know They're telling these guys all these things they want to hear about how glorious and how fun and how good the military is. Granted, there's something that are good about it but it's not going to last forever. It doesn't last forever. And when you do go in everything changes and one thing I can tell you, they tell you, you know you could end up in a war zone, okay? When you sign up, you know all this stuff. But what they don't tell you is that you're going to be driving around and you have rules on you that the people you're fighting don't use or go against -- They don't use any of those rules. They don't abide by any rules. So you're pretty much a pawn. You do what they need you to do regardless of how dangerous it is, you know? For instance, you're just driving up and down a road expecting to get blown up. We -- we covered a mile -- a good strip of highway -- it was the most used transport highway in Iraq. It linked the north and south together. And that's where all the supplies went up and down while we were there. And our job for about two weeks was to patrol that strip of highway and eliminate all threats of IEDs whether that be they be blow you up or you find them first . They just don't want IEDs there They don't tell you that you're going to be the person that they pick to walk up to a suspected IED and give it a little nudge to see if it's a bomb, you know? They don't tell you these things. And these aren't things that these kids are thinking about -- they don't know that this stuff's there, they don't know it's like this. They're thinking they're going to go into the army, they're going to get take care of, and they're going to get put into a huge combat situation when it's not. The only people that's getting to fire anything is the enemy.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Yesterday in headlines on Democracy Now!,
Juan Gonzalez explained, "In other Iraq news, the British government has announced there will be no prosecutions over the death of journalist Terry Lloyd, despite an investigation that blamed US troops. Terry Lloyd was shot dead in Iraq in March 2003 along with a French cameraman and an Iraqi interpreter. Two years ago, a British coroner ruled that US troops should be prosecuted for the unlawful killing of Lloyd, who was a well-known foreign correspondent for the British television network ITN. The coroner ruled that Lloyd was shot in the back by Iraqi soldiers. Then, as he was being driven to a hospital in a civilian minivan, Lloyd was shot in the head by US troops." Jenny Booth (Times of London) quotes ITN's spokesperson stating, "Coroner Andrew Walker concluded just under two years ago that Terry Lloyd was unlawfully killed by American troops and ITN has done everything it could to try and ensure Terry's killer is brought to justice. We are disappointed that the CPS has decided they cannot take this matter further, and that despite the coroner's call on the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions to demand that the Americans bring the perpretator of a possible war crime before a British court of law, the US authorities remain unco-operative." Meanwhile, AP reports that journalist Ali al-Mashhadani is being held by the US military at Camp Cropper. al-Mashhadani works for Reuters, BBC and NPR. Dean Yates (Reuters) reports that (as usual) no charges have been brought against Ali and quotes David Schlesinger (Reuters Editor-in-Chief) explaining, "Any accusations against a journalist should be aired publicly and dealt with fairly and swiftly, with the journalist having the right to counsel and present a defense." From Monday's snapshot, "Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reported . . . 'Also on Friday, the American military acknowledged that it unintentionally killed the son of an editor for an American-financed newspaper in the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday. The military said soldiers had been fired at from a taxi and shot back, hitting Arkan al-Naiemi, 14, in the taxi'." Saturday, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) wrote about Arkan at Baghdad Observer noting that he "often stayed late at his father's newsroom in Kirkuk. The editor-in-chief of the weekly Voice of Villages, Ali Taha, treated his son as a journalist in training. . . . The teen listened to pop music and was obsessed with computer games. He loved the weekly trips he took with his father to sites in the area. The most recent trip was to the Dokan Dam, the primary water source in Kirkuk. He loved to stay late into the night at the Voice of Villages newsroom, a U.S. supported weekly, and help in any way he could. Who knows what he would've been when he grew up. Who knows what life he would've lived. God had other plans, his father said."

"This has been a month of encouraging news from Iraq," declared the delusional Bully Boy in DC today. He gave his usual lies and spin. Progress -- blah, blah, blah. He was most transparent when declaring, " This week, the Iraqi government is launching a new offensive in parts of the Diyala province that contain some of al Qaeda's few remaining safe havens in the country. This operation is Iraqi-led; our forces are playing a supporting role." Yes, it is a for-show effort. But first, reporters were led to believe that today's speech from Bully Boy would include something major and that it would include news of the treaty the White House wants with their puppet, Nouri al-Maliki, in Baghdad.
Alissa J. Rubin and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) teased out whispers and gossip of a draft treaty about to be final so much in this morning's paper, it was practically a beehive. And they noted that the White House's "unofficial deadline for the deal has long been July 31. . . . Also, the White House announced late on Wednesday that President Bush would make a statement on Iraq on Thursday morning." The press got played. It was the first question in the US State Dept press briefing today (Dana Perino -- doing White House gaggles -- was peppered about a "staff wedding" -- way to work White House press corps). It was pointed out that the agreement was wanted by July 31st which is today and there is no agreement. State Dept spokesperson Sean McCormack immediately insisted he'd never said a deadline (no, he personally did not) and then had difficulty keeping a straight face. Still chuckling, he referred reporters to the morning speech and finally finishing with, "In terms of negotiations, those are ongoing and I won't go into detail on those." Asked again about this topic, he referred to the White House statements. From Iraq, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports on Diyala Province. The for-show action goes on. Zavis goes with a number of 30,000 Iraqi troops in Diyala and yesterday, Jim Lehrer (PBS' NewsHour) worded it this way, "In Iraq today, a military offensive in Diyala province moved into a second day. Some 50,000 Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces went door-to-door, hunting al-Qaida fighters. An Iraqi regional leader said the operation was expected to last about two weeks." Hint, when the numbers being given out do not match, it's a hype action. In the real world, violence continued . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that left 2 Iraqi civilians wounded and 2 Iraqi soldiers wounded, a Mosul car bombing that killed the driver as well as 3 police officers with four others wounded, 2 other Mosul car bombings that left nine wounded.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and three corpses (women) discovered in Mosul.

Today the
US military announced: "A U.S. Soldier died in a non-combat related incident while conducting operations in Ninewah Province July 31. Additionally, two other U.S. Soldiers were injured in the incident." And they announced: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sgt. James A. McHale, 31, of Fairfield, Mont., died July 30 at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., of wounds suffered July 22 in Taji, Iraq, when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 40th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany. "


Turning to the US race for president.
January 16, 2007 Barack Obama declared his intention to run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Interesting. Before Barack told the American people he was running, months before, he met with a rapper. Deanne Bellandi (Chicago Sun-Times) reported November 29, 2006 on Barack's meet up with "rapper Ludacris . . . Obama declined to comment after their meeting but walked with [Chris] Bridges [Ludacris' legal name] to the elevator as he left." Nearly two months before Barack would tell the American people that he had decided to run for president, he was sounding out Ludacris. By that time Ludacris was already gutter trash with a long history of misogny. It got him kicked from the Jackson County Fair in 2003 -- three years prior to Barack's first known 'counseling' with Ludacris. That wouldn't stop Barack from praising him to Rolling Stone and bragging that he had Ludacris on his iPod. Presumably the feminist manifesto "Move Bitch"? Ludacris is in the news and a complete reflection on the gutter trash campaign Barack has run. And Barack's praised him as among the "great talents and great businessmen." [See Cedric's "Gutter Trash you can smell" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! THE LEADER TRIES TO CONTROL THE CULT!"] The Guardian of London has long been in the tank for Barack. They're a laugh and not real journalism. It's only on this side of the ocean that they're taken seriously. In England they're seen as the party organ for the Labour Party. So let's see how they lie. Ewen MacAskill 'informs' that: "Obama, seeking to become the first African-American president, was not helped by a song by the Grammy award-winning rapper Ludacris endorsing him and abusing McCain, George Bush and Clinton." To be clear, Rev. Jesse Jackson is disrespected in the song. In a rap song, that's not surprising. In one attempting to help out Ludacris' lover-man Barack, it's appalling. Way to pimp that 'unity.' The remark about John McCain would have people screaming if anyone had said it about Barack. But what does Ewen Pig leave out? Hillary.
Laura Yao (Washington Post) explained it this way, "On YouTube yesterday, rapper Ludacris released a song called 'Politics,' in which he denigrates President Bush, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- all in the space of about two minutes. . . In the next line, the three-time Grammy Award winner calls Clinton an 'irreleveant [slur for female]'." It's a campaign song for Barack and it's recorded by the man Barack's not only praised but sought out for 'counsel' since November 2006. What was Barack's response? As usual NOT A DAMN WORD. His campaign flack was sent out. A detail Foon Rhee (Boston Globe) and many others fail to grasp. Barack's not condemned a thing. Feminist Wire Daily finally decides they can call out sexism. Of course, they fail to connect it to Bernie Mac's sexist routine at Barack's campaign event earlier this year which led to boos and heckling -- and to Barack finding it so delightful, he had to 'joke' too. WomenCount PAC (which FWD doesn't even think to link to) "is calling for an apology as well as a blanket condemnation by the Party leadership. . . . These lyrics are outrageous, offensive, and unacceptable. In an e-mail this afternoon to its membership, WomenCount states, 'It is another example of hateful, sexist language being used on the campaign trail, and now is our moment to make it clear: not on our watch! The leadership of both parties must step up to condemn such hateful speech and demand apologies. The Obama campaign has criticized the lyrics, but we call on the presumptive party nominee, who is the celebrated subject of the new song, to go even further: Publicly condemn the song. Demand an apology on behalf of the targets. Now." Now? And where our the little girls of NOW? The same useless 'leadership' that could insist The New Yorker DESTROY copies of their magazine bound for overseas (while ignoring the Bernie Mac event) can't seem to say a DAMN THING. Did Kim sleep in this morning? If you're missing it, check the news coverage and note how ha-ha and 'minor' this is being treated. CBS News online? Could Scott Conroy explain how calling Hillary a "bitch" doesn't strike him as "harsh"? Are our 'leaders' going to stay silent again? Are they going to betray women again? And when does CBS plan to public respond to what they allowed online? As Ava and I noted in "CBS 'cares' enough to promote sexism," the network's news site shut down comments on Barack stories when they felt racist comments were being left ("too many" was actually how it was worded -- apparently CBS will accept an undefined number of racist comments) but they didn't do a damn thing about the sexism and, in fact, their online policy does not even name sexism as being off limits. It does name comparisons to Hitler off limits (no surprise after CBS' problems with the mini-series earlier this decade) but they waived that rule repeatedly to allow Barack's gutter trash to post that Hillary was Hitler. Feminist leaders, if they're really leaders, will get off their asses and call this out because we don't need you as leaders if you don't. Women have been trashed -- this isn't just about Hillary -- non-stop for months now. Leaders either show they can lead or face the threats of boycotts that are already rumbling in the grassroots. (If a boycott is called, Ava and I will do our part to get the word out on it when we speak to women's groups.)

Ralph Nader is running for president.
Doug G. Ware (KUTV) notes that Nader speaks tonight to a group at the University of Utah and that the former mayor of Salt Lake City (and Nation magazine cover boy) Rocky Anderson will introduce him.

Team Nader notes:

We're up against it here in Ralph's home state --- Connecticut.
I'm Ken Krayeske, the state coordinator, and I promised Ralph I would get him on the ballot here.
We have only 7,000 signatures in hand. And we need to get to 15,000 in five days.
We have 30 to 40 people on the ground collecting in Connecticut and we need to pay for their gas, transportation, copying costs.
You get the picture.
To do that, we need your
donations now -- $10, $20, $50, $100 -- whatever you can afford.
Why are we busting it so hard every day to get Ralph on the ballot here?
Because it's not just about Ralph.
It's about you and me and a young man named Derek O'Kanos. (Check out Derek's short video here about why he likes Ralph ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfltpogno6c)
Last Friday, Derek phoned me.
"I want to help petition," he said.
"How old are you?" I asked.
"Sixteen," he said.
"Wow! That's fantastic, but you need an adult to help you out, because you have to be a registered voter," I said. "But before we get into logistics, I don't often get calls from 16-year-olds. Can you tell me how you know about Ralph?"
"Two years ago, Mr. Nader came to my high school," Derek said.
"What school is that?" I asked.
"Enrico Fermi in Enfield," Derek said.
"No way," I said. "I helped organize that. There was a standing room only crowd. What did you think of Ralph's speech?"
"I didn't see it," Derek said. "I was a freshman, and I was in World History class, and my class didn't go. I guess they thought that Ralph didn't fit with world history."
"Bummer," I said.
"Yeah, but I've been interested in Mr. Nader since then, reading about him, and I want to help him," Derek said.
So we discussed strategies for him to convince adults in his life to go out and petition with him.
Derek recruited his uncle's girlfriend to transport him and witness signatures at grocery stores.
Next, he corralled his grandfather to drive him around neighborhoods in suburban northern Connecticut. (Above is a photo of Derek and his grandfather)
Shortly after, I got this email from Derek:
"Today was truly amazing. No more than a few days ago I felt an overwhelming feeling of worthlessness. I felt that there was nothing that I could do due to my age and transportation issue. Then we talked and I went out and did something. I truly felt like I was a part of something, that I was making history. I could have volunteered for many other political campaigns, but it was the Nader/Gonzalez campaign that truly inspired me. I can openly support every policy of the campaign and sleep at night. This is a campaign that puts national interest before personal interest. We the people -- not for sale! Gives me chills. It is truly amazing to see an entire organization of everyday people working towards one beautiful common goal and putting power back into the hands of the people."
Let's not let Ralph, Derek and all our supporters down in Connecticut.
Donate now whatever you can afford.
Hit the contribute button.
Together, we are making a difference --- in Ralph's home state and beyond.
Onward

Other news. Republican US Senator Ted Stevens is in the news (due to his indictment).
NOW on PBS earlier probed the story of that corruption. BIll Moyers Journal have been exploring Capitol Crimes and this Friday on the program will explore the continuation of thes Capitol Crimes:

Like the largesse he spread so bountifully to members of Congress and the White House staff -- countless fancy meals, skybox tickets to basketball games and U2 concerts, golfing sprees in Scotland -- Jack Abramoff is the gift that keeps on giving.The notorious lobbyist and his cohorts (including conservatives Tom Delay, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed) shook down Native American tribal councils and other clients for tens of millions of dollars, buying influence via a coalition of equally corrupt government officials and cronies dedicated to dismantling government by selling it off, making massive profits as they tore the principles of a representative democracy to shreds.



iraq
john vandiver
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
the new york times
sabrina tavernise
alexandra zavisthe los angeles timesthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsteve myers lee

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Dustin Hughes, John Murphy

What kind of a country (and democracy) would we have if we really believed in freedom? How about if we just believed in the freedom that anyone who wanted to should run for office?
This is from Dustin Hughes' "Choices everywhere but at poll" (Neighbor Newspapers):



In modern-day America, we have dozens of choices for anything we want, no matter how trivial.
But when we go to the ballot box, there's almost always only two: Republican and Democrat.
You'd think our state could realize that we ought to have the freedom to elect our lawmakers without being limited to two parties.
But it hasn't happened yet. In fact, Oklahoma has one of the most restrictive ballot access processes in the nation. In most any other state, you'd be able to pick from about five or more other parties. Greens, Libertarians, The Constitution Party, and others regularly appear on other states' ballots.
In Oklahoma, just the two: Republican and Democrat.



I am sorry that Oklahoma has restrictive ballot requirements; however, I am glad that someone like Mr. Hughes lives there and calls it out. That is one thing that runs by Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr are highlighting this year. I think it is great that so many choices are available. (I am voting for Mr. Nader.) And I think it is really sad that it may take this year for people to think about it. I really think it will be after this year's election that people will think about it. Regradless of who you are voting for, when you do vote, make a point to not just look for your candidate but to look at all the names just to register who is on your ballot. I do not say that to change your vote, I just think you should be aware. In some states, people who want to vote for Mr. Nader, Ms. McKinney or Mr. Barr will have to write them in. But regardless of who you are voting for, make a point to examine who made the ballot in your state and ask yourself what that says about ballot access laws in your region?



I would love to tell you that I wrote the above to lead into this press release, but I just got lucky.

JOHN MURPHY FILES 5,000 SIGNATURES



INDEPENDENT CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE

SECURES POSITION ON NOVEMBER BALLOT



EGREGIOUS BALLOT ACCESS LAWS IN PENNSYLVANIA MUST BE ABOLISHED



For Immediate Release: July 28, 2008

For Further Information: John Murphy (610) 384-4460



HARRISBURG, PA – John Murphy the independent Congressional Candidate in the 16th district filed close to 5,000 signatures with the Department of the Commonwealth on Friday morning. Pennsylvania's egregious ballot access laws required Murphy to submit 2,300 signatures but, as the press has been reporting under the topic of "Bonus Gate", independent and third-party candidates have to collect at least twice as many signatures as required by law because the Democrat Party will even use state employees, on taxpayer time, to ensure that independent and third-party candidates never make it onto the ballot unchallenged or at all.



"While the Democrat and Republican candidates were able to spend the last four months campaigning and raising funds, our resources were completely absorbed in securing my position on the ballot" explained John Murphy. "It's bad enough that we have the most anti-democratic state in the union, singled out even by the Helsinki Accords Group, but the Democrat Party has taken these already draconian ballot access laws and exacerbated the situation by making use of the minutia embedded in those laws. It's one thing to remove the signature of a person who is clearly not a citizen of Pennsylvania, it is quite another to remove a signature because ‘Lucinda’ signed her name as ‘Cindy’ or somebody printed their name in the column where you're supposed to sign your name. That’s how the Democrats removed the independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2004 and the Green Party’s Senatorial candidate Carl Romanelli in 2006."



John Murphy further explained that there may be some good news on the horizon for the citizens of Pennsylvania. "There are two ways you can defeat democracy" said John Murphy. "One way is by preventing people from voting, the other is by preventing worthy candidates from ever appearing on the ballot. In Pennsylvania the Democrat Party has chosen the latter method. Fortunately State Senator Mike Folmer has introduced legislation into the Pennsylvania Senate entitled the ‘Voters’ Choice Act’ which would redefine minor party's requirements by lowering the threshold to .05% of the registered voters and then allowing the minor parties to nominate their candidates by convention and, like the candidates of the two older parties, have no signature collection requirements for the General Election.



"Independent candidates like me would simply have to collect the same number of signatures that candidates from the two older parties have to collect for their Primary Election ballot. I hope everyone urges their state senators and representatives to support this important piece of legislation by Senator Folmer. If we can accomplish this in Pennsylvania we will be at last in compliance with the Pennsylvania Constitution which mandates 'free and equal' elections and on our way to fighting for Instant Runoff Voting", concluded John Murphy.



###


Community member Martha e-mailed that to C.I. and asked that it be highlighted. It came in this afternoon so I am sure C.I. will highlight it tomorrow morning but I know Martha will not be upset with me for highlighting it here. John Murphy's "Something's Rotten in the State of Pennsylvania" (Dissident Voice) covered BonusGate and that is all I really know about him but I am happy to highlight his press release for Martha. If you are able to vote for him, make a point to check out his campaign and see if his issues match up with your own. And you can do that by visiting his website.


You should be visiting the Nader - Gonzalez '08 website because there is so much going up there days. Community member Lucy asked me if I could highlight something from Monday and, of course, so here is "Is Nader/Gonzalez for Real?" (Nader-Gonzalez '08):


Posted by The Nader Team on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 11:22:00 AM
ShareThisShareThis
Is Nader/Gonzalez for real?
The country wants to know.
Will Nader/Gonzalez be on enough ballots in November to make a run for it?
And to be seriously considered for the Presidential debates?
We're now on 18 state ballots, heading toward 30 by August 10 - on our way to our ultimate goal of 45 states by September 20.
And getting to thirty won't happen unless we hit our goal of $100,000 by August 10. (Which would give us $2 million for the entire campaign year to date.)
Thanks to you, we're at over $13,000 in just a few short days.
But we need to
jack it up this week.
Donate now and watch your contribution fuel our road-trippers all around the country.
On the ground, things are heating up and the press is starting to take notice.
In West Virginia, we
turned in more than 24,000 signatures (15,000 valid required).
In Montana, our road trip team
collected and turned in more than 10,000 signatures (5,000 required).
We've also collected enough signatures to get on the
ballot in Tennessee and New Jersey.
In Missouri, today we
will turn in more than 20,000 signatures (10,000 valid required).
This coming week, we're looking forward to ballot access victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.
None of this would have been possible without your help.
Every time you
hit the contribute button, you fuel this historic ballot access drive.
During our last two fundraising drives, you came through with flying colors.
First, we asked for $60,000. You did it - on time.
Then we asked for $70,000, and you pushed us over the top with time to spare.
Right now, we need to hit $100,000 to get us to 30 states.
These are the most crucial two weeks of the campaign.
Whether Nader/Gonzalez is for real in November depends on whether we can raise the money to pay for ballot access over the next two weeks.
Plain and simple.
So, please.
Donate now whatever you can - $10, $20, $100, $500 - to help us give America a choice in November.
For peace.
For justice.
For a safe and healthy future.
For shifting the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the people.
Together, we are making a difference.
Onward
The Nader Team
P.S. Thanks to all who participated in Saturday's house parties. They were a great success.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

ShareThisShareThis


As most of you know, I have a very large family. As a mother and a grandmother, I have a problem this time each year. I went into a panic today for a few seconds today when Cedric said, "You know summer's almost over." I do that every yearr the first time someone says it. Just a body stiffening thing. Cedric noticed and asked me if I was okay? I explained that I still panic thinking, "I have got to get the boys" I had all sons "to the store for their school clothes." And immediately after that thought, it becomes school supplies. My children now all have children. They no longer need Mommy to buy them clothes or glue and scissors. But to this day, when someone says that summer is almost over that is immediately where my mind (and body) go to.

I may be the only one. But I thought I would share that. This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:


Wednesday, July 30, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Parliament takes their summer recess, a war resister tells his story, for-show actions continue in Iraq, a new report on waste in Iraq is released, and more.

Starting with war resistance.
Alex Atamanenko is a Canadian MP from the New Democratic Party. He writes a letter to the editor of Arrow Lake News:

Tuesday, July 15th will go down as a black day in Canadian history. The first Iraqi War Resister from the American military was deported from Canada for refusing to fight in a war that Canada refused to get involved in, that the United Nations has called illegal, and that much of the world sees as an invasion of a sovereign country for oil resources. Robin Long, 25, was one of hundreds of U.S. men and women who have struggled with the decision to risk life-long separation from their families, friends and their country to stay in Canada. If they return to the U.S. they can face arrest, court martial, prison sentences, deployment to Iraq and being blacklisted from employment and education opportunities for the rest of their lives. Many of these youth have been targeted by an 'economic draft', a US recruitment effort that targets the poor with offers of employment, health care for family members, higher education and more if they sign up. These promises are not always kept. Our country has a history once known for peacekeeping, for the art of diplomatic negotiation, for refuge in times of war, for welcoming conscientious objectors like the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Doukhobors, and the Vietnam draft dodgers. These immigrants have made huge contributions to the life of their communities and to our country. Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government chose to direct the deportation of Mr. Long DESPITE the June 3rd House of Commons vote in favour of a resolution introduced by my colleague, Olivia Chow, Federal NDP Immigration Critic. This motion called on our Government to cease any removal or deportation actions against conscientious objectors who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the UN. It called for the government to immediately set up programs to allow their application for permanent residency status, so that they can remain in Canada. Further, on June 27th Angus Reid released a poll showing that 64% of Canadians believe that US War Resisters should be allowed to stay in Canada, re-enforcing the fact that the vote in Parliament was reflecting the will of the Canadian people.On July 4th the Federal Court of Canada acted, and ruled that war resister Joshua Key should have his denied refugee claim reviewed by the Refugee Board of Canada. The court found that someone who refuses to take part in military action which "systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates" combatants or non-combatants might qualify as a refugee. On July 9th, the Federal Court further ruled that war resister Corey Glass's order for deportation the next day should be stayed for an indefinite period of time.The Canadian people and the Parliament of Canada have spoken. I call upon Minister Day, Minister Finley and Prime Minister Harper to respect the will of Parliament and the Canadian people and to stand up to President Bush to ensure that American soldiers who oppose that war receive a welcome in Canada.Alex Atamanenko, MP BC Southern Interior

And, of course, "draft dodgers" and "deserters" were both welcomed into Canada during Vietnam. On Robin Long, the
War Resisters Support Campaign states:

Against the wishes of Canadians and Canada's Parliament, the federal government deported U.S. Iraq war resister Robin Long to the United States, where he faces punishment for refusing to participate in the Iraq War. Robin is currently being held at Fort Carson, Colorado. People can send letters of support to Robin at the following address: Robin Long, CJC 2739 East Las Vegas Colorado Springs, Colorado USA 80906 Robin is allowed to receive hand or type-written letters. They must not include anything like drawings made with markers, lipstick, crayons, stickers etc. or print articles. There can be no enclosures, with the exception of standard size photographs (ie. up to 4x6 inches). These must be printed at a photo developing place (i.e. not photocopies, or from a home printer, or Polaroids), and there must be LESS than ten photos, otherwise they will get put in lockup with his personal belongings and he won't see them. The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the
take action page for what you can do.

War resisters in Canada need your help. To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor
the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."

Thank goodness for The Canadian Press. Were it not for their article,
the CBC, the Welland Tribune, the Globe and Mail and the Buffalo News (among others) might have blank spaces. Instead, all work from the same TCP article to tell you that Deltona, Florida's 23-year-old Tyrone Pachauer was arrested by US Customs and Border officers as he attempted to enter the US following a self-checkout while on leave (December 19th through January 1st). He was reportedly living with relatives in Brampton, Ontario while AWOL. Precious Yutango (Toronto Star) is the only one filing a report and cites US Customs and Border Protection's Kevin Corsaro stating, "Supposedly, he had left boot camp in December for Christmas break. I guess he decided he didn't want to be in the army anymore so he fled to Brampton." Meanwhile AP reports Casey Anne Hardt (18-years-old, from Chiloquin, Oregon) was arrested in . . . Louisiana -- which may hold the record for the most arrests of AWOLs during the Iraq War. She was arrested at a traffic stop in Bossier City (right next to Shreveport). AP states she had a desertion warrant and was now awaiting "extradition to Fort Leonard Wood", MO.

Courage to Resist speaks with Michael Thurman (audio interview) about how he signed up, at seventeen-years-old, for the delayed entry program in 2005 while in high school, "I was really interested in aviation and having a career in aviation. . . . One day the air force recruiter came to school and I was talking to her about joining the military as an air force maintenance technician and eventually working to become a pilot." He described himself at that time as "indifferent," "young," "motivated by self-interests" and in "a conservative right-wing household."

In his senior year he "found some new friends" who provided him with "more of a liberal lean towards politics. So I started seeing it through those eyes and that's when I started becoming a little discontent with the war and the government. . . . But I was still ready to go."

Thurman was then sent to Lackland Air Force Base for basic training where, "I just questioned a lot of things I was being taught." In one class the training was videos of violence -- people being shot, people being blown up -- which led Thurman to questioning. As did "one of the chants was about killing people" which all indicated that "it just seemed like a really hateful, angry situation I didn't want to be in."

Michael Thurman: I didn't really want to be part of killing people but I was already in and I didn't really have a choice so I just advanced and kept telling myself it might get better. So I went through tech school with that . . . with that kind of -- I was a little bit angry about my situation and I got depressed about it a lot. And from there -- It was actually during tech school that I started studying a lot of Eastern philosophy and thought and Buddhism and Taoism and that kind of changed my perspective in a spiritual way towards humanity and towards existence. So . . . I guess I could say at that point I could say I was totally opposed to the situation I was in.

Eventually, he ended up at Beale Air Force Base:

Michael Thurman: I started working out on the flight lines. And every day I was out there I just thought of all the indirect killing I was contributing to and I just couldn't take it anymore. So one day I told my supervisor that I didn't agree with any of it and I didn't want to be in the military anymore. And I told him, if there was any way I could get out, I'd like to get out. They took me off of flight run. He's actually the one who told me about consientious objector. I actually didn't know about the term until I was introduced to it by him. So I looked into it and I read down the criteria and I thought, "Wow, yeah, this is what I am, this is what I'm going to apply for so I can get out of the military." So I applied for consientious. objector status and it took me a long time to it was a really arduous process. They put me in -- they put me in the office. They took me off of flight line and put me in an office. And I was just doing personnel work just pushing paper and filing. I was like a file clerk and that sort of stuff which I was still contributing to it. So every day that I was in, I was in constant turmoil about even the little, the little stuff -- like mopping or taking out the trash. It still contributed to this huge system that I was totally opposed to being.

Courage to Resist: So from the time you first asked to get out until you were discharged, how long was it?

Michael Thurman: It took a very long time, eight months for me to get discharged by the time I applied for conscientious objector status. What happened was, when I applied I had to write a huge paper about what I believe and how it came to be and why I couldn't contribute to war anymore. And at that point, I had to talk to a psychiatrist to make sure I was still sane. I guess they thought I might have been crazy . . . I talked to a lawyer at the legal office and she's actually the one that processed all my legal stuff and determined whether or not I was actually a cons obj and she recommended me to my base commander and it basically went up the chain of command so that's why it took a long time. Oh and I also had to talk to a chaplain and the chaplain gave me a report about my religious and spiritual beliefs. And, so yeah, from that, from those interviews it goes to legal office on base and then it just goes up the chain of command. And it went all the way up to the Secretary of the Air Force and it took eight months for that to happen.


