Inside this morning's New York Times (A7), Stephen Farrell's "Car Bomber Kills 8 at a Street Market in Baghdad" covers yesterday violence which apparently doesn't rate the front page (costs are up at Harvard! Beijing wants the Olympics!). It's a shame because Farrell provides the statements of a number Iraqis (something for everyone in the quotes). In addition, he addresses the latest on South Korea whom the central (puppet) government has informed the contracts do not count? The contracts? The ones they signed with the Kurdish regional government. Those contracts continue to present conflicts between the Kurdistan region and the central region.
Oh, poor South Korea. Haven't they already given in their half-assed way? Didn't they just vote (146 for 104 against) to keep some of the tiny number of their troops (600) in Iraq for 2008? And what is their thanks for it? Didn't their 'support' allow the White House to repeatedly claim "nations" were on board with the illegal war? Didn't they stay in when others pulled out? When do they get to share the spoils of illegal war? When!!
Farrell covers another angle (noting AP) as well. Use the link if you're interested. There are various accounts on that and it can wait to be noted when a little more is known.
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad, two police officers shot dead in Baghdad inside their squad car, a Jalwla bombing that claimed the life of 1 Kurdish security force member, a Mosul car bombing Friday night that left seven people wounded and, "The media officer of Mosul police Ahmed al Jobori survived from an assassination attempt when gunmen attacked his convoy in Al Qadisiyah neighborhood northeast Mosul city today afternoon. One of al Jobori guards was killed and another was injured while two gunmen were killed in the clashes."
Also the ICCC total is now 3901 -- the Defense Department named a service member whose death was not announced by M-NF, once again allowing the military to keep the death toll out of the news. They shouldn't work so hard -- if they missed it, no one cares in Little Media and Big Media's been either burying Iraq news or selling the illegal war all over again for months now. If it still hasn't sunk in, the Times just added William Kristol to their columnists. Junior got into the media because of Daddy. He gets into the Times to sell the illegal war and to demonstrate that there is no accountability for gas bags. Wrong on everything? Who cares!
It also underscores again how a Queen Bee is not a plus for women. Gail Collins was in charge for how many years? She could have picked a woman to replace Bill Keller or William Safire. Instead she replaced centrist Keller and right-winger Safire with two White right-wingers. She infamously had a snit fit in an e-mail when a reader dared to suggest that with Maureen Dowd (the paper's only female columnist at the time) on a lengthy vacation, she might not need to have a man filling in for Dowd. Queen Bee stung back that she wasn't interested in quotas and she doesn't judge people by gender. Laughable since her really bad historical yellow pages passed off as books focus on gender. But Queen Bee did nothing for women. And when she got fired as editor and reduced down to columnist, she was able to do even more damage covering everything in a breezy, I'm in the checkout lane and I haven't had time to read but I can see some tabloid headlines and I'll call it a column!
Gail Collins had two slots to fill. She went with White men both times. She also replaced the centrist Keller with a right-winger. Queen Bee ensured that Coretta Scott King's passing would not be an editorial and rejected submitted columns from non-regular columnists on the topic. She played the game and even that wasn't enough which is why her ass got canned and she's a lowly columnist dithering on (once a week?) and hoping the feminist press will help her sell her next bad book. Having stabbed women in the back when she was editor (she turned down some big names -- some big female names who submitted op-eds), Collins next bad book should publish with no attention from the feminist press.
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
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;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
and Ruth's Ruth's Report
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
mcclatchy newspapers
stephen farrell
the new york times
margaret kimberley
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ruths report
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Democrats defeat themselves again
The Democrats in Congressional leadership are idiots.
Today, Bully Boy gave his radio address and they're probably still scrambling to figure out what's what.
The New York Times offers Steven Lee Myers and David M. Herszenhorn's "In Surprise Step, Bush Vows Veto of Military Bill" on the front page:
For months, President Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support the troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.
And then Friday, with no warning, a vacationing Bush announced he will veto a sweeping military policy bill because of an obscure provision that could expose Iraq's new government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein's rule.
The decision left the Bush administration scrambling to promise that it will work quickly with Congress to restore dozens of new military and veterans programs once Congress returns to work in January.
Those included an added pay raise for service members, which would have taken effect Tuesday, and improvements in veterans' health benefits, which few elected officials on either side want to be seen as opposing.
Bush's veto surprised and infuriated Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans, who complained that the White House failed to raise its concerns earlier. And it gave Democrats a chance to wield Bush's [. . .] oratory against him, which they did with relish.
Reading on you will find John Kerry has decided to 'frame' (hasn't that ridiculous hula-hoop left the stage yet) by turning his own words against Bully Boy. It scores no points. No support for Bully Boy is peeled away by Kerry repeating that howler that was a public relations nightmare when he uttered it. It's the equivalent of a drunk pointing out that another drunk got pulled over. No one says, "First drunk, you go!" They think, "Eh, drunks."
In terms of Republicans, Kerry's repeating the I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it (or whatever that nonsense was) only reminds them of the Republican attacks. They don't then turn it against their Bully Boy. They have a cheap laugh at Kerry all over again and think, "What a loser. Remember when he said that? Moron."
No points are scored.
The Democrats caved, crawled and gave Bully Boy everything he wanted on the war and more. They refused to stand up for the people. They proved how craven and disgusting they could be.
Now they're shocked that Bully Boy's planning to veto.
They're shocked because they are idiots.
Throughout the nightmare that has been Bully Boy's occupation of the Oval Office, Dems have thought they could outflank him from the right. It's only destroyed the country and it's never worked to their own political benefit. See Kerry's 2004 campaign or the huge losses in 2002. Only ending the war on Iraq -- a phony claim -- got them back into power in the 2006 elections. That wasn't running to Bully Boy's right. That was providing a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans. (The fact that they didn't live up to the promise explains the disapproval numbers in polling today.)
Having campaigned on "We'll stand up," they then went back to the gamebook of Yawn Emanuel and all the other losers. Instead of grasping that offering the appearence of a true difference between the two parties spoke to the public, they started running to the right again because there's an election in 2008!
There's always another election.
They gave Bully Boy everything he wanted and more thinking that would bullet-proof them and carry them into control of the White House and greater majorities in each house of Congress: "They won't be able to criticize us now!"
Of course they would. Republicans always make better Republicans than Democrats posing (although, granted, some don't have to pose).
So you're Bully Boy and you've destroyed the country, are tanking in the polls and don't want to be your father. What do you do?
Find another way to paint the Dems as obstructionists. It's not a surprise. It's happened repeatedly throughout his occupation.
Today, he gave his radio address and lied through his teeth as usual. No surprise. And Dems caught off guard are just plain stupid.
The economy is tanking -- Christmas sales were awful and it went to the economic concerns (and lack of a real rise in wages). Who will the GOP pin that off on? The Democrats of course.
So the trick is to tell the citizens that it's Democrats' fault. So he lies:
I know that even in this growing economy some of you have real concerns. Some of you worry about your ability to afford health care coverage for your families. Some of you are concerned about meeting your monthly mortgage payments. Some of you worry about the impact of rising energy costs on fueling your cars and heating your homes.
You expect your elected leaders in Washington to address these pressures on our economy and give you more options to help you deal with them. And I have put forth several proposals to do so.
In the last month, Congress has responded to some of my initiatives. They passed a good energy bill, they passed a temporary patch to protect middle-class families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and they passed a law that will help protect families from higher taxes when their lenders reduce their mortgage debt.
But this is only a start. Congress needs to do more to decrease America's dependence on oil. Congress needs to pass legislation that will help make health care coverage more affordable for small businesses and workers who buy their own policies. And Congress needs to act quickly on the rest of my proposals to help families struggling with rising mortgage payments keep their homes.
