Joy Behar, no friend to anyone, needs to be fired

Am I the only one who thought The View was supposed to be a daytime talk show on ABC?

I am at Politico and I see a headline about Sharron Angle sending Joy Behar flowers and I think, "Oh, well good. Joy must have said something nice about her. I feel bad now for thinking all Joy does is spew hate." I was really thinking i might have had Ms. Behar wrong and that she could be an uplifting person and not just be this nagging, one-note 'pundit.'

Then I read Scott Wong's article. Ms. Angle was thanking Ms. Behar because Ms. Angle took in $150,000 yesterday. Did Ms. Behar contribute that amount?

No.

But the money poured in after Gutter Mouth Joy spewed -- on network TV -- that Ms. Angle was "a bitch" and "a moron" and "going to hell."

Mr. Wong reports that Ms. Behar today began ranting, "I don't know if it's a senseof humor, but I'd like to point out those flowers were picked by illegal immigrants. And they aren't voting for your, bitch."

Joy Behar needs to be fired. And it is a sure sign of how sexism does not mean a damn thing to the media that Ms. Behar has not been fired.

Let me skip over to Women's Media Center. They are the gals who sat out 2008 after Hillary was pushed out of the race (and I do not believe they did that much while Hillary was in the race after the first month of 2008).

Here is their little b.s. campaign's comment (Name It. Change It.):

Earlier today on The View, Joy Behar reacted very strongly against a highly racist and divisive ad that Republican Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle's campaign is airing. While we applaud Behar for identifying and passionately fighting against racism in this crucial election, Behar called Angle a bitch, further normalizing the use of a misogynistic insult which is already far too prevalent in media.

The Name It. Change It. campaign urges media to continue to fight racism, but not with sexism.

Okay, I have not seen all of Ms. Angle's ad. I am wondering, however, how it can be considered racist from the clip aired on The View?

See, I would object to the portion they showed on The View which was about "illegal immigrants." But that is because I use the term "undocument worker." I find "illegal immigrant" to be racist and intentionally stigmatizing. But that is the term Ms. Behar used.

In addition, the next day Ms. Behar began spewing more ignorance. She does not know who picked the flowers or who did not. That would be A. B, going on about (I do not know which day, either yesterday or today -- there are clips at both links above) how there are Latinos and Mexicans and she may have a third category (in Nevada) really goes to her own ignorance. Immigration is an issue for many. I support full and complete amnesty. Many others do not. I do not scream "racist!" at them just because they disagree with me. And I am not so ignorant that I am unaware that many people on the other side of the immigration issue are, indeed, Latinos. Do not assume, as Ms. Behar did, that all Latinos support amnesty for immigrants. That is not the case by any means. There is division in that ethnicity over the issue as there is in every other ethnicity and racial grouping. Lastly, Ms. Behar is the biggest idiot in the world when she tells (via the camera) Ms. Angle that "illegal immigrants" are not going to be voting for Ms. Angle. Does Joy Behar think Sharron Angle lost that vote?

Reality check for the uneducated Ms. Behar. Ms. Angle is running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for one of Nevada's two Senate spots. Many people may vote in that election; however, "illegal immigrants" cannot legally vote in an US election. There is a move in some areas (I know this from Ava and C.I. so it is likely a movement in the Bay Area out in California) to allow everyone -- citizen, green card holder, undocumented -- to vote in school board elections. That is movement taking place currently but even that could have objections from the courts.

Ms. Angle did not lose those votes because she was never going to get them nor was Senate Majority Leader Reid because the undocumented cannot legally vote in the election.

I find it amazing that Women's Media Center wants to call Ms. Angle a racist -- I live in Conn., I have no idea whether the woman is a racist or not and they showed only 10 seconds of her commercial on The View -- but Joy Behar is referring to "illegal immigrants" (as was Ms. Angle) and she is making stereotypical comments about immigrants. Point? I found her just as racist but that is the thing, WMC had to be forced and shamed into their current campaign after refusing to stand up in 2008. Now they are pretty much forced to do this campaign; however, they do not have the guts to do it the way it needs to be done.

For the record, someone spewing "bitch" and "bitch" on the TV? They need to be fired. They need to be fired immediately. She is out of control, that show is out of balance, and it has turned to a gutter-fest.

When Joy Behar screams "bitch, bitch" over and over, you damn well better believe men are laughing. You damn well better believe that this two-bit show, this joke of a format, is seen by men as how we are. In other words, Ms. Behar reinforces every negative stereotype about women every time she opens her mouth.

Go read Trina's "Pizzas" from last night. She surveyed all of us.