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

In the US today, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstuction issued a report. Stuart Bowen Jr. issued a note to the report [
PDF format warning] explaining, "The United States has now appropriated more than $50 billion in taxpayer dollars for Iraq's reconstruction." The report notes its basis is "seven new audit products" between May 1st and June 30th of this year. The US has outsourced and done so badly if that's not redundant. As is well known, the US government has provided no oversight. Most recently, Dana Hedgpeth and Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported Monday on a finding from the Officie of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, "The U.S. government paid a California contractor $142 million to build prisons, fire stations and police facilities in Iraq that is has nver built or finished". The report released today notes these oversight problems on the part of the US government:

* Inappropriate payment of award fees.
* Insufficiently defined scope of work.
* Inadequate preparation of detailed and independent cost estimates.
* Not initiating timely action to close out task orders.

Of course a key problem was the awarding of no-bid contracts on what appears to be a crony system. Parsons is always in the news . . . when it comes to corruption. The report is not different and notes Parsons re: fire houses, "SIGIR reviewed the largest task order, Task Order 51, which called for Parsons to design and construct 21 fire stations in Anbar and Baghdad. Because of multiple delays and cost increases, the U.S. government reduced the number of stations to be constructed to 100. Later another fire station was eliminated before construction began because of land ownership issues, and a second was terminated for the convenience of the government after it was bombed twice during construction leaving nine. In 2006, Parsons completed the nine fire stations and transferred them to the GOI. The award fee paid to Parsons for wok on this tark order was $296,294 -- 23% of the total available award fee."

Parsons bills itself as "a leader in many diverse markets such as infrastructure, transportation, water, telecommunications, aviation, commerical, environmental, industrial manufacturing, education, healthcare, life scienes and homeland security." The company was formed in 1944 and moved to Pasadena in 1992 -- a move James F. McNulty instituted four years prior to be coming CEO and President of the company. McNulty is currently the Chair of the Board (and has been since 1998) and he joined Parsons upon retiring from the US army (Col.) in 1988. What a ride it's been for McNulty.
Griff Witte (Washington Post) reported at the end of the 2006 that Parsons and McNulty felt under attack from Congress and McNulty was blaming others and that he "suggested the government needed to rethink its heavy dependence on the private sector for reconstruction, security and support in a combat environment. The comments are unusual for the leader of a firm that makes much of its money doing work for the government. Then again, few have been battered as badly as Parsons, an employee-owned, California-base compnay with a six-decade track record. Since the spring, when news of the stumbling health clinic program first broke, the company's preformance has been derided in the press and upt under the microscope at congressional hearings. At a hearing in September, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) spoke of a $75 million police academy that Parsons was responsible for but that wend badly awry: 'This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America. Incompetence. Profiteering. Arrogance. And human waste oozing out of ceilings as a result'." On a June 23, 2004 broadcast of PBS' NewsHour, Waxman called it what it was: "It is looked at as profiteering. And we shouldn't have that go on a time when we've got brave. American men and women who are facing the possibility of giving their lives to help the U.S. effort." McNulty rejected that and insisted that there was no way "we are somehow taking advantage of either the Iraqi people or our government." In January of last year, KCET's Life & Times was returning to the difference of opinions between Waxman and McNulty with Waxman arguing, "I don't think anybody ought to get paid and be able to keep the money if they didn't do what they were supposed to do. Then they found that the Iraqi subcontractors didn't do the work, so why should the United States taxpayers pay for that? We should get our money back." To which McNulty responded, "There is nothing wrong with our firm having made a profit on that work that we did over there in Iraq. It was legitimately earned. It was honestly earned and none of our employees nor our firm should feel the least bit bad about that." That 'honest' work that McNulty's so proud of is best evaluated by Jackie Northam (NPR) reporting in May of 2007: "Getting a definitive answer on the number of clinics completed by Parsons is not easy. Of the original 151 promised, the construction company says it handed over 20 fully equipped, completed health-care centers. The Army Corps of Engineers disputes that number, saying it received only six completed clinics. Some of those needed additional work, the Corps says."

The SIGIR report notes that "Iraq's oil revenues will crest $70 billion by the end of the year." meanwhile approximately $40 million in US tax dollars was wasted on a prison outside Baquba (Kahn Bani Sa'ad) which was turned over to the central government in Baghdad (to finish).This prison was a Parson's 'effort'. The report notes, "About $142 million was spent on various Parsons projects that were ultimately canceled or not completed, including Kahn Bani Sa'ad. The report notes Iraq's deputy prime minister (Barham Salih) stating, "Iraq does not need financial assistance."
BBC explains, "This . . . meant the government was capable of fundign reconstruction projects itself. The report also criticised the Iraqi authorities for failing to improve sewage and drainage facilities. . . . Roger Hardy, the BBC's Middle East analyst, said the report was the latest in a string of criticisms by the watchdog of the way in which American taxpayers' money is being spent in Iraq" Click here for HTML folder containing links to the -- PDF format warning -- sections of the report. Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) points out, "Democratic leaders in Congress are pushing the administration to pressure the Iraqi government to fund its own infrastructure projects through rising oil revenue."

Meanwhile, the pagentry of puppety . . . Diyala Province.
Campbell Robertson (New York Times) reports, "Military officers, both Iraqi and Americans, said the insurgents had probably fled the are after news media reports that the sweep was to begin soon, though officials had been saying publicly that it would be likely to begin in early August." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explained, "Iraqi soldiers and national police encountered no resistance as they knock in Baqubah and the town of Khan Bani Saad, about 15 miles south. But this is well-trod ground for the Iraqi forces and their U.S. counterparts, who have conducted repeated operations in the area since last year." It's a for-show effort that (a) props up the puppet Nouri al-Maliki and (b) makes the war seem 'winnable.' In the real world, Reuters reports that Moqtada al-Sadr has "called on Iraq's leaders not to sign a security deal with the United States, offering to throw his support behind the government if the talks were scrapped." Iraq's parliament is out of session now (for one month); however, Reuters reports that Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani has called a special session for Sunday to address the electoral issues.

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left three more wounded as well as "3 policemen and 4 civilians" injured.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul and 1 judge shot (wounded not killed) in Mosul (as well as the judge's bodyguard).

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Dora.

Turning to the US presidential race,
Jonathan Duckles of Team Nader notes:

Last Friday on Capitol Hill, the House Judiciary Committee weighed in on "executive power and its constitutional limits" in an inconsequential discussion of King George's imperial presidency.
There would be no vote on impeachment, no discussion of the dereliction of Congressional duty, and no Ralph Nader.
Ralph Nader, who has long championed the necessity of impeachment for W's repeated, defiant high crimes and misdemeanors, was not invited to testify at the Rayburn Building on Friday morning. Writer DC Larson summed the situation up, proclaiming that the "Democrat-led Congress are as unconcerned about political justice as is any neo-con in Rupert Murdoch's Rolodex."
The Nader campaign
was there to observe, along with hundreds of other concerned citizens, but couldn't crack the guest-list, despite a run-in with Ms. Kucinich . Only 16 individuals were granted admission into the hall to observe testimony from the following witnesses:
Panel I:
Hon. Dennis KucinichU.S. House of Representatives10th District, OH
Hon. Maurice HincheyU.S. House of Representatives22nd District, NY
Hon. Walter JonesU.S. House of Representatives3rd District, NC
Hon. Brad MillerU.S. House of Representatives13th District, NC
Panel II:
Hon. Elizabeth HoltzmanFormer U.S. House of Representatives16th District, NYDepartment of Justice
Hon. Bob BarrFormer U.S. House of RepresentativesU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement7th District, GA
Hon. Ross C. "Rocky" AndersonFounder and PresidentHigh Roads for Human Rights
Stephen PresserRaoul Berer Professor of Legal HistoryNorthwestern University School of Law
Bruce FeinAssociate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82Chairman, American Freedom Agenda
Vincent BugliosiAuthor and Former Los Angeles County Prosecutor
Jeremy A. RabkinProfessor of LawGeorge Mason University School of Law
Elliott AdamsPresident of the BoardVeterans for Peace
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr.Senior CounselBrennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Said Chairman John Conyers with regard to his committee's inaction, "we are not done yet, and we do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that Congress is entitled to and the American people deserve."
Let's hold Congress to this.
Let's reclaim the Constitution.
Let's start now.
Onward.

iraqtyrone pachaueralex atamanenko
mcclatchy newspapersamit r. paleythe washington postdana hedgpeth
alexandra zavisthe los angeles timesthe new york timescampbell robertson

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Micky Z, Timonthy Noah

It is being noticed that Panhandle Media is not providing coverage of independent and third-party candidates. This is from Kim Petersen's "Media Marginalization of 'Third' Parties, Interview with Mickey Z." (Dissident Voice):

KP: Why do you think it is that even the independent media excludes or marginalizes "third" party candidates and focuses so preponderantly on Barack Obama?
MZ: It's just so distracting to focus on more than two things at once. The media are us. The press is made up humans shaped by the same hypocritical and destructive culture as the rest of us. All of us lunatics trying to navigate the Space Age with Stone Age brains. If believing that Obama is living proof that American democracy works keeps things simple, then it’s just so much easier to believe that. More subtly, the unspoken reality is that those who look beyond the accepted parameters of discussion are excluded from all the (alleged) fun.
KP: Sometimes the focus is support for Obama since he is supposedly less evil than John McCain, or it can even be about revealing Obama's lack of progressivism. But the focus is on Obama and not the progressivist candidates out there. Given that Obama presents himself as a thoroughly unattractive presidential candidate for many progressives, why does one seldom encounter articles on more attractive presidential candidates in the independent media?
MZ: Ah, now we get to the dirty little secret of the so-called Left. A big chunk of them just wanna fit in. They wanna win... even if it means incredible compromise. Then there's some of them that are happiest when bitching and moaning and complaining. Give them a cartoon character to hate like Cheney or Guiliani and they're pacified. So once again in 2008, the independent (sic) press will buy the line of bullshit being sold by a corporate Democrat (sorry, I'm being redundant) and, by proxy, support the status quo and the subsequent global nightmare.

And, Mickey Z, they want to keep that foundation money and big donations coming in. I believe we all know about the attacks on organizations associated with Ralph Nader following the 2000 election. Democracy Now!, The Nation, et al pretend they are free of control but none of them have the guts to really cover the election out of fear that the Democratic money (think-tank, foundation or individuals) might dry up. They censor. They censor big time.

When I used to go to The Nation website or The Progressive's, I never read the comments. (I go to neither now. I do not tolerate sexism.) But I always love reading the comments at Dissident Voice and there are a few that are just too good not to share:

About the marginalization of Third Parties - about a week ago, the first governor’s debate of this election cycle was held in Vermont. The Liberty Union (Socialist) Candidate was not allowed to participate. He refused to leave the stage. The State Police came, forcibly removed him, and arrested him. Ain’t much democracy going around these days.

and:

Again let’s take 2003 when their was the potential of organizing around the anti-war movement. What happened? Was it the Democrats that induced the left to diffuse the movement? Was it the Democrats that twisted the arm of David Cobb and Medea Benjamin to sabotage the party? Was it the Democrats that induced Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Albert to support the Anybody But Bush mantra?
The answer to the above is no. What I find tiresome is that it is easy to be against the Democrats but what is HARD is finding something to be FOR regarding the left. In other word no analysis from Mickey Z why the left fails to offer a REAL alternative. What end up happening is that Mickey Z engages in a “blame-the-victim” REACTIONARY accusations.

and:

I’ve been shocked at the alternative media’s almost total blackout of McKinney, Nader, and other altnerative party choices. The few times I have written articles they have been rejected (because I’m not saying what they want me to say).

and:

As I see it, Dennis Kucinich plays a key role as an Enabler. Did I say Talk Is Cheap? Tom Hayden and Norman Solomon also come to mind as topgrade layers of the Big Smokescreen.

There are many, many more, but I think you get the idea. There is a conversation going on at Dissident Voice. (We have some community members who post comments there, by the way.) You really don't get that elsewhere and that's a point one comment makes that if I could squeeze in one more, I would. But I worry about fair use.

So if you read the interview, make sure you read the comments at the end.

Mia asked me if I could put this in from Timothy Noah's "Ralph Can Run If He Wants To" (Slate):

I've never cast a presidential vote for Nader, and I never will. Nor do I agree with Nader that the similarities between the Republican and Democratic parties render superfluous any choice between the two. But as someone who has observed (and admired) Nader all my life, I don't doubt for a second that Nader sincerely believes that. He's never remained satisfied with Democratic politicians, even those with whom he enjoyed a warm working relationship before they entered politics. (The only possible exception is Mark Green, who may have maintained Nader's affections by losing a series of bids for high office: the House, the Senate, the New York mayoralty.) Nader doesn't believe in compromise, and, yes, that would be a problem if he ever really did become president. But his stubbornness has been only an asset in his long career as an advocate, and I'm not so sure it's a liability in his newer career as a perpetual candidate. In the current election, Nader is the sole presidential candidate you're likely to hear about (now that Dennis Kucinich has dropped out) who stands forthrightly for adopting a single-payer solution to the health-care crisis, a stance universally regarded as politically impractical. But single payer is the only solution of much practical value in the real world, as evidenced by the experience of nearly all advanced democracies. If Nader does no more in the 2008 election than oblige major-party candidates to consider that stubborn reality for five minutes, he'll have done us all a big favor.

No, it's not an endorsement of Ralph Nader. But considering the garbage that people like Matthew Rotschild have published, it is practically a valentine. While The Nation offers their garbage telling Mr. Nader not to run, Mr. Noah at least respects democracy. Now this from Team Nader:


Nader on Greider, Hightower and Kuttner
Posted by The Nader Team on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM
ShareThisShareThis
Dear Bill Greider, Jim Hightower, and Bob Kuttner:
I write this letter of inquiry out of respect and wonderment to my three friends whose progressive writings over the past generation have been second to none in the community of public intellectuals.
You write cogently - as if people matter first, as if responsive elections, politics and government are critical for a resourceful society that is functionally and institutionally dedicated to the pursuit of justice.
There is one exception to the above generalization with which I have direct familiarity.
In your recent writings and interviews, where you have had pertinent and relevant opportunity to inform your audiences, you declare your dissatisfaction with the two major parties and their leaders over specific issues and records of evasions and neglect.
But you make no mention of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and its policies that are square on with your positions.
You ignore the areas of action and engagement we are representing or furthering and that McCain and Obama either oppose or ignore.
We're not inferring any endorsements here - just pointing out candidates who are reflecting your kind of political and economic advocacy.
My question is this:
If, year after year, the two major parties oppose or ignore our policy prescriptions, and often facilitate making conditions worse for the people, how do you propose to jump start or spark some movement inside the presidential electoral arena?
You and most of your policy colleagues, whether they write, speak, interview or conduct conferences, almost never choose to recognize or mention the positions and records very similar to yours that were taken, or are being taken, inside the presidential electoral arena by Nader/Camejo (2004) or Nader/Gonzalez (2008).
There are times during interviews on television or radio when the comment or question thrown out at you begs for some mention that someone out there, whom you have known for a long time, is contrasting and challenging the two party "elected" dictatorship that defiantly excludes or marginalizes competition - through state ballot laws and closed debates (a serious civil liberties issue, if nothing else).
The corporate Democrats who control the Party know that they will not be taken to task by the leading writers and polemicists of the progressive community in a way that will discomfort them - i.e. pointing out that their voters can avail themselves of other options on the ballot.
Is there any other language that they understand inside the electoral process?
It is as if your predecessors in the nineteenth century spoke out for abolition, suffrage, labor and farmer empowerment without mentioning or recognizing the existence of those small parties and independent candidates who pioneered, along with parallel civic movements, those great social justice advances we now take for granted.
None of these political candidates ever won a national election, but active speakers, writers, and conveners did not treat them as non-persons.
A very few of your colleagues are beginning to write about the number three presidential and vice presidential candidates in this race. (In Wimbledon or the NCAA tournament, the number 60th seed or team is given a chance to play.)
They realize what an effort it takes just to place one's candidacy on the playing field of a rigged system.
You should empathize enough to cover us on the road after Labor Day.
One journalist - Chris Hedges - found his breaking point and has written columns supporting our campaign.
What is your breaking point in this context?
Is that a valid question to ask as our country is being driven into the ground and its global corporations are tearing at its heart and soul?
Have you ever visited our websites in 2004 and 2008 - voternader.org?
I know about the uni-directional jackhammer nature of Washington's opinion oligopoly.
What I have difficulty understanding is what is its antonym in the progressive media when it comes to reporting and commenting about those who are contending inside the electoral arena?
I look forward to your considered response.
In the meantime, all of us at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign continue to absorb and value your insights and proposals but with a growing sense of puzzlement over the missing gap.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
P.S. Look at the near blackout nationally of the indictments this month brought by the Pennsylvania Attorney General against state Democratic legislators and legislative aides using government time and taxpayer money to move against electoral and political opponents, including removing Nader/Camejo from the ballot during the 2004 presidential campaign. It was headline news in Pennsylvania but nationally, even the civil liberties groups were not moved. Without candidate rights, how valuable are voter rights in a gerrymandered nation?
ShareThisShareThis



We are all having a great time on vacation. This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Tuesday July 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, is Diyala being used for for-show purposes, all-they-need-now-is-a-locust-plague news, Iraqi unions have a victory?, and more.

Starting with war resistance. James Burmeister was a class of 2007 war resister which we all know means they got NO attention from
Panhandle Media. His story was compelling -- as are the stories of all war resisters -- and it was also news breaking. Mark Larabee's "Soldiers still go over the hill even in an all-volunteer Army" (The Oregonian, July 16, 2007) would break the news of James Burmeister and of the kill-teams targeting Iraqi civilians. And Panhandle Media would respond with . . . silence and indiferrence. Maybe they just found it all 'tedious'? Dee Knight never saw the job of indpendent media to render war resisters (or the Iraq War) invisible. Knight (Workers World) reports that Erich Burmeister (rightly) considers his son a hero, "I think my son is a hero. There are many Iraqis who were not killed because of what he did, and many GIs whose lives were saved because of it. He made a tremendous service to his country by standing up and bearing witness to the 'bait-and-kill' war crimes." Erich Burmeister discusses the court-martial as well as the lead up and feels the military played "'good cop-bad cop' . . . to perfection" in convincing James to enter a guilty plea ("We took the bait and got our butts kicked"). Of the court-martial, he notes, "I feel like the case was used as an example to other soldiers. Not only will you get punished, but your loved ones will be too." James Burmeister can receive letters "at Box A, Fort Knox, KY 40121." Earlier this month, Helen Burmeister explained to Rachel McDonald (OPB), "I'm very disappointed in the way they feel they can treat veterans of war. I think the reason my son went AWOL was for a good reason. I don't think he deserved the punishment he got." James Burmeister was court-martialed July 16th, Dee Knight covered the court-martial here and noted the military came down hard on James because he was a whistle-blower.

Burmeister self-checked out and went to Canada. He decided to return to the US in March and turn himself in. Robin Long self-checked out and went to Canada as well; however, he did not make the decision to return. Judge Anne Mctavish made the decision to
extradite him and tried to pass it off as deportation. Courage to Resist notes:

On July 15, 2008 U.S. Army PFC Robin Long became the first war resister since the Vietnam War forced to leave Canada and to be turned over to the U.S. military. Robin is currently being held in the El Paso County Jail, in Colorado, awaiting his Courts Martial. He will be present for his Courts Martial at Fort Carson, Co. He will likely be charged for AWOL, desertion, and possibly speech-related violations of military discipline; he is facing a General Courts Martial, the maximum penalty of such a trial is 20 years confinement. Support Robin Long and all troops with the courage to resist!
1.
Donate to Robin's legal expenses 2. Send Robin letters of support 3. Send Robin commissary money 4. Send Robin a book 5. Sign the public statement of support – coming soon

War resisters in Canada need your help. To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor
the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

In Iraq yesterday, bombings took place in Baghdad and another in Kirkuk. Following the Kirkuk violence,
Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) report, violence broke out in the form of mob attacks on Turkmen, buildings were burned, guns were fired, rocks were thrown ("at least 25 Turkmen guards" were injured) leading Iraqi MP Saadeddin Arkej to declare, "I can't practice democracy at the Parliament while the dictatorship is attacking and burning the headquarters of the Turkmen Front in Kirkuk and burning and looting other Turkmen establishments." Caesar Ahmed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) observe, "The bombing and reprisals provided a glimpse of the passions among Kurds, Turkmens and Arabs over the future boundaries of Iraq's Arab north and its Kurdistan region." Meanwhile AFP reports Turkey flew planes over northern Iraq in an air strike which they state "completely destroyed" a cave used by PKK members but Kurdish spokesperson Sinksar Abudllah states the bombings took place "where there are only families who earn their living raising sheep. This is the first time that Turkish planes have attacked during the day. We have not received any information about casualties."

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province bombing that claimed 1 life. Diyala Province is where the assault began today -- despite last week's leaks that it would start August 1st. Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports that 14,000 to 18,000 Iraqi soldiers should be in the province now and notes, "A Reuters witness said large numbers of Iraqi police and army personnel had deployed in Baquba, where they were searching homes. The U.S. military was present in small numbers backed by helicopters, the witness said." AFP notes the US military's attempts to hard-sell it as an Iraqi operation (and ntoes they once claimed it would involved 30,000 Iraqi soldiers). AP quotes Ahmed Kadhim ("35-year-old businessman") who criticizes the loose lips, "I think this allowed armed groups to flee outside the province." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) appears to back that up, noting that a serach in Fatamia found "only three or four families remained. Six months ago there were 30 to 40 families. This eerie scene has been played out repeatedly in other villages across the southeastern corner of Diyala province, one of the country's most notorious areas." Which should lead to questions of -- remember this was leaked well in advance -- whether or not this is a for-show measure intended to make it appear that things are improving? In another report, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) notes that Iraqi military is "backed by small US military teams". China's Xinhua points out that Diyala Province is now under curfew. UPI reveals the assault's name "Omens of Prosperity." BBC adds, "Apart from the deployment in Baquba, Iraqi and US forces conducted raids in several outlying areas."

Alex Spillius (Telegraph of London) reports US Gen David Petraeus is estimating Iraqis could be in (security) control of their country by the middle of 2010. Considering Petraeus' past estimates, don't hold your breath. Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) tosses a damp blanket on Petraeus -- the GAO says that after all this time, Iraq is still not responsible (in full -- or puppet) for 8 provinces, most forces aren't at any level of readiness, benchmarks remain unreached.

Turning to oil and labor,
Great Britain's Socialist Worker reports:

The Iraqi government has withdrawn an order banning eight key union organisers belonging to the powerful Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU). The union leaders were ordered out of the southern city of Basra after the Western backed government of Nuri al-Maliki said they were memebers of "militias" and helped in the smuggling of oil. The union denied these charges. Hassan Juma'a Awad, the head of the IFOU, called on unions around the world to rally to the oil workers. In a statement he said, "This act is a clear evidence that the Iraqi state seeks to liquidate trade unions in this important Iraqi economic sector. It is important to note that the south is the main source of oil in Iraq." Sabah Jawad, the spokesman for the Naftana, the organisation that campaigns for Iraqi oil rights, told Socialist Worker that the government reversed the order following mounting pressure from Iraqi unions and the international anti-war movement. Jawad said, "We told Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, that this was not acceptable, and informed him that we were aware of the measures being taken by the oil ministry." US and European oil multinationals are scrambling to grasp Iraq's vast oil reserves. George Bush made the take-over of oil one of his key "indicators" that the "surge" is succeeding. The return of the multinationals, 36 years after Iraq nationalised its oil, has been greeted with widespread anger. The oil workers have been at the head of the movement resisting the hand over of the industry to western comanies. "The withdrawal of the order is a victory for international solidarity and Iraqi trade unions," Jawad said.

The above is spaced out better
at the link but has to be run as a single paragraph to fit into this snapshot. "© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place." and they recommend you read "US troops have Iran in their sights" with the above article. US Labor Against the War is attempting "to hold an International Labor Conference in Iraq in February 2009. This is an important and urgent step toward strengthening and unifying the labor movement in Iraq. Only through increased solidarity in Iraq, and with workers in the region and around the world can we hope to impact the fate not only of workers but of all Iraqis. [Learn more.] We call upon all unions and other labor organizations, and individual union members and others around the world to support this conference morally and financially." David Bacon explained the basics at Foreign Policy In Focus in 2004: "Once the U.S. occupation of Iraq began over a year ago, Iraqi workers lost no time in reorganizing their country's labor movement. Labor activity spread from Baghdad to the Kurdish north, with the center of the storm in the south, in the oil and electrical installations around Basra, and the port of Um Qasr. Workers quickly discovered that the occupation authorities had little respect for labor rights, however." And the puppet government in Baghdad apes the White House. Meanwhile a country already facing severe malnutrition gets more bad news. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports, "Iraq is in the grip of a water crisis after this year's seasonal rains failed, wiping out crops in some parts of the country and causing an unusually high number of sandstorms because the land is so dry. Dams and reservoirs in neighbouring Turkey and Syria have made the problem worse. The level of water in the Tigris and the Euphrates, the rivers that flow from the two countries into Iraq, has fallen by more than 60 per cent over the past 20 years."

Turning to the US presidential race.
Ronn Cantu (Iraq Veterans Against the War) writes an open letter to Barack Obama, presumed Democratic Party presidential candidate, explaining:

I read an article in the July 12 edition of the New York Times titled "Obama Won't Commit to Event at Military Base." The article confused me, because in a recent Army Times article titled "If Obama Wins," you were quoted as saying "Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform."
The NY Times article mentioned, and it bears repeating, that Fort Hood is the largest active-duty military installation in the country. Our post is so large and our commitment to Iraq so great that the Killeen Daily Herald published an article on July 13, 2008 about our sister division titled "4th ID Association Looking to Expand Soldier Memorial."
Since speaking out against the war, I've had to take great precautions to ensure that I'm never perceived to be speaking on behalf of the United States Army nor the Armed Services as a whole, so I hope this letter isn't perceived as such. But I have to say that I think it would be a huge step toward earning the trust of men and women in uniform if you and your campaign work with Carissa Picard and the Presidential Town Hall Consortium, and commit to appearing at this meeting the way Senator McCain has.

The full letter is here. Meanwhile John Pilger (New Statesman) calls out Barack's rah-rah on Afghanistan slaughter, "Having declared Afghanistan a 'good war', the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber. In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power -- because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, 'bait-and-switch' Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince." Meanwhile, look what happens when Gary Younge lets his Socialist roots hang free: He can tell the truth the way he so rarely does in The Nation or the Guardian of London. Writing for the UK's Socialist Review, Young's Obama-devotion is not rushed to maximum high and includes the following:

"[Obama] is being consumed as the embodiment of colour blindness," Angela Davis, professor of history of consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told me last year. "It's the notion that we have moved beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him conceivable as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of diversity in this period... a model of diversity as the difference that makes no difference. The change that brings no change." Finally, he did not build a multi-racial coalition but a bi-racial one. Clinton's base has been erroneously portrayed as simply the white working class and older white women. But in California Latinos and Asian-Americans went much more heavily for Clinton than whites did and made her victory possible. The same was true with Latinos in Texas. Indeed the only state where Obama won the Latino vote was his home state of Illinois. And even then by just 1 percent.

Gary Younge, has it been erroneously reported? Yeah and you certainly did your part to PUSH THE LIE in your other two outlets. In fact, he has been nothing but a s**t stirrer and a LIAR throughout this election cycle as he pretended he was 'one of us' (he's British, he will not be voting in this election) and posed as a Democrat to make his lies just a little more forceful to Americans. Either tell the truth or beg for Americans to start asking, "Exactly who is Gary Younge?" (He's already lied again this week and the misogynist Common Dreams was happy to repost it.) For the record, Angela Y. Davis speaks the truth. [On truth,
Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz (Washington Post) try to track down the story of Barack's skipping out on wounded US soldiers.] Patrick Martin (WSWS) points today to a Newsweek interview with Barach where he "emphasized" "phased withdrawal" and Martin observes this is "support for an open-ended US military presence in Iraq". It's the 'residual forces' aspect that Barack will never be clear on -- but any paying attention should have grasped he's not calling for withdrawal. Last week Katie Couric (CBS Evening News -- video and text at link) interviewed Barack and attempted to press him to get specific about this "residual force" -- noting that "some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can't you be more specific as to what you envision?" Barack's response included, "As I've said before . . . I am not interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that's happening in Iraq. Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq in which we're not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up . . . take this burden on. What I'm gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a clear and specific timeframe within which we're gonna pull our combat forces out." He would never answer the question. [Ava and I covered the interview here.] And unlike his remarks on Sunday, he did agree the 'surge' was a success in that interview. (The 'surge' has not been a success.) He's not supporting withdrawal. Which is why Patrick Martin (WSWS) concludes "The Amrican people thus will be given the choice on November 4 of voting for War #1 or War #2, Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, they will be saddled with both wars, with only slight differences between the Democrats and Republicans over which war should receive the largest proportion of US military resources. Those who oppose American militarism, who want to bring an end to the oppression and violence wrought by imperialist aggression throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, have been disenfrancised by the two big business parties." And voters have other choice (including write-in, staying home, voting for other offices but not for president) which includes other candidates because it is not a two-person race. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate. Last week the Nader - Gonzalez (Matt Gonzalez) began a series of campaign stops that found local and regional media more receptive to covering the presidential race than is the national media. Jim Galloway (AJC) quoted Nader speaking at the University of Georgia, "[Obama is] always talking about his past as a community organizer. But again and again, day after day, he's back-tracking, surrendering, flip-flopping -- and appointing the worst corporatist advisors you can imagine." John O'Connor (The State) covered Ralph's appearance in South Carolina where Ralph explained of Barack and presumed GOP nominee John McCain, "They represent a minority viewpoint. We represent a majority of the American people." Yvonne Wenger (Post and Courier) reported on the South Carolina stop as well quoting Ralp stating, "If you don't resist, the situation gets worse. The alternative is surrender. . . . The stands McCain and Obama have taken again and again do not have the support of the majority of the American people." Sebastian Kitchen (Montgomery Advertiser) reported on his stop in Montgomery at the Rosa Parks Library and Museum and how he noted "Rosa Parks challenged the system" and wondered of the Iraq War, corporate control of the country, minimum wage and healthcare, "Why aren't these issues talked about by the major parties?" Marshall Griffin (KWMU) reported yesterday, "Ralph Nader is a step closer to getting his name on Missouri's presidential ballot. Robert Dalaviras, State Coordinator for the Nader campaign, delivered two boxes of petitions to the Secretary of State's office in Jefferson City this morning." KXAN reported on his Austin stop noting that he called for a number of issues:

"A comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq""A single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice public health insurance system for all""A living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act""A no nuke solar-based energy policy supported by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources""A carbon tax to deter global warming"An end to corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars""More direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with 'we the people,' and not 'we the corporations"

Jennifer Latson (Houston Chronicle) reported on Ralph and Matt Gonzalez' stop in Houston and how they received $7,000 in donations -- in a state that as a result of restrictive (to put it mildly) ballot access laws, they won't even be on the ballot for. (Texas voters can write-in Nader-Gonzalez.) Nader declared in Houston, "This is the worst state in the country in terms of denying voters their own choice of candidates." Prior to the Austin stop, David Shieh (Austin American-Statesman) did a Q&A with Nader:

American-Statesman: So why are you running for the presidency? Ralph Nader: Strong labor laws facilitating unions, strong consumer protections, environmental, foreign, military policy -- all these are not being addressed in a way that a majority of people in this country want them addressed. The majority of people in this country want single-payer health insurance. They want a living wage. They want to get out of Iraq. They want a lot of things that we stand for, and the other side -- (Sens. John) McCain and (Barack) Obama -- are either against it or ignore it. They don't want to talk about it.