Most of all, we need to set a good example in Washington by being careful with your money. I'm disappointed that leaders in Congress sent me a massive spending bill that includes about 9,800 earmarks. Earmarks are special-interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one -- often at the last hour, without discussion or debate.
The economy is awful. But the lie he's transmitting is that it's good but Dems have stood in the way. They are your scapegoat, they are the reason you had a suck-ass Christmas. They are the reason you are concerned about cost of living, etc.
What's the problem with the economy? The ear marks! The Dems are wasting money! Now $15 billion a month is being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan and that's the waste. But the White House has played the Dems like the saps they are.
Congress didn't even send legislation with their toothless, non-binding squeak for withdrawal.
They've done nothing.
They could refuse to fund the illegal war but they're too cowardly (and too many are vested in the theft of Iraqi oil).
So if they do nothing in Janurary other than make ridiculous statements (see John Kerry's statements right now), it sends a message.
The message is: Bully Boy's whipped them into control and that's why we need a Republican president because he won't be pushed around by Congress.
He's put out the lies that (a) the economy's just chugging along but (b) Democrats and their "earmarks" ("special interests" will most likely become the phrase of choice as it's repeated throughout the year) are just wasting money and that's why the average citizen is feeling the pinch.
The average person is going to look at the already meek Congress and see Bully Boy 'whipping them into shape.' And, outside of Queen for a Day contests, meekness doesn't get you votes.
If they had stood up, if they had fought, people might wonder who is the better fighter? Then the Dems could make the argument that they were the better fighters and they would fight for you in Washington.
But Dems refuse to fight. They rush to give the White House everything it wants.
They're laughable SCHIPS battle did not send the message that "America, we need to all pull together." They lost on SCHIPS (and rarely mention it now, but no one's supposed to notice because the Yawns just knew it would be a winning strategy). But they lost before Bully Boy stood up to them (twice). They lost when they tried to push the burden of caring for the needy only off on some. Instead of saying, "The children are the future of this country and we all need to pull together and sacrifice," they said what? "We can fund SCHIPS and do so without it hurting most of you because we're targeting one group." (Smokers.)
The hypocrisy in funding public health off the backs of a group that is seen as non-healthy and a plan that requires that they 'payers' remain seen as non-healthy was never a winning strategy. It was the sort of 'bean counting,' easy road traveling the Dems have become so good at. The kind that further splits the people into peoples and not citizens pulling together for the common good.
They've done the easy thing on Iraq too. Make a lot of statements about being opposed to it. Tell a lot of lies about how they can't end it. Those are lies -- Congress can filibuster, leadership can bury a bill so that it never gets a vote, they can twist arms in their own party so that even the Blue Dogs have to go along. But as Bully Boy attempts to portray them as the cause of the economic frustration people around the country feel, the Democratic leadership has also sent out a message to the people: Even when you give us control of both houses of Congress, we can't do anything.
Again, the weak only win in Queen for a Day contests and that fifties program has been off the airwaves for years.
Two messages are being sent and the first one is the one the Democrats put out there, the second one is the one the GOP is now picking up and amplifying.
"Framing" is crap and it always was but the politically naive hop onto a hula hoop every other decade. Within five years, only the wanna-pass-for-wonks are still repeating the jargon because everyone realizes it was a failure. (The big hula hoop for the 90s was 're-inventing government.')
You can pretty up catch phrases all you want but the reality is larger messages are sent, narratives, and they have greater cachet in our culture than slogans.
The Dems spent 2007 telling the American people, "We want the illegal war ended but our hands are tied." A message of weakness. Nancy Pelosi (and others) have reinforced that weakness.
Now Bully Boy, as the 2008 race really is about to begin, grabs that message in the minds of many Americans (because Dems put it there) and 'wallops' them.
"We're strong, they are weak."
It's not new. (The GOP hasn't had a new idea since the 1920s.) And it's not surprising. It's only surprising that Democrats in Congress would spend all year laying the groundwork for the probably successful campaign the GOP will use against them.
They could get tough. That won't come from hiding behind the military. That won't come from fawning over whomever delivers Petraeus' next report. They can make 2008 about getting tough. That would mean putting things back "on the table." That would mean calling out the illegal war with more than votes.
As it is they're doing the Tom Daschle dance and that didn't win them any prizes before.
They need Americans to want to vote for them. For that to happen, the Democrats are going to have to stand up against the illegal war. They'll always be outflanked when they run to the right. They'll always come up short when they try to outdue on that.
These are not 'revelations.' These are lessons that supposedly the Democratic Party learned post-2004. But look at 2006 and all the candidates -- Yawn's sure things -- who went down in flames. The ones they hid behind such as veterans who weren't against the illegal war.
What a bunch of losers. All their lives.
If Congress isn't going to stand up to Bully Boy in 2008 on the illegal war, they might as well give up on the White House (or pray John Edwards gets the nomination since he's the furthest from Congress of any of the 'front runners' and the most critical of them). In 2007, they did so much damage that they're practically giving the White House to the GOP and that stems from their repeated message to the American people all year of "We are weak. We can't do anything. We'd like to do something. But we can't."
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Note: I am not endorsing John Edwards. I am not endorsing anyone. Some might say, "Mike Gravel!" Let's all wake up to reality. Gravel is a decent candidate if this were the seventies or eighties. It's not. He has a strong message but he's unable to communicate it because (a) lack of funds and (b) lack of awareness. On the latter, his campaign has a website and it has been among the sorriest of websites. When you're shut out of debates, when you're cancelling appearences, you need a strong website, updated repeatedly throughout the day (it's not even updated weekly) to get your message out. Gravel's campaign is hopelessly behind the times. What he stands for is strong but no one's hearing it. That's not just because he's been shut out, it is also because his campaign seems to think they are running a race from another decade. Bill Richardson is not a member of Congress currently. However, he has not called out Congress. Edwards has. The statements above "The e-mail address for this . . ." note the climate Congress has created. If they are unable to change that in 2008, Edwards is their loudest critic and he benefits the most. Bambi can't argue, "I'm against them too!" Unless he's trying to argue, "That's why I skipped all those votes!" If the Congress does not start exhibiting strength and sending a message to the people, they're begging for defeat and, the only hope they'd have there is a candidate who was not seen as part of the weakness problem. By repeatedly criticizing Congress, Edwards has drawn a line between them and himself. Things could change (I hope they will) and Congress could actually stand up. I'm not endorsing Edwards, I'm merely pointing out the obvious as it stands now. In terms of Gravel, we'll note him if he's got anything on Iraq but the reality is he's killed his own campaign. Gravel could have been Ron Paul if his campaign knew how to use the internet. Instead, they appear befuddled by it. That's not, "Drop out of the race, Mike!" He needs to run for as long as he feels like running. He may run as a third party candidate. If he does, hopefully someone in the campaign will work the internet because Gravel's beliefs are not out of step with most people, they just haven't heard them. (More people know him through the SNL skit where he's plotting to kidnap Hillary than know anything he stands for.) I'm tired of all the whining from the non-media designated 'front runners' because it's just whining. The only one that's had a rise in interest has been Bill Richardson and that's because his staff is using the web. (And the campaign's also stopped shy-ing away from noting the Latino factor.) When people start dropping out of the race, some may have legitimate gripes but many of them better look at their dumb ass websites that people would visit regularly and see the same stuff on the front page week after week. I'm not campaigning. If I didn't have something new up daily, I'd hear about it in non-stop e-mails. The reality is people visit a site and they see something new that interests them and think, "I'll go back again." If they do and they see nothing new up week after week, they stop visiting. There are millions and billions of places to visit online and no one's looking for repeats. So, for instance, Chris Dodd, why should anyone visit your website? Your website is a campaign and many candidates seem to think, "There's this thing called the web and we'll post something up there and leave it up there and everyone will love it." No, everyone will