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

Wednesday, October 27, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, DoD confirms the death of one soldier (while rumors swirl more than one was killed), Drama Queen John F. Burns continues to insist the WikiLeaks story is all about him (and his 'suffering'), an editorial argues Barack should ready Congress for the US military staying in Iraq past 2011, and more. Today the Christian Science Monitor's editorial board weighs in on Iraq noting that "many experts predict Iraq will soon ask Mr. Obama to extend the time for US forces to stay, not only to protect the nation's fledgling democracy but to help Iraq survive as a nation in a hostile neighborhood. Iraq is far behind the schedule set in the 2008 security pact with the United States to bolster its military and police. Its ability to defend its borders and its oil fields -- both of which are critical to US interests -- is years away. And there is much doubt in Washington about the US State Department's ability to take over the American military's role in managing key security aspects of Iraq, such as Kurdish-Arab friction or forming new police forces." The editorial appears to be advocating for a continued US military presence in Iraq so it's a little strange that they don't attempt to bolster their editorial by noting what went down at the State Dept press briefing on Monday. From Monday's snapshot: Today Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) reports that former US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker spoke last week to the National Council on US - Arab Relations and " that when the dust clears in the formation of a new government in Iraq that Baghdad would come to the United States to ask for an extension of the US military presence beyond the end of 2011. By that date, according to the accord signed in 2008 by the Bush administration, all US troops are to leave Iraq. But Crocker said that it is 'quite likely that the Iraqi government is going to ask for an extension of our deployed presence'." (He also expressed that Nouri would remaing prime minister. Why? The US government backed Nouri as the 'continuing' prime minister after Nouri promised he's allow the US military to remain in Iraq past 2011.) Today at the US State Dept, spokesperson Philip J. Crowley was asked about Crocker's remarks. He responded, "Well, we have a Status of Forces Agreement and a strategic framework. The Status of Forces Agreement expires at the end of next year, and we are working towards complete fulfillment of that Status of Forces Agreement, which would include the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of next year. The nature of our partnership beyond next year will have to be negotiated. On the civilian side, we are committed to Iraq over the long term. We will have civilians there continuing to work with the government on a range of areas – economic development, rule of law, civil society, and so forth. But to the extent that Iraq desires to have an ongoing military-to-military relationship with the United States in the future, that would have to be negotiated. And that would be something that I would expect a new government to consider. [. . .] Should Iraq wish to continue the kind of military partnership that we currently have with Iraq, we're open to have that discussion." The Christian Science Monitor's editorial board argues that Barack needs to prepare Congress for the possibility of an extended military stay in Iraq for, among other reasons, the money that would be required. With Joseph Stiglitz, Linda J. Bilmes has long been charting the financial costs of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. At The Daily Beast today, she writes: Already, we've spent more than $1 trillion in Iraq, not counting the $700 billion consumed each year by the Pentagon budget. And spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now comes to more than $3 billion weekly, making the wars a major reason for record-level budget deficits. Two years ago, Joseph Stiglitz and I published TheThreeTrillion Dollar War in which we estimated that the budgetary and economic costs of the war would reach $3 trillion. Taking new numbers into account, however, we not believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative -- the costs of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. Turning now to the WikiLeaks revelations or, as John F. Burns believes, The John F. Burns Story. I believe the theme song is Joni Mitchell's "Roses Blue" or at least the line "Inside your own self-pity, there you swim." Though some people focus on the torture revelations, for Big Boned John, it's all about him. Yesterday we were noting his appearance on The Takeaway and Rebecca covered it even more in depth. John F. Burns whine and whined about the suffering . . . he'd been through. Apparently unable to afford therapy, he also showed up on PRI's To The Point yesterday. He repeated how hard life was for him because people leave comments on his New York Times' article and he gets e-mails and mean bloggers and whine, whine. But he had a new whine: Academia is attacking him! Academia is unreasonable. A lot of these e-mails he's getting, their e-mail address ends with "edu" and, in fact, some are from Harvard!!!!! Stephen Walt, who is a professor at Harvard and who was on the broadcast, offered, "To suggest that it's a group of academics who have it in for him is not useful." Late Friday, WikiLeaks released 391,832 US military documents on the Iraq War. The documents -- US military field reports -- reveal torture and abuse and the ignoring of both. They reveal ongoing policies passed from the Bush administration onto the Obama one. They reveal that both administrations ignored and ignore international laws and conventions on torture. They reveal a much higher civilian death toll than was ever admitted to. There are many more revelations to be found in the documents. The World Socialist Web Site editorializes: The US-led conquest of Iraq stands as one of the most barbaric war crimes of the modern era. Writing in April 2003, one month after the invasion, the World Socialist Web Site noted that during the buildup to World War II "it was common to speak of the Nazis' 'rape of Czechoslovakia,' or 'rape of Poland." What characterized Germany's modus operandi in these countries was the use of overwhelming military force and the complete elimination of their governments and all civic institutions, followed by the takeover of their economies for the benefit of German capitalism. It is high time that what the US is doing is called by its real name. A criminal regime in Washington is carrying out the rape of Iraq." (See, "The rape of Iraq") The devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people has only intensified over the past seven-and-a-half years. The US has engaged in sociocide -- the systematic destruction of an entire civilization. In addition to the hundreds of thousands killed, millions more have been turned into refugees. There has been a staggering growth of disease, infant mortality and malnutrition. The US military has destroyed the country's infrastructure, leaving an economy in ruins, with an unemployment rate of 70 percent. To the horror of the world's population, the Iraqi people have been made to suffer an unimaginable tragedy at the hands of the most powerful military force on the planet. And for what? To establish US domination over the oil-rich and geostrategically critical country. Every major institution in the United States is complicit in this crime. In the face of broad popular opposition within the US, both Democrats and Republicans authorized the war and have supported it ever since, expending hundreds of billions of dollars in the process. The American people have sought repeatedly to end the war through elections, only to be confronted with the fact that the war continues regardless of which corporate-controlled party is in office. Obama, elected as a result of popular hostility to Bush and the Republicans and their policies of war and handouts to the rich, has continued the same policies. Running as a critic of the Iraq War, he now praises the US military occupiers as "liberators." Gil Hoffman (Jerusalem Post) reports, "National Union MK Michael Ben-Ari urged UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday to investigate actions by the American military in Iraq that may constitute war crimes as alleged by the WikiLeaks website." Hoffman quotes from Ben-Ari's letter, "The latest revelation of US military documents regarding the war in Iraq detailing torture, summary executions, rape and war crimes by US and US lead security forces in Iraq, paint a terrifying portrait of US abuse and contempt of international treaties. [. . .] That the Pentagon is looking to cover up these crimes from the world shows the US government has much more to hide." BBC News notes that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, calls for the US and Iraq to conduct an investigation and quotes her stating, "The US and Iraqi authorities should take necessary measures to investigate all allegations made in these reports and to bring to justice those responsible for unlawful killings, summary executions, torture and other serious human rights abuses," she said in a statement." AFP adds, "Pillay, based in Geneva, said the United States and Iraq should investigate all allegations in the Wikileak documents and 'bring to justice those responsible for unlawful killings, summary executions, torture and other serious human rights abuses.' She said documents released by the whistleblowing website added to her concerns that serious human rights breaches had occurred in Iraq, including 'summary executions of a large number of civilians and torture and ill-treatment of detainees'." Tom Eley (WSWS) reports on the contractor revelations and notes: The mercenaries, some of whom earn more than $500 per day, are accountable to no one. Soon after the US invasion of Iraq, Paul Bremer issued "Order No. 17," giving security firm employees total immunity from Iraqi laws. Nor has any US court punished the contractors, even for known instances of murder. They are also not under the jurisdiction of the US military, freeing them from the court martial and even the often-flouted rules of engagement laid out in the US Army Field Manual. WikiLeaks documents analyzed by Al Jazeera, the Arab-language media service, reveal at least 14 previously unknown cases in which employees of the most infamous private security firm, Blackwater International, fired on civilians. These attacks resulted in 10 confirmed deaths and seven serious injuries. Blackwater, now known as Xe Services, is most notorious for a 2007 attack it carried out in Baghdad's crowded Nissour Square, killing 17 civilians and seriously wounding 18 more. Five Blackwater mercenaries were charged with murder, but a US judge ruled the prosecution had engaged in misconduct and threw the case out. "With all the attention focused on WikiLeaks' most recent release -- a trove of documents that paints a bleak picture of the war in Iraq," notes Razzaq al-Saiedi (Global Post), "it's easy to forget that the Iraq of today still has no government." al-Saiedi reminds that Sunday Iraq's Supreme Court ordered Parliament to reconvene and hold sessions. At present, they've only held one session since the election -- they took roll, took their oaths and adjounred -- all in less than 20 minutes.. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's seven months and twenty days and still counting. Alsumaria TV is covering the latest developments. They report, "During his meeting with Kurdistan leader Massoud Barazani in Arbil, head of Al Iraqiya List Iyad Allawi cautioned that the government formation has grew into a serious and critical issue." And that: "Iraqi National Alliance announced after a meeting held at the house of Ibrahim Al Jaafari that it will send a delegation to take part in the meeting between the political blocs expected to be held on Wednesday in order to activate the initiative of the head of Kurdistan region Massoud Barazani who called for dialogue between the different political parties." The statlemate continues and so does the violence. Bombings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left four people injured and a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left four people injured. Alsumaria TV also reports an Abu Ghraib bombing which left two Iraqi soldiers injured. Reuters notes a civilian was also wounded in that bombing and that a Baghdad bombing -- possibly targeting the Sunni Endowment -- injured two guards of the Endowment and four by-standers, a Jalawla roadside bombing claimed the lives of Mohammed al-Tememi and 3 bodyguards (al-Tememi headed the criminal investigation unit), Jalawla sticky bombing which injured two police officers, and, dropping back to last night, a Kirkuk bombing which injured three people. Shootings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) drops back to Tuesday night to note Sahwa leader Qahtan Azeez's assassination. This morning, DoD was still unable to issue a release on the death of 21-year-old David Jones in Iraq Sunday -- despite the family having gone public. And despite new details emerging. Steve Flamisch (WRGB) reports the family of David Jones has been told by "a service member" that Jones and another soldier were killed Sunday by a third US soldier on a rampage. David Jones' mother Theresa Bennett (biological aunt, raised him as her own -- last time we're making that reference, she was his mother) is quoted stating, "Two died, and three others were in urgent care." Pat Bailey (WKTV -- link has text and video) reports that Pfc David Jones "leaves behind 7 brothers" and that the family is stating they will get to the bottom of how he died. Julie Tremmel (Fox23 News -- link has text and video) reports that US House Rep Paul Tonko states there will be "a thorough investigation" and his brother Bernie Bennett states, "If he was out in the battlefield when he died that would be something else. But he was in his room and they say that he got murdered by just a gunshot to his head, and it's just so hard to explain." Dennis Yusko (Albany Times Union) reports, "The aunt of Army Pfc. David Jones received a copy of a text message Tuesday from a soldier in Iraq saying that the Montgomery County soldier was one of five people killed or wounded Sunday in a shooting "rampage" on a U.S military base in the Iraqi capital, Jones' cousin George Bennett said Wednesday." Paul Grondahl (Albany Times Union) quotes Theresa Bennett stating, "We were told he was shot by one of those very long rifles and there's no way he could have done it himself. There's no way this was a suicide." Grondahl also speaks with Colleen Murphy, mother of Staff Sgt Amy Seyboth Tirador who was killed in Iraq a year ago (November 4, 2009) and who has never been able to get answers about her daughter's death that made sense (the military insists -- despite many details to the contrary -- that Amy Seyboth Tirador took her own life). Colleen Murphy states, "I'd gently encourage whoever is strong enough in the Jones family, when they're ready, not to take what the military says at face value and to challenge it. To allow the Army to get away with closing these cases as suicides is not fair to our soldiers." If the family's being told is true about an "enraged" US soldier killing David Jones and another as yet unnamed US soldier (and wounding three otehrs), it also echoes last month's shooting in which John Carrillo and Gebrah Noonan were shot dead and a third soldier was wounded. The suspect charged in that shooting is US Spc Neftaly Platero. If it does turn out to be similar, the Army's going to have to do a lot of explaining on how, the second month in a row, this took place. Today DoD released a statement: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn. Pfc. David R. Jones Jr., 21, of Saint Johnsville, N.Y., died Oct. 24 at Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries sustained in a non-combat incident. He was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas. For more information, the media may contact the Fort Hood public affairs office at 254-897-9993 or 254-287-0106." Turning to the US, on this week's Law and Disorder Radio, hosts and attorneys Michael Ratner, Heidi Boghosian and Michael S. Smith discussed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Heidi Boghosian: Michael, what do you think of the new Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy? Michael Ratner: Well there was a recent federal court decision, Heidi, that was terrific. A federal court judge said that the law, the regulations and essentially memorandum supporting it what we call Don't Ask, Don't Tell was unconstitutional. That it was a violation of Due Process, that you couldn't let go of people in the military or get rid of them or give them discharges just because they were gay, lesbian, etc. So it's a remarkably good ruling and we're all excited about it. The problem with the ruling is, of course, Obama -- who has claimed repeatedly that the policy is disriminatory, he said it again, he said it again and again -- has decided to ask the court and then the appeals court for a stay of the ruling so it isn't implemented right away and then he's thinking about appealing the ruling. So let's think about that. A federal judge basically issues an order saying a particular statute is unconstitutional, the Obama administration which says 'this statute is discriminatory' and also in which the House of Representatives has voted to repeal the statute, the Senate hasn't taken any vote yet -- hasn't gotten to the floor, the Obama administration says, 'We're not only going to appeal, we're going to ask for a stay.' The positive thing that has happened since then is that the Pentagon, because there's no stay given and the federal judge refused to give a stay, it will have to go to the Court of Appeals now, they now have a policy they've just changed it as of this week to say that will no longer toss people from the military or refuse to recruit them into the military because they're gay. One interesting thing about the statute, I finally went back and read the statute, and it's the long usual b.s. statute with all kinds of clauses about how important military readiness is and all this junk. But I never realized what the statute said. The statue basically allows someone to be let say "caught" in a homosexual, as they refer to it in the statute, act but still allows them to be kept in the military if -- and this is what I can't get over -- if you're caught like that, if you've engaged in or attempted to engage in or solicited others to engage in a homosexual act you can still be kept if "(a) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior." If you just do an occassional homosexual act, you can still be kept. Or, it looks like an "or" to me, "such conduct is unlikely to recur" -- maybe all of them have to recurr? -- "such conduct was not accomplished under the use of forth and under the particular circumstances, the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts." So it's completely bizarre. I just can't -- Michael S. Smith: It has nothing do with human sexuality or psychology to start with. It's bizarre. Heidi Boghosian: So one night stands are allowed. Michael Ratner: One night stands are allowed. How many? I don't know. You could even conceivably have a week-stand and still stay in there. But when you see what Obama did -- I read both New York Times pieces on this. The Times reporter says the government is appealing -- in the first article, he said because they're required to because they're defending a law of Congress. Michael S. Smith: That's what -- Think about that. Michael Ratner: So one of the reasons for Obama's request for presume both the stay as well as an appeal here is that it's the obligation or the necessity or somehow the Justice Dept is supposed to defend acts of Congress when they're held unconstitutional because they are an act of the political branches that are signed by the president. The first New York Times coverage of this said that the government was required to appeal these cases. Obviously they got letters about that because they're not required to. There's many circumstances where they aren't required to -- or there's no requirement at all, but where traditionally they haven't. The article that I've just read about it now says that they've traditionally appealed cases in which a statute is held unconstitional. But even that to me would be very subject to what this case is actually about. First, you have 70% of the country saying they think this policy is just b.s. Secondly, you have the president who says it's discriminatory -- essentially saying it's unconstitutional, the House rather, now saying it should be appealed, the Senate it hasn't been brought to a floor vote. So you have a situation now that is different than a normal case in which there's a statute of Congress held unconstitutional, the president doesn't think it's unconstitutional, both houses of Congress say, this is our statute go with it. In this case, this is really Obama. That's what it is. And someone told me -- and I'd be interested in the reaction of my two hosts here -- when I criticized this policy the other day, someone said, "Well, lookit, this is the deal, Michael, Obama wants to get us out of Afghanistan, the Pentagon does not want to have Don't Ask, Don't Tell [repeal] implemented and the deal here is that Obama will continue to fight for Don't Ask, Don't Tell even though he doesn't like the policy as a deal for the Petraeus to get out of Afghanistan. I'll take reactions from either of you and we'll end this little update. Michael S. Smith: How do you know what's inside his head? All you can do is judge him by what he's doing which is not good. I agree with Michael Smith but since Heidi didn't answer, we'll stop there to point out something. I'm not fond of these "what he really meant was" stories. Any woman who's worked any time at all on the issue of battering damn well knows just how f**king useless "what he really meant" stories are. But I find the homophobia in the person who passed that story on