Austin Cassidy (Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report) explains that August 2nd and 34d will find Ralph, Cynthia McKinney, Brian Moore an Gloria La Riva competing in Sacramento for the Peace and Freedom Party's nomination which would allow the candidate to be on the ballot in California. (Cynthia's already on the ballot as the Green nominee). La Riva was part of a woman of color presidential ticket in both 1996 and 2000 (with Monica Moorhead). Team Nader notes:

Is Nader/Gonzalez for real?
The country wants to know.
Will Nader/Gonzalez be on enough ballots in November to make a run for it?
And to be seriously considered for the Presidential debates?
We're now on 18 state ballots, heading toward 30 by August 10 - on our way to our ultimate goal of 45 states by September 20.
And getting to thirty won't happen unless we hit our goal of $100,000 by August 10. (Which would give us $2 million for the entire campaign year to date.)
Thanks to you, we're at over $13,000 in just a few short days.
But we need to
jack it up this week.
Donate now and watch your contribution fuel our road-trippers all around the country.
On the ground, things are heating up and the press is starting to take notice.
In West Virginia, we
turned in more than 24,000 signatures (15,000 valid required).
In Montana, our road trip team
collected and turned in more than 10,000 signatures (5,000 required).
We've also collected enough signatures to get on the
ballot in Tennessee and New Jersey.
In Missouri, today we
will turn in more than 20,000 signatures (10,000 valid required).
This coming week, we're looking forward to ballot access victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.
None of this would have been possible without your help.
Every time you
hit the contribute button, you fuel this historic ballot access drive.
During our last two fundraising drives, you came through with flying colors.
First, we asked for $60,000. You did it - on time.
Then we asked for $70,000, and you pushed us over the top with time to spare.
Right now, we need to hit $100,000 to get us to 30 states.
These are the most crucial two weeks of the campaign.
Whether Nader/Gonzalez is for real in November depends on whether we can raise the money to pay for ballot access over the next two weeks.
Plain and simple.
So, please.
Donate now whatever you can - $10, $20, $100, $500 - to help us give America a choice in November.
For peace.
For justice.
For a safe and healthy future.
For shifting the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the people.
Together, we are making a difference.
Onward

iraqjames burmeister
robin long
dee knight
workers worldmark larabee
opb
yvonne wengerdavid shieh
cbs evening newskatie couric
jennifer latsonsebastian kitchen
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.sabrina tavernisened parkerthe los angeles timescaesar ahmed
john pilger
mcclatchy newspapers

Monday, July 28, 2008

Justice Department . . . guilty

Yesterday was a blast. I came back here around nine with Betty's kids and Rebecca's baby (here is C.I.'s) over C.I.'s objections and said I'd go out tomorrow night (which is now tonight). They were going to go clubbing and C.I. always is kind enough to watch all the children each summer. I figured that C.I. more than deserved a little fun.

After all, it is not like C.I. worked for Alberto Gonzales, our former Attorney General. No one working for Mr. Gonzales is probably having much fun today. Robert Schmidt's "Gonzales Aides Used Politics in Hiring, Report Says (Update3)" (Bloomberg News) notes, " Aides to former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales violated federal law by improperly using political considerations when hiring career Justice Department lawyers and immigration judges, an agency report found. The audit, by the Justice Department inspector general and ethics chief, concluded that Monica Goodling, the White House liaison, and Gonzales's chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, committed misconduct. Gonzales, who resigned under pressure last year, was generally unaware of his aides' actions, the report said." And this is from Andrew Cohen's "Time To Prosecute Goodling And Company" (CBS News):

The damning report by the Office of Professional Responsibility establishes for all time that former Justice officials Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson, to name just a few, violated federal law and Department policy when they "improperly considered political or ideological affiliations in screening candidates for certain career positions" at Justice. Over and over again, these lawyers and public servants put their ideological goals over the work of the nation. From the OIG Report: "We concluded that the most systemic use of improper political or ideological affiliations in screening candidates for career positions occurred in the selection of immigration judges, who work in the Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review…. Goodling screened candidates for immigration judges using a variety of techniques for determining their political affiliation, including researching the candidates’ political contributions and voter registration records, and using an Internet search string containing political terms." In Goodling’s world, for example, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was too liberal because "she’s pro choice" and subordinates were told via memo that they could hire "one more good American" to the Department - meaning one more conservative ideologue. Read the report yourself and then tell me whether you feel comfortable with a bureaucracy - staffed by alumni of a bottom-rung law school - where an unqualified counter-terrorism job candidate actually gets a job helping to defend us because the more qualified person’s wife happens to be a local Democratic politician.

We are all rushing and blogging at once to try to get out the door at a set time. Someone just hollered for everyone to note Ava and C.I.'s article. I hope they meant the TV commentary. This is from Ava and C.I.'s "TV: No, don't tell me more, tell me more " (The Third Estate Sunday Review):

In terms of content and serving the communities, watching PBS Friday night was rather depressing. We believe they're calling it "The Choice" and it starts in October . . . on Frontline. It's the presidential race. So how does Frontline think it can cover said race without covering all the candidates. The choice, according to Frontline's advertisement, is a two-person choice. You can vote for Barack or McCain. All other candidates are rendered invisible and no one's supposed to notice or complain (an organized campaign might force Frontline to expand its scope). PBS was created to give voice and cover topics that the broadcast networks were not covering. Somehow Frontline has made the choice that "The Choice" is only about two parties. It's elitist and, to use Ralph Nader's apt phrase, it's political bigotry.

We could turn to racial bigotry but we think that will be the topic this week . . . when CNN's embarrassing two-parter on race in America airs. Having seen an early cut of that two-parter, we expect that many will be complaining. We'll simply note that offering two programs begs for complaints. One is the "Black Men" and the other is "Black Women and Family." Apparently, by CNN's take, the "Black Man" is not connected to the "Black Family." But, on the plus for the "Black Man," he is so much more important than the "Black Woman" or "Black children" that he's worthy of his own program while the other two have to share. With all the stereotypes (and Barack's promoting) of the 'missing' African-American father, we really think CNN should have reconsidered the split.
"Women and children." We keep coming back to that bad CNN special. And we think about how TV is so often a reflection of either where we're headed or where people want us to head.
Barack's "feeling blue" remarks (about abortion) are frightening enough. CNN is lumping grown adults in with children . . . on the women's side. Neither is a full person in CNN's eyes or worthy of their own special. Only the males are. What it's really doing (and we believe intentionally though friends at CNN disagree) is trying to bring back the stereotypes that the feminist movement demolished years ago. Like liquid metal (in Terminator 2), the sexism just regroups over and over and keeps coming back. You do know, we asked, that not all African-American women are mothers or want to be? "Most women are mothers." That was the response.
Well, golly, last time we checked, pregnancy required egg and sperm. So without any hard numbers on the mother issue, we could shoot back that most men are fathers. But that's not how the special breaks it down.

If you are supporting Ralph Nader (as I am), Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr, you might want to consider letting PBS' Frontline know that you will not stand for public television reducing the coverage of the presidential election down to two candidates.

Ava and C.I. worked so hard on that they ended up with two pieces. I feel very bad because Ava and C.I. ended up typing up basically everything. During the writing edition, they put their TV article on hold to try to make sure we were getting done and moving forward with the hope that we could all get some sleep. So they were working on that when the rest of us went to sleep and no one thought to finish typing up (or start typing) the other pieces. Ava and C.I. ended up having to do that as well.

Here is this week's content, by the way:

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: BonusGate
TV: No, don't tell me more, tell me more
Barack for Headmistress of the United States!
CBS 'cares' enough to promote sexism
Liar of the week: Amy Goodman
Feminist History: Learn it or repeat
Hair mail
Phone ettiquette 21st Century Style
Nader-Gonzalez marching on
Highlights

I think it was really a strong edition. This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Monday, July 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military says "WOOPSIE!" for two incidents where civilians were killed, Sister Barack bombs at the NOW convention, The Nation magazine continues to struggle with the concept of journalism (surprising absolutely no one) and more.

Starting with war resistance. Friday evening, a protest was held outside Fort Carson in Colorado to show support for US war resister Robin Long,
extradited from Canada, and now awaiting the US military's decision on what happens next. KKTV (link has text and video) reported on the protest live.

David Nancarrow: He joined the army in 2003 now 25-year-old Robin Long will answer to military officials after he made a choice not to join his unit in Iraq. Thanks for joining us tonight. I'm David Nancarrow.

Michelle Molison: And I'm Michelle Molison. Robin Long flees to Canada just as his unit is being deployed to Iraq.

David Nancarrow: AWOL for three years, Long was deported from Canada and sent back to the US just last week. This the first time since the Vietnam era. KKTV's news reporter Eric Lupher joins us live at Fort Carson tonight and, Eric, Long has plenty of supporters saying he had the right to make the decision he made.

Eric Lupher: His support comes from a local activist group who was out earlier today in protest claiming that Long didn't know what he was getting into when he joined the service but others feel the exact opposite, saying 'If you're going to join the military during wartime, you better be prepared to go to war."

Col B. Shannon Davis: We join military service to fight our nation's wars. When you join and you sign up, you know that right up front.

Eric Lupher: This group disagrees.

Garrett Reppenhagen: There's a huge propaganda smear across the country to get young men to join the military.

Eric Lupher: Garrett Reppenhagen, along with other members, supporters -- young and old from the Pikes Peak Justice Peace Commission stand in protest at Alamo Square Park.

[Unidentified male demonstrating in support of Robin]: At the end of the day, you know, we really feel that Robin should be free.

Eric Lupher: Free from the military from the war Robin Long never wanted to fight.

Lee Zaslofsky: Robin Long did what he did because of his conscience and because he believed that the war was wrong, that he was simply running away or hiding out.

Eric Lupher: But according to Col B. Shannon Davis, the requirements of service are clear from the very beginning.

Col B. Shannon Davis: There should be no reservations when you take the oath of office to protect your country and fight for your country.

Eric Lupher: But Long's supporters refuse to give up, refuse to believe the war in Iraq is justified.

Lee Zaslofsky: I think most Americans now realize that the war in Iraq is a complete mistake.

Eric Lupher: So they protest.

Col B. Shannon Davis:They're exercising the freedoms of this country tonight and I'm not going to put them down for that. That's their freedom, that's what I fight for them to have those freedoms.

Eric Lupher: Long will likely go to court-martial. Now Fort Carson is hesitant to tell us what penalty is ahead of him. Now Long's attorney [James Branum] tells us that his client could spend years in prison and, worse case, face death. David and Michelle?

David Nancarrow: Alright Eric Lupher live for us at Fort Carson tonight. Thanks very much.


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq. Over the weekend
Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reported that the pipeline between northern Iraq and Turkey is pumping oil at a "more than tenfold" increase from 2007 and, oh, by the way, US forces patrol the pipeline. Additionally, Tavernise noted (in her final paragraph), "Also on Friday, the American military acknowledged that it unintentionally killed the son of an editor for an American-financed newspaper in the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday. The military said soldiers had been fired at from a taxi and shot back, hitting Arkan al-Naiemi, 14, in the taxi." Consider it starting a trend. June 25th snapshot: "Reuters notes the US military shot dead 2 'suspects' in Samara and they shot dead 3 people in a car 'near Baghdad airport'. On the 3 in Baghdad, Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) reports, 'Officials at Yarmouk Hospital identified the dead as a manager and two female employees of a bank at the airport. Iraqi police also reported that two bodyguards were injured' while the US military maintains they were attacked by the bank employees." Sunday Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that the US military has admitted the three slaughtered were civilians and not, as they LIED in June, criminals. There's an apology tacked on in there but it's not going over with the son of the bank manager. Mohammed Hafeth "said the image of his father's burning vehicle haunts him. He'd waited in his father's office that morning surprised that he wasn't there yet. They'd left at nearly the same time that morning." Fadel reports Mohammed learned of the shooting and arrived on the scene to find the car on fire and being told by US soldiers that he had to leave. He asks Fadel, "Why did they kill him like this? We demand that they send those soliders to an Iraqi and American court." The family turned down an offer of $10,000 from the US military. Today Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note that the family wants a written apology and quote Mohammed stating, "It was only $10,000. My father was the main provider for our family. We are a displace people. We also have to replace our car. We are in a very difficult time." Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) observes that "the findings call into question the way the military handled the aftermath of the shootings" and quotes Lt Col Steve Stover stating, "We don't believe there was any cover-up." Saif Hameed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) remind, "Initially, some soldiers thought that someone in the car was shooting and that Iraqi police had found a weapon in the vehicle, the miltiary said. However, no weapon was found and the passengers turned out to be a man and two women who worked at the airport bank." Iraqi police had found a weapon? Thought that. And then waived the vehilce through a checkpoint? Really?

Hameed and Parker also note that multiple bombings struck Baghdad today: "Early today, 20 civilians were killed and 47 wounded by three female suicide bombers in eastern Baghdad as Shiite pilgrims marched to the Imam Kadhim shrine in west Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. The attacks happened a day before a religious festival marking the death of the revered Shiite figure, who died in 799." Earlier, Mohammed Abbas (Reusters) reported 24 dead from 3 Baghdad bombings (all three bombngs are said to have been female suicide bombers). Nicholas Spangler and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report 24 dead in Baghdad with sixty-seven injured. Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) points out those figures are the ones being used by Jalal Talabani, Iraq's president, in a message he left on his political party's website and that he noted the dead includes women and children. The Telegraph of London explains, "The pilgrims were walking through the Karrada district of central Baghdad, towards Kadhimiyah in the city's north where up to a million people will celebrate a Shia festival, when the bombers struck." The Australian notes, "The bombers struck in quick succession in the Karrada district of central Baghdad as tens of thousands of Shia pilgrims were making their way on foot towards Kadhimiyah in the north of the Iraqi capital, site of today's Shia festival, a ceremony that has been marred by bloodshed in the past." "Thousands of Shi'ite Muslims walk through this popular shopping district here in Baghdad, mournful religious sermons blare from speakers set up to greet them," Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson (NPR's All Things Considered) explains from "less than two miles" where the three Baghdad bombings took place. Hussein Kahim (McClatchy) notes Baghdad has imposed a ban on cars from five a.m. tomorrow through five a.m. Wednesday. CNN places the death toll at 32 with one-hundred and two people wounded.
It was not the only major bombing today. North of Baghdad in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, it was politics, rather than religion, that drew a suicide bomber this morning,"
Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson offered on NPR's All Things Considered. Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan (filing at the Financial Times) notes the Kirkuk bombing (also said to be a 'female suicide bomber') and states that nothing suggests the Baghdad bombings and the Kirkuk bombing were connected. China's Xinhua cites Birg Burhan Wasif (Kirkuk police chief) as the source for stating that the bomber was a male and, using the police figures, state 22 people died and one-hundred and eighty-seven were injured as they protested the bill on provincial elections. (The one that the Kurds walked out on the vote of and that Iraq's Presidential Council has already rejected.) CBS and AP explain, "Kurdish objections over a proposed power-sharing formula on the provincial council in Kirkuk have blocked the law from being passed. Kirkuk is in an oil-rich area and many Kurds consider it to be part of their historical land. The area is home to Kurds, Turkomen, Arabs and smaller groups." CNN reports that Kirkuk has a ban on vehicle and pedestrian traffic ("from 3 p.m. Monday until 7 a.m. Tuesday") and places the death toll at 38. In other reported violence today . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Balad Ruz roadside bombing claimed 4 lives.
Shootings?

Reuters notes 1 woman shot dead in Mosul, 1 man shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul and 1 corpse ("handcuffed woman with a gunshot wound to the chest").

In other news,
Katharine Euphrat (AP) reports that the VA's suicide prevention hotline (1-800-873-TALK) has received requests for assistance from over 22,000 veterans. The statistics are from the government and the government also states that they have prevented 1,221 veterans' suicides.

Turning to the US presidential race. Thank The Nation for us noting the first item. It's been covered. But when Air Berman thinks he can lie and The Nation wants to let him, we have to cover it. Thursday Barack Obama was in Germany. He was scheduled to meet with wounded US service members there. He cancelled. He had a host of excuses and the one he finally stuck with was that the Pentagon said no. Air Berman runs with that and whines, "The Obama campaign scrapped the troop visit after the Pentagon told them it would be viewed as a campaign event." There is no hope for Air Berman. He is not a journalist, he never will be. He wants to be a Mac Daddy but that'll never happen either. Reality broke in the real media Friday evening/night. Air ignores that -- by choice. His candidate is more important to him than the truth.
Dan Balz (Washington Post) reported, "The Pentagon said Friday that it did no prevent an Obama visit" and quoted Pentagon flack Bryan Whitman stating, "Nobody denied Senator Obama the opportunity to visit our wounded being cared for at Landstuhl. Obviously, as a sitting senator, he has an interest in that and certainly visit in an official capacity." Dan Balz or Air Berman, who you gonna trust? Exactly. So little Ari whines Barack was forced to do it because the Pentagon said what was planned was a campaign event! Ari, you no doubt know of Maj Gen Scott Gration (Barack advisor). Caren Bohan (Reuters) quoted him Friday evening stating, "Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event". Barack cancelled the event. He did so when the Pentagon informed he could not use it as a photo op. They didn't tell his campaign the visit couldn't happen, they walked the campaign through what was allowed and what wasn't. All the adoring press? Nope. When he found out he wouldn't be able to use wounded GIs as cheap props in campaign photos, he blew off the scheduled visit and went to his hotel to work out. That's reality. CNN quoting Whitman, "We do have certain policy guidelines for political campaigns and elections. And what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in those situations. But the Pentagon certainly did not tell the senator that he could not visit Landstuhl." As Trina noted Friday, "Usually everyone lies for him. But the Pentagon's not going to do that for him and now he's exposed as the man who decided to skip out on wounded service members after he was informed he couldn't turn it into a campaign stop. If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around, did it make a sound? If Barack emotes with no cameras around, he thinks it won't make for a media sound-byte. So it was okay for him to blow off US soldiers. How disgusting is he?" And how disgusting is Ari Berman that he wants to show up on Monday and LIE and how disgusting is The Nation that they go along with it? Pretty disgusting but the Campus Marxist King went from Katrina's coffee-fetcher to Barack's official campaign blogger and regularly brags he can get anything planted in The Nation. Apparently so. Air Berman creates a conspiracy and then traces it back to the White House ("the Bush Administration intervened to block Obama's planned visit"). Now I know that there really aren't any brains at the top of The Nation but when you start allowing your staff to create their own rumors and print them as fact, you've hit a new low. Air 'quotes' MSNBC but doesn't link, I believe it may be to this and Domenico Montanaro added an update: "One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, 'he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers. Obama could nto bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit." Barack Obama is the presumped and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. John McCain is the same for the GOP. McCain appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday (transcript here) and George Steph asked him about the cancelled visit.

John McCain: Well, I know this, that those troops would have loved to have seen him. And I know of no Pentagon regulation that would have prevented him from going there -- without the media and the press and all of the associated people -- nothing that I know of would have kept him from visiting those wounded troops. And they are gravely wounded, many of them.

George Stephanopoulos: He's done it many times in the past.

John McCain: In Landstuhl, Germany, when I went through, I visited -- I visited the hospital. But the important thing is that, if I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event. And so, I believe he had the opportunity to go without the media. And I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

US News & World Reports points out that Whatever Happened to Baby Jane Senator Claire McCaskill stumbled onto the set of Fox News Sunday to rail against an ad that McCain's running by bleating out, "The most disappointing thing about this ad is that it's beneath John MCain, because he's playing political football with wounded soldiers." No, Claire, drop the 40 proof vodka long enough to grasp "the most disappointing thing" is that Saint Barack bailed on wounded service members when he found out it couldn't be a photo-op. (For other 'disappointing things about this,' look in the mirror, Claire.) Juliet Eilperin (Washington Post) notes that Diebold's own Chuckie Hagal took to CBS' Face The Nation where he roared (in his best Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?), "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he" cutting him off because Chuckie didn't have his facts. That's the US Senate for you, they wake up and drink harder all day than the rest of us. Knock another back, Chuckie. As usual when Bambi gets anything but soft gloves and feather kisses, the campaign whines (and then usually screams "racism!"). Tommy Vietor -- who's been the Agnes Gooch to Barack's Mame for far too long -- whines to Eilperin, "I think a lot of people are wondering what happened to the civil campaign John McCain said he was going to run." Agnes Vietor whines a lot to the press -- click here for the whining to Alexander Cockburn in 2006. Note that the article was published in 2006 -- before Alex drank the Kool-Aid and peed it all over himself in public.

Ava and I covered the travelogue and Barack's alarming statements (alarming to those who played fool or were fools) re: Iraq, Syria, Israel and more. We will come back to that later in the week but for now check out Katie Couric's interview with Barack (CBS Evening News -- links has video and transcript). Now we're turning to Peggy Simpson's report (WMC) on the NOW convention (July 18-20) which took place in Bethesda and featured Marie Cocco, Patricia Ireland, Carol Jenkins, Carolyn Maloney, Irshad Manji, Monica Aleman and others. Simpson reports NOW president Kim Gandy announced to one and all that "sister" (I'm being sarcastic) Barack sends greetings. From prison, Kim? Do we need to mount a Free Barack action? He sends his greetings? That lousy pig who used sexism non-stop sends his greetings? Let's drop back to June, to Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman (New York Times) reporting on the media finally maybe noticing the sexism targeted at Hillary:

In response, the Obama campaign directed a reporter to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who supported [Ms.] Clinton but who is now speaking for the Obama campaign. She said Mr. Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he already incorporated themes of discrimination as a societal problem in his speeches.

No specific plans -- now or ever. He could travel all over the globe but he couldn't show up for the NOW convention? No feminist wants to hear his garbage. Which is obvious from
Simpson's report. She notes that Gandy's message from Sister Barack resulted in "a minor ripple of applause." Simpson focuses on one organizer who spoke to the conference, Jehmu "Green spoke last weekend at the national NOW convention, one that was subdued rather than boisterous, in the wake of Hillary Clinton's primary defeat by Barack Obama. Some NOW delegates wore Hillary tee-shirts. There was minimal talk of Obama and loud cheers whenever someone mentioned Clinton." She quotes Green explaining, "We increased [women's] turnout by 200 percent in the [Democratic] primaries -- gosh, we came really close to nominating Hillary. . . I also was disheartened when I saw young women vilify Senator Clinton and vilify being a feminist."

To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) explains, "Obama draws an adoring crowd of 200,000 in Berlin. He pulls ahead in national polls. Meanwhile, McCain, who has run a near-disastrous campaign, inches up in key swing states? Go figure. I say, give Obama the guitar he so richly deserves and make him a rock star. Give McCain a war to run somewhere. And let voters redo the primaries so they can nominate two more mainstream candidates. Anyone who says the election is over and Obama is the victor reminds me of the Obama partisans drumming Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race and turning off millions of potential Democratic supporters in the process. They do their candidate a much greater service if they duct-tape their mouths." On the Berlin event, Just Say No Deal issues this statement: "While coverage of Senator Obama's Berlin speech provided audiences here at home nothing less than a visual 'shock and awe,' it neglected to mention that the well-hyped speech had an opening act: a gratis concert by two wildly popular groups, Reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn (pictured below with Barack Obama). While we appreciate the Obama Campaign's hospitality, on behalf of furthering US-Germany relations, offering free bratwurst, pizza and even beer for three hours during the free rock concert, we question whether or not the monies might have been better spent here on financially strapped US citizens. Similarly, back on May 20, 2008 in Portland, Oregon, Senator Obama took the stage following the critically acclaimed local band The Decemerists, who gave a rare free concert for 75,000 fans. While news stories generated by both appearances focused on the enormity of the crowd size, few mentioned the accompanying perks, leaving some to question whether revelers are showing up for Senator Obama or for free food and entertainment. Without this additional information, Just Say No Deal contends that Americans are being misled about the presumptive Democratic nominee's true popularity." Let's just add to that the fact that there are dangers in handing out free beer that go beyond driving after. All in Germany who received free beer better have been at least 21-years of age (unless Barack's claiming a nationality other than US). Doubt it? In 2002, a US House Rep just knew he would be the new Minority Leader (the Dems were in the minority then). He could taste it. His base was different than Nancy Pelosi's and he didn't think she was all that. What deralied him? In 1992, he gave out free beer to 3 males -- two were 16 and one was 17. It was a campaign 'action.' (Suburbs had been blockwalked, consider this an after-party.) He was repeatedly warned that he needed to stop but, hey, he was in Congress, he'll do what he damn well wants. He did at approximately 4:00 p.m. The 'after-party' took place at his family's business on a busy, downtown corner. The 'after-party' took place in the parking lot. Photos were taken. For over ten years, he never gave it a second thought. Then he wanted to be Minority Leader. Funny how things can surface when you least expect it. Like photos of you and a bunch of male teenagers pulling back on long necks in broad daylight. (And that, by the way, is the real story on how Nancy Pelosi ended up Minority Leader -- now Speaker of the House. You won't find it in the New York Times or the Washington Post but that is how the only real competition was cleared from the field.)

Team Nader notes:

Is Nader/Gonzalez for real?
The country wants to know.
Will Nader/Gonzalez be on enough ballots in November to make a run for it?
And to be seriously considered for the Presidential debates?
We're now on 18 state ballots, heading toward 30 by August 10 - on our way to our ultimate goal of 45 states by September 20.
And getting to thirty won't happen unless we hit our goal of $100,000 by August 10. (Which would give us $2 million for the entire campaign year to date.)
Thanks to you, we're at over $13,000 in just a few short days.
But we need to
jack it up this week.
Donate now and watch your contribution fuel our road-trippers all around the country.
On the ground, things are heating up and the press is starting to take notice.
In West Virginia, we
turned in more than 24,000 signatures (15,000 valid required).
In Montana, our road trip team
collected and turned in more than 10,000 signatures (5,000 required).
We've also collected enough signatures to get on the
ballot in Tennessee and New Jersey.
In Missouri, today we
will turn in more than 20,000 signatures (10,000 valid required).
This coming week, we're looking forward to ballot access victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming.
None of this would have been possible without your help.
Every time you
hit the contribute button, you fuel this historic ballot access drive.
During our last two fundraising drives, you came through with flying colors.
First, we asked for $60,000. You did it - on time.
Then we asked for $70,000, and you pushed us over the top with time to spare.
Right now, we need to hit $100,000 to get us to 30 states.
These are the most crucial two weeks of the campaign.
Whether Nader/Gonzalez is for real in November depends on whether we can raise the money to pay for ballot access over the next two weeks.
Plain and simple.
So, please.
Donate now whatever you can - $10, $20, $100, $500 - to help us give America a choice in November.
For peace.
For justice.
For a safe and healthy future.
For shifting the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the people.
Together, we are making a difference.
Onward


iraqrobin long
mcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
katie couricthe cbs evening newsmcclatchy newspapers
peggy simpson
dan balz
the washington postqais mizhersudarsan raghavan
juliet eilperinbonnie erbe
the new york timeskatharine q. seelyejulie bosman
richard a. oppel jr.sabrina tavernise
saif hameedned parkerthe los angeles times

Friday, July 25, 2008

The consensus was that he is a freak

"Blog party!" cried Mike. We are at C.I.'s for the week and those of us already here are attempting to knock out our posts before Rebecca, Kat, Betty, Ava, C.I. and Wally arrive. And Elaine's having the worst time with her site. I walked over to look at her laptop screen, knowing I would not be any real help but willing to try. I was no help. She's got some weird screen that does not allow her to insert links or anything.