get tired of it and wonder how someone supposedly running a daily campaign to become president has so little to say. In one of the rare compliments to Obama's campaign in 2007, his website is updated. A friend with the campaign is always on me to visit it. (And I do visit it. I'm not impressed with the candidate but the website is running a real campaign.) (The other compliment Obama got here in 2007 was for standing up to John Howard.) The media made Obama, Hillary and John front runners. That's true and it's not fair to the other candidates that they've been left out. But reality also includes that a campaign controls their own website. Other than Bill Richardson's campaign, none of the non-front runners have known how to run it. Barack, Hillary, John and Bill have been running real campaigns online. Others haven't. Dennis Kucinch's videos of the week has alienated hard of hearing and deaf voters in this community who were behind him. They now follow other campaigns because they can read things at those websites. Kucinich took himself out of the running with a portion of disabled voters by running a crappy website. That's reality. That the media would create fronr runners was not a surprise or a new development. That so many not included to the party would whine so often about that but fail to use their own power (their websites) goes to the reality that they share the blame. If there are any surprises in Iowa or New Hampshire that benefit non-front runners, their campaigns better get off their lazy, inept asses and start posting new content at their websites repeatedly throughout the day. And campaign 'bloggers' at campaign websites are not meandering threads of "I like ___" followed by "me too." Campaign blogs need a blogger posting, putting out the points of the day. But go to some websites and find the blogger. You can't. You can find a bulletin board. If you can't afford a campaign blogger, everyone had enough support that they could have reached out to someone on their bulletin board that impressed them and said, "Would you donate your time to be the campaign's blogger?" If you can't run a website correctly, how is anyone supposed to believe you can run the country? Repeating, I am not endorsing Edwards, I'm not endorsing anyone in the presidential race and have no idea how I will vote. If Cindy Sheehan weren't running, I might skip the primaries. (She's running for Congress from the eighth district in California.) Cindy Sheehan's the only one I've endorsed and outside of someone declaring a Congressional run from IVAW, Tina Richards declaring or someone else who has put it on the line to end the illegal war -- there are many Gold Star Families and Military Families Speak Out members that I would endorse, I do not plan to endorse anyone else.
iraq
steven lee myers
david m. herzenhorn
the new york times
Today, Bully Boy gave his radio address and they're probably still scrambling to figure out what's what.
The New York Times offers Steven Lee Myers and David M. Herszenhorn's "In Surprise Step, Bush Vows Veto of Military Bill" on the front page:
For months, President Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support the troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.
And then Friday, with no warning, a vacationing Bush announced he will veto a sweeping military policy bill because of an obscure provision that could expose Iraq's new government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein's rule.
The decision left the Bush administration scrambling to promise that it will work quickly with Congress to restore dozens of new military and veterans programs once Congress returns to work in January.
Those included an added pay raise for service members, which would have taken effect Tuesday, and improvements in veterans' health benefits, which few elected officials on either side want to be seen as opposing.
Bush's veto surprised and infuriated Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans, who complained that the White House failed to raise its concerns earlier. And it gave Democrats a chance to wield Bush's [. . .] oratory against him, which they did with relish.
Reading on you will find John Kerry has decided to 'frame' (hasn't that ridiculous hula-hoop left the stage yet) by turning his own words against Bully Boy. It scores no points. No support for Bully Boy is peeled away by Kerry repeating that howler that was a public relations nightmare when he uttered it. It's the equivalent of a drunk pointing out that another drunk got pulled over. No one says, "First drunk, you go!" They think, "Eh, drunks."
In terms of Republicans, Kerry's repeating the I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it (or whatever that nonsense was) only reminds them of the Republican attacks. They don't then turn it against their Bully Boy. They have a cheap laugh at Kerry all over again and think, "What a loser. Remember when he said that? Moron."
No points are scored.
The Democrats caved, crawled and gave Bully Boy everything he wanted on the war and more. They refused to stand up for the people. They proved how craven and disgusting they could be.
Now they're shocked that Bully Boy's planning to veto.
They're shocked because they are idiots.
Throughout the nightmare that has been Bully Boy's occupation of the Oval Office, Dems have thought they could outflank him from the right. It's only destroyed the country and it's never worked to their own political benefit. See Kerry's 2004 campaign or the huge losses in 2002. Only ending the war on Iraq -- a phony claim -- got them back into power in the 2006 elections. That wasn't running to Bully Boy's right. That was providing a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans. (The fact that they didn't live up to the promise explains the disapproval numbers in polling today.)
Having campaigned on "We'll stand up," they then went back to the gamebook of Yawn Emanuel and all the other losers. Instead of grasping that offering the appearence of a true difference between the two parties spoke to the public, they started running to the right again because there's an election in 2008!
There's always another election.
They gave Bully Boy everything he wanted and more thinking that would bullet-proof them and carry them into control of the White House and greater majorities in each house of Congress: "They won't be able to criticize us now!"
Of course they would. Republicans always make better Republicans than Democrats posing (although, granted, some don't have to pose).
So you're Bully Boy and you've destroyed the country, are tanking in the polls and don't want to be your father. What do you do?
Find another way to paint the Dems as obstructionists. It's not a surprise. It's happened repeatedly throughout his occupation.
Today, he gave his radio address and lied through his teeth as usual. No surprise. And Dems caught off guard are just plain stupid.
The economy is tanking -- Christmas sales were awful and it went to the economic concerns (and lack of a real rise in wages). Who will the GOP pin that off on? The Democrats of course.
So the trick is to tell the citizens that it's Democrats' fault. So he lies:
I know that even in this growing economy some of you have real concerns. Some of you worry about your ability to afford health care coverage for your families. Some of you are concerned about meeting your monthly mortgage payments. Some of you worry about the impact of rising energy costs on fueling your cars and heating your homes.
You expect your elected leaders in Washington to address these pressures on our economy and give you more options to help you deal with them. And I have put forth several proposals to do so.
In the last month, Congress has responded to some of my initiatives. They passed a good energy bill, they passed a temporary patch to protect middle-class families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and they passed a law that will help protect families from higher taxes when their lenders reduce their mortgage debt.
But this is only a start. Congress needs to do more to decrease America's dependence on oil. Congress needs to pass legislation that will help make health care coverage more affordable for small businesses and workers who buy their own policies. And Congress needs to act quickly on the rest of my proposals to help families struggling with rising mortgage payments keep their homes.
Most of all, we need to set a good example in Washington by being careful with your money. I'm disappointed that leaders in Congress sent me a massive spending bill that includes about 9,800 earmarks. Earmarks are special-interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one -- often at the last hour, without discussion or debate.
The economy is awful. But the lie he's transmitting is that it's good but Dems have stood in the way. They are your scapegoat, they are the reason you had a suck-ass Christmas. They are the reason you are concerned about cost of living, etc.
What's the problem with the economy? The ear marks! The Dems are wasting money! Now $15 billion a month is being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan and that's the waste. But the White House has played the Dems like the saps they are.
Congress didn't even send legislation with their toothless, non-binding squeak for withdrawal.
They've done nothing.
They could refuse to fund the illegal war but they're too cowardly (and too many are vested in the theft of Iraqi oil).
So if they do nothing in Janurary other than make ridiculous statements (see John Kerry's statements right now), it sends a message.
The message is: Bully Boy's whipped them into control and that's why we need a Republican president because he won't be pushed around by Congress.
He's put out the lies that (a) the economy's just chugging along but (b) Democrats and their "earmarks" ("special interests" will most likely become the phrase of choice as it's repeated throughout the year) are just wasting money and that's why the average citizen is feeling the pinch.