to Michael Ratner appalling. The "what he really meant" game here is that Barack wants out of Afghanistan (where's the proof on that?) and he's going to pretend to care about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell while refusing to actually repeal it. He's going to do that to please the Pentagon, the tall tale goes. And the person telling this to Michael is doing so to justify Barack. There's no justification for that and you have to have a whole lot of homophobia -- and disrespect for the people's right to know and the will of the people -- to see this as 'three dimensional chess' and something good about Barack. Obviously, since they taped the update, there's been another flip. The appeals court issued a stay on the no-discharges policy Judge Virginia Phillips had put in place during the appeals process (appeal of her ruling that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is unconstitutional). War News Radio covered that on their latest program (began airing Friday). Excerpt: Sam Hirshman: US Court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy unconstitutional in September. About a month later, she issued a world-wide injunction on the policy. According to Diane Mazur, a professor at the University of Florida, an expert on the Constitution and the military -- Diane Mazur: What it means is that she's issued an order barring the military from enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell in any place that the military operates at any time, in any way. It is as a broad as an order can be on this -- on this subject. Sam Hirshman: Suddenly, it was okay to be gay in the US military -- at least in the eyes of the law. A flurry of legal activity followed the injunction: motions, replies, appeals, stays and orders. For now it looks like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the 1993 policiy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military will stay in place. The injunction was in effect all of eight days. During that time, the Dept of Defense allowed gay people to enlist in the military, service members could come out during the injunction and continue serving but the DoD warned that such statements may have adverse consequences. Gary Lapon (US Socialist Worker) offers an analysis here. Lt Dan Choi was discharged from the military for the 'crime' of being gay. With federal Judge Virginia Phillips issuing a halt to discharges Dan Choi attempted to re-enlist last week (see Rebecca's "don't ask barack because he will tell"), Dan Choi took action during that brief moment when equality appeared to exist. Betty's "Sick of the ass in the White House," Mike's "An ugly day," and Cedric's "Shame on you, Mark Sherman" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! STOP WHORING!" covered the reversal when inequality again became the law of the land. Steven Thrasher (Village Voice) files a feature on Dan Choi: Choi is unapologetic. He says he resents it when anyone, especially those in the gay-rights movement, discourages him from exploring—well, sexually—his newly revealed homosexuality. "I think our movement hits on so many nerves," he says, "not just for reasons of anti-discrimination and all the platitudes of the civil rights movement. I believe that it's also because it has elements of sexual liberation. And it shows people that through what we're trying to do, they can be fully respectful of themselves, without accepting the shame society wants to throw upon them." "Sexual liberation" -- that probably won't play well on Capitol Hill. And therein lies the conflict between Choi and the establishment. His bold public actions --from chaining himself to the White House fence (twice) to going on a hunger strike for seven days -- as well as his almost complete lack of inhibition about making his private behavior public, unnerve the old guard of both the military and the gay-rights movement. Everyone, he says, is "happy to send out e-mails when a good court case comes out, but no one is willing to take a risk for fear of taking blame. If people want to blame me for being the reason 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' isn't repealed, I say fine. Bring it on, motherf**kers." Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Heidi and the Michaels covered the topic on WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio including during a conversation with Margaret Ratner-Kunstler which you can hear at the program's site by going into the archives and the program has also transcribed their discussion with Margaret and you can read it here. Nicole Colson (US Socialist Worker) spoke with Michael Ratner about the raids. Excerpt: Nicole Colson: In terms of the response to the FBI raids, I know there were several demonstrations in cities in the days following the raids, and when the first grand jury appearance was scheduled, even though all the activists refused to testify, people came out for that as well. Do you think that kind of public pressure is important? Michael Ratner: I think those have been very helpful. I was really excited to see that there were 27 cities that had demonstrations around the raids and the grand jury appearances. And the fact that everybody decided to take the Fifth Amendment and not testify I think surprised the government. The government didn't come back immediately and give certain people immunity, or maybe it realized they overreached a bit, and that it was a fishing expedition. I think the demonstrations made a difference in that. That's not saying that something more won't happen, because you know they don't do these things and then just walk away. But I think demonstrations did help, and protests really limit the scope that the government can act on in these kind of raids. I think they are absolutely a crucial part of opposition. I think that if there weren't those protests, for all I know the government would have enforced those subpoenas right away and dragged those people right in to the grand jury. But now, maybe they're rethinking it. They may still do it selectively -- I don't have any idea -- but I certainly believe that making this into the civil liberties fight that it really is, is crucial. November 6th there will be a national meeting in NYC sponsored by the Committee To Stop FBI Repression (6:30 pm, St. Mark's Church). The National Lawyers Guild passed the following resolution at their conference in New Orleans: On September 24, 2010, in various localities in the United Stated the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed search warra nts on the homes of, and served grand jury subpoenas on, several anti-war and solidarity activists involved in solidarity work with Palestinian and Colombian people. The United States has demanded that these peaceful activists produce, to a Federal Grand Jury, emails, pictures, bank records and other personal records relating to travel to Colombia, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Territories, and Israel. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the National Lawyers Guild strongly denounces the attacks on free speech, freedom of association, right to dissent, and expressions of solidarity represented by these raids and grand jury subpoenas. We further resolve that the National Lawyers Guild shall continue to zealously defend the right to dissent, the right to act in solidarity with oppressed peoples, and resist the chilling effect of Holder v. Humanitarian Laws Project at al. Consistent with the NLG approach to opposing this type of attack we support all efforts to enjoin the grand jury and prosecution, as the NLG did in the case of Dombrowski v. Pfister. To view a complete list of other resolutions voted on and passed at this year's convention, visit our convention page. To view resolutions passed in previous years, visit our bylaws page. And we close with this from Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com): Indeed, most Americans who were marching in the streets, denouncing what they called "Bush's war," voted for Barack Obama for President. They supported him enthusiastically, a number of the activist types campaigned for him, and now that we're living through what Bob Woodward calls "Obama's Wars," these former peaceniks have buttoned their lips. When Obama was elected, the main peace coalition, which called itself United for Peace and Justice, congratulated him in a front page article on their web site – and then promptly dissolved! Oh, they still claim to oppose the wars we are fighting – in theory – but in practice they just aren't all that interested in doing anything about it. And we're not just talking about the limousine liberal set here: hard-line Marxists, who have always been involved in the various peace movements, are also going squishy. At a recent "antiwar conference" held in Buffalo, New York, which was dominated and largely organized by a Trotskyist group known as Socialist Action, the participants voted to pour their energy into building the October 2nd pro-Obama demonstration recently held in Washington, D.C., which dubbed itself "One Nation Working Together." Yeah, right, One Nation Working Together for the Democratic Party. The rally, a left-wing version of the Glenn Beck pray in, was basically a get out the vote effort on behalf of the beleaguered Democrats. From the platform, speaker after speaker told the rather thin crowd that their moral duty was to go out and vote Democrat. That's the ticket! And what did they get in exchange for acting as water boys for the union bureaucrats? Nothing – not a single speaker, not a single slogan, not a single antiwar placard onstage. Nothing, nada, zilch. There was no official antiwar speaker precisely because the rally was organized and controlled by the Obama-crats, who all support their commander-in-chief as he wages a war of conquest in Afghanistan and extends it into Pakistan. However, the party hacks lost control of the stage, at one point, when Harry Belafonte shattered the silence. Charging that "the wars that we wage today in far away lands are immoral, unconscionable and unwinnable," the famous musician delivered a stunning denunciation of the war – a moment you can bet was not supposed to happen. Belafonte then started railing about how we're headed for "a totalitarian state in America," which kind of made him seem like a tea partier – except that in the next breath he accused the tea party of being the "villainous" force behind this sinister trend. Go figure. According to more than one eye witness, the reception to Belafonte's antiwar message was "muted," at best. But of course it was. The Democrats don't want to bring up the war issue, because it's just another reason for their base to stay home on Election Day. The only other reference to the military — aside from some patriotic comments to the troops — was Jesse Jackson's call to "Cut the military budget." A few moments out of hours. Big deal. iraq wbai law and disorder michael ratner heidi boghosian michael smith the jerusalem post gil hoffman bbc news dawn mahir ali wgrb steve flamisch wktv pat bailey fox23 news julie tremmel the albany times union paul grondahl justin raimondo