I hope this isn't some new feature of Blogger/Blogspot because it is very weird.

So Barack Obama is winding down his attempts to grab headlines. As far as I know, only one group got thrown under the bus: wounded US veterans in Germany. Mr. Obama was supposed to visit them. He canceled the visit. The John McCain campaign is calling him out on that. The Obama campaign says that they were contacted by the Pentagon and the Pentagon had concerns.

This is from CNN:

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters later Friday the Pentagon did not explicitly say Obama should not visit the base, but was concerned with whether his capacity there would be one of a presidential candidate, not a senator.
"We do have certain policy guidelines for political campaigns and elections. And what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in those situations. But the Pentagon certainly did not tell the senator that he could not visit Landstuhl," Whitman said.
"Generally speaking, the military tries very hard not to get involved in political campaigns," he said. "Conducting a campaign speech for example on a military installation is not something that would be appropriate to do."

What does that sound like to you? Elaine and I are in agreement, we think it sounds like Mr. Obama realized he couldn't stage a photo op for his campaign and decided to blow off US service members, wounded US service members.

He really is that disgusting. On the plane ride here (I'm at C.I.'s), there was a nice woman who showed me her People magazine. Barack, Michelle and the daughters Obama are on the cover in another attempt to portray him as your normal American.

For anyone who does not know, I am Jewish. My husband and I raised our children Jewish; however, we celebrated December 25th as a day of Santa Clause. We did Hanukah as our religious celebration each December but we did December 25th as Santa Clause and when all our boys were old enough to know the truth about Santa, we continued to do a gift exchange each December 25th.

Well it is a little different in the Obama family. They do not give their daughters gifts on Christmas and do not do so on the children's birthdays.

I could not believe it. This was supposed to be the "Look at the normal family just like you!" article and all it did was cause a big stir in a bad way. A woman across the aisle thought we were making it up as we were looking at the article. We passed the magazine over and she read it for herself and still could not believe it. Direct quote: "What kind of a freak is he?"

Is he cheap? That was the question that first popped up and by now we had several people involved in the conversation.

It was pointed out that he was raised non-religious and I added that I did not believe he had been baptized in his faith which I believe required it for what is termed "salvation." So we talked some more and the consensus was that Barack Obama is all for show to the American people and does not care enough about his religion or his daughters to celebrate a Christian holiday.

"I'm telling you, he's a freak," said one woman and everyone agreed.

I think that cover story is going to do a lot of damage to the image of him as "normal" and "just like you." I said I believed Jehovah Witnesses did not exchange gifts and, explaining I was Jewish, asked if that was true of Church of Christ? I was assured by all that this was not the case.

So who knows why Barack Obama does what he does? All this time later and who knows?

And this is the candidate the Democrats intend to hand the nomination to shortly?

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:



Friday, July 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Congressional hearings, BonusGate and more.

Starting with war resistance. "When we arrived Al Assad, this was April or the beginning of May 2003," declared Camilo Mejia, "and this is the very beginning of the occupation and this is when we were being told that we had to keep people on sleep deprivation, to psychological torture; the orders came from way up top. Actually the people who were in charge of running these camps were ghost agents, you know, working for the US government. And when the Abu Ghraib scandal came out they tried to tell the American public that, you know, this was an isolated event that had only began in November or December of 2003. And that it was the result of a few people, you know, who one day woke up and, you know, they were evil, when -- in reality, you know from -- from my experience, I can tell you that this was actually something that was coming from the very top and that happened from the very beginning and that it was not isolated to Abu Ghraib but that was happening elsewhere in Iraq from the very beginning of the occupation." Mejia was speaking on PBS two weekends ago and he continued, "Well in the military, we have what is called spooks. And these are people who are highly trained in counterinsurgency. They're highly trained in linguistics and interrogation and weapons systems and things like that. And they don't wear name tags. They don't wear Unit ID badges or anything like that. They . . . [use] pseudonyms and you know they don't respond to anybody in uniform. They -- they basically take their orders from -- from the very top. And they're -- they're untraceable and -- and obviously, you know, they can conduct themselves with absolute impunity. These were people who were giving the commands when we were there -- not our commanders, not the people who belonged to any unit, you know, but basically people with top secret clearance and, you know, who would never be held accountable for any of the things that happened."

The PBS program was
Foreign Exchange with Daljit Dhaliwal and Ava and I wrote about that appearance two weeks ago. (And have heard the complaints re: streaming, transcripts, DVDs, et al and we will be noting that in Sunday's TV commentary. But anyone using that link will quickly realize that they can't watch online.) When we noted it previously, we focused on Camilo's rejection of the illegal war. Camilo tell his story in Road to Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia and he is also the chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War. In terms of his place in the resistance of the Iraq War, he was the first Iraq War veteran to publicy oppose the illegal war. As noted earlier this week, "The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), an international human rights organization based in Cambridge, Mass., will be hosting a series of training sessions and workshops at the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association to be held from Wednesday, June 24 to Sunday, June 29, at the Fort Lauderdale Convention Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida." Mejia will be a speaker on June 25th as well as on June 28th. More information can be found here."

Though Meija never went Canada during his resisting while in the military, he has been a very vocal supporter and has joined many in calling on the Canadian government to grant safe harbor to US war resisters in Canada. To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor
the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

On Wednesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing entitled "VA's Response to the Needs of Returning Guard and Reserve Members" and the most interesting exchange took place at the end of the second panel in the last thirty minutes. The second panel was made up of Dr. Joseph Scotti (West Virginia University), Col Bradley Livinsgton (Director of the Joint Staff, Joint Force Headquarters, Montana National Guard), Lt Col John Boyd (Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Vermont Army National Guard), Sgt Roy Meredith (Team Leader Maryland Army National Guard) and Maj Cynthia Ramussen (RN, MSN, CANP Combat Stress Officer Sexual Assualt Response Coordinator 88th Regional Readiness Command).

Senator Jay Rockefeller: My first question would appear to be hostile but it's not. Why is it that everybody, but Dr. Scotti, had to say "I'm speaking personally not on behalf of the Reserve, the Guard or the Department of Defense? I really want to know that. Does that mean that they're afraid that you might tell the truth? Does that mean that they are embarrassed by what you might say because their culture is "everything always works and it always works right"? I'd like to know why you have to say that?

Col Bradley Livingston: Sir I might be able to address that because my testimony --

Sen Jay Rockefeller: You can't correct it because you said it --

Col Bradley Livingston: (Overlapping) Correct --

Sen Jay Rockefeller: you can explain it.

Col Bradley Livingston: Okay, I can explain it then. My testimony had not been vetted through DoD and so I --

Sen Jay Rockefeller: Well Isn't that a very good thing?

Col Bradley Livingston: Sir, . . . I was instructed that my testimony had to have that statement put on it, sir.

At "I was instucted," everyone burst into laughter including Livingston.

Sen Jay Rockefeller: You see, I can understand that I'm -- I've got so many questions, I don't even know where to begin. I can understand that if you're from the Department of Transportation. If you come back from the kind of experiences that you've all come back from your testimony, Major Rasmussen, probably was the best I've ever heard here and I've been on this committee for 24 years. I -- it just -- it just breeds a sense of suspicion. Not at you but in them. They got to be "right." You didn't vet it with them. Therefore, you're dangerous. You're telling the truth, you're telling the truth like few people ever do before this committee. One of the -- one of the problems in fact is that when -- when the VA and other people come before this committee we know that everything they've said has been vetted. So there's no real reason for us to listen particularly careful to them because we know that it's not necessarily what they think. You're telling us what you think. And therefore, you're real. You really help us. This is superb help to us just at the time that the whole care of veterans has become -- along with global warming -- one of the two top issues for the entire Congress because it's like we've suddenly rediscovered you. Our own guilt, our own mistake, regardless of political party or anything else going back over many years. And there are reasons for that but I won't go into them. It annoys me that you have to say that because it implies that if you didn't, you'd get in trouble. And that makes me angry.

We'll come back to the second panel but
Les Blumenthal (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on the first panel when the committee learned that the VA "failed to send benefit packages to nearly 37,000 National Guard and Reserve members" who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which had Senator Patty Murray pointing out, "While the VA has targeted outreach programs in place to help service members, we still miss far too many veterans who need help and aren't aware of the services and benefits they have earned." You may remember Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation in March. From the March 17th snapshot:

The panel on The Crisis in Veterans' Healthcare followed. Adrienne Kinee spoke on that panel and a correction to
Friday's snapshot: Kinne did not state that, "The best preventative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal wars"; she stated, "The best prevantative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal occupations in the first place." Kinne testified about serving in the military, discharging in 1998 and then enlisting again and discharging during the Iraq War. The differences she saw were immense. The first time she left the US military, she found a great deal of help and resources, people helped her with her paperwork, they advised her of her benefits and assisted her in a smoother transition to civilian life. By contrast, when she discharged during the Iraq War, she was provided no help, no assistance and something as simple as having a physical would require that she live on a base for four to six more weeks before the military would discharge her. There was no attempt made to explain the benefits available to veterans.

For any who missed
Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation -- which was broadcast live at IVAW's site, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA -- you can find archives at IVAW, War Comes Home and -- via KPFA -- here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz anchored Pacifica's live coverage.

But the point is, Congress keeps getting the same song and dance and the first panel was indicative of that. It's a problem Senator Murray has noted.
On Tuesday (link has text and video), she took to the Senate floor to address the issue of the suicide rates of troops and veterans:

Earlier this month, we lost a young man in my home state of Washington just hours after he sought care at the Spokane VA hospital. He was the sixth veteran in that community to take his own life this year. Now, the Spokane VA is investigating all six of those cases. I have also spoken to Secretary Peake. He has assured me that his team is also on the ground, taking a hard look to see what went wrong and what they can learn from the situation.
[. . .]
More than five years later, we should have the resources to treat the psychological wounds of war as well as we do the physical ones. But we don't. It is the duty of the VA and of a grateful nation to be prepared to care for their unique wounds. And in order to do that, we need strong leadership and attention to detail in Washington, D.C., Spokane, Washington, and everywhere in between. At the end of the day, this isn't about bureaucracy or protecting turf, it's about saving lives. We must make it a national priority to address this tragedy.

1-800-873-TALK is the VA's suicide prevention hotline, 24 hours. That was Tuesday. Back to Wednesday. "The military is a culture of its own," Maj Cynthia Rasmussen explained in her opening testimony. (
Click here for prepared remarks but that's nothing like what she delivered in her stated opening remarks.) Sen Rockefeller would single her out for praise and we'll note a portion of her opening testimony (again, it will not match up with the prepared remarks submitted prior to the hearing).


Maj Cynthia Rasmussen: Multiple competing tasks when a service member gets home cause confusion. We don't know how to think that way. We know how to be mission oriented. We receive an op order it tells us who, what, when, where, why and how -- basically. We don't get op orders when we get home five days after when we take the uniform off. Owen Rice -- who is a Hennepin County sherrif deputy in Hennepin County Jail has been to Iraq, Traumatic Brain Injury in Iraq -- says, "Ma'am it's like this: One person talks in the military and everyone else listens; when you get home: everyone talks, everyone listens and nobody hears." What I hear from soldiers across the country -- service members across the country: "Ma'am, it's too chaotic here. Please send me back where I know how to survive, I know how to function, I know how to do that." [. . .] Emotions and anger. In war, we control our emotions. Obviously, you would not want your warrior having their emotions out in the open anywhere. Plus we cannot accomplish a mission if we have different emotions going on. We numb out. Anger is useful. Anger is not only useful, anger is an awesome emotion. We want anger, we like anger we encourage it. Because it's the fight/flight response. It makes your body, your mind and everything about you be the best that you can be and accomplish the mission you need to accomplish. We encourage it, we live that way, we like to live that way. But guess what? When you take the uniform off, that anger that you've learned in practice and felt good about does not go away. It looks like this: Not talking about your emotions and being angry in war is a strength. It only leads to you can't talk about your emtions at home which is considered a weakness. We look insensitive to others when we get home. It's not that we're insensitive, it's that we have not practiced those emotions for a long time. Emotions take practice. We have a decreased ability to read other's emotions -- not because we don't care, not because we're cold hearted warriors, but because we haven't practiced that for a long time. This can lead to increased irritability and defensiveness because if you're spouse, you're mom, dad or someone accuses you of not caring anymore and not showing emotions. We're not going to say, 'Oh, yes, you're right thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I was unable to articulate that.' We're going to say, 'What are you talking about? That's not true.' We're going to get defensive -- as all of us would if someone siad that to us. It leads to increased alcohol and drug use to cover up our emotions. You know why? Not because we're warriors and we learned to do that. It is more socially acceptable in our society to go to the bar and have a few drinks or to sit home and slam down a case of beer with your friends or buddies then it is to raise your hand and say "I need help. I need medication. I need to talk to someone" -- not just in the military but across the board. In our program we work with all branches of the service and many VA and civilian organizations across the country. Despite this amazing comprehensive program, service members and families are still falling through the cracks. I had the honor and opportunity to speak to 150 Purple Heart National Service Officers at their training in Phoenix a few months ago. I received this note, handwritten, put it in my pocket and went back to my hotel room. And it read: "Ma'am, for the last three years I've been treated for PTSD by doctors, nurses and others that have no clue over what is being a soldier and have this feeling inside," this is a quote by the way, "I can't thank you enough for coming today. In the last two hours, you have done what nobody could have done: You make me feel normal again. That is a feeling that I thought I would never feel again since I was discharged from the army. Thank you and God bless." This was an Operation Iraqi vet from Puerto Rico, approximately 24-years-old. One final point I want to make. Not all issues with service members are about PTSD. We need to deal with the combat stress, the operational stress, those things I just talked to that are normal habits for all service members. When I spoke to the Purple Heart receipiants, a WWII vet raised his hand and started sobbing and said, "Where were you when I came home?" I had a Korean wife say to me last weekend, Battle Creek VA, if you had been around 40 years ago I would not be divorced from my husband who is a Korean vet because now I understand why we had all the problems we had. This isn't PTSD. This is a warrior taking his uniform off and trying to come home. We have operational stress, we have grief issues, we have lost a year or more in whatever life it was we thought we were going to have. We have depression, we have anger issues, we have PTSD, we have all king of issues. Please, please, please stop just calling it PTSD, I want to be called a combat vet coming home with some issues. Thank you.

Wednesday's snapshot covered Tuesday's House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing.
Dana Milbank (Washington Post) covered it in depth (and was noted in that day's snapshot) Talk Radio News Service provided a summary of the main points and that was it from the press. Today the New York Times makes that hearing their lead editorial (A18), entitled "Wounded Warriors, Empty Promises" and describes it as "the latest low moment for Army brass". From the editorial:

Under skepitcal questioning during a hearing in February, Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, told the subcomittee that "for all intents and pruposes, we are entirely staffed at the point we need to be staffed." He also said: "The Army's unwavering commitment and a key element of our warrior ethos is that we never leave a soldier behind on the battlefield -- or lost in a bureaucracy."
That was thousands of wounded, neglected soldiers ago. There are now about 12,500 soldiers assigned to the warrior transition units -- more than twice as many as a year ago. The number is expected to reach 20,000 by this time next year.
The nation's responsibility to care for the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan will extend for decades. After Tuesday's hearing, we are left pondering the simple questions asked at the outset by Representative Susan Davis, the California Democrat who is chairwoman of the military personnel subcommittee: Why did the Army fail to adequately staff its warrior transition units? Why did it fail to predict the surge in demand? And why did take visits from a Congressional subcommittee to prod the Army into recognizing and promising -- yet again -- to fix the problem?


Still on Congress and veterans,
Edward Colimore (Philadelphia Inquirer) reported on a Congressional bill 'addressing' stop-loss. Stop-loss is the (illegal) policy by which Bully Boy has extended service members' length of service. The service contract has been completed but instead of moving towards discharge, Bully Boy is claiming a national emergency and extending service. If the Iraq War has caused a "national emergency" for the United States, you certainly can't tell it by the tiny trickle of reporting on the Iraq War. So Congress has decided to 'address' it. By writing a law making clear how unlawful the policy is? No, by tossing out a few dollars at the problem -- "an additional $1,500 a month of extnded duty . . . retroactive to October 2001". If this is step-one, it's needed. It's past due. But if this is the 'fix,' it's not repairing anything. IVAW's Kristopher Goldsmith favors ending the illegal stop-loss and tells Colimore, "Instead of being a civilian again and starting my life, I was doing the polar opposite: putting on a unifoorm and returning to Iraq. I had come back with pretty severe PTSD and depression and was having panic attacks."

It's Friday. And Gidget's finishing up the World Salvation Tour so the press can't be bothered too much with Iraq. In the limited reports from Iraq . . .

Bombings?

Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers injured.

Shootings?

Reuters notes that 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Reuters notes that 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad.

Turning to US presidential politics and starting with Gidget the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. But don't tell his staff that. Apparently, selecting his shade of lip gloss tires them out. Which is why the Telegraph of London's
Toby Harnden (at RealClearPolitics) explains that Jim Steinberg got huffy with the press and started talking about how when he worked for another president (Bill Clinton), he never had to go on record with the press -- only to have the press remind Steinberg that Barack was not president. He's not even the nominee. But don't confuse them. Susan Rice -- lunatic and War Hawk -- was defending Barack Does Berlin and insisting he wasn't be political, "When the President of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally." Causing a reporter to shoot back, "But he is not President of the United States." It's all so confusing for the Cult. He's not even the nominee yet. Cedric and Wally weighed in on Ms. Minelli's Cabaret last night.

Ralph Nader is a presidential candidate, not a 'presumptive' one, an actual candidate for president. Stealing from
Marcia yesterday, "Ruth (Ruth's Report) has been covering it, Kat [Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills) ] has been covering it, Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz) has been covering it, Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude ) has been covering it. C.I. (The Common Ills) has covered it over and over and Third Estate Sunday Review has covered it." She had noted Mike in the previous paragraphs but he's covered BonusGate as well. BonusGate, where at least 50 Democrats conspired to keep Ralph Nader off the state's ballot in the 2004 eleciton. John L. Micek (The Morning Call) explains that Pennsylvania's AG Tom Corbett was "armed with a 74-page grand jury presentation two weeks ago, alleged that Democratic House employees worked to challenge the 51,273 signatures Nader and running mate Peter Camejo had gathered for access to the 2004 presidential ballot. A dozen former and current House Democratic lawmakers and employees face theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, partly for their alleged role in derailing Nader's campaign." Nader held a news conference on the issue yesterday. Charles Thompson (The Patriot-News) reports "Nader wants relief from an $81,102 penalty for legal costs following court battles over his presidential nomination petition in 2004. He said he will file a challenge with the state Supreme Court. Nader said those damages should be dropped in light of criminal charges brought this month" and quotes Nader stating, "This was one of the most fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated on Pennsylvania voters." Amy Worden (Philadelphia Inquirer) quotes him stating, "According to the grand jury, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, resources and state employees were illegally used for political campaign purposes -- including to remove the Nader-Camejo ticket from the ballot." Alex Roarty (Politicker) reported yesterday, ""House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D-Greene County), law firms and the country's 'corrupt' two-party system -- each were warned Wednesday by Ralph Nader that the ongoing 'Bonusgate' investigations will reveal their rampant political corruption." Surprisingly, "Democracy" "Now" can't be bothered with this story. While addressing all of that, Nader's still running a presidential campaign and Nader and Matt Gonzalez are on the move all weekend. From Team Nader:

We need gas money.
Why?
Starting today, Ralph Nader is on the road again.
This time campaigning through the South and then out West.
Over the next two weeks, Ralph will be in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Utah and up and down California.
His VP, Matt Gonazalez, will be joining Ralph on the campaign trail starting in Texas.
Check out the schedule below.
If you are in the neighborhood, come on out to hear and meet Ralph and Matt.
With both Obama and McCain saber rattling over Iran, the Nader/Gonzalez message of peace through justice is now more important than ever.
If your friends or relatives in the neighborhood, give them a shout and let them know.
But right now,
we need gas money to fuel Ralph's South and West Coast Tour.
We've rented a car.
Gas prices are high.
And Ralph is on the move.
So, please donate
whatever you can now to fill up our tank.
You can give up to $4,600.
But $500, $100, $50 - whatever you can donate is what we need.
Help us fill 'er up.
So we can get 'er done.
Onward.
The Nader Team
Ralph Nader's Tour of the South and West
Friday July 25, 2008 5:30 p.m. Athens, GeorgiaNader for President 2008 RallyUniversity of Georgia, Georgia Center- "Masters Hall" 1127 South Lumpkin St. Athens, GA 30602Contribution- $10/ $5 student(404) 446-7093 or
events@votenader.org
Friday July 25, 2008 8 p.m.Atlanta, GeorgiaEvening with RalphSuggested Contribution $100 minRSVP (202) 471-5833
Saturday July 26, 2008, 6 p.m.Jackson, MississippiBook Signing/ SpeechLemuria Bookstore202 Banner Hall- I-55 North Jackson, MS 39206(601) 842-6769 or
events@votenader.org
Saturday July 26, 2008 8:00 p.m.Jackson, MississippiEvening with Ralph NaderRSVP (202) 471-5833Suggested Contribution $50
Sunday July 27, 2008 2:00 p.m.Houston, TexasRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezHilton University of Houston4800 Calhoun Suite 207, Houston, TX77204Contribution- $10/$5 student(202) 471-5833 or
events@votenader.org
Sunday July 27, 2008 7:30 p.m.Austin, TexasRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezTrinity United Methodist Church600 East 50th St. Austin, TX 78751Contribution $10/$5 student(202) 471-5833 or
events@votenader.org
Thursday July 31, 2008 7:30pmSalt Lake City, UtahNader for President 2008 Rally w/ Rocky AndersonLibby Gardner Concert Hall1375 E President Circle, Salt Lake UT Contribution-$10/ $5 students(801) 916-6307 or
ashley@votenader.rog
Saturday, August 2, 2008, 8:00 p.m. Davis, CaliforniaNader for President 2008 Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezVarsity Theater616 Second StreetDavis, CA 95616Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or
events@votenader.orgSunday August 3, 1:30 p.m.Sebastopol, CaliforniaNader for President SpeechRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezSebastopol Community Center390 Morris St., Sebastopol, California 95472Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
August 3, 2008, 4:30pmHealdsburg, CaliforniaNader for President SpeechRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezCopperfield's books104 Matheson St., Healdsburg, California 95448Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or
events@votenader.orgAugust 3, 7:30 p.m.Kentfield, CaliforniaNader for President 2008 Speech in MarinRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezCollege of Marin- Olney Hall835 College Ave., Kentfield, CaliforniaContribution: $10/ $5 studentsMore Info: (415) 897-6989 or events@votenader.org
PS: We invite your comments to the blog.

NOW on PBS (begins airing tonight in most markets) sits down with John Edwards to discuss the troubles facing families across the country, some struggle to make it in single parent homes, for example. Bill Moyers Journal explores torture (among other topics) and Jane Mayer is a guest. BMJ's Michael Winship files an editorial on torture, "The Company We Keep:"

The administration remains in denial. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee, "I don't know of any acts of torture that have been committed by individuals in developing information," he said. "So I would not certainly make an assumption. I would attribute the absence of an attack [since 9/11] at least in part, because there have been specific attacks that have been disrupted, to the excellent work and the dedication and commitment of people whose lives are dedicated to defending the country. Interrogators have used enhanced interrogation techniques but they haven't used torture." Grim hairsplitting. This week, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act suit, the ACLU received a heavily redacted copy of an infamous August 2, 2002 memo, signed by then-head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee and written with his subordinate, the equally infamous John Yoo. "An individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," it reads. "… The absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture… We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent." Jameel Jaffer, head of the ACLU's national security project told Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, "Imagine that in an ordinary criminal prosecution a bank robber tortures a bank manager to get the combination to a vault. He argues that the torture was not to inflict pain, but to get the combination. Every torturer has a reason other than to cause pain. If you're going to let people off the hook for an intention other than to cause pain, you're not going to be able to prosecute anyone for torture." Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional scholar and human rights lawyer who has spent time at Guantanamo monitoring conditions there, testified to Congress that, "As of 2006, there had been more than 330 cases in which U.S. military and civilian personnel have, incredibly, alleged to have abused or killed detainees. This figure is based almost entirely on the U.S. government's own documentation. These cases involved more than 600 U.S. personnel and more than 460 detainees held at U.S. facilities throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. They included some l00-plus detainees who died in U.S. custody, including 34 whose deaths the Defense Department reports as homicides. At least eight of these detainees were, by any definition of the term, tortured to death."

More is online at
Bill Moyers Journal where you can watch, listen or read (transcripts) and BMJ never forgets to serve all communities and remembers public television's key word is "public." On Washington Week, Gwen and the Gas Bags jaw over the non-news. Helene Cooper (New York Times) is the only one qualified to address the international scene so expect a lot of snorts, bromides and tidbits from the rest.


iraq
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
aaron glantz
kpfa
aimee allison
david solnit
daniel barlowles blumenthalamy wordenwashington weekpbsbill moyer journal
jane mayernow on pbshelene cooper
dana milbank
the washington post
like maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlz

Thursday, July 24, 2008

BallotGate

Starting off with this from David Spett's "Nader asks state to waive legal fees for 2004 ballot removal" (Post-Gazette):



It is "inconceivable" that state House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese was not aware of bonuses paid to state employees for Democratic campaign work, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader said at a news conference yesterday.
In a presentment that named 12 state elected or appointed officials, the state attorney general alleged that one project the staffers were involved in was getting Mr. Nader off the 2004 presidential ballot in Pennsylvania. He was removed for having improper signatures on nominating petitions and ordered to pay more than $81,000 in legal costs, which yesterday he asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider in light of the illegal campaigning by state employees.



Maybe I dreamed it but I thought we were covering BonusGate in this community? I thought about six or seven of us were covering it, in fact. But apparently, a Green party person (not a community member) missed that for the last weeks. So busy was she suddenly realizing it might help her candidate (Cynthia McKinney) that she showed up screaming for C.I. to cover it. Insisting C.I. cover it.

Not only has C.I. covered it, we pretty much all have.

I love how this woman who had a hissy fit when Ralph Nader announced he would not seek the Green Party nomination, now wants to try to piggy-back her party onto this story.

This is reality: C.I. is too nice. When I first started doing reports for The Common Ills, I would get e-mails asking me to cover this or that (no one ever told me to cover anything) and C.I. would always tell me to write about what I wanted to. C.I. does not do that. C.I. will write about what others need written about.

That should really only extend to the community. It should not be extended to people outside the community because they take without ever giving back.

So I am a little outraged that some non-member thought she could play Perry White to C.I.'s Lois Lane and order coverage.

I also think you have to be really stupid to order someone -- period. But if you are going to try to order them to do something, it would probably be wise to check first to see if they are already covering it.

BonusGate is the scandal of 2004 that only came to light last month. It was suspected (I would say known) but the proof only came out last month. Democrats working for the state of Pennsylvania conspired (and use state time) to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania. This is from Eric Veronikis' "Nader to ask Pa. Supreme Court to reopen decision" (Business Journal):




Ralph Nader stopped by the state Capitol this afternoon to announce he will ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reopen its 2006 decision against him. Nader today filed a lengthy complaint with the Federal Election Commission and plans to file another with the U.S. Department of Justice, he said.The decision forces Nader to pay litigation fees amassed in a challenge to keep him off the presidential ballot in the commonwealth in 2004. Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo submitted nomination papers as independent candidates for president and vice president, respectively, in 2004.


It was conspiracy. It may have been fraud as well (I am not a lawyer) since this was a court case and Democrats obviously lied. If someone wants to scream that this needs to be covered, try e-mailing Amy Goodman. She has avoided this story for months. She had Mr. Nader on months ago speaking about it. There is now proof and she has not even made time for that in headlines.




This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:


Thursday, July 24, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, a 'milestone' is reached (and only CNN catches it), another reported suicide bombing in Diyala Province as a 'crackdown' approaches, Nancy Pelosi reveals she never really cared about ending the illegal war, and more.

