Saturday, May 26, 2007

NYT: What if you sold a war after people quit buying?

"US troops in Iraq forever." That should be the headline to the nonsense by the Davids (who sadly bear none of the beauty of the statue). Ann Coulter's buddy couldn't write straight if his life depended upon it. But as they schill for the administration, from the front page, with "White House Said To Debate '08 Cut In Troops By 50%," even they have to offer a sprinkle of reality, well inside the paper (A5) -- paragraph 15, I believe (check my math) -- where they declare that Bully Boy wants to shift the argument (in time for the 2008 election) away from whether troops should leave to "what kind of long-term presence the United States should have in Iraq"? The answer is very clear, none. The supposedly 'liberated' and 'democratic' nation doesn't need to be occupied, doesn't want to be occupied and the US actually doesn't have the right to be there. But Bully Boy obvious fancies himself the latter day William McKinley and Iraq the modern day Puerto Rico.

Will they be able to switch the debate? Doubtful but neither the New York Journal nor the New York World aren't around anymore to sell it so the New York Times has gladly enlisted. Short of an outbreak of yellow fever, look for the Times to push the illegal war they helped sell well beyond the 2008 elections. (And if they do, it will be the death of them. So everybody wins!)

Going solo, David S. Cloud proves he may yet have a humor book in his future with "U.S. Military Leader in Iraq Talks of 'Thinning Lines'" which includes this laugh getter (or jaw dropped, you decide): ". . . Gen. Raymond T. Odierno has urged patience to those seeking quick progress." Only in the Times. The four year mark was passed in March. The US has been in Iraq longer than it was in WWII but by all means, urge 'patience.' That's apparently the inverse of Village Idiot Newt Gingrich who asserted last Sunday on Meet the Press that, "We're now five and a half years into this war." My calander reads 2007, apparently Newt's reads 2008. (Can you run for president if you don't know when the illegal war started?)

You get John F. Burns being wordy and trying to mop up for Gordo in "Shiite Cleric Ends Absence From Iraq With Fiery Speech." He's no Scott Shane (translation, don't hand him the mop, he only makes it worse). He tries to do the Times' dance as best he can but two sentences about what American officials (unnamed still!) allege using verbs like "according to" and "have suggested" do not equate with "insisted" in the denial that al-Sadr ever left Iraq. (Well, maybe they are equated in a Times' mentality.) While mopping up, he just makes a mess and we'll be kind and only point out the most obvious and relevant to this community: "According to a tally on, a Web site that lists Pentagon death announcements, the latest deaths came on top of 90 other American service members killed during May, up to Wednesday." That's ICCC (we add the "C" because look at the full name) and it doesn't "list" Pentagon death annoucements. The Pentagon moves more slowly that Multi-Forces whatever it is is. It goes with the DoD site (The Pentagon) only when M-F is screwed up (such as when their individual web pages load to the main home page) or when M-F isn't posting death announcements. (Instead of repeatedly attempting to intice bloggers with this offer or that offer, M-F would do better just to concentrate on posting to their website.)

Flip the page and there's Scott Shane. I didn't realize that. He's on A6 and writing about pre-war intelligence. Click here to read his article. Lloyd suggest Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung
"Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed" (Washington Post):

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.
The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.

The thing to remember there, most important thing, is that the official line from the White House was that Iraq had to be invaded for the US' protection. That wasn't true. Just as it's not true when the White House says currently that leaving Iraq would mean attacks in the US. Both times the White House lies.

Jill was the first one to note Margaret Kimberley's "Freedom Rider: 'Gangster Government'" (Freedom Rider, Black Agenda Report):

John Ashcroft was one of the worst Attorney Generals in the history of the United States. He will be remembered for the Patriot Act, phony terror arrests, phony terror alerts, and the elimination of legal rights for so-called enemy combatants. Ashcroft is one of the people most responsible for the sorry state of civil liberties in the United States and yet he manages to look like a hero in comparison to the White House that appointed him.
On March 10, 2004, Ashcroft was suffering from pancreatitis and lying in an intensive care unit. He was so ill that he was in fact no longer Attorney General. He had ceded the authority of his office to his deputy, James Comey, who immediately became chief law enforcement officer in the United States. Last week Comey told the world why current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has spent the past year preventing him from testifying under oath.
Comey had convinced his boss Ashcroft that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program was illegal, and that it should no longer be certified by the Justice Department. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey
told a story that should have the nation, the press, and the Democratic party up in arms and demanding the impeachments of Bush and Gonzales.
On the evening of March 10, 2004 Comey received word that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card were on the way to Ashcroft's bedside. President Bush had personally called Mrs. Ashcroft, who requested that no one call or visit her husband. In effect, Bush informed her that he didn't care what she wanted. Ashcroft was getting visitors whether she liked it or not. Their goal was to convince Ashcroft to continue certifying the warrantless surveillance program.
Comey was so worried that he headed to the hospital with sirens wailing, advising FBI Director Robert Mueller of the impending showdown. Comey literally ran up the hospital stairs, afraid that Gonzales and Card would arrive before he did. Director Mueller ordered the agents who accompanied Comey to prevent his removal from the hospital room.