Juan Williams is supposed to defend NPR?

Syed Hussain (Arab News) writes of WikiLeaks' Iraq revelations:

The new revelations put Al-Maliki in a quandary at a time when negotiations over the formation of a new government are still going on. Some say the security agencies under Al-Maliki’s control are to blame for the sort of inmate torture detailed in the leaked files.

They are wrong. Iraq is still under occupation. Al-Maliki and his two predecessors, Iyad Allawi and Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, were put in office by the American occupation authorities. It is true that elections were held to give a semblance of legitimacy to Al-Maliki and others and to provide US President George W. Bush an opportunity to brag that for the first time a Westminster-type democracy was flourishing in the Arab world because of his invasion. But everybody knows how much power a puppet wields. So it is unfair to blame Al-Maliki or any Iraqi politician for what happened and what is going on in Iraq.

The very fact that Iraq goes without a new government some 7 to 8 months after the elections tells its own story about the “democracy in Mesopotamia”. The fact that Allawi and Al-Maliki, both American favorites, are the only two names mentioned for the top post exposes this democracy for the sham it is.

Excellent point.

On the second hour of today's on The Diane Rehm Show, Diane spoke with Juan Williams for the hour.

For the most part, I have praise for the broadcast; however, at one point Ms. Rehm wanted to know if Mr. Williams was attacking just NPR leadership or NPR itself?

I was not aware that Mr. Williams was attacking anyone.

He was fired and he is asked why. His responses to his firing? I think he has done better job than many would.

I also do not feel it is his responsibility to now defend NPR from calls to defund it -- Diane Rehm appeared to think that was his job.

Why? He was fired. He was publicly humiliated. It is not his job to defend NPR.

If you click here, you'll go that hour itself and also be able to read the nearly 200 comments left thus far. Of all the comments, this one was of greatest interest to me:

new

danweber wrote:

Was firing Juan Williams a violation of the First Amendment?

No. All companies deserve the right to terminate employees.

So firing him was fine?

No. It wasn't illegal, but it presents serious problems about NPR.

Should the government terminate funding of NPR?

Not because of this. There is a legitimate debate as to how much the government should support NPR. But reacting to cut off NPR's funding because of this would be as bad as NPR firing Juan Williams because of his admission of a personal foible.

What did the ombudsman say about this?

On "On Point," she said Williams was fired because he was on "The O'Reilly Factor" and that there was shouting and interrupting on that show. Tom Ashbrook asked if that was the reason, and she changed the subject and said it was because they had gotten lots of complaints about Juan Williams.

So we can get anyone kicked off of NPR if we initiate lots of complaints?

Apparently. The ombudsman is being a total weasel. To repeat, this is within NPR's rights. But other people should be able to call out weaselness.

But there was shouting and interrupting on "The O'Reilly Factor"!

I don't like that form of communication. It's why I listen to NPR. But it doesn't mean that the "shouting-style" form of discussion is illegitimate. NPR may wish to illegitimize it, but there are lots of people who get their information from there.

Fox News! Fox News! Bawk!

I don't watch Fox News (or pretty much anything that isn't NPR), but if the policy is "you can't appear on Fox" then NPR should say that's the policy.

There are many interesting points -- some with which I agree, some with which I do not -- but that one actually contained information I did not know.