The average person is going to look at the already meek Congress and see Bully Boy 'whipping them into shape.' And, outside of Queen for a Day contests, meekness doesn't get you votes.
If they had stood up, if they had fought, people might wonder who is the better fighter? Then the Dems could make the argument that they were the better fighters and they would fight for you in Washington.
But Dems refuse to fight. They rush to give the White House everything it wants.
They're laughable SCHIPS battle did not send the message that "America, we need to all pull together." They lost on SCHIPS (and rarely mention it now, but no one's supposed to notice because the Yawns just knew it would be a winning strategy). But they lost before Bully Boy stood up to them (twice). They lost when they tried to push the burden of caring for the needy only off on some. Instead of saying, "The children are the future of this country and we all need to pull together and sacrifice," they said what? "We can fund SCHIPS and do so without it hurting most of you because we're targeting one group." (Smokers.)
The hypocrisy in funding public health off the backs of a group that is seen as non-healthy and a plan that requires that they 'payers' remain seen as non-healthy was never a winning strategy. It was the sort of 'bean counting,' easy road traveling the Dems have become so good at. The kind that further splits the people into peoples and not citizens pulling together for the common good.
They've done the easy thing on Iraq too. Make a lot of statements about being opposed to it. Tell a lot of lies about how they can't end it. Those are lies -- Congress can filibuster, leadership can bury a bill so that it never gets a vote, they can twist arms in their own party so that even the Blue Dogs have to go along. But as Bully Boy attempts to portray them as the cause of the economic frustration people around the country feel, the Democratic leadership has also sent out a message to the people: Even when you give us control of both houses of Congress, we can't do anything.
Again, the weak only win in Queen for a Day contests and that fifties program has been off the airwaves for years.
Two messages are being sent and the first one is the one the Democrats put out there, the second one is the one the GOP is now picking up and amplifying.
"Framing" is crap and it always was but the politically naive hop onto a hula hoop every other decade. Within five years, only the wanna-pass-for-wonks are still repeating the jargon because everyone realizes it was a failure. (The big hula hoop for the 90s was 're-inventing government.')
You can pretty up catch phrases all you want but the reality is larger messages are sent, narratives, and they have greater cachet in our culture than slogans.
The Dems spent 2007 telling the American people, "We want the illegal war ended but our hands are tied." A message of weakness. Nancy Pelosi (and others) have reinforced that weakness.
Now Bully Boy, as the 2008 race really is about to begin, grabs that message in the minds of many Americans (because Dems put it there) and 'wallops' them.
"We're strong, they are weak."
It's not new. (The GOP hasn't had a new idea since the 1920s.) And it's not surprising. It's only surprising that Democrats in Congress would spend all year laying the groundwork for the probably successful campaign the GOP will use against them.
They could get tough. That won't come from hiding behind the military. That won't come from fawning over whomever delivers Petraeus' next report. They can make 2008 about getting tough. That would mean putting things back "on the table." That would mean calling out the illegal war with more than votes.
As it is they're doing the Tom Daschle dance and that didn't win them any prizes before.
They need Americans to want to vote for them. For that to happen, the Democrats are going to have to stand up against the illegal war. They'll always be outflanked when they run to the right. They'll always come up short when they try to outdue on that.
These are not 'revelations.' These are lessons that supposedly the Democratic Party learned post-2004. But look at 2006 and all the candidates -- Yawn's sure things -- who went down in flames. The ones they hid behind such as veterans who weren't against the illegal war.
What a bunch of losers. All their lives.
If Congress isn't going to stand up to Bully Boy in 2008 on the illegal war, they might as well give up on the White House (or pray John Edwards gets the nomination since he's the furthest from Congress of any of the 'front runners' and the most critical of them). In 2007, they did so much damage that they're practically giving the White House to the GOP and that stems from their repeated message to the American people all year of "We are weak. We can't do anything. We'd like to do something. But we can't."
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Note: I am not endorsing John Edwards. I am not endorsing anyone. Some might say, "Mike Gravel!" Let's all wake up to reality. Gravel is a decent candidate if this were the seventies or eighties. It's not. He has a strong message but he's unable to communicate it because (a) lack of funds and (b) lack of awareness. On the latter, his campaign has a website and it has been among the sorriest of websites. When you're shut out of debates, when you're cancelling appearences, you need a strong website, updated repeatedly throughout the day (it's not even updated weekly) to get your message out. Gravel's campaign is hopelessly behind the times. What he stands for is strong but no one's hearing it. That's not just because he's been shut out, it is also because his campaign seems to think they are running a race from another decade. Bill Richardson is not a member of Congress currently. However, he has not called out Congress. Edwards has. The statements above "The e-mail address for this . . ." note the climate Congress has created. If they are unable to change that in 2008, Edwards is their loudest critic and he benefits the most. Bambi can't argue, "I'm against them too!" Unless he's trying to argue, "That's why I skipped all those votes!" If the Congress does not start exhibiting strength and sending a message to the people, they're begging for defeat and, the only hope they'd have there is a candidate who was not seen as part of the weakness problem. By repeatedly criticizing Congress, Edwards has drawn a line between them and himself. Things could change (I hope they will) and Congress could actually stand up. I'm not endorsing Edwards, I'm merely pointing out the obvious as it stands now. In terms of Gravel, we'll note him if he's got anything on Iraq but the reality is he's killed his own campaign. Gravel could have been Ron Paul if his campaign knew how to use the internet. Instead, they appear befuddled by it. That's not, "Drop out of the race, Mike!" He needs to run for as long as he feels like running. He may run as a third party candidate. If he does, hopefully someone in the campaign will work the internet because Gravel's beliefs are not out of step with most people, they just haven't heard them. (More people know him through the SNL skit where he's plotting to kidnap Hillary than know anything he stands for.) I'm tired of all the whining from the non-media designated 'front runners' because it's just whining. The only one that's had a rise in interest has been Bill Richardson and that's because his staff is using the web. (And the campaign's also stopped shy-ing away from noting the Latino factor.) When people start dropping out of the race, some may have legitimate gripes but many of them better look at their dumb ass websites that people would visit regularly and see the same stuff on the front page week after week. I'm not campaigning. If I didn't have something new up daily, I'd hear about it in non-stop e-mails. The reality is people visit a site and they see something new that interests them and think, "I'll go back again." If they do and they see nothing new up week after week, they stop visiting. There are millions and billions of places to visit online and no one's looking for repeats. So, for instance, Chris Dodd, why should anyone visit your website? Your website is a campaign and many candidates seem to think, "There's this thing called the web and we'll post something up there and leave it up there and everyone will love it." No, everyone will get tired of it and wonder how someone supposedly running a daily campaign to become president has so little to say. In one of the rare compliments to Obama's campaign in 2007, his website is updated. A friend with the campaign is always on me to visit it. (And I do visit it. I'm not impressed with the candidate but the website is running a real campaign.) (The other compliment Obama got here in 2007 was for standing up to John Howard.) The media made Obama, Hillary and John front runners. That's true and it's not fair to the other candidates that they've been left out. But reality also includes that a campaign controls their own website. Other than Bill Richardson's campaign, none of the non-front runners have known how to run it. Barack, Hillary, John and Bill have been running real campaigns online. Others haven't. Dennis Kucinch's videos of the week has alienated hard of hearing and deaf voters in this community who were behind him. They now follow other campaigns because they can read things at those websites. Kucinich took himself out of the running with a portion of disabled voters by running a crappy website. That's reality. That the media would create fronr runners was not a surprise or a new development. That so many not included to the party would whine so often about that but fail to use their own power (their websites) goes to the reality that they share the blame. If there are any surprises in Iowa or New Hampshire that benefit non-front runners, their campaigns better get off their lazy, inept asses and start posting new content at their websites repeatedly throughout the day. And campaign 'bloggers' at campaign websites are not meandering threads of "I like ___" followed by "me too." Campaign blogs need a blogger posting, putting out the points of the day. But go to some websites and find the blogger. You can't. You can find a bulletin board. If you can't afford a campaign blogger, everyone had enough support that they could have reached out to someone on their bulletin board that impressed them and said, "Would you donate your time to be the campaign's blogger?" If you can't run a website correctly, how is anyone supposed to believe you can run the country? Repeating, I am not endorsing Edwards, I'm not endorsing anyone in the presidential race and have no idea how I will vote. If Cindy Sheehan weren't running, I might skip the primaries. (She's running for Congress from the eighth district in California.) Cindy Sheehan's the only one I've endorsed and outside of someone declaring a Congressional run from IVAW, Tina Richards declaring or someone else who has put it on the line to end the illegal war -- there are many Gold Star Families and Military Families Speak Out members that I would endorse, I do not plan to endorse anyone else.