Starting with war resistance.
Last week, US war resister Robin Long was extradited from Canada. Nanthaniel Hoffman (Boise Weekly) reports, "Long was escorted back to his Army unit at Fort Carson, Colo., on July 18 and promptly went before a magistrate judge. He faces charges of desertion, and is being held at the jail in Colorado Springs because there is no detention facility at Fort Carson, according to Army spokesperson Brandy Gill." Hoffman also steers readers to Rachael Daigle's interview with Robin in 2006. In that interview he spoke of many things including CO status, "I tried to get conscientious objector status but my first sergeant told me he couldn't find the forms to apply and he didn't feel like looking for them. I didn't know about conscientious objector status until a month before I got orders and that was when I first tried to do it. Shortly after that, I got orders so I never really got a chance to apply for it." Again, Robin was extradited and became the first US war resister ejected from Canada during the Iraq War. Others are attempting to be awarded safe harbor in Canada. "A plea from Vietnam war resisters to let Iraq resisters stay in Canada" (Owen Sound Sun Times) is a letter where past war resisters show solidarity with today's war resisters:

Almost 40 years ago, being young and idealistic, we came to this beautiful country to escape the demands that the U. S. military and government were placing on its citizens and society. We knew little of the country we came to but soon learned how important it was that people in Canada cared to help U. S. conscientious objectors. In 1968, with the help of the Mennonite, Quaker and United Church communities, the Canadian government agreed to allow U. S. deserters and draft evaders to stay in Canada and not be forced to return. This is not true for the current illegal Iraq war, where the Americans continue to send troops. There are hundreds of American Iraq war resisters in Canada. In spite of the fact that a majority of Parliament voted to allow the resisters to stay, the Conservative Harper government has stated that resisters will be deported and returned to the United States to face prosecution. Only Harper's Conservatives are supporting this deportation, but they get to decide. While this small deportation may look unimportant to most Canadians, Vietnam era immigrants remember the feeling of arriving in a country that If we help them stay, they will contribute their efforts to Canada as we did then and they will remember your kindness as we do now cared about its citizens; a country that believed in aspiring to fairness and justice.We know that most Canadians do not agree with Prime Minister Harper's order for deportation -- recent national polls indicate that 64 per cent of Canadians support granting permanent residency to U. S. war resisters -- and we also know that Harper is not about to change without significant pressure. We ask that you remember and recognize the value that Vietnam war resisters brought to this country over the last 40 years and that you recognize the same potential in these new young U. S. resisters asking for the same opportunity.
If we help them stay, they will contribute their efforts to Canada as we did then and they will remember your kindness as we do now. Please contact your local MP, Prime Minister Harper, Immigration Minister Diane Finley and Public Security Minister Stockwell Day to add your voices to the many other Canadians who are saying "let war resisters stay." Andrew Armitage, Leigh
andrew@apropos.ca Tim Hill, Owen Sound thill@bmts.comDonald Holman, Traverston, zetlin@bmts.comRobert Hope, Owen Sound bob@rbhope.caTerri Hope, Owen Sound terri@rbhope.caTony McQuail, Lucknow mcqufarm@hurontel. on.ca Elizabeth Zetlin, Traverston, zetlin@bmts.com

Kimberly Rivera is a US war resister and Iraq War veteran in Canada -- with her husband Mario and their two children (soon to be joined by a third). Will DiNovi wrote about her in one of those 'online exclusives' at The Nation. (Not an insult to DiNovi.) Link goes to CBS News. 26-year-old Kimberly Rivera is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas. After serving in Iraq, she returned home for a brief leave and tells DiNovi, "I was really messed up when I got back, with feelings I'd never had before. Sometimes I just got angry, just completely explosive." She and her husband originally headed east with no real plan on her part (Mario had already brought up Canada) before they ended up in Canada.

Kimberly and her family were unprepared for some of the hardships they experienced in Canada, but also for the support they received. The War Resisters campaign arranged housing for the Riveras with a family in a suburb of Toronto when they first arrived, and three months later helped them move into their own apartment. It took eight months for Kimberly and Mario's work permits to be processed, and during that time they relied on the assistance of the War Resisters campaign and made trips to the local food bank every Thursday. Now, as refugee claimants, they can work legally and receive healthcare benefits. After a part-time stint at a photo-shop, Kimberly is working five days a week at a bakery, putting in shifts from 2 until 10 in the morning. Mario does occasional computer assembly work and is searching for part-time jobs. Though money is tight, their schedules allow them to be with their 5-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter at all times. Kimberly's experience has also made her more engaged politically. She directly petitioned her Member of Parliament to stop the food bank her family had relied on from closing down, and now regularly attends the War Resisters campaign meetings and rallies. "I don't like the attention," she says, but "I do it because I feel like there's a story that needs to be told." Kimberly will have her pre-removal risk assessment hearing on July 23 and may face deportation as early as this fall. After learning this month that she is pregnant with her third child, her desire to stay in Canada is stronger than ever.

At her own site, Kimberly often blogs about her experiences and shares her poetry. In April,
she began one post, "I guess the hardest thing for people to understand is the reason you joing the military is not the reason you leave it. Not knowing the truth. Your basic role as a sodlier being invalidated, finding out your job has no meaning. No reason." In a poem that fellow US war resister in Canada Patrick Hart should put to music, Kimberly explains:

I was fighting your kind for killing my kind.
I was fighting to find weapons that could wipe out large populations of peace.
I was fighting to free you from the bad men, that harmed you and your family.
I was fighting for your liberty.
I was fighting for peace.
I was fighting to keep my family safe from you and your family.
But in reality I was fighting to destroy everything you know and love.

The end of that poem is, "Canada I am here will you take the time and the heart to understand what I am now fight for, with words and not a gun."

To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor
the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to the US, last week US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealed that Congress could have ended the illegal war when the Democrats took control of both houses after the November 2006 elections . . . if they'd wanted to. Though it was reported on, no one seems to have caught it. Pelosi has offered a number of excuses ("we don't have the votes" and It's-the-Senate's fault being among her more popular ones). Any funding measure for the illegal war could have been filibustered as former US Senator Mike Gravel repeatedly pointed out but the simple truth is that as House Speaker, anything Nancy Pelosi didn't want to come to a vote, didn't have to come to one.
Carl Hulse's report in the New York Times was buried on A15. Maybe that's why people didn't notice? Or maybe they were stunned by the 1987 photo of Pelosi that ran with it? Or maybe it was Hulse violating the rules of newspaper journalism by opening with backstory (1987) instead of offering "Yesterday" in the lede or anywhere early on. In his fifth paragraph, he finally got around to today and quoted Pelosi in paragraph six stating, "The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore. That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it." After which, Hulse noted, "Her voice carries considerable weight because Ms. Pelosi, who is now House speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor." Yes, she could, but, no, she wouldn't. (For the record, I'm opposed to offshore drilling and opposed to it because of the ecological damage. Pelosi, for the record, is opposed to it because her donating base doesn't want to see their property values drop -- an ocean-front property decreases in value when the view is of a drilling rig.) The same need to take action she feels on offshore drilling never applied to the illegal war. But Pelosi always had the power to end the illegal war by burying any funding proposal and refusing to let it come to the floor. But she would have been up against the White House! And Republicans in the House! And she is now. Somethings matter to her, somethings do not.

As the number of dead and wounded pile up, that needs to be remembered. Today
Sabrina Tavernise and Riyadh Muhammad (New York Times) report "Arkan al-Naimi, the son of the editor in chief of the weekly newspaper Sound of Villages, was accidentally shot dead by American soldiers on Wednesday, when he failed to stop his car after a convoy of Humvees pulled out in front of him" according to Kirkuk police officer Capt Mahmou al-Bayati. On Sunday, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "An American Special Force raided the residence of Khalaf Issa Turk in al-Asri neighbourhood, Baiji at dawn, Sunday and opened fire upon Husam Hamed Hmoud al-Qaissi, son of the Governor of Salahuddin Province while he was asleep in the guest room and also opened fire upon Auday Khalaf Issa al-Qaissi, his cousin killing them both, and detained two others without giving any explanation, said a security source in Salahuddin Province. The American military said its forces shot two armed men during a raid because they felt they had 'hostile intent'. The statement added that the forces also injured and captured an al-Qaida financer during the operation." Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Ali Hammed (New York Times) covered the shooting noting that the death had Hamed al-Qaisi, father and uncle of the dead and governor of Salahuddin Province, making noises about resigning and that the treaty the White House wants with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki already has a "contentious sticking point . . . an Iraqi demand that American troops no longer be immune from Iraqi criminal laws, an ultimatum that Iraqi officials say has been spurred by unwarranted attacks on civilians." There is talk in the local government of other such shootings (at least two) and the version from the governor's side is that "American Special Operation forces broke into a house at 3 a.m. and fatally shot the governor's 17-year-old son, Hussam. Maj. Muthanna Ibrahim, a spokesman for the governor, said Hussam was shot in his head, stomach and shoulder while he slept. Hussam's 23-year-old cousin, Uday Khalaf, awoke and tried to push open the door to Hussam's room, but he was also shot and killed by the American troops, Major Ibrahim said. The house is owned by Hussam's aunt".

Meanwhile,
AFP reports that northern Iraq was bombed last night by Turkish planes. BBC points out, "Wednesday's attacks, in the Zap region, were the latest in a series carried out by Turkey since it intensified operations at the end of last year." Hurriyet asserts "13 outlawed PKK targes" were hit according to the Turkish military. AFP notes the PKK asserts they "did not suffer any losses in the bombing".

In Diayala Province today, a Baquba bombing claimed multiple lives.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that a woman "wearing an explosive belt targeted an Awakening Council Commander" and blew her self up and also claimed the life of the 'commander' Naeem al-Dulaimi, 2 of his guards and 4 people with twenty more wounded. CBS and AP report that the death toll climbed to 8 (not counting the woman wearing the explosive belt) and note that, "Last week, double suicide bombings killed 28 army recruits outside a military base in Diyala." AFP points out, "It was in Diyala that the phenomenon of women suicide bombers first appeared." CNN estimates, "There have been about two dozen female suicide bombings in Iraq. The bulk of them have been in Diyala -- an ethnically mixed province."

Tuesday's snapshot noted that the 'crackdown' (assualt and slaughter) on Diyala Province is suppoed to begin August 1st. As Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) points out, the bill for provincial elections is now buried by the Iraqi presidential council. That means the 'planned' and 'announced' provincial elections may not take place in October, may not take place this year. The March 'crackdown' on Basra saw peaceful protests as well as violent ones break out across Iraq and Moqtada al-Sadr is thought to have calmed that -- and to do have done so with an eye on the then-upcoming elections. The assualt on Diyala may see reactions similar to those that broke out during the Basra assault. Nicholas Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Some members of the Sunni Awakening, tribesman paid by the United States to fight al Qaida Iraq, are fleeing. 'They think the security plan will target them after the insurgents,' Mulla Sh'hab Alsafi, leader of one local Awakening group, told McClatchy. Diyala, home to Kurds, Arab Sunni and Shiites, is one of the most ethnically and religiously mixed provinces in Iraq. Rich in agriculture, it's likely to be hotly contested in the upcoming provinical elections".

In some of today's other reported violence . . .
Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Abudlrahman Mohammed Dawood ("Dawa Party member") was wounding in a roadside bombing (apparently targeting him) as were two of his bodyguards and a Mosul car bombing that killed the driver and 2 Iraqi soldiers with an additional two left wounded.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 members of the "Awakening" Council were shot dead at a checkpoint in Baghdad by unknown assailants. Reuters notes 1 teenager was shot dead by the US military in Kirkuk and 1 US service member was wounded.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes that 2 corpses were discovered in Yusufiya and 3 corpses were discovered in Mosul.


Last week, the
US Defense Department noted, "Tech. Sgt. Jackie L. Larsen, 37, of Tacoma, Wash., died of natural causes July 17 at Balad Air Base, Iraq. She was assigned to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing, Beale Air Force Base, Calif." CNN reports Larsen is the 100 female US service member to die Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Michael Gilbert (The News Tribune) noted, according to Beale Air Force Base, that "Larsen was from Tacoma but was originally from the Philippines. She joined the Air Force in 1990. At Beale she was the lead noncommissioned officer in the base legal department. She is survived by her mother and her husband, an active-duty airman also stationed at Beale".

Staying on the topic of women in the military,
Sherry Jones (WeNews) reports that a "disproportionate number" of discharges (firings) for being gay are falling on women and that: "In fiscal 2006, women made up 17 percent of the Army but 35 percent of discharges under the 'don't ask' law. One year later, women were 15 percent of Army members, yet discharges of women increased to 45 percent of the total." And Jones' report notes that straight women are also effected and often targeted as lesbians by others who want them out of the service. Marcia covered that aspect last month when Thom Shanker (New York Times) reported the figures for the Air Force were women making up 20% of the personnel but 49% of the dischares under Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. As Marcia noted then, "I should probably also point out that the ones kicked out aren't necessarily lesbians. Or even bi-sexual. It can be a straight woman just as easily. All it takes is some whispers. Which is why straight people should be against sexual closets as much as the LGBT community (or the parts of the LGBT community that have pride in themselves)." Staying on the topic of women in the military, IVAW's Jen Hogg wrote a column for Women's Media Center about the realities for women serving in the military: "Imagine if those flashy recruiting commercials showed the real dangers a woman can face while serving in the military, living her formative years in a hazardous work environment where racism and homophobia are tolerated for the sake of 'getting by' and sexual harassment goes unreported so you don't 'ruin his career.' All this while women work twice as hard to prove themselves as soldiers -- more than just a 'bitch,' 'dyke,' 'whore'." She covers women murdered in Iraq by men they served with such as Kamish Black and Lavena Johnson (I'm saying Lavena was murdered, to be clear, not Hogg) and the unexplained suicide of Tina Priest after she reported rape. Hogg is a co-founder of SWAN -- Service Womens Action Network.

Turning to the US race for president.
Allison Stevens (WeNews) is wrong that Barack Obama has won the Democratic Party's nomination. No one has. The convention has not yet been held. He is the 'presumptive' nominee. Stevens quotes Hillary supporter Marj Singer (president of the Virigina chapter of NOW) explaining that this talk of Barack going with one of his 'female' 'friends' doesn't mean s**t to her, "It's not enough to say, 'Oh, whoop-de-do, we'll get somebody else with a vagina. We were not doing this because she was a woman. We were doing this because she was fantastic on our issues" -- and then Marj Singer points out Senator Clinton and Senator Patty Murray taking action to stop the White House's attempts to place birth control under "the definition of abortion" with Singer stating, "There's just a feeling of, 'We really put a lot of energy into this and we got a bad deal. People are just saying, 'Maybe we just shouldn't vote this time'." Then it's time to trot out Nancy Pelosi who (wrongly) thinks she can speak to the 'girls' and get 'em in line. Having refused to call out sexism (by the media, by the Obama campaign and by his Cult) throughout the 2008 primary, no one gives a damn what Nancy Pelosi has to say. As noted, Barack isn't the nominee of anything at this point. The Denver Group is attempting to bring democracy to the DNC convention in Denver. PUMA and Just Say No Deal are two other groups that are not going to fall in line no matter how many times Nancy Pelosi thinks her tired ass has any weight at this late date. Staying with women, Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente (McKinney is the Green party presidential nominee, Clemente is her running mate) are not the first women of color ticket in a US presidential race. Amy Goodman repeated that nonsense on Monday (and we called it out Monday -- and Jim did with the note he added to my morning entry) and has refused to correct it. As noted in the July 11th snapshot and many times since: " What About Our Daughters? explains that, if McKinney is the nominee, this is the third time two women of color would be on the ticket with the first being Lenora Fulani and Maria Elizabeth Munoz in 1992 (New Alliance Party) and Monica Moorehead and Gloria La Riva (Workers World Party) in 1996." Workers World Party confirmed to Martha this week that, yes, Moorehead and La Riva were women of color and also noted that the party's publication (Workers World) has endorsed a presidential candidate for this election: "This time we are taking the unusual step of endorsing the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney because these are unique times and this is a unique candidate. McKinney, a courageous Black woman and former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, has become one of the most militant leaders and voices for the U.S. left, progressive and Black movements. Because of her militancy in the struggle against the war, the struggle to impeach Bush, as well as her struggle to expose the government's role in the displacement of survivors of Hurricane Katrina, she was branded too Black and too radical to walk the halls of Congress. She was pushed out, not once but twice, by the leadership of the Democratic Party. Last year, McKinney severed her ties to that party."

Turning to Barack,
Jarrett (In These Times) points out that former US Secretary of State Colin Powell is advising Barack and wonders, "Where were the rest of the media on the fact that Obama, the candidate 'who was against the war from the start,' is 'wooing' one of the worst offenders responsible for the start of the Iraq War? Why wasn't this striking hypocrisy reported far and wide, turned over, and analyzed ad nauseum? Oh, that's right, because The New Yorker published a cartoon." Barack loves Collie! Blot and all! But that's the War Hawk Barack for you. As Bob Feldman reminds, Barack also voted to confirm the present Sec of State, Condi Rice.

Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent candidate.
Team Nader notes:

Drop fifteen dollars now on Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
We now enter the most difficult and challenging ballot access stretch of the campaign.
We need to get on fifteen more states in fifteen days.
Last month, we laid out an ambitious ballot access plan.
Thanks to you, we have met stages one and two on time and on schedule.
Now, on to stage three -- 15 more states, a total of 30 states, by August 10 -- on our way to 45 states by September 15.
And we need to raise $100,000 by August 10 to fuel that drive and push us over the $2 million mark for the campaign.
Why is it important to put Ralph Nader on the ballot -- and get him into the Presidential debates this fall?
For one, because Nader is the only candidate who would take the bombing of Iran "off the table."
As Obama made clear yesterday in Israel, he's keeping the military option against Iran "on the table."
As would McCain.
And if you doubt the seriousness of the situation, check out Israeli historian Benny Morris'
recent Op-Ed in the New York Times in which he predicts that Israel will bomb Iran within four to seven months.
Cooler heads must prevail.
While McCain and Obama are fueling the Israeli drive to bomb Iran, even some of their own advisors are warning about the disastrous consequences of such a policy.
Yesterday, Brent Scowcroft
told the Israelis to "calm down" and Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said the "all options on the table" talk was "counterproductive." Brzezinski said he would tell Israel "don't do it."
That's of course why we need the strong Nader/Gonzalez off the table voice in the debates.
And the chances improve as we continue to poll at or above five percent -- see yesterday's NBC/WSJ poll
here.
This was the third major poll putting us at five percent and above. (Remember, John Anderson and Ross Perot both got into Presidential debates because they met the then threshold of five percent.)
So, please, we need 1,000 of you, our loyal supporters, to
hit the button now and contribute $15 each to kick off our drive to get to 30 states.
How will your generous donations help us on the ground?
Think about the more than 50 young at heart, dedicated road trippers working 10 and 12 hours, day after day -- working through blazing hot summer afternoons, ducking under covered awnings during heavy thunderstorms, and bringing the Nader/Gonzalez message to thousands of voters state by state.
We need your $15 donation to help buy gas for their rental cars, feed them, and help pay for thousands of photo copies.
We need your $15 donation to help buy Greyhound bus tickets, Amtrak tickets and airplane tickets.
Of course, we're always looking for one or two angels willing to max out and cover the "filing fees" -- like the one in West Virginia that will cost us $2,500.
How badly and urgently do we need your help?
Our New Hampshire crew needs to collect 4,000 signatures in 10 days -- that's 400 a day.
In Maine, starting Saturday, our crew has 12 days to collect 5,000 signatures.
Our people in Ralph's home state of Connecticut need to collect more than 700 signatures a day over the next 13 days.
In South Dakota, we need 1,500 signatures 10 days.
In Wyoming, we need 2,000 more signatures in 10 days.
In Virginia, we need to collect 600 signatures a day over the next couple of weeks.
In the Buckeye State, our Ohio crew needs to collect 11,000 signatures in the next couple of weeks -- 350 to 400 a day.
In short, our backs are up against the wall.
And the best way you can help get us on the ballot is to
donate $15 now.
Help us lift off toward the debates in November.
Thank you for your generous support.
Together, we are shaking it up.
Onward

iraq
kimberly rivera
carl hulse
nicholas spanglermcclatchy newspapersamit r. paleythe washington postthe new york timessabrina tavernisejim galloway
the denver grouppumajust say no deal

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The housing scandal, Ralph Nader

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The approved cover"



ny3





I found this press release at MarketWatch:



Senator Chris Dodd
U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
448 Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510
Congressman Barney Frank
House Committee on Financial Services
2252 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank:
I write today to suggest that you jointly hold hearings on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's ability to deal with potential bank failures in the next several years.
In a March 10, 2008 memorandum on insurance assessment rates, Arthur J. Murton, Director of the Division of Insurance and Research for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) stated:
While 99 percent of insured institutions meet the "well capitalized" criteria, the possibility remains that the fund could suffer insurance losses that are significantly higher than anticipated. The U.S. economy and the banking sector currently face a significant amount of uncertainty from ongoing housing sector problems, financial market turbulence and potentially weak prospects for consumer spending. These problems could lead to significantly higher loan losses and weaker earnings for insured institutions.
Indeed, the recent failure of IndyMac highlights the need for tough Congressional oversight. Banking experts have indicated that the cost of the collapse of IndyMac alone will be between $4 billion and $8 billion. The FDIC has approximately $53 billion on hand to deal with bank failures. This amount may not be adequate given the cost of IndyMac and given the approximately $4 trillion in deposits the FDIC insures.
Several questions should be presented to FDIC officials such as:
1. Was IndyMac on the list of "Problem Institutions" before it failed?
2. Were the other banks that failed this year on the FDIC list of "Problem Institutions"?
3. What is the anticipated cost of dealing with the failures of the other four banks that failed this year?
4. As of March 31, 2008 the FDIC reported 90 "Problem Institutions" with assets of $26 billion. What is the current number of "Problem Institutions" and what are the assets of these "Problem Institutions"?
5. How many banks are likely to fail in 2008 and 2009 respectively?
6. What is the estimated range of costs of dealing with the projected failures?
7. What will the effect of higher losses than those projected be on the FDIC's estimate of the proper reserve ratio?
8. What are the FDIC's projections for reserves needed and potential bank failures beyond 2009?
9. Is the FDIC resisting raising the current rates of assessments on FDIC insured banks so that the cost of any significant bailouts will have to be shifted to the taxpayers?
10. Does the Government Accountability Office (GAO) believe that the existing rate schedule for the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) is set at the proper level?
The Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 requires the FDIC to set a Designated Reserve Ratio (DRR) for the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). This law also eliminated the fixed DRR of 1.25 percent of insured deposits and allows FDIC to set the DRR within a range between 1.15 percent and 1.50 percent. It is time to for Congress to revisit the FDIC's current approach to setting reserve ratios.
The FDIC is not likely to address its own inability to clearly assess the current risks posed to depositors and taxpayers by the high-rolling banking industry.
I hope you hold hearings sooner rather than later on this important matter. I have attached a column I wrote on March 2, 2002 titled: "FDIC Insurance Scam" for your review.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader P.O. Box 19312 Washington, DC 20036
cc: Sheila C. Bair, Chairman Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
March 2, 2002, FDIC Insurance Scam By Ralph Nader:
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/327-FDIC-Insurance-Scam.html
SOURCE Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate
http://www.nader.org/



You might think that this would be something Danny Schechter would mention at his site but I would not hold my breath on that. He seems unaware -- from week to week -- how up to the neck in the housing scandal/crime that Team Obama was.

What is so amazing about the housing scandal is that Congress still refuses to do anything on it. There is talk of some rebate check -- as though that helps anyone. If you have already lost your home, it is not doing any good for you to get a rebate check. The scandal is quickly being covered up and the guilty are getting away.

Congress should have held high profile hearings on this months ago. But the money makers are not unknown to Congress. A number of them support Republicans regularly and a number of them gave a great deal of money to Barack Obama's campaign.

Then you have the people like Senator Dodd and Senator Kent Conrad who got breaks in rate from the very companies that ripped the people off. That is why the scandal has resulted in no serious probes and that is why we need someone not corrupted by the party machinery to be president. Ralph Nader is the choice for the people.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:


Wednesday, July 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Talabani says "NO!" to elections this year, the US Congress stages a feel-good session for the US army, and more.

Starting with war resistance. In June 2006, Lt
Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the illegal war. Since Judge Benjamin Settle ruled last November that the US military could not attempt a second (kanagroo) court-martial of Watada while the double-jeopardy issue remains, he has been in limbo. In a grab-bag column about a number of topics, Christina Clark (Nebraksa's Gateway) mentions Watada while discussing how the Iraq War is illegal: "Bush did not receive permission from the United Nations to invade Iraq. In September 2004, then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that the war was 'not in conformity with the U.N. Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal.' A number of military personnel, most notably 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, have refused to serve in the war because they consider it 'illegal' and have been court marshaled as a result." As Rebecca noted of Watada last Friday, "the contract expired in 2006. it's time for the military to release him. instead they keep him in the military and he has to report for duty on the base every day."

Meanwhile
Chris Vanderveen (9 News Denver) reports that the War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky has gone to Colorado to show his support for US war resister Robin Long who was extradited from Canada last Tuesday and states of Robin being expelled, "(Canadians) are very distressed by this. This is going against the tradition we have in our country." Meanwhile Angela Giles (The Chronicle Herald) argues for war resisters' right to remain in Canada and notes, "They have a higher obligation to international law than their 'duty' to just follow orders. . . . We now know soldiers are systematically ordered to violate international humanitarian law in Iraq -- from torture to intentionally targeting civilians -- and there are more revelations of war crimes emerging every day. . . . The U.S. soldiers seeking refuge in Canada signed up to defend their country, not to commit war crimes."

To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote,
Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq and starting with the latest in the provincial elections bill --
CNN reports it has been rejected today. Yesterday, the Kurdish bloc in the Iraqi Parliament staged a walk-out over a bill regarding the alleged provincial elections that allegedly would take place October 1st. The walk-out means the already much postponed provinicial elections may be postponed further. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) covers the political process backdrop for yesterday's actions: "Some Iraqis think that the offensives that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched in the southern cities of Basra and Amara and the Baghdad slum of Sadr City were to weaken his political rivals, the Sadrists, who controlled those areas. The possibility of a months' long delay in the elections could fundamentally alter the priorities of local and national politicians." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) zoom in on the backstory/history, "The contentious issue was among several points that have delayed a vote on the law that would pave the way for the first local elections since January 2005, when most Sunni Arabs and many Shiite followers of cleric Muqtada Sadr boycotted the vote. U.S. officials believe the participation of such groups could go a long way toward righting the balance of power in provincial politics, in which a small number of parties, mainly Kurdish and Shiite Muslim, have dominated." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) focuses on the struggle for the oil-rich Kirkuk, "The disagreement centered on the multiethnic city of Kirkuk, one of several areas in Iraq where there are competing claims over which province a city or district belongs in. The question for Kirkuk is whether it should be absorbed into the Kurdistan region -- a particularly charged question because the city sits on some of the largest unexploited oil reserves in the country. Both Arabs and Kurds lay claim to the area. At bottom, the disagreement is also about the ethnic identity of Iraq and about Arab frustration with the Kurds. Although the Kurds are a minority, they have proved adept at turning the political process to their advantage, often to the chagrin of larger ethnic and religious groups." Last December, Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported on the attempts of the Kurdish region to take control of Kirkuk (with something other than the security forces they currently utilize) -- forcing Kurds out of the Kurdish region and into Kirkuk to live in "the squalor of the Kirkuk soccer stadium." CNN quotes this statement from President Jalal Talabani's office today, "The president, who does not agree with such a law, which was voted on by 127 deputies who do not represent half of parliament, is confident that the presidency council will not pass it." Al Jazeera points out, "Wednesday's move, which comes after protests by Kurdish and some Shia MPs, is likely to delay the elections, which have been encouraged by US officials as a key step toward repairing Iraq's sectarian rifts." BBC states, "Correspondents say this would be a blow to the outgoing US administration of President George W Bush, which sees the elections as a key step to the national reconciliation between Iraq's dividied communities." Is anyone going to make the obvious point? If elections are called out, why does Moqtada al-Sadr need to hold the line on a truce? al-Sadr's cooperation was thought to be in part due to the 'October' elections that were coming. al-Maliki started throwing down rules (or trying to) about who could and who could not participate. This was after the assault on Basra began. al-Sadr calmed the situation. And most likely did so so that the Sadr bloc could turn out for elections in October. Meanwhile AFP reports that August 1st will be the launching date for the assault on Diyala Province according to unnamed Iraqi "army and police officers." If elections are on hold until 2009, the assault might play out elsewhere in Iraq the same way the Basra assault did. In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 woman. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers wounded and a Mosul mortar attack that left two people wounded.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot down in Mosul this mornging with 2 Iraqi troops shot dead in Mosul this afternoon.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.


"The purpose of today's hearing," US House Rep Susan Davis said yesterday as she brought to order the House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee, "is to take a hard look at the current state of the Army Medical Action Plan This will be the third hearing this subcomitt has held on the Army Medical Action Plan -- the army's response to the revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center last year, since it was issued in June 2007. When the Army Medical Action Plan execution order was issued last summer, the military personnel subcomittee believed that the army had finally demonstrated a full understanding and acceptance of the organizational and systemic short comings that had led to the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed. We felt that the Army Medical Action Plan was a comprehensive and ambitious blue print to tackle these issues head on. After years of frustration many on the subcomittee believed that the army was finally ready to take the necessary steps to solve these problems. However, from our very first briefing on the Army Medical Action Plan, we had two significant concerns. The first was that the army would be unable to initially dedicate and then maintain over the long haul the level of resources required by the Army Medical Action Plan. Specifically, we were worried that the army would be unable to assign adequate numbers of personnel to the Warrior Transition Units. Why? Because the core of the Warrior Transition Units were to be the same soldiers that make up the backbone of our brigade combat teams: mid-grade, non-commissioned officers. And these soldiers were already in short supply. The second concern was that army commanders would overwhelm the Warrior Tranistion Units by sending them all of their soldiers with medical issues rather than just those with complex injuries or conditions that required comprehensive case management. In truth, we do not feel that this was necessarily a bad thing especially if it helped units deploy at full strength while injured or ill soldiers had the opportunity to fully recover Of course, this would only work if Warrior Transition Units were properly resourced to take care of these soldiers. From June 2007 through February 2008, the members and staff of this subcommittee made numerous visits to Warrior Transition Units throughout the army. The overall trend we observed was positive. The Army Medical Action Plan was clearly providing better support for recovering soldiers than the previous medical holdover system. One wounded warrior commented, 'Thank God for the Warrior Transition Unit. Things are so much better than they were before.' That was good to hear but despite the positive trends we were frustrated at the slow progress of implementing the AMAP. We felt that things should have and could have been moving faster. We also felt that there was a discconnect between how quickly the army leadership believed things were happening and what the facts on the ground seemed to indicate. Again, despite the challenges, we felt things were moving in an overall, positive direction. However our concerns about Warrior Transition Unit staffing levels and the potential of line units, quote, 'dumping ' soldier on the Warrior Transition Unit continued. We asked General [Eric] Schoomaker about this repeatedly during our hearing in February to get an update on the AMAP In response to a question asked by Mr. [John] McHugh, the army surgeon-general declared, 'For all intents and purposes we are entirely staffed at the point we need to be staffed.' As the facts at Fort Hood demonstrate that is clearly not the case now. Gentlemen, the Army Medical Action Plan was designed by the army. It is your plan. The army senior leadership has publicly trumpeted your commitment to wounded soldiers at every opportunity -- and we believe that that is true. But the Secretary of Defense agrees -- as Dr. [Robert] Gates has made clear -- apart from the war itself, this department and I have no higher priority." . Over the course of this hearing we will review the following topics. Resources. Why has the army failed to properly resource the Warriror Transition Units population growth. Why did the army fail to predict the growth in the WT population. We were assured by the army in Feb. that you had the processes and reviews in place to stay on top of the population and clearly that's not the case today. Priority. Is the Army Medical Action Plan truly the army's number two priority? Our visits do not leave us with that impression. And creativity. From the outset the Army Medical Action Plan has been sold as a bold roadmap to overhaul outdated, inefficient and deteremental policies and procedures. . . . And oversight. Finally and perhaps most importantly why did it take oversight visits from the subcommittee to identify and spure the army to fix these issues and what will take to ensure that the army follows its own plan and lives up to its own promises it Gentlemen, aside from telling us that you will will harder to implement it -- and we do believe that, we know that you are working very hard at this -- what concrete steps are being taken to ensure better follow through?"