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

Tuesday, October 26, 2010. Chaos and violence contiue, another US soldier dies in Iraq, WikiLeaks gets media attention (from some), The Whoring of America, and more. Sunday another US soldier died while serving in Iraq. Neither DoD nor USF has issued a statement on the death on his death but his family has gone public. WTEN reports, "21-year old Pvt. David Jones joined the Army less than one year ago, and was serving his first tour of duty in Iraq as a prison guard. The 2008 St. Johnsville High School graduate was in good spirits when he spoke to his mother last week, but his girlfriend received a cryptic message from him minutes before his death." Theresa Bennett explains her son (biological nephew but she raised him) would have been back in the US "on leave next week. He had bought tickets to a New York Giants football game and planned to propose to his girlfriend at halftime." In Iraq, David Jones was a prison guard. The Albany Times Union reports that his body was discovered "with a gunshot wound to his head. His girlfriend, Brittany Winton, said that shortly before he was found, he sent her a Facebook message that said 'By the time you get this I'll probably be gone'." Stephanie Sorrell-White (Observer-Dispatch) quotes his baseball coach Jason Brundage stating, "David was a good kid. He was outgoing, had a lot of energy, always talking but never saying anything bad about anyone." Julie Tremmel (Fox 23 News) speaks with the family and his brother Bernie Bennett states, "I talked to him the other day and he was gonna be back for my birthday and we were going to celebrate together." Theresa Bennet adds, "He sent Brittany an engagement ring and gave it to her mother to hold on to. And he sent us tickets to the Dallas Cowboys and Giants game on November 8th and he was gonna propose to her at half time." The family wants answers about David Jones' death and they deserve them. A much more minor issue, but still an issue, is why USF is unable to issue announcements on deaths. Issuing announcements is their job. Of course, to do so, would be to draw attention to a death and everyone's working overtime to pretend that there are no US soldiers in Iraq anymore and Barack uttered a few words on August 31st and 'peace' prevailed. It's a disservice to those stationed there, it's a disservice to those like David Jones who are losing their lives. Today on the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), professional liar Paul Pillar told more lies than anyone could possibly ever fact check. While it might appear that Pillar should be an expert on dumps, we're referring to the releasing of documents -- called a "document dump" by the Pentagon and its supporters -- and that's really not Pillar's expertise. He should stick to things that, like him, float around a toilet. And suggestion for NPR, stop booking guests who snicker. It's childish and it needs to stop. Late Friday, WikiLeaks released 391,832 US military documents on the Iraq War. Today Diane was joined by Stephen Walt and Daniel Ellsberg after Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell spoke (he handed off to Pillar who spun for the Pentagon throughout). Excerpt: Stephen Walt: They suggest that some parts of the story we were told over the last few years weren't entirely correct and may have actually been misrepresented. And given that the American tax payer is paying for this and the Americans are going to be held responsible for this and Americans are going to have to judge how others see us based on what they know about what our own government is doing I think the net effect of some of this is acutally positive and we have to be very careful in trying to squelch it. If I may make one other point, if I thought that the Congress and the press were doing an energetic job of investigating what our past behavior has been and holding people accountable then I would think there was less value in having an organization like WikiLeaks spreading this kind of information. Diane Rehm: Stephen -- Stephen Walt: Given that I haven't seen very much of that in recent years, I guess the net effect, this may actually be positive for the sort of longterm understanding of American foreign and defense policy. Diane Rehm: Stephen Walt. He's professor of international affairs at Harvard University. And turning to you now, Daniel Ellsberg, first of all, I know you're in London. Why? Daniel Ellsberg: I was here to stand with WikiLeaks in this release which I think serves a very definite public interest here -- Diane Rehm: You say -- You say you've been waiting a long time for information that actually makes a difference. Yet, you've heard Stephen Walt say, Paul Pillar say, what's been released really does not amount to all that much. Daniel Ellsberg: Well that does not -- First of all, I do agree with what Stephen Walt has said and I thought, Diane, your question was very prudent, probing and appropriate. I have to say I have been waiting a long time for someone to take risks of acting at risk as the source of this has done. Anyone who released this information had to know that they were risking being where Bradley Manning is sitting right now: Accused -- whether rightly or not -- and facing life imprisonment [. . .] or be executed in order to share this information with the American public I recognize the same state of mind I had 40 years ago and which did not then represent the feelings of a disgrunteled individual with an axe to grind other than I thought it was in the interest of my country to stop killing Vietnamese and to end the Vietnamese war. And I have a feeling, very strongly, of identification with whoever this source was. If it was Bradley Manning, if that's proved to be the case, I admire him. But I have to say, Diane, that I'm feeling more emotion than I expected to feel in this. I recognize by that my still feelings of identification with the executive branch that I served for quite awhile and my feelings of shame and disgust at hearing current officials like [Pentagon spokesperson Geoff] Morrell blow smoke about matters of human life here and war and peace in the way that he did -- Diane Rehm: Daniel Ellsberg, tell me what you believe these documents reveal -- Daniel Ellsberg: Yes, well -- Diane Rehm: -- that the American public needs to know? Daniel Ellsberg: It's, it's a matter of simply reading the documents. Morrell said the other night on The Larry King Show I was on that he saw no War Crimes in these documents, these 400,000, he saw no evidence of War Crimes. I was -- I found myself just disgusted at that statement. If he wants better information on that, he can find it within his own building, he can go to his Judge Advocate's General of the -- Diane Rehm: Tell me what War Crimes you believe have been committed? Daniel Ellsberg: Yes. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that drilling with electric drills, pulling out finger nails and cutting fingers, this is consensually understood to be torture which is to say a crime under international and domestic law -- as is the failure to investigate or to stop the practice of this by allies -- Diane Rehm: Alright. Daniel Ellsberg: -- and to refuse to hand over suspects as these clearly reveal. They're just as much crimes of torture itself. Diane Rehm: Stephen Walt -- Daniel Ellsberg: And to make that very clear, he could get that from Colin Powell who as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- and former Secretary of State at the time in the Bush administration when this was going on strongly objected to the redefinition of these as not being torture -- Diane Rehm: Alright. Daniel Ellsberg: -- and that these were illegal. As noted, Morrell joined the show early on. The Morrell media moment in the last days remains Good Morning America Saturday when co-anchor Dan Harris attempted to get Morrell to answer the question of whether or not US service members were asked not to investigate torture and Morrell repeatedly danced around the issue leading Harris to conclude after the third dance, "Sounds like: Yes, perhaps they were told not to investigate." (Ava and I covered that Sunday and, as noted, did so at the request of friends with ABC News.) The documents reveal that the US soldiers were reporting reports and evidence of abuse by Iraqi forces, they were reporting them up the chain of command; however, nothing was done about it and the US soldiers were under orders not to do anything other than report it. Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) notes: The biggest US security breach in our history, carried off by WikiLeaks, reveals a wealth of information – hundreds of thousands of field reports, the raw material collected by the US military on the ground in Iraq. It will be quite a while before the "gems" are mined from this treasure trove, but initially the one that stands out as the jewel in the crown is the revelation of "Frago 242" – an order from high up in the US military command instructing officers not to investigate reports of torture and other human rights violations by their Iraqi allies. As the Guardian, one of the media outlets given privileged access to the database prior to its general release, reports: "A frago is a 'fragmentary order' which summarizes a complex requirement. This one, issued in June 2004, about a year after the invasion of Iraq, orders coalition troops not to investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. Where the alleged abuse is committed by Iraqi on Iraqi, 'only an initial report will be made … No further investigation will be required unless directed by HQ.'" We invaded Iraq, according to George W. Bush, because Saddam Hussein was "killing his own people." Yet the same can be said about the regime we installed after the Iraqi dictator was deposed – and it was being done with our knowledge. Yesterday on The Takeaway, Celeste Headlee and John Hockenberry spoke with the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak. Celeste Headlee: First of all, can you tell me -- you probably haven't read 400,000 pages -- but can you tell me what in the documents strike you the most? There were reportings that Iraq's officers and soldiers were beating prisoners, burning them, lashing them -- in one case Americans suspected that a prisoner was burnt with acid. What in there is perhaps surprising to you? Manfred Nowak: It is that the amount and the brutality of the torture methods that have been used but, in principle, these new documents do confirm all the various allegations that we have heard about torture and ill treatment by Iraqi security forces and militias during all those years. Celeste Headless: So the United Nations has been receiving reports or accusations of torture, for years now, at the hands of Iraqi soldiers? Manfred Nowak: Yes, we have. Celeste Headlee: And this confirms them so what is the next step here and what is the United States' legal responsibility? If it is in fact the case that the United States was aware that this torture was going on or suspected it and still handed prisoners over, is the United States legally responsible? Manfred Nowak: I mean, first of all, of course, it's the responsibility of the Iraqi government. They have to investigate what happened and bring the perpetrators to justice. But secondly, the United States is responsible under the Convention Against Torture not to hand over any detainees to Iraqi security forces when they know that there's a serious risk of being subjected to torture. So also this practice should be investigated by the United States. Nowak goes on to reveal that he attempted a fact-finding mission in Iraq in 2006; however, despite Iraq inviting him in and the British agreeing and saying he could have access to their prisons in Iraq however the US refused and that was the end of any possible mission. In another Takeaway segment on Monday, John F. Burns told Celeste and John that he examined the documents to see (a) what the paper might have missed (he didn't feel they'd missed anything) and (b) that following his profile of Julian Assange, he has gotten nasty responses. In other words, John F. Burns used his seven minutes of time to pat himself on the back and to the whine about response to his writing. (For any wondering, we ignored John's article -- didn't link to it, didn't comment on it.) As usual, he made it all about him and then he got to the most laughable or offensive (depending upon your view) when he attacked "bloggers" who were "anti-war" and their response declaring, "I find it very unamerican," Burns is British. What a moron. And he did a lousy job in Iraq. Burns was one of the go-go boys -- he and Dexy held each other's penises while typing and playing apparently (Dexy ended up divorced, Burnsie got lucky) -- and, as such, he did more than any other NYT-er to render Iraqi women invisible in print. He wants to talk about what his paper covered under his lead? It didn't cover women. Iraqi women were not sought out, were not quoted. It took the ones came after Burnsie and Dexy to do the mop up. And Burnsie, for the record, has been unable or unwilling to report on the British response to the revelations. Nor did he remark on them on The Takeaway -- despite being on the phone from London. For those who need a reminder, back in 2005, Lloyd Groves' "Times' Iraq bureau grief" (New York Daily News) reported: The Gray Lady's management has just fired Sachs, a widely respected and experienced journalist who has tangled bitterly with Burns and Filkins, over allegations that she sent anonymous letters and an E-mail to their wives alleging bad behavior with women in the war zone. Sachs - who didn't respond to a message left for her in France yesterday - has stoutly denied the charges, and the Newspaper Guild is defending her in arbitration proceedings against The Times. [. . .] According to my sources, Filkins' wife, novelist Ana Menendez, and Burns' wife, Jane Scott-Long, received the mystery missives in the past few months, purporting to rat out their husbands' alleged infidelities. I hear that The Times conducted an investigation and linked postmarks on the envelopes to Sachs' purported whereabouts