A visitor e-mailed a long e-mail (10K) and repeatedly stressed that he wasn't trying to be offensive. He wasn't offensive. He wanted to know why other sites don't link to Black Agenda Report. The voices the community responded to at The Black Commenator were Glen Ford, Margaret Kimberley and Bruce Dixon. They're not going to play. They are taking the world very seriously and so is the community. If you go around the White web, to left and 'left' sites, you will see The Black Commentator linked by many on blogrolls. You will barely see Black Agenda Report. I can only guess that most people don't even know about it. They have no idea that Ford, Dixon and Kimberley -- who did the bulk of the original content at The Black Commentator -- left. Or possibly they feel one link with "Black" in the title qualifies for diversity? Whatever the reason, Black Agenda Report is not playing. They are very serious.

Outside of CounterPunch and the radio program CounterSpin, I'm unaware of anyone promoting Black Agenda Report.

You might write BuzzFlash which has a host of links but for doesn't have Black Agenda Report. I don't see that as a wasted e-mail. My guess is, in BuzzFlash's case (which is celebrating it's 7th anniversary), that they honestly aren't aware of Black Agenda Report. (Although it could also be a template issue -- and as someone who hates to go into this template, I could certainly understand that.) I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Other sites? I wouldn't give most the benefit of the doubt. So if the visitor does e-mail other sites, the one tip I'd offer is don't apologize for raising the issue of race. It needs to be raised. If it has nothing to do with race, someone can respond noting that. But no one should be offended at this late date when it's pointed out how White the web still is.

So, to the visitor, you really didn't offend me. And you don't have to couch your statements when asking about an issue like race. Write The Nation and ask them about that (ask them about their sorry record this year of publishing women of any race, while you're at it). If they don't think they have the room, you might suggest that since AlterPunk writes for the magazine, it's really not necessary for the magazine to list his other online column (AlterPunk-u-a-tion) under "Sites We Like" -- they certainly don't bother to do the same with David Corn who actually does report (in the magazine and at his own website) as opposed to offering a Jeffy Jarvis type Cheers & Jeers. When people called out the link to The New Republic(an), it got dropped. (No one should have had to call that out to begin with. It never should have made "Sites We Like" to begin with. Nor should they publish writers who work for the magazine but even getting singed in Little Lee-Lee's meltdown, they don't appear to have learned that lesson.) Of course, they still link to The Gawker -- apparently, The National Enquirer's web address was too lengthy?

But don't expect an immediate reply, someone's having a 16th birthday and that requires a 3-day break. "In what world?" Apparently Cornelia Guest's been reincarnated without passing first. That is kind of pathetic when you consider that the nation's at war (better not suggest sacrifice in any upcoming writings), that a cruise isn't that far off in the future, and that when you want to run a weekly magazine, you really need to run a weekly magazine. But it's time 'to take it easy' and who knew three bad paragraphs on American Idol could work up such a sweat?

(By the way, Trina notes what she reads. She's a reader not a surfer. When I read her post this morning, I knew someone would end up challenging it. For the visitor who e-mailed saying "There's no way American Idol lost 6 million viewers this year!" the finale was done approximately 6 million and you can click here for an actual article about that -- as opposed to a Gawker type write up.)

Trina? The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; (there are actually two posts up, one by Rebecca, one by Betty)
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
and Trina's Trina's Kitchen

And remember, starting this Saturday evening, you can listen to music, to Pacifica, go out, whatever you want. Anything but listen to Air America Radio because RadioNation with Laura Flanders no longer airs six hours a weekend. (It will air tomorrow at one p.m.) Apparently, six hours of a show hosted by a woman was five to many -- check the laughable line up. Note what the 'rebirth' has given you. (Note also that all this time later, despite promises in 2004, Latino and Latina hosts aren't AND HAVE NEVER BEEN a priority.) White Male, nearly twenty-four-seven. Air America Radio, giving you round the clock White Males because that's the way they see the country! (We'll note RadioNation with Laura Flanders again tomorrow.)

The e-mail address for this site is