Rep John McHugh (ranking Republican) noted "there continues to be serious shortfalls. Shortfalls that our staff did identify and I know the army continues to try to deal with. Serious questions. That of resources. A mechanism that anticipates the population growth that we have seen -- an explosion" that it is only reasonable to expect will continue. Davis and McHugh were speaking to the army's Lt Gen Michael D. Rochelle, Lt Gen Robert Wilson, Maj Gen David A. Rubenstein and Brig Gen Gary H. Cheek. PDF format warning, you can click
here for the brass' prepared statement.

Dana Milbank (Washington Post) describes the scene: "The generals were nervous.Lt. Gen. Robert Wilson moved his index finger across the page as he read his statement with a halting delivery. Maj. Gen. David Rubenstein, holding a discolored washcloth under the witness table to dry his perspiration, accidentally dropped the cloth and felt for it with his shoe. The anxiety, even for men with two or three stars on each shoulder, was to be expected. They had come before a House Armed Services subcommittee to explain why, 16 months and at least eight fact-finding investigations after the Walter Reed scandal, the Army still hadn't fixed the health-care system for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Milbank rightly notes that the witnesses played contrite. True. They also played suck up. Shortly after stating the obvious ("Make no mistake about it, our army is stretched"), Rochelle would declare, "It is clear to us that this committee foresaw that better than we did." Why was that? No need to explore that. No need to worry because Rochelle insists, "But our heart was in the right place and remains in the right place." Were these adults testifying before Congress? And did this tender-hearted brass miss all of Davis and McHugh's many statements that bordered on the way an adult would speak to a very young child -- stressing repeatedly that the action, not the people, were bad; that the action, not the people, was at fault. It was a bit puzzling to hear Davis and McHugh hit those points repeatedly at the start of the hearings but, a half-hour in, as McHugh had to again reassure the toddlers with stripes and bars on their shoulders, you were left with the impression that anything more age appropriate would have left the generals sucking their thumbs, curled up in a fetal position and sobbing on the House floor.

McHugh had to again do that tap-dance before getting to his point. Having again assured the brass that everyone at the table was a special and wanted general, McHugh slowly and carefully declared, "In many ways, this challenge isn't being met. And I find the current circumstances unacceptable." It seemed to linger in the air as the bragg fidgeted. "You gentlemen agree with that?" McHugh asked. Silent pause. "Anybody disagree with that?"
he then asked. Still no comment. Realizing the guilty children had agreed ahead of time to all stick together, McHugh began noting the numbers. 6,000 WTs were in the program in June of 2007 and increased to 12,000 by June of the following year with current predictions that it will "grow to another 20,000". McHugh wanted to know if the problem was the model, the problem with the personnel or the problem due to the 90-day review not being done? Apparently feeling he had to answer, Rubenstein stated "I'll go first" and quickly began talking about . . . people who weren't hired. McHugh (stating "I'm going to interrupt you") attempted to get the conversation back on track. If hearing Rubenstein discuss how he meets neighbors while he mows his yard is back on track . . . Around that time, McHugh would tell Rubenstein, "I'm not hear to argue with you" and, approximately ten minutes later, "General Rubenstein, I don't mean to engage in a debate per se" -- then why was the hearing held? US Rep Niki Tsongas appeared to waste the least amount of time doling out affirmations to the generals and instead focused on the realities involving the increased number of WTs. She rightly noted that the White House's escalation troops are returning and that "if we do eventually engage in a timetable for the redeployment of our soldiers so again you'll be bringing back larger soldiers at once and particularly where the issue is PTSD -- where you might not have to deal with it really until the soldiers do come home. Can you envision what you would do in a situation where you simply become overwhelmed by the demand?" Rubenstein agreed to go first and then began talking about the need to "keep our arms around" the wounded. If we can leave the happy place for a minute, Tsongas asked about preparation for the expected influx into the program. She didn't ask about group hugs. "Where we can't," he said finally getting near the question asked, "and where we may not be able to meet the needs if the numbers are overwhelming, we fall to our civilian network providers."

US House Rep Niki Tsongas: And this is a plan you have in place so that it kicks in automatically or is it really reacting to any given moment?

Maj Gen David Rubenstein: It's -- it's a plan that's in execution as we speak today. In October at Fort Hood we sent about 350 of our warriors downtown Killeen [. . .] to receive health care. Those same soldiers, six months later, in April of this year had 19,000 appointments downtown so we already use the system

Lt Gen Michael D. Rochelle: May I add, ma'am, Madam Tsongas, the two things that you hinted in your question is being pro-active in looking at both the deployment of individual elements of army unit brigades and support elements and being pro-active for those that are redeploying as well. That we have come to learn is - - is one -is one of our misconnects -- disconnects at the -- at the senior levels of the army and we're going to do better at that. We already have a very reliable -- very reliable -- metric.

The answer to Tsongas' question is "NO." Tsongas was speaking of the troops that will be returning as the escalation continues to wind down so dropping back to last year or last April really doesn't address that. She was also asking noting that there may be some limited withdrawal in 2009 and is the army preparing for that? When Rubenstein is offering that last April Fort Hood (which is supposed to be served primarily by the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center) was already scheduling 19,000 appointments with civilian providers (via the TriCare contracts/outsourcing) the answer is "NO!" the army is not prepared for it and does not appear to be doing anything to prepare for it. (Whining, as Rubenstein did elsewhere, that emergency room nurses in civilian settings can work to 12 hour shifts and get paid for forty hours allowing them to make more than they would working for the military is not "dealing with" or "anticipating" an influx.) Various members of the committee spoke of visiting Fort Drum and their surprise or disappointment that so much was still wrong. Rep Nancy Boyda spoke of a mother of a wounded soldier who was unable to get the help he needed and was in limbo ("literally dying to get in" to some sort of treament) and subcommittee chair Davis spoke of being told about the healing groups ("focused healing environment") in place and instead seeing people sitting around in frustration and boredom "not feeling that things were happening for them." Davis asked "how you see that changing at all? That people are able to get the appointments they need?" Rubenstein offered nonsense about how, military or civilian, no one ever gets what they need or the time they think they deserve in a medical visit. In other words, it was a lot of garbage. Near the end, Davis offered that the army might need more money and that they could meet again in September but Rochelle insisted he felt "September would be too soon." Since the generals could point to nothing accomplished the idea that they're going to skip out on a September meeting is rather appalling.
Dana Milbank (Washington Post) observes, "Finding no argument, the lawmakers brought the hearing to a prompt close, but not before another round of mutal flattery." Yes, it really was that pathetic. Two hours and ten minutes wasted with no answers given, no indications that the military actually is addressing the expected influx of wounded. A lot of airy statements and back-patting. In the 2004 presidential race, US Senator John Kerry (the Democratic presidential nominee) rightly noted these problems were coming. He stated that the White House was underfunding and diverting resources. His reward for that truth telling was to have FactCheck.org smack him down with one of their psuedo 'fact checks.' Nearly four years later, there is still no indication that anything is being done unless the Washington Post shines a large flashlight on the problem. The paper did that and brought public awareness and public outcry. The US Congress seems unwilling and/or unable to follow up on that. The hearing was an embarrassment. The fact that Milbank and Talk Radio News Service appear to be the only ones who bothered to cover it is even more embarrassing.

In England Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, is in the news for making another statement.
Philip Webster, Deborah Haynes and Tim Reid (Times of London) reports that Brown is saying that 'most' British troops will be out of Iraq "in a year." There are approximately 4,1000 of them -- that's actually the number of British troops and the number of contradictory statements Brown has made in his brief time as prime minister as to whether England would leave or stay in Iraq. Take the wait and see approach with Brown's statements which, like the weather, seem to change hourly.

Turning to the US presidential race.
MediaChannel -- for some unknown reason -- is pushing a stupid study by "Media Tenor." "Media Tenor" is not a media watchdog, it's part of Democracy In Action -- yet another front group funded with blood money. Go to MediaChannel if you're interested in reading it. (My comments are not about MediaChannel, they are about "Media Tenor"). It's an 'analysis' that is both factually 'free' and non-content based. It's a 'study' in the way your eight-year-old brother or sister might write a book 'report.' It's also insulting. Barack Obama and John McCain are not candidates for president. They are 'presumptive' candidates. Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are actual candidates and they're shut out of the 'analysis.' It's superficial crap that wants credit for finger-pointing at . . . super-ficial crap. As Phoebe famously said on Friends, "Hello Monica, this is kettle, you're black." Media Tenor's garbage doesn't need to be circulated, it needs to be put in the trash. MediaChannel got a link, but no link to the trash of "Democracy" In Action or "Media Tenor" or all the other partisan outlets staffed with dimwits paid in blood money. Shame on you all. (If need be, Ava says we can revisit the garbage being offered by Media Tenor at Third in our TV commentary Sunday but, if we do, we'll be doing a 'greatest hits' and not offering anything on any program airing this week.)

Paul Street takes on the myth of Saint Barack
here (Black Agenda Report). Kenneth J. Theisen (World Can't Wait) calls out the War Hawk Barack here. Sally Soriano of Team Nader notes:

Yes, indeed.
You read that right.
You can win the grand prize -- a dinner with our main man -- Ralph Nader (at a mutually agreed time and place.)
How?
We're looking to build our e-mail list, to expand our grassroots support, and to spread the bedrock Nader/Gonzalez campaign message -- shift the power from the corporate controlled political parties back into the hands of the people.
So, we're having a contest.
The person who brings in the most e-mail sign-ups by August 7 at midnight to votenader.org wins.
Open to legal U.S. residents, 18 years or older at time of entry.
You invite your friends, family, neighbors and anyone else to sign up for Nader/Gonzalez updates.
The person who brings us the most e-mails wins the grand prize -- dinner with Ralph Nader.
(Check out our privacy policy
here.)
During the course of the contest, you can keep track of how you are doing on our "Win Dinner With Ralph E-mail Contest Leaderboard."
It's sort of like kicking back on a Sunday afternoon and watching the PGA leaderboard.
Except that this isn't golf.
It's democracy.
And even if you don't grab the grand prize, there are a whole bunch of other prizes too.
Second prize is dinner with Ralph's VP running mate Matt Gonzalez (also at a mutually agreed time and place.)
Third prize is an invitation to our election night party in Washington, D.C.
Then the next seventeen people get an autographed copy of Unsafe at Any Speed and an autographed copy of the DVD An Unreasonable Man
Everyone who brings in at least 25 email sign-ups will receive a copy of the Declaration of Independence.
Are you ready to play?
You are?
Okay.
Get out your address book.
Start your e-mail engine.
And let 'er rip.
Click here to
get started.
Remember, you can keep track of who's winning on our leaderboard.
(For the complete set of rules, click
here.)
May the person who brings in the most e-mails to votenader.org win.

iraqrobin longehren watadaangela giles
dana milbank
the washington post
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapersthe los angeles timesned parkersaif hameedthe new york timesalissa j. rubin

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The New Yorker, the debates

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Take Two"

ny1




After the fake outrage at The New Yorker cover, cartoonist beware! Only some settings and references are acceptable for Barack and Michelle Obama. Stray for them and the now demented NOW will call for the destruction of your cartoon. I guess Kim Gandy did not have anything better to do?

I guess real women faced no problems so it was up to her demand 'rights' for fictional women and demand the destruction of a cartoon.

That really is pathetic and, honestly, it for NOW and myself.

Eleanor Smeal (Feminist Majority Foundation) was quoted saying she knew someone would accuse her of not having a sense of humor. No, Ms. Smeal, I am accusing you of taking part in a ginned up village storming and I am accusing you of having no respect for the First Amendment.

I could care less about your humor or lack of it.

I never expected Ms. Smeal to do standup or get her own weekly sitcom. I did expect her to support free speech. A comic that does not encourage violence against women is not a comic she needs to concern herself with.

It sure is great that she can defend Michelle Obama from the cartoon world . . . even if she did damn little to defend the living and breathing Hillary Clinton from all the attacks.

Way to go, Ms. Smeal. I look foward to your next mounting a defense to liberate Lisa Simpson and Meg on The Family Guy.

Pretty damn pathetic for a 'leader'.

But the feminist movement seems damn willing to sell out women if it means they can rub elbows in Denver. I doubt seriously that Molly Yard, were she alive today, would be going along with this "Let's all pretend Barack Obama didn't use sexism to steal the nomination." But Ms. Yard was a leader. Ms. Gandy is a gadfly.

With no press release from Nader-Gonzalez today, Marcia and Mike came up with the idea that we could all grab an issue to highlight from the campaign. This is the Nader-Gonzalez position on "Presidential Debates:"



Nader/Gonzalez supports the opening up of the Presidential debates.
Right now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties.
The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987.
The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf -- the former head of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Kirk -- the former head of Democratic National Committee.
Fahrenkopf is a lobbyist for gambling interests, Kirk for pharmaceutical companies.
Debate sponsors have included Anheuser-Busch, Phillip Morris, Ford Motor Co., Yahoo Inc., 3Com, among other companies who gave soft money to the two parties’ national committees.
In 2000, some in the press dubbed the debates as the “Anheuser-Bush-Gore” debates.
In a memo by the CPD, the avowed goal for forming the commission was to "strengthen the two parties."
In 1988, the Commission seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters.
The League had a history of allowing third party candidates to participate in the debates. In 1980 the League invited Congressman John Anderson to join Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in the debates.
Anderson was given a boost from the public debates. At one point the polls had him at 21%. He won 7% of the vote.
When Jesse Ventura ran for Governor in Minnesota he was polling at 10 percent in the polls before the debates. After ten statewide debates he rose to 38 percent and won a 3-way race.
The Commission on Presidential Debates took a different tack from the League of Women Voters.
This Commission/corporation has excluded Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan from the debates.
In 1996 Ross Perot was excluded from the debates. Even with all his money and after having won nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992 it was determined that he did not have "a chance to win," despite the fact that he even led in the polls at one point in 1992.
Walter Cronkite called the presidential debates under the CPD an "unconscionable fraud" because the CPD format "defies meaningful discourse."
In early years the CPD determined who could be in a debate by vague criteria including interviews with columnists, pollsters and consultants who determined whether a candidate could win.
In the year 2000, the CPD changed their criteria for third party and independent candidates -- a candidate now needed 15 percent or more support as measured by the average of five private polling organizations -- which just happen to be owned by several major newspaper and television conglomerates.
In 2000, Ralph Nader was excluded from the debates because the parent corporations that conduct these polls were giving him scant attention.
Without the mainstream media attention there is no moving up, and without moving up, candidates like Nader do not get into the debates and reach tens of millions of people.
In 2000, a Fox poll revealed that 64% of likely voters wanted to see ‘other candidates’ including Ralph Nader in the debates.
Other polls in 2004 showed similar results.
But it didn't happen, thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Independents voices and third party candidates, including the Abolitionist, Women’s Suffrage Movement, Worker Protection, and Farmer Populace Party, have brought about many of the major changes in this country.
When Abraham Lincoln ran for office, the two major parties were the Whigs and the Democrats.
As a Republican, Lincoln was elected as a third party candidate -- even after being left off the ballot in the 11 states that seceded from the Union.
In 2004, 17 national civic leaders from the left, center and right of political spectrum - including Paul Weyrich, Chellie Pingree of Common Cause, Alan Keyes, Tom Gerety of the Brennan Center for Justice, Bay Buchanan, Randall Robinson, former FEC General Counsel Larry Noble, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Jehmu Green of Rock the Vote - created the Citizens' Debate Commission.
Bolstered by an advisory board comprised of 60 diverse civic groups, the Citizens' Debate Commission goal is to sponsor presidential debates that serves the American people, not political parties, first.
References:
Open Debates
No Debate by George Farah


It is not a real debate if all the candidates are not invited.

"Barack, What Are You Scared Of!" should be our rallying cry.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:


Tuesday, July 22, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, another journalist is announced dead, Barack sucks up all the time with his Gidget Goes To Europe and the MidEast, John McCain calls it out, and more.

Starting with war resistance, July 15th Robin Long's case was noted on
CNN's The Situation Room (here for transcript):

Wolf Blitzer: Americans seeking to dodge the Vietnam War have found a have in Canada. Many began new lives there. But, now, right now, times have changed. Brian Todd is working the story for us. Brian, it's a different situation for what we're calling the Iraq War generation.

Brian Todd: It certainly is, Wolf. This one case of an American deserter being handed over turning this theory on its ear, the idea that Canada is an unqualified haven for American deserters. It's the kind of history Robin Long probably wishes he wasn't making. He is believed to be the first American deserter during the Iraq War handed back to the U.S. military by the Canadian government. During the Vietnam War, Canada was haven for US draft dodgers and deserters. In this case, a Canadian judge ruled that Long didn't adequately prove he would suffer irreparable harm if he returned to the United States. The leader of a Canadian war resisters group that had supported Long is frustrated.

Unidentified Male: I don't think there's any doubt that someone who has been up in Canada and a vocal opponent of the war will be treated harsly by the American military.

Brian Todd: Long, who had trained as a tank commander, took off from Fort Carson, Colorado, to avoid serving in Iraq. Even though he had volunteered for the army, his attorney told the court that Long became disillusioned over the mistratment of Iraqi detainees and by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction had been found. In nearly three years in Canada, he fathered a child, was turned down for refugee status last year, and was arrested recently for not checking in as required with border officials. Commanders at Fort Carson will now decide his fate. They can court-martial him, give him a less than honorable discharge, or even reassign him. A former military lawyer who has defended and prosecuted deserters says the first option is the most likely.

Unidentified male: I do believe that he is going to be most likely court-martialed in this instance. The fact that he has been vocal, not to say that they would infringe on his First Amendment right to state his case or his objections, but rather his stated reason for leaving, to avoid service in Iraq, is going to be sort of the threshold issue for the legal authorities.

Brian Todd: But experts say US military officials may also be thinking about deterrence here, sending a signal to others thinking of deserting that prison time could await them and Canada may not be so receptive to harboring them in the future. If he's court-martialed and convicted, Robin Long could get up to five years in prison. Wolf?

Wolf Blitzer: Do we have any idea how many deserters are in Canada?

Brian Todd: The leader of this war resistance group in Canada who we talked to today about this says that there are about 50 who they know of. But they say there are hundreds more they think who are living underground in Canada. You can believe this case is probably going to keep them underground.

Wolf Blitzer: I believe it. Brian, thank you.

Hasan Arif (Telegraph Journal) notes the above report and it's a shame more in Canada didn't catch it because they might have learned something. Take the laughable editorial board of Kamplops This Week: "Every one of these American citizens voluntarily joined the military. Not one was drafted. . . . These are not the draft dodgers of the Vietnam War era, the young men who had no choice in whether they wished to fight the Vietcong." Happy to flaunt their ignorance of Canadian history. The draft wasn't an issue in the decision during Vietnam and Canada welcomed dodgers and deserters. Deserters were not required to swear they had been drafted and not enlisted on their own. It wasn't an issue. And little Billy Bulter is eager to flaunt his ignorance to The Orillia Packet & Times insisting that (a) the term "war resister" (a historical and well used in the last century by the MSM) is not accurate, that anyone can become a CO very easily (Willie Boy, tell them your stupidity is here) and that the war resisters "joined the military"! We don't normally provide links to trash but the 'movement' needs to take some damn accountablity. These are the arguments that should never have been made but too many in the 'movement' didn't know their own facts or didn't want to tell it. They have created this straw-man argument that has no basis in today's reality by refusing to point out that deserters were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam. There was never a need for any of this nonsense.

No one in the world needed to hear Tom Hayden yack on and on endlessly in interviews about his 'invasive' physical. (Tom Hayden never served in the US military. He was not a draft dodger. He was not a deserter. He had no 'war story' so he went to town on a physical and, as Rebecca noted, Tom needs to put his feet in some stirrups before he next whines about 'invasive' physicals.) Tom-Tom couldn't shut up about the draft. Even though it has nothing to do with today's illegal war. He was 'helping' war resisters today . . . by throwing out crap from his past that had no bearing on reality. No one needed it. All it did was let some who barely pay attention fixate on "Draft Dodgers! You hear him, Ma! But there's no draft today!" Tom-Tom, the patron saint of the yokels. Across the border a number need to take accountability and start working on addressing reality. Unless they're goal is for the 'movement' to repeatedly be undermined with meaningless cries of "There is no draft!" Someone in Canada speaking truth is University of British Columbia's Canadian Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law,
Dr. Michael Byers, who explains to Am Johal (IPS), "Canada also extradited Robin Long, a U.S. war resister, who did not want to take part in possible war crimes. This is a very different role than Canada played during Vietnam." Extradition is the only term to describe what Judge Anne Mctavish oversaw and ordered for Robin Long.


To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote,
Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was in Berlin today where he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Deutsche Welle reports al-Maliki declared, "Iraq is able to take the security situation into its own hands. We have achieved great success." It's an assertion that Patrick Donahue (Bloomberg News) notes and quotes him futher stating in the press conference with Merkel, "Iraq has the foundation and is capable of taking the security situation into its own hands. We can say with some pride that we're in the position and capable -- with our police and army and with our professional level -- to achieve that." However, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that, in Baghdad Monday, Ali Dabbagh, al-Maliki's spokesperson, "announced that Iraq wants American combat troops to leave by the end of 2010." That would be 24 months after the next US president takes office. 24 months? Did al-Maliki say they were ready to takeover or not? AFP ignores the nonsense claims to focus on what the meeting was really about quoting Merkel declaring, "We are pleased that the security situation in Iraq has improved little by little and that is of course a pre-condition for economic and political reconstruction to move forward. Iraq is a country rich in raw materials and Germany has broad technological and industrial know-how. We are pleased that some German companies have already expressed interested in helping to rebuild Iraq."

Meanwhile there were dueling Nancy Youssefs over the weekend. First
she filed on the simmering tensions among supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr and quoted residents such as Nadhil al Sudani stating, "There is anger inside our people. There is a volcano that wants to erupts. But we are obedient to Sayed Muqtada." Implication being that al-Sadr is the only thing that's keeping a volcano from erupting. One day later, Youssef was offering: "In a shift toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism, Iraq's largest Sunni bloc ended a nearly yearlong boycott Saturday and rejoined the cabinet, retaking six ministry spots." Well one boycott ends and another begins. Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports today on "a walkout by Kurdish lawmakers over how to deal with the disputed oil city of Kirkuk" with regards to the supposedly upcoming provincial elections and quotes Khalid al-Attiya (Deputy Parliamentary Speaker) stating, "We cannot have a vote with an absence of a whole faction. The vote is useless. It will be rejected by the represenatives of this bloc and by the presidency council." CNN notes the makeup of the presidency council: Jalal Talabani (President, Kurd), Tariq al-Hsahimi (Vice President, Sunni) and Adel Abdul Mahdi (Vice President, Shi'ite) and adds, "Many observers believe Talabani would stand with his Kurdish compatriots and vote against the measure, bringing it back to square one." Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman is quoted by AP stating, "The draft of the provinical elections law will be referred to the presidential council, which will definitely not approve it. So the elections will be postponed until next year."

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Kirkuk roadside bombing Monday night in which 2 police officers were killed with five more wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left eleven people wounded.
Reuters notes "an Iraqi journalist working for a Kudrish magazine" was shot dead in Kirkuk Monday and 5 people wounded in shootings in Haswa while Tirkit was the site of an attack today "on the convoy of Khalid Burhan, head of health office of Salahudding province" that left his guards wounded. The journalist was Soran Mamhama. He was 23-years-old and AP states he worked for the "magazine Leven and often covered government corruption." Reporters Without Borders issued a statement condeming the murder and stated, "We call on the Kudristan authorities to carry out a thorough investigation into the circumstances of Hama's murder. He wrote hard-hitting articles about local politicians and security officials and had received threats from people telling him to stop his investigative reporting. The authorities should therefore give priority to the theory that he was killed because of his work." Xinhua notes Soran was shot dead outside his home and quotes Journalist Freedoms Observatory's Ziyad al-Ajili stating, "The first step to halt the assassinations against journalists is to capture those culprits." Iran's Press TV quotes Latif Satih Faraj (Kurdish Journalists Union in Kirkuk) stating, "If the government can't protect Kurdish journalists in Kirkuk, we might adviste them to withdraw from this city." Iraq's The Window reports Leveen is calling for an investigation and that "Leveen, which is an independent Kurdish magazine founded 6 years ago in Sulaimani, is known as a muckraking journal in Kurdistan and Iraq."

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Dibis.


Not much Iraq news? Of course, not Barack's sucking up all the limited coverage with his photo-ops passed off as news. It's like he's gone to Europe and the MidEast to FaceBook in real.
Said Rifai and Saif Rasheed (Los Angeles Times) were among the few brave enough to report the realities:

During his brief visit to Iraq, Barack Obama has been greeted by busloads of Iraqi cameramen vying for shots of his arrivals and departures at meetings with government officials.
But on government-sponsored Al Iraqiya television Monday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee received second billing to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's departure for Europe. Only Al Hurra, the U.S.-sponsored channel, led with the story.
The situation has been similar on the streets of Baghdad, where Obama's visit has been duly noted but is not the No. 1 thing on people's minds.Iraqis tend to be jaundiced about American politics and skeptical that the differences between the presidential candidates have anything to do with them.
"If either McCain or Obama visits Iraq, it would be for campaign purposes, and therefore at this point in time it won't have any effect on the situation in Iraq," said Khalil Ibrahim, 34, a perfume shop owner.

We're now on the US race for president.
Susan (Random Notes) observes of self-loathing lesbian (which would make her a Barack supporter) Donna Brazile: "It was people like you who created the situation in the first place by not fully seating or stripping Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan, by not apologizing for the filthy, race-baiting campaign 'Obama' ran, for not admitting 'Obama' didn't have the majority of the popular vote, for not allowing Clinton to take the contest all the way to the convention, and for not condemning the smears by the attack dogs from the media and the 'progressive' blogosphere for creating the rift." Susan's referring to closet case Donna's attempt to do a reach-around on female Hillary supporters. Back off Donna Brazile, you Bob Packwood-wanna-be, no one wants your greasy, filthy, corporatists hands on them. She really thinks after her infamous e-mail regarding Hillary supporters ("Message to the base: stay home") that any Hillary supporter gives a damn what she says? Donna, the loudmouth trash she was born as and will die as, is now penning such tough-talk as, "How many ways do these Hillary delegates, voters and supporters need to hear it before they get it?" LSekhmet (Alegre's Corner) calls out Donna's latest lies, "We're angry because the nomination was stolen from the rightful winner -- we're angry because the winner of the popular vote has been hindered, not helped -- we're angry that a man who truly isn't read to be President at this time has been propped up by the DNC and the Democratic Party as a whole. And most especially, we're angry at the supposition that we only have two choices in the fall election -- Obama or McCain, neither of whom are acceptable." That is offensive and someone might try explaining that to Philip Maldari who declared on KPFA's The Morning Show today of the next president, "whether it's McCain or Obama" . . . This was when KPFA brought on a Democratic Congress member to schill for Barack. That was really cute -- and so fair! It's really not Philip's role to decide who will be president. His role is co-host of a morning chat show. This was followed by a roundtable for the next segment where you had two Barack supporters and one that you didn't know. Didn't know because Aimee Allison (hopefully unintentionally) cut him off just as he started to reject the notion of voting "the lesser of two evils." Kevin Zeese thinks petitions will get Barack to change his views. He thinks if there's a mass exodus of support for Barack to Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader that it will force Barack to change. At which point, what? By Zeese's 'logic,' people go running back to Barack. Kevin Zeese is the perfect example of why third parties struggle. Zeese supports them and has done tremendous work on campaigns in the past. However, when it's time to talk, third party and independent candidates do not exist for their own qualifications and merits. In Zeese's world -- as stated on The Morning Show today -- they exist solely to blackmail the Democratic Party within the midst of an election. When you 'cast' them as supporting characters, it is very hard for third party and independent candidates to assume lead roles. People like Zeese need to start demonstrating some awareness that they keep the two-party system going. And KPFA needs to grasp that bringing on a Democratic member of Congress to try to assure the Bay Area that Barack's-plenty-liberal-not-everyone's-as-liberal-as-we-are is not only nonsense it's the sort of garbage we'd expect from Rush Limbaugh. And if that point is not clear, we then got the Barack delegate to the DNC, Norman Solomon. That is what he is now. He is not a media critic. And he does not belong on KPFA as an 'objective' observer. It was shameful that, well into the roundtable, Norman told listeners he was a Barack delegate ("like Barbara Lee!" he insisted hiding behind Lee's skirts). That disclosure was required to be made at the top of the roundtable and Aimee Allison should have made it. In no way did The Morning Show offer anything that justified their free use of the public airwaves. (While begging yet again for more money.)