iraq
steven lee myers
david m. herzenhorn
the new york times
Friday, December 28, 2007
Iraq snapshot
Friday, December 28, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the lies of Bambi Peace King continue, the 3900 mark still remains largely unnoted and a peace organization decides to start a petition and do a tribute . . . to a media circus, all those disappointments and more.
Starting with war resistance, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress is a collection of Howard Zinn's essays and "Soldiers In Revolt" (pp. 173 -177) deals with war resistance within the military ranks:
It is undoubtedly the nature of this war, so steeped in deceptions perpetrated on the American public -- the false claims that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" and was connected to 9/11 -- that has provoked opposition to the war among the military. Further the revelations of the country from bombardment, foreign occupation, and sectarian violence, to which many of the dissenting soldiers have been witness, contribute to their alienation.
Zinn notes Jeremy Hinzman's remarks to CBS News (60 Minutes) "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it, and I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do." Zinn also notes Jimmy Massey testifyng "that he and his fellow marines shot and killed more than thirty unarmed men, women and children, and even shot a young Iraqi who got out of his car with his arms in the air."
In early 2005, Naval Petty Officer Third Class Pablo Paredes refused to obey orders to board an assault ship in San Diego that was bound for the Persian Gulf. He told a U.S. Navy judge: "I believe as a member of the armed forces, byond having a duty to my chain of command and my President, I have a higher duty to my conscince and to the supreme law of the land. Both of these higher duties dictate that I must not participate in any way, hands-on or indirect in the current aggression that has been unleashed on Iraq."
For this, Paredes faced a year in the brig, but the navy judge, citing testimony about the illegality of the Iraq War, declined to give him jail time, instead gave him three months of hard labor, and reduced him in rank.
As Zinn draws his essay to a conclusion, he quotes IVAW's Kelly Dougherty speaking to "an audience at Harvard" where she explains that her experience in Iraq led her to see, "I'm not defending freedom, I'm protecting a corporate interest." Again, that's Zinn's A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.
On November 15th, the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey? Does he even care? Judging by his column, the answer is no. An over hyped voice of the 'left' gives the greatest gift of all in 2007: The reality of how little the alleged 'left' cares about ending the illegal war. (Give to the DNC! Give to two presidential candidates who refuse to promise, that if elected in 2008, they would pull out the troops by 2013!) That just about sums it all up. In the real world, the Canadian Parliament has the power to let war resisters stay in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions from January 24-26.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Yesterday's snapshot noted: "The US military announces 11 people were killed in Al Kut and states they were 'terrorists' which required 'fire, and . . . supporting aircraft'. The US military also announces 12 'kills' from December 22 to 25th in Diyala Province and, again, tosses around the term 'terrorists'. AFP notes, 'Iraq officials said the dead included two civilians'." Today Solomon Moore (New York Times) quotes eye witness Jameel Muhammad explaining, "The American helicopters shelled our neighborhood for three hours. Dead bodies were scattered here and there. Houses and cars were set on fire, and people were scared and running all over the place." Moore also quotes Hassan Jassim who saw "three bodies lying in the street near his house" and he declares, "American helicopters fired on our houses." A press that could explore the assault? Thankfully Moore did but there's a media circus going on, in case you didn't notice.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 dead from a Baghdad car bombing, a Baghdad mortar attack left 1 dead and another wounded and a Zighaniya roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 "child and injuring another." Reuters notes the number dead from the Baghdad car bombing is now 10.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police officer shot dead in Baquba and a home invasion (the assailants were dressed as Iraqi soldiers) in Sadaa village that claimed the lives of 2 men and ejected a woman from the home which they then planted with bombs (which were defused) -- both men killed were members of the so-called 'Awakening Council'.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad
Free Bilal. Bilal Hussein is the Pulitzer Prize winning AP photo journalist who has been imprisoned by the US military since April 2006. On Sunday, attorney Scott Horton (Harper's magazine) walked readers through the latest on Bilal and we'll note this section:
The Pentagon was particularly concerned about the prospect of Bilal Hussein getting effective defense from his lawyer, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe. The judge was told to refuse to allow Bilal Hussein's U.S. lawyer to participate in the case. The judge accepted this advice. Consequently, the U.S. military has a five-man team to press its case, but Bilal Hussein's lawyer is silenced and not permitted to participate - and all of this has occurred as a result of U.S. Government intervention with the court. The irony of course is that under Iraqi law, the U.S. military has no authority or right to appear and prosecute, but Bilal Hussein's chosen counsel has an absolute right.
The U.S. military continues to keep Hussein in their custody and will not allow his lawyer, Gardephe, access to him to conduct interviews or trial preparation without having both a U.S. military representative and an interpreter in the room at all times. Under international norms, this means that Bilal Hussein is not permitted access to counsel: a serious violation of his trial rights. And note that the violator is not the Iraqi authorities, who have no control over Bilal, but the United States Government.
The U.S. military continues to keep Hussein in their custody and will not allow his lawyer, Gardephe, access to him to conduct interviews or trial preparation without having both a U.S. military representative and an interpreter in the room at all times. Under international norms, this means that Bilal Hussein is not permitted access to counsel: a serious violation of his trial rights. And note that the violator is not the Iraqi authorities, who have no control over Bilal, but the United States Government.
The US military & government have repeatedly changed their stories since taking Bilal a prisoner on April 12, 2006. Now they're refusing to let him meet with his attorney and they occupy the country he will supposedly receive a 'fair' trial in. Never forget his 'crime' was reporting. Free Bilal.
Turning to presidential candidates because the LIES are getting to be too much. Monica Davey (New York Times) reported July 26, 2004 in "A Surprise Senate Contender Reaches His Biggest Stage Yet:"
He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconvental weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
"But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
Do you get that, do you grasp it? Barack Obama told the New York Times in 2004 that he didn't know how he would have voted on the resolution HAD HE BEEN IN THE SENATE.
Now let's go to the June 3rd 'debate' in New Hampshire. The topic is the illegal war, we're picking up with John Edwards
But I have made very clear from the outset that the way to end the war is for the Congress to use its constitutional authority to fund. They should send a bill to the president with a timetable for withdrawal, which they did. The president vetoed. And then it came back. And then it was the moment of truth. And I said throughout the lead-up to this vote that I was against a funding bill that did not have a timetable for withdrawal, that it was critical for the Congress to stand firm. They were given a mandate by the American people. And others on this stage -- Chris Dodd spoke out very loudly and clearly. But I want to finish this -- others did not. Others were quiet. They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote. But there is a difference between leadership and legislating.