on the dates the letters were apparently sent - and also claimed to have linked an E-mail to Sachs. Susan Sachs denied any involvement. Dexy's ex made sure the little cheater paid (as she should have) and went on to a wonderful life. Dexy's . . . left being Dexy which is its own hell. And for those who don't know, despite refusing to speak on the topic, the go-go boys have gone on to paint every US female correspondent as 'loose' (to put it mildly) and, when they were scooped (as they so often were), respond that the woman was sleeping with Gen David Petreaus. (To be very clear, those were unfounded charges. There is not now nor has there ever been any indication that Petraeus had any affairs with reporters. I don't care for him but I'm not interested in falsely smearing him, I'll leave that to the go-go boys, and the women reporting from Iraq earned their scoops the hard way, by doing the work required.) What John Burns couldn't talk about on The Takeaway? Rachael Brown (Australia's ABC) reports that British Prime Minister David Cameron has "promised to investigate" the torture allegations in the WikiLeaks release. AFP quotes Cameron's spokesperson stating yesterday, "Clearly our position is that there is no place for mistreatment of detainees and we do as a matter of course investigate allegations." Staying on England a second more, the Daily Mail reports that the Iraq Inquiry will be calling War Hawk, Poodle and former prime minister Tony Brown back before the committee to address "gaps" in his testimony. Meanwhile UPI reports European Parliament VP Alejo Vidal Quadras states that "WikiLeaks indicate the Iraqi regime is guilty of war crimes." And Daily Nation reports that Lars Loekke Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, has called for an investigation into his troops actions in Iraq. Sami Moubayed (Gulf News) outlines some of the the documented violence and abuse: Another document shows that an eight-year-old Iraqi girl was killed at a checkpoint in Baghdad. Throughout the new documents, which are being described as the largest governmental leak in history, page after page shows that the US troops knew exactly what kind of malpractices were taking place in Iraqi prisons; turning a blind eye to all of them. In one log, documents reveal that the Americans suspected Iraqis cutting off the fingers of Iraqi prisoners, and burning them with acid. One of the most notorious documents says that 17 men in uniform were confronted by troops from the Iraqi Army in October 2006. When asked to identify themselves, they said they were a special unit reporting directly to Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki. That special unit, Iraqis are now saying in retrospect, might have been one of the numerous death squads that mushroomed in the Iraqi capital that winter, striking at mosques, neighbourhoods, and individuals within the Sunni community. Last night, Betty noted coverage of The Daily Telegraph by way of TODAY online: American troops in Iraq handed over captives to an infamous torture squad, according to newly-released files from the WikiLeaks war logs. The documents appear to show that United States commanders passed detainees over to the Wolf Brigade, a feared unit controlled by the Ministry of the Interior. In files seen by The New York Times, a US interrogator told the prisoner that: "He would be subject to all the pain and agony that the Wolf battalion is known to exact upon its detainees." New York Times writer Peter Maass, who was in Samarra in 2004 and 2005, told The Guardian that "US soldiers, US advisers, were standing aside and doing nothing," while members of the Wolf Brigade beat and tortured prisoners. Last night, Kat noted a revelation Press TV was reporting on. Allowing all of Iraq to be deemed a War Zone (that goes to the Bush and Obama administration) led to shooting an Iraqi teen but instead hitting a preganant woman and a small child (apparently her relative). She was wounded, the child was killed. Saturday Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf and McClatchy Newspapers' Mohammed al Dulaimy team up (link goes to Miami Herald) to reported that Nouri al-Maliki's office issued a statement insisting the release of the documents was the work of his foes in an attempt to take him down. Salam Faraj (Brisbane Times) explains that Nouri was bothered that the documents cover his rise in 2006 and how "he created security units loyal to him that Iraqis referred to as 'dirty forces' for their heavy-handed treatment of suspects and detainees." Nouri fears the release may prevent him from remaining prime minister. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's seven months and nineteen days and still counting. Sunday the country's highest court ordered the Parliament to resume session. The Ventura County Star editorial board offers their take including revealing that despite not meeting (they had one parliamentary session on June 14th which lasted less than 20 minutes) the MPs are each receiving $22,500 in salary a month as well as a housing per diem and they note that if the Court's ruling is ignored, "the court could theoretically order new elections." Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) reports, "The Islamic Supreme Council for Iraq (ISCI), Al Fadila party and the Badr Brigade, all of whom are a part of the INC, have all become closer to Al Iraqiya List. Another sensational happening took place when the Al Iraqiya List said it was willing to support the candidature of ISCI's Adel Abdul Mehdi. This move may well give way to the formation of an alliance, including Al Iraqiya, the ISCI, Al Fadila party and other smaller blocs, to weaken the position of outgoing Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's chance for a second term as premier. Nevertheless, even this alliance will not be able to gain a majority in the parliament to form a government." Meanwhile Nouri and his defenders have gone so far to claim that the WikiLeak documents were Photoshopped. Kelly McEvers (NPR's All Things Considered, link has audio and text) covered that yesterday and also reported: The truth is something many Iraqis are still searching for: the wife who went missing; the son whose body was never found. These new documents might hold some answers. For now, WikiLeaks has redacted all names from the sigact database that's available online. But news outlets were given the full database, and some names are beginning to trickle out. Saad Eskandar heads the Iraqi National Archive. He's trying to convince the U.S. government to release another trove of documents. These detail atrocities during the Saddam Hussein era. Eskandar says much of this database would be accessible to Iraqi academics and lawyers, but not to average people. He says while people have the right to know what happened to their relatives, how they might act on information from the Saddam data or the WikiLeaks data could be dangerous. Turning now to The Whoring Of America. The WikiLeaks release is huge, it is a story that is far reaching. But take a moment to look around. The MSM? Diane Rehm's covered it, Larry King, Good Morning America, The NewsHour, the three commerical broadcast evening news programs, the New York Times, etc, have covered it. Who's whoring? Our so-called left. The Progressive? Matty Rothschild did one audio on it this week -- finally. Can't write about it. Can't be bothered with that. But those little 60 second spots he does twice a week? He did one on WikiLeaks. Oh, how he must have tired himself. He can write -- and has repeatedly -- since the release but he's focused on elections. We'll come back to elections in a moment. Baby Cum Pants Amitabh Pal. The little liar, you may remember, made such a whorish judgment, his ass honestly should have been canned. 'Examing' the landscape after England elected their new prime minister, Pal said the Iraq War didn't do in Labour and that England was "keen to forget" the Iraq War. Rebecca called the lying bag of s**t out here. Rebecca and I both knew better because we had access to Labour's polling throughout the lead up to the election (and Rebecca went to London to help with the p.r.). Baby Cum Pants Pal wanted to forget. As we saw after Baby Cum Pants made his ridiculous statements, the fight for prime minister came down to where did you stand on Iraq. One brother triumphed over another (Ed Miliband over David -- I know both Miliband brothers) as a result of where they stood on Iraq. Not only that, Iraq's continued importance in England was addressed last Friday on The Diane Rehm Show: James Kitfield: Diane, can I just make a point? I just came back from London, working on this story. The-the fact is Britain no longer wants to be that ally to us. You know the Iraq War has really soured them on being America's, you know, ally of first resort. It's an aftermath, blowback from the Iraq War. Baby Cum Pants has never, ever issued an apology or correction. Though he can't write about WikiLeaks, Baby Cum Pants showed up at The Progressive yesterday to cup and fondle Bob Herbert. Why, oh, why didn't Herbert get more attention? He means media attention and, as usual, Baby Cum Pants doesn't know what he's talking about. While jerking off to Herbert, he fails to grasp that African-Americans in any staff position on a TV public affairs show tend to object to Herbert as a guest. Why? They know how he leap frogged from the New York Daily News to the New York Times (on the backs of young African-American males whom he portrayed as criminals in one of NYC's most sensationalistic crimes, Herbert tried and covicted them in his columns -- history has proven him wrong). So if you want to know why you're hero doesn't get more attention, Baby Cum Pants, you need to know what your hero did. When his name is raised, African-American staffers will regularly recommend Clarence Page, Colbert King, William Raspberry and a host of others. Your ignorance is not an excuse, Baby Cum Pants. Friday we were calling out Bob Herbert's dreadful on campus speech. In it, you may remember, Herbert had the nerve to blame the American people for not focusing on the Iraq War when the media is the one not focusing -- like Pal, the media wants to "forget" -- and when Herbert's grandstanding was undercut by the fact that you had to drop back 15 columns to find Herbert even writing about the wars (he wrote about Afghanistan in a column published on the day Barack gave his big nothing August 31st speech). In addition, he wrote about Afghanistan August 17th, and then again June 26th . . . No, that's not regularly for a person with a twice-a-week column. And you have to go way, way back to find a column by him on the Iraq War. Baby Cum Pants is waxing on Herbert's dreadful speech with claims of it being anti-war and political. It wasn't. It was The Best Years Of Our Lives. It was let Bob Herbert hide behind wounded veterans and pretend to be brave. It is impossible to believe that any sane American -- regardless of right or left or inbetween or don't care about politics -- takes joy or gladness in the wounded of US service members. It's not a political issue. It's something everyone can agree on. And that was the basis of Herbert bad and non-brave speech. It was not "an eloquent anti-war oration" and that anyone at The Progressive wants to whore it as such goes a long way to explaining why that tepid magazine just gets more and more deadly dull. Pal wrote about his sexual desire but he didn't have time for WikiLeaks. Over at The Nation, they've posted a video of Jerry Scahill talking about WikiLeaks . . . on MSNBC. Did Jerry write about WikiLeaks for The Nation? Woops! No, he didn't. In fact, other than Greg Mitchell's slight and sleight dispatches (newly fashioned as the Liz Smith of the faux political set by The Nation magazine), the only writing on WikiLeaks was to allow an Iranian dissident on the US payroll to distort a field report (we addressed that Saturday and I'm being very kind and not putting it into a snapshot). Greg contributes his free-form prose stylings which include 5 'sentences' in his most recent dispatch on WikiLeaks if by sentences you mean words tossed together (if you mean subject-verb-direct object, they don't pass muster but Greg's discovered ellipses in his gossip maven phase). Now it's not that The Nation has stopped posted online. They just have more 'important' things to talk about. Plugging Katrina vanden Heuvel's media appearances, for example or what Matty Damon wants for his birthday (besides a hit film which continues to elude him), ESPN, Juan Williams, Ziggy Marley and pot, and always and always elections. Point of fact, we're now back to elections, people not in Nevada are not strongly invested in Nevada's Senate election. People not in Delaware? The same. Political junkies devoted to races, a small section of the public, may need their fix, but that's really not what The Nation or The Progressive is supposed to be about. The coverage is bulls**t and instantly disposable after next Tuesday. They've wasted everyone's time in attempts to up the vote for the Democratic Party. That's whoring. And America can't afford it. The Progressive has served up a whopping sixty seconds on WikiLeaks. Except for Gushing Greg's Breathless Bulletins and outsourcing a report to an Iranian dissident, The Nation can't even claim to have done that. Oh all around the marketplace The buzzing of the flies The buzzing and the stinging Divinely barren And wickedly wise The killer nails are ringing Enter the multitudes In Exxon blue In radiation rose Tragedy Now you tell me Who you gonna get to do the dirty work When all the slaves are free? Who're you gonna get Who you gonna get to do the dirty work When all the slaves are free? -- "Passion Play," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Night Ride Home What of In These Times? You mean In These Turn Out The Vote For The Democratic Party Times? This magazine is so far from its roots that its eventual demise will be no cause for sadness. All they're doing is whoring. The left and so-called left outlets are whoring for the Democratic Party with fan club bulletings while ignoring WikiLeaks' revelations. It tells you