If you're not grasping, that nonsense on KPFA (or take the crap Democracy Now! squeezed out this morning) is exactly why people see the media as in the tank for Barack.
Gary Chapel Hill (The Confluence) writes of the recent Rasmussen poll which found that the number of voters who "believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage" rose 5% since June to reach 49%. 49%? That figure is appalling. Journalists are not supposed to be seen as biased. That the figure has climbed to 49% should be a wake up call for those working in Real Media (there's no hope for Panhandle Media -- they're all in that because they couldn't get work in Real Media). Only 24% believe they can expect unbiased coverage. That is APPALLING and it is an indictment of the media. (14% belived the media "will try to help" McCain). Don't dismiss that 49% with, "That's all Republicans!" 27% of Democrats feel the media is attempting to put Barack into the White House. Those respondents not self-identifying with either of the two major parties? 50% of swing voters "see a pro-Obama bias". This is an indictment of the media. With Congress and the White House already polling so low, you'd think the usual gatekeepers would come out loudly insisting that the media at least pretend independence.

This takes place as they're lead around by their rings in their noses.
Campsunk (Alegre's Corner) posts the video of NBC News's Andrea Mitchell on Hardball explaining of Barack's for-show campaign stops outside the US, "He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't have a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in, you're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews by a journalist. So there's a real press issue here." Indeed. AlwaysforHillary (which is now supporting McCain in the general) exclaims, "It seems practically every news person flew to be with 'the Holly One' to get interviews with the Messiah! Maybe Obama will replace LOURDES and people with disabilities and illnesses can get blessed and have their problems disappear by touching the ANOINTED ONE!! DISGUSTING!!" It truly is and Jeremy Pelofsky's little jabs at McCain's calling it out ("Is the media in love with Obama?" -- Reuters) don't make the media look independent. Elizabeth Rauber (San Francisco Business Times) reports that not only is McCain calling it out, the campaign has created a video entitled "Obama Love." Click here to see the videos at the McCain site -- two with different songs and you can vote for which you enjoy best. The one set to "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" is currently leading over "My Eyes Adored You."


Back to the Idiot Brazile with her "It's Barack or John!" nonsense. "The central issue of this election is not Barack Obama versus John McCain. The central issue is the future of the Democratic Party,"
Democrat Violet Socks (Reclusive Leftist) explains, "Young feminists, for example: they say things like, "but don't you know that Republicans are anti-choice?" Yes, dears; that's the point. Republicans are anti-choice, which is exactly why it's so important that Democrats continue be pro-choice -- and pro-women's rights, pro-Fourth Amendment, pro-separation of church and state, pro-health care, pro everything that the Republicans are against. That's why we're trying to keep Barack Obama from taking over the party. I'm willing to lose one election if it means ejecting him and getting our party back to its values."

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, his running mate is Matt Gonzalez. They are adding events to their busy schedule. Times given are the times in those areas. Friday at noon, Nader will be in Columbia, South Carolina for a lunch, at 5:30 on Friday (25th) a Nader for President rally will be held at the University of Georgia, at 8:00 p.m. (still Friday), in Atlanta there will be an "Evening with Ralph Nader." Saturday (26th) Ralph will be at Lemuria Bookstore in Jackson, MS for a book signing and speech, two hours later (still in Jackson) he'll be do another "Evening with Ralph Nader." Sunday (27th) he and Matt Gonzalez hit Texas. First up, Hilton University of Houston where they will speak at 2:00 p.m. Then they head to Austin for an event at the Trinity United Methodist Church. Information about those events and others can be found
here. W. Gardner Selby (Postcards From The Ledge) reports on the upcoming Austin event. Meanwhile Richard Winger (Ballot Access News) reports that the Sixth Circuit hear arguments today in Nader v. Blackwell about the efforts of the then-Ohio state secretary Kenneth Blackwell to limit ballot access in 2004 and Winger points out, "Ralph Nader is unique in the history of U.S. ballot access, for trying to redress wrongs that were done to him and his voters. Other presidential candidates who were kept off ballots, such as Henry Wallace in 1948, Eugene McCarthy in 1976, and John Anderson in 1980, were content to fight to keep themselves on various ballots. But they never took legal action of their own after the election to redress harms they had suffered. Only Nader has done that, most notably in his lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, plus his complaint against the DNC filed with the Federal Election Commission, and also this particular Ohio lawsuit." Meanwhile Dandelion Salad has posted video of Matt Gonzalez speaking to the National Lation Congresso on July 18th. Among the issues addressed at the national meetup was starting a five-million-dollar, non-partisan voting effort: "Bolstered by a recent study conducted by the William C. Velasquez Institute that found more than one million new Latino voters registered to vote during this primary season, convening organizations of the National Latino Congreso will use the third annual gathering to launch a massive voter registration and get-out-the-vote effort geared at adding an additional 1-2 million new Latino voters to the rolls in time to vote in November's election." Southwest Voter Registration Education Project president Antonio Gonzalez explained, "Latino leaders will use this gathering to organize and fund-raise to launch a massive nonpartisan voter mobilization campaign. Already more than 10 million Latinos are registered to vote in America, and our efforts will help drive that number up to between 11 and 12 million."

iraq
robin longnancy a. youssef
said rifaisaif rasheedthe los angeles times

Truth in advertising

"My Eyes Adored You."

Monday, July 21, 2008

Frankie & Annette beach party movies and Nader

Wally's mother passed on something by Bill Maxwell to Marcia who's sharing it with me. This is from Mr. Maxwell's "Don't dare disagree with Obama" (St. Petersburg Times):



The inquisitors showed up again after the New Yorker's July 21 cover came to light. The cartoon, Barry Blitt's creation, depicts Obama, wearing a turban, and his wife, Michelle, sporting an Afro hairdo, as terrorists bumping fists in the Oval Office. A U.S. flag burns in the fireplace, and the image of Osama bin Laden peers over the fireplace at his handiwork.
In an e-mail message to the media, the New Yorker's editor, David Remnick, explained the meaning of the cover: "The cover takes a lot of distortions, lies, and misconceptions about the Obamas and puts a mirror up to them to show them for what they are. It's a lot like the spirit of what Stephen Colbert does -- by exaggerating and mocking something, he shows its absurdity, and that is what satire is all about."
That's what satire used to be about. In the Obama era, however, satire may be satire only if it pokes fun at anyone except the Haloed One. If it pokes fun at Obama or subjects related to the Obamas, it's described as being "crude," "tasteless and offensive," "insensitive," "racist" and so on.
The hypersensitivity coming from Obama and his minions is dangerous. Does anyone who's half literate not know that the New Yorker, in its singularly liberal way, lampoons everything and everyone? Nothing, especially a flawed individual, is sacred. That's a good thing.
If Obama's swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.



The New Yorker cover? That is a good introduction to Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Take Three"


ny2


That is one of the three comics Isaiah did. I will note one tomorrow and a third on Wednesday. I went with this one because Frankie & Annette and I am old enough to remember those beach films from the big screen and not TV. Annette played Doloris and Frankie played Frankie. In film after film, Annette hid her belly button (supposedly her Walt Disney contract forbade her from showing her belly button) in a one piece and maintained her virginity. It was sort of Doris Day and Rock Hudson for the teenagers. You could actually enjoy the films if you did not take them too seriously. Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon would each sing a song or two in each film. I always thought Annette had the better voice and found that surprising since Frankie had originally made his mark on the pop charts. (Annette, for those asking who, was one of the original Mousekateers on The Mickey Mouse Club.) Which is not to insult Frankie completely, he made those films believable with his acting.

Annette did not do that. I am not sure how much of that was her fault and how much was the writers. But Annette would be with other "girls" in the background who were supposed to be her best friends. She was always ditching them to go to another room or the beach to sing. Frankie was given onscreen friends that he joked and kidded with. Annette had a wonderful voice and always looked very pretty but between her character's prissy attitude about sex (this was the sixties!) in film after film and the refusal to really give the character friends, it never felt like she was a fully developed character.

She really did always look pretty. I have no idea if that was her own hair in those films or a wig but we might make fun of Dolores' prudish nature, but we would usually (we being my female friends and myself) give her credit for that amazing hair. Linda Evans was a very pretty woman and still is. But she was in one of the films and you could see how little anyone cared by the way she looked. Not a lot of care and detail went into the filming (or the writing) of those movies. So Annette should see looking so good on camera as an accomplishment. It is not as though the writers were ever interested in Dolores.

Now you know why I picked that comic by Isaiah. I really could talk about those beach party movies forever. Candy was a one-joke character who was probably just supposed to be in one film. She became a character in many. Due to the fact that no one cared about Candy (behind the cameras or at the typewriters), the actress was able to shape a character that had more going for her than Dolores. She usually wore fringes and would do a dance. Sometimes her hip movements while dancing could freeze people.

There was also a motor cycle gang but I will spare you that. I have no idea how many films were made in all. I know they tried to take it to snow covered mountains (I believe that was called Ski Party) and did so without Annette (I believe Yvonne Craig -- later Batgirl on the TV show Batman -- was the actress in that one). Then they tried to make Frankie part of comedy-horror blends (such as Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine which the first Austin Powers film owes a huge debt to -- along with the Bond film You Only Live Twice). I have no idea of the box office on those but I know if Annette was not in them, we generally stayed away. She made the prudish almost believable and you tended to cut her slack due to the fact that she was under some sort of longterm Disney contract from when she was a kid.

Ralph Nader is running for president and he has two campaign events this weekend that I am aware of. From Team Nader:

Nader to Campaign in Georgia Friday July 25

News AdvisoryFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org (national); Xaiver Kim 404-446-7093 (local) .

NADER TO CAMPAIGN IN GEORGIA FRIDAY JULY 25

Who: Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader

What: Nader/Gonzalez News Conference and Campaign Rally

When: Friday July 25, 5 p.m. News Conference and 5:30 p.m. Campaign Rally

Where: University of Georgia, Master's Hall, 1127 South Lumpkin St., Athens, Ga. 30602

Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader will make a campaign stop in Athens, Ga. Friday July 25 with a news conference scheduled for 5 p.m. and a campaign rally at 5:30 p.m., both to be held at the University of Georgia, Master's Hall, 1127 South Lumpkin St., Athens, Ga. 30602. Rally general admission will be a suggested contribution of $10/$5 student. Mr. Nader will address issues major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign has put on the table, including:
a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;
a single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice public health insurance system for all;
a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act;
a no-nuke, solar-based energy policy supported by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources;
a carbon tax to deter global warming;
an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars; and,
more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with "we the people," and not "we the corporations."For more "on the table" topics see:
VoteNader.org

Nader to Campaign in Mississippi, Sat., July 26

News Advisory

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org (national); Susan Stonecypher, 601-842-6769 (local).

NADER TO CAMPAIGN IN MISSISSIPPI, SAT., JULY 26

Who: Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader

What: Nader/Gonzalez News Conference and Book Signing/Speech

When: Sat., July 26, 5:30 p.m. News Conference and 6 p.m. Book Signing/ Speech

Where: Lemuria Bookstore, 202 Banner Hall, 4465 I-55 North, Jackson, MS 39206

Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader will campaign in Mississippi, Sat. July 26, hosting a news conference and book signing/speech at the Lemuria Bookstore, 202 Banner Hall, 4465 I-55 North, Jackson. The News Conference starts at 5:30 p.m. and the speech and book signing is scheduled for 6 p.m. Mr. Nader will address issues major party candidates have taken "off the table" that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign has put on the table, including:
a comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq;
a single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice public health insurance system for all;
a living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act;
a no-nuke, solar-based energy policy supported by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources;
a carbon tax to deter global warming;
an end to the corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars; and,
more direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with "we the people," and not "we the corporations."
For more "on the table" topics see:
VoteNader.org

So that is Georgia and Mississippi. This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Monday, July 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Amy Goodman can't stop lying, Barack blusters like a Bush, and more.

Starting with war resistance.
Oregon Public Radio (OPB) has been reporting on US war resisters. Two reports they filed on Friday include this by Rachael McDonald (link has text and audio):

Rachel McDonald: James Burmeister was injured by a roadside bomb. He went AWOL while recuperating in Germany. Besides being given six months in jail, Burmeister was denied pay, reduced in rank to private and given a bad conduct discharge that will deny him veterans' benefits. Burmeister's mother Helen says the sentence was unfair.

Helen Burmeister: I'm very disappointed in the way they feel they can treat veterans of war. I think the reason that my son went AWOL was for a good reason and I don't think he deserves the punishment that he got.

Rachel McDonald: Helen Burmeister says she's unsure whether to appeal the ruling because it could prolong James' stay in jail. James Burmeister says he left because of military bait and switch tactics. Soldiers would plant equipment to lure Iraqis whom American snipers would then kill. I'm Rachel McDonald in Eugene.

Dee Knight (Workers World) clearly grasped what was done to Burmeister and why, hence the title "
Army court-martials resister for blowing whistle on 'bait-and-kill'." Knight speaks to Erich Burmeister (James' father) who reveals the military attempted an deal where a guilty plea by Burmeister would result in 1 "year in military prison and a dishonorable discharge" which means -- looking at the sentence Burmeister received last week -- it was very smart to turn down that proffer. Knight also reports, "His parents have waged an unceasing struggle for the Army to release him. They called on their representative, Peter DeFazio, to launch a congressional inquiry into James's case, but have so far heard nothing." No surprise there. US House Rep DeFazio doesn't do a damn thing. Suzanne Swift was the victim of rape, abuse and harassment. DeFazio grabbed a lot of feel-good headlines before the 2006 elections and then refused to do a damn thing. As Sara Rich, Swift's mother, explained of DeFazio to Jennifer Zahn Spieler (Women's eNews) in December 2006, "His office gave us a lot of red tape. And he basically laughed at our petition. I walked away feeling rather humiliated by him."

Retired army Col and US diplomat
Ann Wright (reposted at Securing America Community) reports, "The prosecution brought up the public statements and interviews Burmeister gave on 'bait and kill.' . . . He was taken from the court directly to jail."

Turning to US war resister Robin Long,
Tom Banse (OPB, link has text and audio) filed this report on Friday:

Tom Banse: A spokesman for the army's Desertion Information Center says the punishment for the Boise native could fall within a wide ranger. At the light end: reprimand and return to duty; at the severe end: court-martial and jail time -- according to the army's Ryan Bruce.

Ryan Bruce: It would be treated more seriously if a soldier did desert his or her unit during a time of war, especially if that unit was at war or going to war, as opposed to a soldier who just deserted from initial entry training, for instance.

Tom Banse: Private Long fled to Canada to avoid deployment to Iraq. His unit went to war and has since returned to Fort Carson, Colorado. Instructive perhaps is the sentence handed down this week to a soldier from Eugene. Private 1st Class James Burmeister fled to Canada while on leave from his unit in Iraq. He got six months in jail after returning voluntarily to face punishment. I'm Tom Banse in Olympia.

Citing Fort Carson spokespersons Gregory Dorman and Karen Linne, the
Colorado Springs Gazette reported Robin was in El Paso County Jail as of Friday night and "is being held on a military confinement order, jail records show." (The Denver Channel credited the paper for breaking the news, AP 'forgot' to give credit.) Jim Fox (St. Petersburg Times) 'reported' on Long Sunday without mentioning his name ("A U.S. Army deserter who fled to Canada was ordered deported from British Columbia . . .") and without getting his facts right (he was not "returned to his unit in Fort Knox, Ky." -- his unit at Fort Carson, CO). KBS Radio notes, "According to Bob Ages who is the chairman of the Vancouver war resisters campaign Robin Long was in Buckley which is South East of Seattle as of Friday, and was moved once again to a location that is unknown to the group." Ann Wright observes, "Ironically, war resister Long was handed over to US officials at the Peace Arch on the US-Canadian border, just north of Seattle, Washington." As noted here Saturday and at Third on Sunday, Robin Long was not deported, he was extradited. Deportation would be expelling him from the country, turning him over to the US government is extradition. Judge Anne Mctavish will have a lot of questions to answer if anyone's paying attention. W.E. (Bill) Belliveau (Times and Transcript) points out that Robin being expelled was "the first time a resister to the U.S. war effort in Iraq has been removed from this country by Canadian authorities." Workers World quotes Gerry Condon explaining, "This is a gift from [Canadian Prime Minister] Stephen Harper to George Bush. And it is a gift to the headline writers, who will trumpet that Canada is no longer a safe haven for AWOL GIs. But it is an illusion because this is not the first of many deportations. It may be the first and the last. A minority government that ignores the will of its people and its Parliament will not be allowed to rule much longer." Vietnam war resister Michael Hendricks informs the Toronto Star that the Haper government's decision to ignore the motion passed by Parliament and the huge support for war resisters means Canadians have to ask themselves a few things: "The questions we have to ask before the next federal election are: What is the government doing to the Canada that we treasure? Do we really want to live in a Canada built in the image of the present government?" Harris MacLeed (Hill Times) quotes War Resister Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky stating, "We've been trying to get a meeting with [Immigration Minister] Diane Finley and we've basically been told she'll be busy until she dies." Meanwhile apparent bar fly Karin Wilson (Kelowna Capital News) explains "one of those bar conversations I'll probably remember for a lifetime" and declares that the expulsion of Robin should have everyone "hanging our heads in shame. Here was someone willing to stand up for what he believed in and leave his country rather than fight in a war he believed was illegal." Wilson goes on to repeat the myth that leaves deserters out of the group Canada received during Vietnam hinting that it's best not to confine your research to bar room coversations.

Harris MacLeed (Hill Times) tells the story of Canadian citizen Andrei Hurancyk who decided (2005) to become an American citizen and enlist in the Iraq War. He began serving in Iraq in March 2007, then self-checked out and returned to Canada. He states "I just realized we're not fighting terrorists there, it's just the occupation of the country and a lot things go unreported there, things that are not supposed to be happening in a war zone, things being covered up." July 4th, Judge Robert Barnes' decision in US war resister Joshua Key's case was released. Tamam Ahmed Jama (Al-Ahram Weekly) quotes Josh's attorney Jeffry House explaining, "It's a huge victory for numerous soldiers who are here and maybe others who are thinking of coming here" and quotes Joshua remembering his time in Iraq, "Children cry, women scream at you; we were tormenting these people. We never found anything -- no potential terrorists, no cache of weapons, nothing. After a while, you start to ask yourself: 'Why are we continuing to do this?' . . . You're not supposed to have sympathy, you're not supposed to have a conscience. You're supposed to be the 'perfect' American soldier -- a killing machine who does as he is told. But I realised that it was my concern and it was my business, that I did have my conscience." Key tells his story in The Deserter's Tale (written with Lawrence Hill).

To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote,
Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."

We've focused largely on US war resisters in Canada of late due to so much news in that region. There are a number of things that have been held. One was about
IVAW's chair and US war resister Camilo Mejia. Earlier this month, Federico Martinez (The Muskegon Chronicle) reported on the popularity of State Radio and "Camilo" at Michigan's music festival and noted, "State Radio's song is about Sgt. Camilo Mejia, who in 2003 spent six months in combat in Iraq, but then refused to return from a two-week furlough because he objected to a war that was 'illegal' and 'immoral.' Chad Stokes, lead guitarist and vocalist for State Radio, tried to explain the song's popularity during a pre-festival interview. 'It's just a human story,' said Stokes. 'It's about a human connection. It's symbolic, but it's still his individual story. I think that's why people connect to it." The video can be found on YouTube here. A portion of the lyrics directed to the White House:

Your words just a bloody fallacy
A house of cards you painted white
You tried to recreate Normandy
But you made up the reason to fight
And now red oil is spillin' down on the street
And your eyes so big for the belly is weak
Will you not refuse this currency
Or is blood money just money to you
Is blood money just money to you

News of an event that Camilo Mejia will be appearing at, "A faith-based nonprofit organization hopes to inspire attendees at the annual convention of a major religious denomination to make ending the war in Iraq their major focus for the rest of the 2008 political year. The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), an international human rights organization based in Cambridge, Mass., will be hosting a series of training sessions and workshops at the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association to be held from Wednesday, June 24 to Sunday, June 29, at the Fort Lauderdale Convention Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida." Mejia will be a speaker on June 25th as well as on June 28th. More information can be found here.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq,
Sabrina Tavernise and Jeff Zeleny (New York Times) report on puppet of the occupation Nouria al-Maliki attempting to play a 'do-over' as he "tried to step back Sunday from comments in an interview" with Der Spiegel published on Saturday where al-Maliki appeared to voice support for Barack Obama's limited non-promise that he might withdraw US combat troops (only combat troops -- leaving behind an estimated 50,000 other US troops) in 16 months were he to be elected president. Tavernise and Zeleny tell you that al-Maliki's surrogates insist he was misquoted; however "the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki's office, not the magazine." From Der Spiegel's interview:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq? Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes. SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain? Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

The New York Times listened to tape of the interview and had it translated:Nouri al-Maliki: Obama's remarks that -- if he takes office -- in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq. . . . Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.
Der Spiegel notes the controversy over the story and that "SPIEGEL stands by its version of the conversation." Nobody bothers to note that al-Maliki is either more stupid than anyone thought or joining in the lie passed off as truth that Barack's talking withdrawal. Combat troops only. And his 'promise' isn't a promise -- he told CNN on June 5th he'd decide what to do after he became president (such an ego) which echoes what War Hawk Sammy Power told the BBC in March. Bambi spoke to CBS' Lara Logan (Face The Nation) yesterday -- transcript here, video here -- and declared, "There's starting to be a broad consensus that it's time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan. And I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now's the time for us to do it." Barack wants to fight a war that should never have started and will be seven years shortly. He wants to "withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq" and send them to Bully Boy's other misbegotten war. He's not a dove, he's not a peacenik and he's not anti-war. Despite the false claims by Katrina vanden Heuvel, Tom Hayden, Laura Flanders, Jeremey Scahill and oh-so-many others, Barack again demonstrated that he has no respect for any other country's national soveriegnty: "What I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value al-Qaeda targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. My hope is that it doesn't come to that - that in fact, the Pakistan government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights that we should fire or we should capture him." Translation, if Pakistan doesn't act on US intelligence (whether it's valid or not or -- remember the start of the Afghanistan War -- whether or not it's shared with Pakistan), Barack's happy to bully his fat belly to the bar and go-it-alone. (For those who do not remember, the US asked the Taliban -- then in control of Afghanistan -- to turn over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban asked for proof. Then US Secretary of State Colin Powell stated they would get the proof after they turned over bin Laden. They refused to, the bombing began.) Check the interview and wonder if the real reason Barack Obama won't produce his birth certificate is because, under father, it reads "George W. Bush"? He sounds exaclty like the Bully Boy when Logan asks him to define what would be 'success' for him in Afghanistan: "Well, a 'mission accomplished' would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda and the Taliban so that they can longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, and they can't target the United States or its allies." Terrorism is a crime and best addressed through the courts. Everything else our once-again-lip-glossed Senator is speaking of (sounding just like the current White House occupant) is not why the military exits and has nothing to do with a legal war.

Yesterday
Hala Jaber (Times of London link has text and video) reported that the 5 contractors kidnapped in May 29, 2007 was allegedy down to four according to a videotape released by those holding the five men which asserts that "Jason" killed himself -- the group holding the men have called themselves The Shi'ite Islamic Resistance in Iraq and they state: "This proscrastination and foot-dragging and lack of seriousness on the part of the British government has prolonged their psychological deterioration, pushing one of them, Jason, to commit suicide on 15/5/2008. He surprised our brethren, who were taking care of him, with his suicide." AFP reports UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown used the opportunity to grandstand by declaring, "This abhorrent film will only add to the anguish of families who have suffered a great deal over a year for their loved ones who have been kept in captivity."

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

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad house bombing (the home belonged to "the mother of Mithal al Alosi, a lawmaking in the Iraqi parliament"), a Baghdad car bombing that left five people wounded, a Diyala Province tractor bombing that claimed 5 lives and left eight more wounded, a Falluja residential bombing at the home "of the father of Falluja police deputy chief Lieutenant Colonel Esa Sayer" which left five wounded and another Falljua residential bombing at the home of "Asif Ghazi, an officerin Falljua police" with no reported wounded or dead but an addition two bombs were discovered "near the house and . . . detonated under control." Reuters notes a Mosul car bombing that killed the driver of the car and 2 bodyguards outside of the car.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 "Awakening" Council member shot dead in Diyala Province, sheikh Abdul Ghaffar Abdullah shot dead in Diyala Province. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead as they traveled in the car in Mosul and 2 brothers and 1 cousin shot dead while driving in their car in Mosul.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 corpses discovered in Mosul.

Turning to the US race for president. Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain has been turned down by the New York Times.
Reuters reports McCain wrote a column and the Times (which just published Barack's ditherings last week) turned it down and turned it down with this nonsense "that a new draft should articulate how McCain defines victory in Iraq." Excuse me, McCain delcared victory in Iraq last week. Considering the bulk of the garbage that stinks up the NYT op-ed pages, it's never been apparent that anyone was turned down for any reasons other than political (such as when Alice Walker's column against the impending Iraq War was rejected). McCain's the presumptive GOP nominee. That means you run his column. In a real democracy, that would also mean you run columns by Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. The paper appears to think it's not well written. If so, let him embarrass himself but, again, the paper's only real reason for turning down columns is political. McCain should post the rejected column at his website, I'm sure many sites would be happy to repost it in full. And the New York Times should be called out loudly for that nonsense. (Before any drive-by e-mails, I have said since this site started in 2004, I will not vote for John McCain. This is not about my vote, this is about an informed society needed for a real democracy.) Meanwhile, in his addition to this morning's entry, Jim steered everyone to the July 14th snapshot for this point: "Leave it to Aileen Alfandary to bring in 'uninformed' which, for the record, she did on the first news break of KPFA's The Morning Show where she declared of the Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente ticket, 'This year's Green ticket marks the first time a US has nominated women of color for both president and vice-president.' Uh, no, Alfandary, it's not. From Friday's snapshot: "What About Our Daughters? explains that, if McKinney is the nominee, this is the third time two women of color would be on the ticket with the first being Lenora Fulani and Maria Elizabeth Munoz in 1992 (New Alliance Party) and Monica Moorehead and Gloria La Riva (Workers World Party) in 1996." Dumb ass Amy Goodman (or maybe just liar) declared today that McKinney and Clemente (aka "Don't call me a Latina!") were "the first all-women-of-color presidential ticket in US history." During the interview, Goody couldn't stop lying: "What do you make of Senator Obama's trip to Iraq and Afghanistan to talking about a timetable for pullout, Nouri al-Maliki saying he shares his view, though he was castigated, it looks like, by the President, and Senator McCain saying Barack Obama has the most extreme record in the Senate, suggesting perhaps he's a socialist?" Amy Goodman needs to meet the truth one day. The recap of Dave Helling (Kansas City Star) interviewing McCain via Jake Tapper (ABC News):

At a town hall meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, had the "most extreme" record in the Senate.
Kansas City Star reporter Dave Helling later asked McCain about that comment.
"Extreme?" Helling asked. "You really think he's an extremist? I mean, he's clearly a liberal."
"That's his voting record," responded McCain. "All I said was his voting record, and that is more to the left than the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont."
Asked Helling: "Do you think he's a socialist, Barack Obama?"
"I don't know," McCain said with a shrug. "All I know is his voting record, and that's what people usually judge their elected representatives by.'"

No, LIAR Amy Goodman, McCain didn't suggest Barack was a socialist. He was asked it by Helling (who brought the issue up) and McCain said he didn't know. "Most extreme voting record"? McCain's referring to the
National Journal labeling "Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007" at the end of January based on their examination of his record.
February 8th on
CounterSpin, Janine Jackson demolished the claim. However, that was the same February 8th that Goodman allowed Robert Kuttner to cite that same study as reason to support Barack: ""I think it was National Journal recently came out with a rating that showed that Obama has the most left-of-center record." So when Kuttner cites it, Goodman raises no objection. McCain cites it and she's ripping him apart with lies. Get your act together. What a disgrace. [Jackson's demolishing of the National Journal and Kuttner's idiocy on Democracy Now! were covered Feb. 10th at Third.] Repeating, McCain referred to the National Journal 'finding' that Goody accepted on her show from Kuttner. He was then asked if he thought Barack was a Socialist. He didn't raise that issue, he was asked. When asked, he stated he didn't know. This is exactly the garbage Ava and I were talking about Sunday: gossip -- uninformed gossip -- passed off as news intended to make you enraged. In headlines today, Goodman pimped the same gossip: "In campaign news, Senator John McCain has accused Barack Obama of having the most extreme record in the Senate and suggested Obama might be a socialist. McCain was asked about his views in an interview with the Kansas City Star." No, McCain didn't ACCUSE Barack of having the most exterme record, he was referring to the National Journal study -- one Goody allowed to be cited Feb. 8th on her show without objection or question. And McCain NEVER suggested Barack was a Socialist. Get your damn facts right, Pravda on the Hudson.