BLITZER: You want to name names?
EDWARDS: No, I think it's obvious who I'm talking about.
BLITZER: It is to me, but it might not be to some of the viewers out there.
EDWARDS: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate and voted. They were among the last people to vote. And I think that the importance of this is -- they cast the right vote, and I applaud them for that. But the importance of this is, they're asking to be president of the United States. And there is a difference between making clear, speaking to your followers, speaking to the American people about what you believe needs to be done. And I think all of us have a responsibility to lead on these issues, not just on Iraq, but on health care, on energy, on all the other issues.
BLITZER: I'm going to give both of them a chance to respond to you.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: Well, look, the -- I think it is important to lead. And I think John -- the fact is is that I opposed this war from the start. So you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue. And, you know, I think it's important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this.
BLITZER: You want to name names?
EDWARDS: No, I think it's obvious who I'm talking about.
BLITZER: It is to me, but it might not be to some of the viewers out there.
EDWARDS: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate and voted. They were among the last people to vote. And I think that the importance of this is -- they cast the right vote, and I applaud them for that. But the importance of this is, they're asking to be president of the United States. And there is a difference between making clear, speaking to your followers, speaking to the American people about what you believe needs to be done. And I think all of us have a responsibility to lead on these issues, not just on Iraq, but on health care, on energy, on all the other issues.
BLITZER: I'm going to give both of them a chance to respond to you.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: Well, look, the -- I think it is important to lead. And I think John -- the fact is is that I opposed this war from the start. So you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue. And, you know, I think it's important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this.
"I opposed this war from the start"? The public record shows Obama gave a speech calling it a "dumb" war before it started. Then it started. He went on to then tell the New York Times that he wasn't sure how he would have voted had he been in the Senate.
He DID NOT oppose all along. He made some weak-ass statements before the illegal war started and then he got on board with the illegal war. "Dumb" war is not a position a lawyer should take. "Dumb" war might play well as a faux folksy talking point for Fred Thompson, but, as Patti Williams can't stop gushing, Barack Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review. "Dumb" war is a "dumb" thing and a weak thing for a legal mind to state. And he admitted, in 2004, he didn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate in 2002. But that didn't stop him from calling out John Edwards and saying Edwards was "four and a half years late on leadership" in the New Hampshire debate this year.
And here's the thing, Bambi didn't just make the "I don't know how I would've voted in 2002 if I'd been in the Senate" statement once. And he was still making it in late 2006. Speaking to David Remnick (The New Yorker, November 2006), he was asked about differences between himself and Hillary Clinton. He responded:
I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.
The conversation with Remnick is also available as an audio download. Casting a vote can be 'difficult.' Chicago's WBEZ reported (link has text and audio) last week that Obama "missed more than 160 votes on the Senate floor" as a result of "campaigning" and that "Obama's missed more than a third of the Senate's votes this year, about the same tally as two other senators running for the president: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Hillary Clinton has missed significantly fewer votes than Obama, while Republican John McCain has missed far more." Bernie Tafoya (WBBM) narrowed it down, "During September and October, Senator Obama missed 71 -- or nearly 80 percent -- of the 89 votes that have taken place in the Senate." That included the Iran resolution, the one Bambi wants to hiss, "Bad Hillary! You voted for it!" But he was a member of the Senate and he knew about the vote and chose not to show up. He says Iran says something about Hillary Clinton. It says a great deal about him: He didn't vote one way or the other. Is that what he would have done in 2002? Ducked the vote?
Or as US House Rep and Democratic Party contender for the presidential nomination Dennis Kucinich declared today in New Hampshire, "Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd voted to give the President the authorization to go to war in Iraq. Their judgment was wrong. They and Senator Obama have voted to continue funding that war. Their judgement was wrong."
We've gone remedial because Democracy Now! twice (here and here) offered Barack Obama's campaign spokesmodel David Axelrod's statement on today's show: "Barack Obama had the judgement to oppose the war in Iraq. And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effacts of that . . . Sen. Clinton made a different judgement. Let's have that discussion." Obama's position on the Iraq War has been all over the map. (Tariq Ali demolishes the other points from Bambi's spokesmodel.) Last night we noted the large number of Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls rushing in to offer their thoughts on the thug and crook Benazir Bhutto. They should all be ashamed of themselves. We took media to task last night and yesterday as well. Add another group that's got some explaining: CODEPINK. Bhutto died yesterday. For Bhutto they can rush to offer a "tribute" and offer a "Petition." What was our complaint about media and the candidates? What were they not noting?
Today, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes it, "In Iraq, the U.S. death toll has topped 3,900. Two soldiers were killed on Wednesday in Mosul." And that's it from Democracy Now! For those wondering, the 3900 mark prompts nothing from our peace groups. We didn't call them out yesterday, they're volunteers and they're not news outlets or running for votes. But when CODEPINK has time to create a tribute (for someone who doesn't deserve it) and to start a petition, they DAMN WELL have time to note that 3,900 US service members have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. As we noted last night, "'Independent' media (broadcast and some print) largely offered us state propaganda. Meanwhile the candidates for both major parties telegraphed just how little American deaths mean to them." And, again, US presidential wanna-bes are running to become the President of the United States, not the Prime Minister of Pakistan. A peace organization that has time to weigh in on breaking news has time to note the 3900 dead and, if they don't make that time while they rush to note some 'hot' topic, they send a message -- intentionally or not, they send a message.
Since we've noted Democrats running for president, the Green Party has an upcoming debate. Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) notes that January 13th, 2:00 p.m., Herbst Theater (410 Van Ness) in San Francisco, there will be a Green Party Presidential debate featuring Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Elaine Brown, Jared Ball and Kent Mesplay. For a list of candidates -- from all parties -- that may be running, see Kimberly and Ian Wilder's candidates page.
Today Naomi Klein will be on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show. Klein's new book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism. Also today on PBS, NOW with David Brancaccio, the program "investigates the partnership of a Republican congressman and the Idaho Conservation League to protect a vast swath of the state's natural environment. Does their compromise legislation come at too high a price? The legislation, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), transfers some public land -- land Americans across the country pay for -- to private local ownership in exchange for protection of nearby wilderness. It also leaves land bordering the wilderness open to further recreational use, especially involving off-road vehicles." Among those speaking out on the program against the sell-out of public lands is Carole King -- King of Goffin & King in the 60s (chronological sixties), writing the music to more charting hits than may be humanly possible, easing into a group at the tail end of that decade (The City), going solo in the seventies, releasing the landmark album Tapestry, etc., still writing, still performing and working on the issue of the ecology for many, many years. Check local listings for the times both programs will be aired. Sunday on NYC's WBAI (streams online) from 11 a.m. to noon EST, The Next Hour will offer: "Author/actor/racounteur Malachy McCourt hosts his brothers Frank, Alf and Mike in what has come to be an annual McCourt family radio reunion." While Monday on WBAI's Cat Radio Cafe, 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm EST, "In an epilogue to WBAI's recent 'Celebration of Norman Mailer' (The Next Hour, December 16, 2007, 11 am-1 pm, archived at www.catradiocafe.com), legendary actor Rip Torn weighs in on his old friend and fellow improvisor, along with an encorse airing of Joyce Carol Oates' observations on Mailer; and political satirist Will Durst with the Top Ten Comedic Stories of 2007. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer."
mcclatchy newspapers
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Other Items
Bilal's case has been assigned to investigating Judge Dhia al-Kinani, who has already conducted a long series of evidentiary hearings in the case. The source said the Pentagon is confident that they will secure a conviction in the case. "Nothing is being left to chance in this case. It's important and a lot of resources are being thrown at it." The Pentagon isn't concerned about evidence or legal arguments. I wonder why. Some other points.