a great deal about how the nation's been dumbed down and about The Whoring of America. Once upon a time, these same outlets liked to hector the MSM and pretend they were better than the MSM. Their own actions have demonstrated that they're not in the MSM because they couldn't hold down a job there. Their hilarious excuse for their lack of Iraq coverage has been "it's too violent" blah, blah, blah. Here they have to do nothing but sit at their computers and read over documents -- and judging by their ass size, they're very good at sitting at their computers -- but even that's too much for them. Anything more than gossip is apparently too much for them. They've shamed themselves and those who refuse to call them out are endorsing The Whoring of America. Mid-term elections are Tuesday -- many Americans that will vote have already voted -- most Americans are interested in their own races if they are interested at all. But each day we can count on our so-called 'independent' 'news' outlets to ignore WikiLeaks but churn out more get-out-the-vote pieces. It's shameful and whores need to come with a sell-by-date. Forced retirement would cut a lot of this crap out. Amy Goodman's done her whoring in headlines thus far this week and made time for WikiLeaks on Monday and on Tuesday. If she had any real guts, WikiLeaks would be a story -- not a headline -- every day on Democracy Now! this week. I doubt she has the fortitude to do that. (I could be wrong -- and would love to be.) Today she spoke with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange (link has text, audio and video). Excerpt: Julian Assange: Well, these documents cover the periods of 2004 to the beginning of 2010. It is the most accurate description of a war to have ever been released. Within them, we can see 285,000 casualties. That's added up, report by report. That's each casualty, where it happened, when it happened, and who was involved, according to internal US military reporting. Now, looking at particular groups of casualties, we can see, for example, over 600 civilians killed at checkpoint killings, including thirty children, previously -- mostly previously unreported, that three-quarters of those killed at checkpoint killings, according to the United States military itself, were civilians, and only one-quarter, according to the US military internal reporting, were insurgents. We see 284 reports covering torture or other forms of prisoner abuse by coalition forces, covering 300 different people. We see over a thousand reports of torture and other prisoner abuse by the Iraqi state itself, many or most of those receiving no meaningful investigation. I heard in your introduction that the Pentagon claims that the Iraqi government is responsible for this, but in international law, it is the person or government or organization that has effective control that is responsible. And certainly, before the technical legal handover from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi government, it is clear that the United States and other coalition forces were the effective, legally responsible group for those. We see in the United Kingdom, Phil Shiner and his group Public Interest Lawyers, Amnesty International, and in New York, Human Rights Watch, calling for investigation and, in some cases, lawsuits against coalition forces for wrongful death. There's other aspects, as well. We can see the involvement of Iran in Iraq with various forms of support given to Shia groups. We can see the corruption present in the Maliki government, including what appears to be a special forces -- Iraqi special forces -- squad personally responsible to Maliki and not tasked by the Iraqi army itself that has been going around and strong-arming and possibly assassinating opponents. Meanwhile Gareth Porter (Antiwar.com) reports what the New York Times 'forgot' (got wrong) about Iran and its connections to Iraq: Petraeus's spokesman, Gen. Kevin Bergner, later accused Iran of having directed the Karbala attack though it control of networks of "Special Groups" armed and trained by Iran. Petraeus maintained consistently that Iran was backing "rogue" units that had left the Mahdi Army. The WikiLeaks documents show, however, that Petraeus and his command in Iraq were well aware that al-Dulaimi was a Mahdi Army commander in charge of secret operations. The Petraeus "Special Groups" line was aimed at hiding the fact that the U.S. command was determined to destroy as much of the Mahdi Army as possible by claiming that it was actually attacking rogue Shi'ite militias. The New York Times story on Iran-related WikiLeaks documents by Michael Gordon, which portrays the documents as reconfirming the Petraeus line on Iran-backed "Special Groups," highlighted the intelligence report on Dulaimi but omitted the central fact that it clearly identifies him as a Mahdi Army commander. The evidence also indicates that the Mahdi Army Karbala operation was done with the full knowledge of the Maliki government. Adam Ashton (Bellingham Herald) examines the documents and compares them with when he was on the ground reporting for McClatchy Newspapers. Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reports her impressions of the documents in an analysis: The reports read like nightmares. In January 2005, a human head was thrown from an Opel Omega into the Mufrek traffic circle in the city of Baquba. The next month, 47 workers from a brick factory were found murdered north of Baghdad. One report noted that a discovery of six bodies at a sewage treatment plant in Baghdad was the third such episode at the same plant in recent weeks. Later during that month, there were also two more similar discoveries there. All the bodies had gunshot wounds to the head. Read the Document » The Pentagon was slow to acknowledge what had become abundantly clear on the ground -- that Iraq had sunk into sectarian war. The military began to release partial civilian casualty figures in 2005 under pressure from Congress. The word "sect" appears only 12 times in the archive in 2005, the year that systematic cleansing began. Corpses that were surfacing in garbage dumps, rivers and empty lots were blandly categorized as a "criminal event" and seem to have been given about as much importance as traffic accidents. Read the Document » Reuters notes a Tal Afar roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left five family members injured, a Tal Afar roadside bombing which claimed 1 life, a Khalis roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 6 Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one person, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed 1 life, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured two bodyguards for Deputy Planning Minister Mehdi al-Alak, a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured one person and a Kirkuk assault and robbery (on the goldsmith market) in which 10 people were killed. We'll close with Iraq Veterans Against the War's statements on WikiLeaks' release: The recent Wikileaks release--The Iraq War Logs--has shed important light on the high rate of civilian death and widespread atrocities, including torture, that are endemic to the war in Iraq. As veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are outraged that the U.S. government sought to hide this information from the U.S. public, instead presenting a sanitized and deceptive version of war, and we think it is vital for this and further information to get out. Members of IVAW have experienced firsthand the realities of war on the ground, and since our inception we have spoken out about similar atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are asking the U.S. public to join us in calling on our government to end the occupations and bring our brothers and sisters home. The U.S. government has been claiming for years that they do not keep count of civilian death tolls, yet the recent releases show that they do, in fact, keep count. Between 2004 and 2009, according to these newly disclosed records, at least 109,032 Iraqis died, 66,081 of whom were civilians. The Guardian reports that the Iraq War Logs show that the U.S. military and government gave de facto approval for hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi soldiers and police officers. These recent revelations, along with the Afghan War Diaries and Collateral Murder footage, weave a picture of wars in which the rules of engagement allow for excessive violence, woven into the fabric of daily life with the U.S. military presence acting as a destabilizing and brutalizing force. The Iraq War Logs, while crucial, are reports produced in real time and themselves may be slanted to minimize the culpability of U.S. forces. Still, they represent an important part of evidence in assessing the reality of the Iraq war, evidence that can only be improved by the further release of documents and information and corroboration by individuals involved. To this end, our members are reviewing both Wikileaks' Afghanistan War Diaries and the Iraq War Logs to identify incidents we were part of and to shed more light on what really happened. IVAW has been speaking out about these atrocities and abuses since our inception. Our organization is comprised of over 2,000 veterans and active duty troops who have served since September 11, 2001. We demand immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, reparations for the people of those countries, and full benefits for returning veterans, including mental healthcare. At our March 2008 Winter Soldier hearings in Maryland, more than fifty veterans and active-duty service members publicly testified about the orders they were told to carry out in these countries, sharing stories of excessive violence, trauma, and abuse. Josh Stieber and Ethan McCord, two IVAW members who were in the unit captured in the Wikileaks "Collateral Murder" video, have spoken out about how the incidents caught on film are not isolated cases of 'a few bad soldiers' but rather, part of the nature of these wars. "There has been little accountability in the wars that my friends and I once thought represented everything that was noble about our country," wrote Stieber in anticipation of the Iraq War Logs. In an open letter, Stieber calls for policy makers to "take accountability for these wars and the full truth about them." As veterans, we know that the violence documented in the Iraq War Logs traumatizes the people living under occupation. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also have been marked by staggering rates of military trauma and suicide among the troops tasked with carrying out these orders. Last year, 239 soldiers killed themselves and 1,713 soldiers survived suicide attempts; 146 soldiers died from high-risk activities, including 74 drug overdoses. A third of returning troops report mental health problems, and 18.5 percent of all returning service members are battling either Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or depression, according to a study by the Rand Corporation. Our Operation Recovery campaign, launched on October 7, seeks to end the cruel and inhumane practice of redeploying troops suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Military Sexual Trauma, Traumatic Brain Injury, and other mental and physical wounds--a practice that underlies the continued occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Critics attacking Wikileaks founder Julian Assange's character are attempting to use ad hominem arguments to detract from the real issues and divert public attention from the content of the Iraq War Logs. We urge honest and thorough discussion of the content of these documents, and we think this discussion must not be sidelined. Furthermore, with past Wikileaks revelations, U.S. administration and military authorities were quick to vilify Army Specialist Bradley Manning who is being accused of leaking these documents to the public. Yet we insist that it is the right of the U.S. public to have accurate information about wars that are being fought in our name and funded by our tax dollars, and we support the public sharing of this information. Exposing war crimes is not a crime. Government deception is inexcusable. Authorities have kept this information secret in the name of 'national security,' but what they really are afraid of is public opinion, which they know will turn against them if the truth about these wars gets out in the mainstream. An accurate count of Iraqi dead, acknowledgment of torture, and full disclosure of the role of private contractors are facts that should be made public in a democracy. We believe that real national security is created where government transparency and accountability, free press, and an end to spending on illegal wars and occupations are the norm. Continued silence and secrecy is a grave threat to the security of the Iraqi and Afghan people, and we demand openness, accountability, and real discussion of these revelations. We grieve for the Iraqi and Afghan lives that were lost and destroyed in these wars. We also grieve for our brothers and sisters in arms, who have been lost to battle or suicide. The Iraq War Logs bring home part of the harsh reality of these wars, a reality that we--as veterans--live with everyday. We demand a real end to both wars, including immediate withdrawal of the 50,000 "non-combat" troops who remain in the Iraq. The Iraq War Logs underscore the urgent need for peace, healing, and reparations for all who have been harmed by these wars. The first step is to bring our brothers and sisters home. To forward this statement to friends, click here. In Solidarity, Iraq Veterans Against the War iraq npr the diane rehm show wten the albany times union the observer-dispatch stephanie sorrell-white fox23news julie tremmel the kansas state collegian beth mendenhall free internet press abc rachael brown all things considered kelly mcevers gulf news sami moubayed cnn mohammed tawfeeq justin raimondo the new york times sabrina tavernise joao silva time magazine tara kelly le monde al jazeera the christian science monitor jane arraf mcclatchy newspapers mohammed al dulaimy all things considered kelly mcevers