Ralph Nader is running for president and Team Nader notes:

Well, you did it.
We needed to raise $60,000 by midnight yesterday.
And you blew by that early in the weekend and almost hit $70,000 by last night.
Thank you.
Your generous support helped fund stage two of our ballot access drive – fifteen states by July 20.
As promised, we have now collected enough signatures to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in 15 states.
Click here to see our current ballot access map.
Last month, we laid out our ambitious ballot access timetable:
Ten states by July 6.
Fifteen states by July 20.
Thirty states by August 8.
Forty states by September 1.
Forty-five states by September 15.
Thanks to you, we have met the goals of stage one and stage two on time.
In Arkasas, our road trip team along with many volunteers collected more than 2,000 signatures, more than double what was needed.
In New Jersey, a dedicated group of volunteers helped us collect more than 2,000 signatures, more than double what was needed.
And in Massachusetts, we've collected more than 19,000 signatures--10,000 valid are required--and are now in the midst of turning in our petitions to
hundreds of towns across the state to get them verified.
We are now entering our most difficult phase--the third phase, where we are facing deadlines in an additional 15 states by August 10.
If you have been thinking of dropping what you're doing this summer and hitting the road for Nader/Gonzalez, the next three weeks are when we need you most.
Please contact
mark@votenader.org today to find out what states you can help in now.
And
click here to see our day-by-day live interactive map of how our road teams are doing.
Tomorrow we will be launching a contest to build our e-mail list.
There will be a whole lot of prizes -- including the grand prize of dinner with Ralph Nader.
Keep an eye on tomorrow's e-mail for all the details.
And finally, when people ask you -- why is Ralph Nader running for President?
Here's one way to answer:
Just show them the new Democratic Party Convention bag.
And Glenn Greenwald's most recent article -- The AT&T Convention in Denver --
here.
The two parties have been taken over by the corporations.
And the people need a candidacy to counter that of the two corporate parties.
That candidacy is Nader/Gonzalez.
Once again, thank you for your generous donations this week.
You helped power us over the finish line for stage two.
Onward to stage three.
The Nader Team
PS: Last week, we offered the DVD An Unreasonable Man--autographed by Ralph Nader--to anyone who donated $100 or more by yesterday midnight. Well, 242 of you came through. That offer is now closed. We will be shipping those DVDs out later this week.

iraqjames burmeister
tom banseedee knight
robin longopbworkers worldw.e. (bill)belliveau
jim fox
andrei hurancykharris macleed
joshua key
the new york timessabrina tavernise
jeff zeleny
jake tapper

Friday, July 18, 2008

Nader on the ballot in Nevada, Hillary standing up

This is from Matthew Jaffe's "Hillary Clinton Rips Bush Abortion Proposal" (ABC News):



Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., blasted a Bush administration proposal Friday that would change the definition of abortion and, she argues, limit women's access to contraception.

[. . .]

"The more I learn about these rules by the Bush administration, the more appalled I am and the more determined I am to stop them," Clinton said.
"This is a gratuitous, unnecessary insult to the women of the United States of America. These rules pose a dire threat to women's health, to health-care providers, and to uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. It is a disgrace, but unfortunately it is not a surprise."



I do not know about you, but I really wish the Democratic Party had elected to award the nomination to the candidate who got the most votes. Barack Obama, who is seen as a sexist as any adult male who refers to a working woman he does not know as "sweeite," is no where to be found on this. As usual. Get used to it.

The Las Vegas Sun reports, "For the fourth time, Ralph Nader will be in the presidential race in Nevada as an independent candidate. He’s the first presidential candidate to officially qualify for the ballot in Nevada." Good for Mr. Nader and good for America. Ralph Nader's campaign remains the only choice for the left, as far as I am concerned.

In November, I will have a number of grandchildren voting for the first time and I am so proud that they are voting for Mr. Nader. Break-the-mold thinking so early in life should allow them to be part of real change in the future.

If you want to know how the Democrats got stuck with a loser, look no further than Fredreka Schouten who shows all that is wrong with the media in "McCain uses 'bundler' money more than Obama campaign" (USA Today). John McCain took in 75.6 million while Mr. Obama took in 50.1 million. But the media wants to present that as a huge difference and act as if there is a 'good' aspect to it. There is no 'good' to it and it is why we had public financing before Barack Obama decided he could walk on water without any assistance.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:


Friday, July 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, who is harrassing IVAW co-chair Adam Kokesh, the White House issues a statement the State Dept doesn't want to touch, the US military announces another death, and more.

Starting with war resistance -- because Amy Goodman never can -- this was a busy week. Monday US war resister in Canada Robin Long was the subject of deportation of hearing. Which he lost. (Mainly because Judge Anne Mctavish doesn't know her job.) He was deported Tuesday from Canada with the Canadian government keeping everything hush-hush to try to clamp down on public shows of support for Robin. On Wednesday, US war resister James Burmeister faced a court-martial: "
The court-martial of the kill-team whistle blower." He was busted in rank, given six months of time and stripped of his rights and benefits. The latter is especially shocking when you realize he has Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The government gladly shipped him to a war zone where he was injured and then they spat him this week by refusing to pay for the injuries their illegal war caused James -- life-long injuries. Amy Goodman (Democracy Sometimes!) continued the silence she's long maintained on James -- she never mentioned his name. James is the one who blew the whistle on the kill teams -- groups of US soldiers assigned to leave US property (such as cameras) out in the open in Iraq while snipers then wait for an unsuspecting Iraqi to touch them at which point, living up to the team name, they kill the Iraqis. It was big news and and Mark Larabee (The Oregonian) broke the news domestically July 16, 2007. That wasn't something to amplify. Apparently no one in Panhandle Media had slept with James or wanted to. If so, we could have seen the kind of embarrassing moment that had the 'left' recruiting talk show hosts not all that long ago. Call it The Critic and the Young Chippie or -- as they prepared to play it -- The Greatest All Time Threat to Democracy. Nothing gets a fire burning for our 'fearless' 'leaders' as much as the thought that one of their old 'lions' might finally get laid. So James, who was actual news, got ignored in 2007 and, if you missed it, got ignored Wednesday, Thursday and today. Free Speech isn't worth a damn when it's also Meaningless Speech -- and didn't so many prove just how meaningless they could be.

AP (Real Media) filed a better version of their earlier story, one that noted, "He said he was disturbed by a military tactic of planting equipment to lure Iraqis that American snipers could then kill. Burmeister said he complained to superior officers that the snipers couldn't know for sure whether the people they shot were actually insurgents, or presented any threat to U.S. forces." The Oregonian did a brief that noted, "Burmeister said he complained to superior officers that the snipers couldn't know for sure whether the people they shot were actually insurgents or presented any threat to U.S. forces. Eventually, the soldier from Cheshire, near Eugene, was injured by a roadside bomb and sent to Germany to recuperate. While there, he left his unit and went to Canada, where he campaigned against the use of the small kill teams." Kill teams. War crimes. But Panhandle Media had something else to cover. While whining about the silence from Real Media on some stories, they censored themselves. Call it Learned Pathetic. The only maturity in the story came from James himself. Ten months ago, Mina Al-Oraibi (Asharq Alawsat) quoted the then-in-Canada James Burmeister stating he did not regret self-checking out, "Because I feel it's the right thing to do -- even if I face prison or a dishonorable discharge from the army. I can't go back to the killing."

On Robin Long,
Stefanie Fisher (Party for Socialsim and Liberation) provides a run-through, "On July 15, Robin Long became the first Iraq war resister to be deported from Canada back to the United States. In 2005, Long went to Canada because he would not fight in an 'illegal war of aggression.' Like thousands of young recruits, Long discovered that the Iraq war was based on lies only after he had joined the military. The court denied Long sanctuary based on a so-called 'lack of evidence' that he would face harsh treatment if he were sent back to the United States. The court was fully aware that Long would be unjustly tried as a deserter, could face prison time and be deployed to Iraq against his will. As an example to others, on July 16, James Burmeister, a resister who turned himself over to the U.S. government was sentenced to 9 months in jail and dishonorably discharged. Protests in the U.S. and Canada have demanded sanctuary for Iraq war resisters. Two-thirds of Canadians believe that war resisters should be allowed to stay in Canada." Jeremy Deutsch (Kamloops This Week) reports on NDP's Michael Crawford's reaction to the deportation and quoted him stating, "We have a government in Canada hell-bent on pleasing the American administration. . . . If we believe it's an illegal war, why should we not give some form of sancturary to people who are refusing to fight that war?" This follows NDP's Bill Siksay's earlier statements this week, prior to the deportation of Robin, "Stockwell Day, Diane Finley and Stephen Harper should respect the will of Parliament and the Canadian people and stop this deportation immediately. The House of Commons has passed a motion supporting a special programme that would allow conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in the war in Iraq to remain in Canada. The government must respect this action by the House and stop deportation action against Robin Long and other Iraq war resisters. The Canadian government and the Canadian people do not support George Bush's illegal war in Iraq. We must have the courage of those convictions and back them up by ensuring that Americans who take a stand against that war receive a welcome in Canada. Robin Long must be allowed to stay." Meanwhile Keith Jones (WSWS) examines the situation and concludes:

As for the Canadian government, in 2005 when the Liberals held office, it took the highly unusual step of intervening at [Jeremy] Hinzman's refugee hearing--the first for an Iraq war resister--to successfully urge the Immigration and Refugee Board to exclude any arguments concerning the legality of the US's invasion of Iraq. The pretext invoked by the government was that only the International Court of Justice at the Hague has the authority and jurisdiction to adjudicate on the legality of a war. (See
"Canada denies asylum to US soldier who refused to serve in Iraq")
During the Vietnam War more than 50,000 US draft-dodgers and "deserters" found refuge in Canada. Today, however, the Canadian judiciary, immigration board, and government are determined to ensure that the country not become a safe haven for those in the US military who refuse to be party to the US's wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is not just because Canada's elite does not want to rile the Bush administration and US military. The Canadian ruling class is determined to jettison the myth of Canada as a peace-keeping nation--a myth closely bound up with Pearson and Trudeau Liberal governments' attitude toward the Vietnam War and decision to allow Vietnam war resisters to apply for landed immigrant status in Canada--because they see it as cutting across their efforts to revive Canadian militarism and use the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as a means to assert their predatory interests on the world stage.

Today,
Canadian Christianity notes: "Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) Canada held a public prayer vigil July 10 on behalf of Robin Long, a US war resister who was scheduled to be deported from Canada July 15. Long joined the US military in 2003, but became disillusioned with the US war in Iraq, deserted and fled to Canada in 2005. He applied for refugee status in 2006, but his final court appeal was turned down July 14. There are about 200 US resisters of the Iraq War currently in Canada. The CPT Canada vigil, which took place in Winnipeg, drew participants from the 'People's Summit for Faithful Living,' a joint meeting of delegates from Mennonite Church Canada and Mennonite Church USA."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

IVAW's co-chair, Adam Kokesh, has been regularly targeted by the US government for speaking out. Wednesday he wrote (Revolutionary Patriot) "The Cops Are Everywhere -- Especially Where I Am." Thursday he posted a video of one encounter. Friday, his report also included a police report (pages of the police report are clickable to make them larger to read) which reveals that one of the people who have been hassling/harassing him is an FBI agent. So what's going on? I have no idea. But Adam has been targeted before and there's no denying that an FBI agent is going out of his way to target Adam now.

Staying on
IVAW, they've posted a copy members of Congress sent to the White House. The letter is signed by House Reps Yvette D. Clarke, John Conyers, Lynn Woosley, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Dennis Kucinich, James McGovern, Pete Stark, Edolphus Towns, Tammy Baldwin, William Jefferson, and Eleanor Holmes Norton. The letter [PDF format warning] reads:

We, the below signed Members of Congress, voice our support for current, present, and future members of the United States Armed Forces who oppose the War in Iraq and who are working to bring it to a speedy and safe conclusion. These brave men and women, who have served our nation so honorably, represent the best aspects of our democratic tradition. While we cannot condone the actions of any service members who translates their personal opposition to the war into a deliberate decision to go Absent Without Leave (AWOL), we offer our most sincere support to every service member affected by the War in Iraq. This war has placed many of armed service members, like Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, in an untenable dilemma. Sgt. Chiroux has served as an active duty service member for the last 5 years -- serving tours of duty in Afghanistan and the Philippines. In July of 2007, having served his country with distinction, the Sergeant was discharged to the Individiual Ready Reserves. As the civil war raging inside Iraq intensified, Sgt. Chiroux was moving on with his life and leaving behind a war with which he disagreed. Unfortunately for the Sergeant, the war's unpopularity has taken a heavy toll on the Army's recruitment efforts. As such, in February of this year, he was recalled to active duty and received his deployment orders for Iraq. We in the Congress oppose this type of forced redeployment, as well as the military's so-called 'stop-loss' policy. As such, we in the Congress reaffirm our support for ending the War in Iraq by all means available to us. We also reaffirm our support for all military members who speak out, advocate, and otherwise support efforts to bring the troops home.

If the letter seems a little weak, let's go to
Howard Zinn who isn't campaigning for any office and, even if he was, could probably still tell the hard truths. From his "Memo to Obama, McCain: No one wins in a war" (Boston Globe):


For someone like myself, who fought in World War II, and since then has protested against war, I must ask: Have our political leaders gone mad? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Have they not learned that no one "wins" in a war, but that hundreds of thousands of humans die, most of them civilians, many of them children?
Did we "win" by going to war in Korea? The result was a stalemate, leaving things as they were before with a dictatorship in South Korea and a dictatorship in North Korea. Still, more than 2 million people - mostly civilians -- died, the United States dropped napalm on children, and 50,000 American soldiers lost their lives.
Did we "win" in Vietnam? We were forced to withdraw, but only after 2 million Vietnamese died, again mostly civilians, again leaving children burned or armless or legless, and 58,000 American soldiers dead.

This morning in Tucson, Arizona, the traveling White House press corps heard from Scott Stanzel, Deputy Press Secretary, regarding the continued treaty negotiations between the White House and its puppet in Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki. Stanzel stated, "And as the statement says, we have reached a point in Iraq where we can have these discussions about continuing to transition more control of the security situation to the Iraqi forces. . . . But these are aspirational goals, not arbitrary time lines based on political expediency. So we want to get to a point where we have sustainable security in the country, and our forces are able to come home and transition into a role there of more overwatch and training." What was Stanzel referring to? This statement issued by the White House Press Secretary:

President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki spoke yesterday in their regularly scheduled secure video conference, about a range of matters including the improving security situation and the performance of Iraqi Security Forces across Iraq, from Basra, to Maysan, Baghdad and Sadr City, and Mosul. The two leaders welcomed the recent visit of Prime Minister Erdogan to Baghdad and the successful visit of Prime Minister Maliki to the UAE. They also discussed ongoing initiatives to follow security gains with Iraqi investment in its people, infrastructure, cities, and towns, which will be aided by a $21 billion supplemental budget now before the Iraqi parliament.
In the context of these improving political, economic, and security conditions, the President and the Prime Minister discussed the ongoing negotiations to establish a normalized bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States. The leaders agreed on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible, and noted in particular the progress made toward completing a broad strategic framework agreement that will build on the Declaration of Principles signed last November, and include areas of cooperation across many fields, including economics, diplomacy, health, culture, education, and security.
In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal. The two leaders welcomed in this regard the return of the final surge brigade to the United States this month, and the ongoing transition from a primary combat role for U.S. forces to an overwatch role, which focuses on training and advising Iraqi forces, and conducting counter-terror operations in support of those forces.
This transition and the subsequent reduction in U.S. forces from Iraq is a testament to the improving capacity of Iraq's Security Forces and the success of joint operations that were initiated under the new strategy put in place by the President and the Prime Minister in January 2007.

What's it mean? Nothing.
BBC may come closest to that reality when they note: "The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the announcement is designed to encourage the idea that US troops are coming home, without committing to any dates." In which case, the hope would be to lull the American people into a sense that the illegal war is drawing to a close, so everybody calm down. Who is 'everybody'? Our pathetic 'peace' organizations who are focused on Iran and have forgotten Iraq? Roger Runningen and Ken Fireman (Bloomberg News) note that "White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said the new statement doesn't reflect a shift in the U.S. position." At the State Dept today, spokesperson Sean McCormack attempted to play dumb. Responding to questions about the discussions between the puppet and the White House, McCormak first declared, "I think the -- well, the White House issued a statement about this." The next question was answered with, "And they -- the Iraqis -- also put out language." And then, "What am I going to add to the statement that has been issued?"

It's all very Nixonian, this 'plan' that no one can know about but everyone should know that peace is just around the corner.
It echoes US Senator John McCain (presumptive GOP presidential nominee) claiming yesterday that the Iraq War could now be considered a 'win.' And, as with Nixon and his secret 'peace plan,' no one appears eager to probe McCain to explain what happens after a 'win'? Mitt Romney took to NBC's Today show this morning to speak vaugely of John McCain's 'goals' to end the illegal war to Matt Lauer but Matt was more interested in cracking resume jokes and asking about polls. Didn't even appear to note Romney's "sweet talk" jab at Barack ("I think in the final analysis that sweet talk is going to give into straight talk."). Maybe because Matt Lauer was too busy laying on the "sweet talk" ("Can I just recite your resume here?").

Today,
James Risen (New York Times) reports that KBR's electrical work is even worse than thought -- and this was with it thought that only 13 US service members had died from being electrocuted in the showers due to cheap and shoddy work -- with people receiving daily shocks and Risen notes, "During just one six-month period -- August 2006 through January 2007 -- at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military's largest dining hall in the country, documents obtained by The New York Times show. Two soldiers died in an electrical fire at their base near Tikrit in 2006, the records note, while another was injured while jumping from a burning guard tower in May 2007." Meanwhile Hurriyet reports that northern Iraq was bombed today by Turkish warplanes.


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

Bombings?


Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Nineveh Province car bombing that killed the driver and 3 members of the Iraqi military with seven more left wounded, an apparent assassination attempt on Laith Salih in Diyala Province -- Salih ("Awakening" Council) wasn't wounded but his brother was.

Shootings?

Reuters drops back to Thursday to note 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul with three more injured.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.

Monsters and Critics reports, " The Voices of Iraq (VOI) news agency quoted a statement by the US Department of Defense saying a US soldier died of injuries after a car accident in Nineveh's capital some 400 kilometres north of Baghdad."



"Decades ago it was full of victories in the sixties and seventies," said
Ralph Nader when asked about the changes in consumer advocacy. "Full of victories. You know, regulated the lack of safety in motor vehicles, flamable fabrics, Product Safety Commission, all kinds of -- going after usary interest rates for the poor and many other pieces of legislation. But now it's purely defensive. It's trying to hold the gains of the sixties and seventies and that's become a losing fight because the Democrats are not going after the Republicans on this issue, even in this campaign. The Republicans are terrible on consumer protection and the Democrats are not fighting back." Hold the line? You could apply the comments to reproductive rights (except Barack's now attacked them with his demeaning of Doe v. ). Nader was speaking to John Bachir and about the 2004 campaign (video here). But what about the consumer aspect? Yesterday the US Food and Drug Administration issued an announcement noting: "FDA is updating its warning to consumers nationwide concerning the outbreak of Salmonella serotype Saintpaul. As of today, FDA officials believe that consumers may enjoy all types of fresh tomatoes available on the domestic market, without concern of becoming infected with Salmonella Saintpaul. The agency is removing the warning that has been in place since June 7, which states that consumers should avoid certain types of fresh tomatoes due to a potential connection to the Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak. Consumers may resume enjoying any type of fresh tomato, including raw red plum, raw red Roma, and raw red round tomatoes. While we are changing our consumer guidance about tomatoes, we reiterate our guidance to consumers that those in vulnerable populations (infants, the elderly, and immune-compromised people) should avoid eating jalapeno and serrano peppers as the investigation continues." In what world is that acceptable? For those who remember the earlier e-coli outbreak in spinach, in March of this year Consumer Reports' blog noted "a report recently released by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called 'FDA and Fresh Spinach Safety.'
The findings paint a most unappetizing picture of food safety and once again underscore the need to give the Food and Drug Administration more resources to oversee the safety of the nation's food supply. The committee's investigation was prompted by the
September 2006 outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 that caused hundreds of reported injuries and several deaths—an outbreak that was ultimately traced to packaged fresh spinach. So where is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform? June 7th was when the FDA issued their warning on tomatoes. A working Congress, a working committee would have called for public hearings immediately. But apparently the public safety takes backseat to showboating for elections so everyone has to wait until the end of July for any hearings. Jim Downing (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "Americans have continued to get sick -- at a rate of about 20 people per day -- even after" the FDA issued their alert, even after they studied the spinach outbreak. US House Rep Diana DeGette issued a statement yesterday: "It is absolutely outrageous that we are 90 days into the salmonella outbreak and the FDA and CDC still cannot determine the source of contamination. Currently, over 1200 cases of salmonella have been reported, hundreds have been hospitalized, while the outbreak has affected 41 states, including Washington, DC and even Canada. The salmonella outbreak continues to spread, with nearly 30 cases a day, because we do not have a national, comprehensive food traceability system that would quickly track our foods from the field to the fork. . . . Now the FDA is saying that tomatoes are safe, but only because they have a short shelf life. We still don't know the source of the contamination and that is inexcusable." And it's inexcusable that Congress has done nothing but issue press statements while this has taken place. Stephen J. Hedges (Chicago Tribune) quotes a letter Senator Tom Harkin sent to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, "It seems highly unlikely that tomatoes harvested in April would still be consumed fresh by consumers in late June." And it seems highly unlikely that an effective Congress 'addresses' this issue by sending letters instead of immediately calling hearings.

On a possibly related note, Bill Moyers and Michael Winship (PBS'
Bill Moyers Journal ) point out:

But we also get into these terrible dilemmas -- where the big guys step all over everyone else and the victims are required to pay the hospital bills -- because we refuse to recognize the connection between money and politics. This is the great denial in democracy that may ultimately mean our ruin. We just don't seem able to see or accept the fact that money drives policy. It's no wonder that Congress and the White House have been looking the other way as the predators picked the pockets of unsuspecting debtors. Mega banking and investment firms have been some of the biggest providers of the cash vital to keeping incumbents in office. There isn't much appetite for biting -- or regulating -- the manicured hand that feeds them. Guess who gave the most money to candidates in this 2007-08 federal election cycle? That's right, the financial services and real estate industries. They stuffed nearly $250 million dollars into the candidate coffers. The about-to-be-bailed-out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together are responsible for about half the country's $12 trillion mortgage debt. Lisa Lerer of Politico.com reports that over the past decade, the two financial giants with the down home names have spent nearly $200 million on campaign contributions and lobbying. According to Lerer, "They've stacked their payrolls with top Washington power brokers of all political stripes, including Republican John McCain's presidential campaign manager, Rick Davis; Democrat Barack Obama's original vice presidential vetter, Jim Johnson; and scores of others now working for the two rivals for the White House." Last Sunday's New York Times put it as bluntly as anyone ever has: "In Washington, Fannie and Freddie's sprawling lobbying machine hired family and friends of politicians in their efforts to quickly sideline any regulations that might slow their growth or invite greater oversight of their business practices. Indeed, their rapid expansion was, at least in part, the result of such artful lobbying over the years." What a beautiful term: "artful lobbying." It means honest graft.

Meanwhile
Team Nader notes:

Last week, we set a fundraising goal of $60,000 by Sunday July 20 midnight - to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in a total of 15 states.
In one week, we have raised $44,000.
Now, we need your help to raise the remaining $16,000 over the next three days - by Sunday midnight.
If only 8,000 of you, our loyal supporters,
donate $2 now, we will meet this goal.
Why is it important to have Ralph Nader on the ballot in November?
Without him, the plight of the Palestinian people will not be an issue in this year's election.
How do we know?
Because Obama/McCain stand with the militaristic right wing AIPAC lobby in the United States.
Nader/Gonzalez stand with the Israeli/Palestinian peace movements.
You will be hearing a lot this weekend about Obama's upcoming trip to the Middle East.
To keep Obama's trip in perspective, check out our new video -
Nader on Obama/Israel - here.
Pass it around to friends and family this weekend.
It is also important to keep in mind that Obama is to the right of some Mossad Israeli hawks. (
See recent Mother Jones article here.)
Even these Mossad Israeli hawks - along with the majority of the Israeli people - would open talks with Hamas.
Obama/McCain would not.
Nader/Gonzalez would reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Obama/McCain would not.
We stand with the courageous Israeli and Palestinian peace movements.
We stand against the AIPAC militarists.
So, if you care about peace in the Middle East.
Please
help us out today.
To
meet our goal by Sunday night.
Together, we are making a difference.
Onward

TV:
NOW on PBS will focus on "the forgotten war' Afghanistan (begins airing Friday on most PBS stations). Bill Moyers Journal (check your local listings, begins airing on PBS in most markets tonight, it also streams online -- transcript, video, audio) looks at the housing crisis and spotlights the continued decline of a once strong voice who guests on the program to talk about the 'up' of the housing crisis (for Democrats!). Gwen's fronting polls as a 'draw' for viewers of this week's Washington Week which should give everyone pause. Dan Balz is among the scheduled guests and the only one who might be able to penetrate the spin. And independent journalist David Bacon continues to explore the issue of immigration, his latest is "THE RIGHT TO STAY HOME" (New American Media). Bacon's latest book is set for release in September, Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).

iraqjames burmeisterrobin longjeremy deutschmark larabeekeith jonesstefanie fisher
mina al-oraibi
howard zinn
iraq veterans against the war
adam kokesh
mcclatchy newspapers
now on pbs
bill moyers journal
the new york timesjames risen

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Soren Wuerth and Penn. Attn. Gen. on Nader

A day before, I had received a phone call urging me to help collect signatures for Ralph Nader. Nader wants to get on the ballot in as many states as possible, and in Alaska it takes a little over 3,000 signatures from voters.
There are big stakes up here for all the presidential candidates. Noting the strength he had in January's caucus, Obama's team hopes he will pull off the first Democratic presidential victory here in decades. McCain has always challenged our delegation on its gratuitous pork spending, so he has to make some amends with Alaskan Republicans. Nader wants to tap stalwart independent constituencies. Ron Paul enjoys a hardcore group of backers as well.
My brother, meanwhile, continues to send me the Obama pins and bumper stickers. He was recently invited to an Obama speech when the candidate visited his hometown of Colorado Springs. My brother was seen on television shaking Barack's hand and getting a pat on the back. Though my parents' van sports Obama's "hope" bumpersticker, my father recently directed me to
votenader.org.
Nader supports everything I do. He supports everything, in fact, many Americans do, according to polls, issues like a single-payer health care, cutting the enormous military budget, and a crackdown on corporate crime.


That is from Soren Wuerth's "Voting for president doesn't have to be for an 'R' or a 'D'" (Anchorage Daily News) and I enjoyed it. What did I not enjoy? A piece attacking Ralph Nader from Thailand. While Alaska is part of the United States, Thailand is not. It is a United States election. I do not mean to be rude.

I remember when Tony Blair was stepping down and there were some members of the community who felt C.I. should be covering the contenders for prime minister and C.I.'s response was Polly's Brew covers the European scene and it would be one thing to offer something there but even then "I don't live there. It's really not my business and I don't see the need to play 'expert' on everything."

I have no idea what kind of a system or government Thailand has but it was really something to read that piece by a young adult who claims he lives there and has his entire life and apparently the most 'evil' thing in the world to him is Ralph Nader.

He trashed Mr. Nader for living (this is a quote) "in a nice home." I have no idea where Mr. Nader lives. He has never invited me over for dinner. (Or even drinks.) But I would not expect him to live in a hovel (and am glad to know he does not). He is an adult who has worked for many, many years. It is good to know he has "a nice house."

I wondered if the young man in Thailand knew that Barack Obama lives in a mansion, one he could not afford so he took "Big Tony" Rezko on a tour of it and somehow Big Tony just decided to buy the land parcel so that Mr. Obama could just focus on purchasing the mansion.

I am really not clear as to why anyone outside the US, who is not a citizen of the US, would really think they should be allowed to influence our election? Maybe that comes from living in a country that knows so little about the rest of the world? I am referring to the little attention paid by our news media to other countries. But I would not have dreamed of weighing in on the election in France even though I was following that obsessively.

I guess Mr. Obama's five country trip is just his way of 'campaigning' further? Funny, I thought Americans decided American elections, the French decided France's elections, etc.

Marcia passed this over to me "The Birth of the Illegal Bonus Program" (Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General):

The grand jury found that in 2004, Veon and Manzo directed Eric Webb, a House Democratic Caucus employee, to maintain a list of all House Democratic Caucus employees who assisted with political and campaign related work.
Webb was directed to track campaign work performed by "volunteers" in the field and also to track all manner of other campaign work as directed by Veon, Manzo and others. Webb was instructed to classify the type of work performed and also to monitor and critique the efforts and time committed by the House Democratic Caucus employees. Webb's list formed the basis of who would receive taxpayer bonuses.
The grand jury found that the political culture created by Veon consistently sought to promote and reward, with taxpayer monies, those staffers engaged in political endeavors and campaign work, as opposed to those engaged solely in work on behalf of the taxpayers, such as legislative and constituent work.
Webb, who testified before the grand jury under a grant of immunity, stated that it was clearly understood by al