Under strong pressure from the U.S. military, the investigating judge closed the case and imposed a gag order. This was requested principally because the U.S. military was concerned about unfavorable media coverage. The Pentagon media strategy involves leaking information as it finds convenient to "friendly new media" (this I take to be wingnut bloggers), but restricting the flow of information to traditional media. The Iraqi judge is fully cooperating with his gag order.
The U.S. military has assigned a team of five to act effectively as prosecutors in the case. The team is headed by a JAG Captain named Kelvey (or perhaps Calvey). (Says the source: "We recognize, of course, that the U.S. has no authority to prosecute a case in an Iraqi court. That's one of the reasons that a gag order was essential.")
The Iraqi judge is also allowing the U.S. military to present evidence by witnesses through remote television hook-ups from undisclosed locations. This is done particularly to be sure that Bilal Hussein would not be able to cross-examine any witnesses.
The Pentagon was particularly concerned about the prospect of Bilal Hussein getting effective defense from his lawyer, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe. The judge was told to refuse to allow Bilal Hussein's U.S. lawyer to participate in the case. The judge accepted this advice. Consequently, the U.S. military has a five-man team to press its case, but Bilal Hussein's lawyer is silenced and not permitted to participate - and all of this has occurred as a result of U.S. Government intervention with the court. The irony of course is that under Iraqi law, the U.S. military has no authority or right to appear and prosecute, but Bilal Hussein's chosen counsel has an absolute right.
The U.S. military continues to keep Hussein in their custody and will not allow his lawyer, Gardephe, access to him to conduct interviews or trial preparation without having both a U.S. military representative and an interpreter in the room at all times. Under international norms, this means that Bilal Hussein is not permitted access to counsel: a serious violation of his trial rights. And note that the violator is not the Iraqi authorities, who have no control over Bilal, but the United States Government.
The Pentagon is convinced that regardless of the evidence presented and the arguments made, Bilal Hussein will be convicted based on its influence wielding and pressure tactics. "The judge announced on the opening day that he would recommend conviction and refer the matter to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. This was before any evidence or arguments had been produced. Our folks were elated, but concerned that his somewhat rash statement would undermine the credibility of the proceedings. They had expected him to say this only at the end of the proceedings."
Under strong pressure from the U.S. military, the investigating judge closed the case and imposed a gag order. This was requested principally because the U.S. military was concerned about unfavorable media coverage. The Pentagon media strategy involves leaking information as it finds convenient to "friendly new media" (this I take to be wingnut bloggers), but restricting the flow of information to traditional media. The Iraqi judge is fully cooperating with his gag order.
The U.S. military has assigned a team of five to act effectively as prosecutors in the case. The team is headed by a JAG Captain named Kelvey (or perhaps Calvey). (Says the source: "We recognize, of course, that the U.S. has no authority to prosecute a case in an Iraqi court. That's one of the reasons that a gag order was essential.")
The Iraqi judge is also allowing the U.S. military to present evidence by witnesses through remote television hook-ups from undisclosed locations. This is done particularly to be sure that Bilal Hussein would not be able to cross-examine any witnesses.
The Pentagon was particularly concerned about the prospect of Bilal Hussein getting effective defense from his lawyer, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe. The judge was told to refuse to allow Bilal Hussein's U.S. lawyer to participate in the case. The judge accepted this advice. Consequently, the U.S. military has a five-man team to press its case, but Bilal Hussein's lawyer is silenced and not permitted to participate - and all of this has occurred as a result of U.S. Government intervention with the court. The irony of course is that under Iraqi law, the U.S. military has no authority or right to appear and prosecute, but Bilal Hussein's chosen counsel has an absolute right.
The U.S. military continues to keep Hussein in their custody and will not allow his lawyer, Gardephe, access to him to conduct interviews or trial preparation without having both a U.S. military representative and an interpreter in the room at all times. Under international norms, this means that Bilal Hussein is not permitted access to counsel: a serious violation of his trial rights. And note that the violator is not the Iraqi authorities, who have no control over Bilal, but the United States Government.
The Pentagon is convinced that regardless of the evidence presented and the arguments made, Bilal Hussein will be convicted based on its influence wielding and pressure tactics. "The judge announced on the opening day that he would recommend conviction and refer the matter to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. This was before any evidence or arguments had been produced. Our folks were elated, but concerned that his somewhat rash statement would undermine the credibility of the proceedings. They had expected him to say this only at the end of the proceedings."
The above is from Scott Horton's "An Update on the Trial of Bilal Hussein" (Harper's magazine) and it's about Pulitzer Prize winning photo journalist Bilal Hussein who committed the 'crime' of reporting and for that 'crime' was taken into military custody in April 2006. The US military had no case against it and still has no case against him which is why they want a 'fair' and 'free' trial in Iraq which the US military occupies. Free Bilal will provide you with more information about how a reporting doing his or her job is a 'criminal' in a country where truth was among the illegal war's first fatalities.
Today Naomi Klein will be on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show. Klein's new book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism. Also today on PBS, NOW with David Brancaccio, the program "investigates the partnership of a Republican congressman and the Idaho Conservation League to protect a vast swath of the state's natural environment. Does their compromise legislation come at too high a price? The legislation, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), transfers some public land -- land Americans across the country pay for -- to private local ownership in exchange for protection of nearby wilderness. It also leaves land bordering the wilderness open to further recreational use, especially involving off-road vehicles." Among those speaking out on the program against the sell-out of public lands is Carole King -- King of Goffin & King in the 60s (chronological sixties), writing the music to more charting hits than may be humanly possible, easing into a group at the tail end of that decade (The City), going solo in the seventies, releasing the landmark album Tapestry, etc., still writing, still performing and working on the issue of the ecology for many, many years. Check local listings for the times both programs will be aired.
Already in Iraq today, a Baghdad car bombing has resulted in a number of deaths. Reuters reports the toll has now climbed to 10 dead with the injured numbering sixty-six. But there's a Cult of Personality the media circus wants to play out so who has time to explore that?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
bilal hussein
scott harperpbs
Charlie Rose Show
now with david branccaciocarole king
What falls away (due to media circuses)
"The American helicopters shelled our neighborhood for three hours," said Jameel Muhammad, a 27-year-old construction worker. "Dead bodies were scattered here and there. Houses and cars were set on fire, and people were scared and running all over the place."
A shop owner, Hassan Jassim, said that his sister-in-law had been wounded in the fighting and that he had seen three bodies lying in the street near his house.
"American helicopters fired on our houses," he said.
The above is from Solomon Moore's "U.S. Troops Kill 11 Shiite Militiamen" in this morning's New York Times providing eye witness reaction to the US military action in Al Kut yesterday and it's doubtful too many other outlets will provide anything on it or explore it because everyone's attempting to enshrine a corrupt leader. The innocents killed in the action aren't accused of stealing millions of the people's monies, there's no indication that any killed their own family members to maintain national power and there weren't trials pending against them in multiple countries so their deaths aren't going to be judged 'important'. Just like the 3900 deaths benchmark that was reached this week didn't really matter to most outlets. That's just US service members and they can't test out photos for magazine covers or enshrine them or canonize them. They died in an illegal war. Better, the media thinks, to focus on a celebrity death and you have to wonder if Imelda Marcos' biggest p.r. problem was not dying before her husband lost power?
Salem-News does note the 3900 mark as well as the 1.2 million Iraqis killed in the illegal war in their article entitled "Grannies Return to Recruiting Office to Protest War" and we'll note this section on an action taking place today:
On December 28th, the Friday after Christmas, members of the Surge Protection Brigade, also known as the "Seriously Pissed Off Grannies", will return to demonstrate in front of the Army and Marine Recruiting Center at 1317 NE Broadway.
The symbols used in this Friday's demonstration will include red handprints and peace doves as a statement that "Peace on Earth" means "No War."
On December 13th five members of the group who placed red handprints on the recruiting office windows during a Good Friday demonstration on April 6th were found not guilty of a third degree misdemeanor by a Multnomah County jury.
Remember, the outlets that couldn't be bothered with noting the 3,000 mark on New Year's Eve, couldn't break into their pre-recorded program to just make a brief announcement, demonstrated yesterday that they could break in, they could scrap planned programming -- not to note the 3900 mark but to offer state propaganda on a 'leader' who betrayed a people. Which is why 2007 was even worse than 2006 when it came to covering Iraq.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
solomon moore
the new york times
salem-news
A shop owner, Hassan Jassim, said that his sister-in-law had been wounded in the fighting and that he had seen three bodies lying in the street near his house.
"American helicopters fired on our houses," he said.
The above is from Solomon Moore's "U.S. Troops Kill 11 Shiite Militiamen" in this morning's New York Times providing eye witness reaction to the US military action in Al Kut yesterday and it's doubtful too many other outlets will provide anything on it or explore it because everyone's attempting to enshrine a corrupt leader. The innocents killed in the action aren't accused of stealing millions of the people's monies, there's no indication that any killed their own family members to maintain national power and there weren't trials pending against them in multiple countries so their deaths aren't going to be judged 'important'. Just like the 3900 deaths benchmark that was reached this week didn't really matter to most outlets. That's just US service members and they can't test out photos for magazine covers or enshrine them or canonize them. They died in an illegal war. Better, the media thinks, to focus on a celebrity death and you have to wonder if Imelda Marcos' biggest p.r. problem was not dying before her husband lost power?
Salem-News does note the 3900 mark as well as the 1.2 million Iraqis killed in the illegal war in their article entitled "Grannies Return to Recruiting Office to Protest War" and we'll note this section on an action taking place today:
On December 28th, the Friday after Christmas, members of the Surge Protection Brigade, also known as the "Seriously Pissed Off Grannies", will return to demonstrate in front of the Army and Marine Recruiting Center at 1317 NE Broadway.
The symbols used in this Friday's demonstration will include red handprints and peace doves as a statement that "Peace on Earth" means "No War."
On December 13th five members of the group who placed red handprints on the recruiting office windows during a Good Friday demonstration on April 6th were found not guilty of a third degree misdemeanor by a Multnomah County jury.
Remember, the outlets that couldn't be bothered with noting the 3,000 mark on New Year's Eve, couldn't break into their pre-recorded program to just make a brief announcement, demonstrated yesterday that they could break in, they could scrap planned programming -- not to note the 3900 mark but to offer state propaganda on a 'leader' who betrayed a people. Which is why 2007 was even worse than 2006 when it came to covering Iraq.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
solomon moorethe new york times
salem-news
Thursday, December 27, 2007
I Hate The War
As of Thursday, Dec. 27, 2007, at least 3,900 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
That's from AP's "US Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,900" and they also note 174 is the toll thus far for the UK, 33 for Italy, 18 for the Ukraine, 21 for Poland, 13 for Bulgaria, 11 for Spain, 7 for Denmark, 5 for El Salvador, 4 for Slovakia, 3 for Latvia, 2 for each of the following countries: Estonia, the Netherlands, Romania and Thailand, and one for each of the following countries: Australia (Jake Kovco), Hungary, Kazakhstan and South Korea.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3896. Tonight? *3900*. Just Foreign Policy's total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stood at 1,139,602. Tonight? 1,139,602. Apparently they're on holiday.
Not unlike US candidates for the Republican or Democratic parties' presidential nomination. AP's David Espo notes that John McCain, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Mike Huckabee all weighed in. Don't forget Bambi! The Globe Gazette provides quotes from many and notes Mitt Romney, Dennis Kucinich and Bambi addressed it as well:
Democrat Barack Obama addressed the assassination at the beginning of a speech in Des Moines Friday morning.
"She was a respected and resilient advocate for democracy for the people of Pakistan," Obama said. "We mourn her loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family and her supporters."
No, Bambi, she was a cheap thug. While women around the world were calling out the Taliban, the thug stood alone among world leaders openly supporting that terrorist regime that destroyed women's lives. She and her trashy husband couldn't keep their hands out of the public till which is what hurt her -- not her funding the destroyers and torturers of women in Afghanistan.
It's needs to be stated clearly that a woman who gets into power is not a "good" thing if she uses her power to harm other women. Women in Afghanistan saw their rights ripped from them, saw their lives destroyed. And Bhutto provided cover and support for the Taliban. It's equally true that her campaigns promised rights for women in Pakistan but never delivered. Rights would come when she was out of power. She was a piece of trash and the US ruling elite wanted her in co-power to provide cover for the regime that makes life a living hell for the average person in Pakistan today. Bhutto, happy to avoid prison, was more than willing to go along. Had she not been killed, she probably would have stood a chance at 'winning' the election -- the US has bought many an election overseas.
Bhutto was trash. Here's Christian Parenti on 'Saint' Bhutto, "US Illusions Die With Benazir Bhutto" (Agence Global via Pacific Free Press):
But who was Bhutto?
As 'chairperson-for-life' of the Pakistan Peoples Party she brooked no dissent. The PPP had populist roots, but over the decades its democratic and redistribution programs had devolved into largely meaningless rhetoric. Bhutto's two terms as Prime Minister, in the late 1980's and then again beginning in 1993, delivered nothing. She was implicated in the murder of her brother. Pakistan under her was one of few countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Kabul. And she grew increasingly corrupt, appointing her husband as Minister for Investment -- meaning he was in charge of all state investments, at home and abroad. The couple is accused of having accumulated $1.5 billion -- much of it public money. Upon her death she was facing corruption cases in Switzerland, England, and Spain. Partnered with Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto would not have transformed the deep rot of corruption, poverty, and underdevelopment that fuels a growing discontent -- in the form of Islamic fundamentalism and Pashtun nationalism -- in Pakistan’s frontier provinces. Nor would she have controlled Pakistan's security forces, which are economically and politically quite powerful and autonomous institutions. In short, Bhutto could not have delivered for Washington, and won the local "war on terror." She could not have provided domestic stability.
But that's not the 'Saint' independent media -- sounding like state propaganda -- bored us all with. Aileen Alfandary led with the canonization of Bhutto on not one, not two, not three but four news breaks on KPFA's The Morning Show today. Now she couldn't tear herself away from the propaganda long enough to note that 3900 US service members had died in the illegal war but she did a lovely job of reading out loud on Iraq. Sounding very uninformed on the theft of Iraqi oil, she might have raised a few eyebrows in the first, third and fourth news break; that's because she was stealing as well.
Listen to today's archived broadcast. Alfandary tells listeners about "a draft of a general amnesty bill for detainees being held in Iraqi prisons, a measure *which* could go a long way towards reconciling Iraq's *warring* sects and factions." Read this Al Jazeera page (based on "Agencies") and note that if you replace "which" with "that" and "warring" is replaced with "antagonistic" you can see the problem. You can see it throughout including when Alfandary concludes, ""Many key draft laws - including measures to share oil revenue and to allow some members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to hold government jobs - have remained mired for months in Iraq's *grid-locked* parliament." Replace "grid-locked" with "mired" and you have the conclusion of the wire report Al Jazeera's posting. Now the fact that KPFA would -- as NEWS -- present the theft of Iraqi oil that way raised eyebrows (and resulted in a ton of e-mails) but let's face reality with Alfandary's 'reporting' which has been mainstream all along, it's called plagiarism. It's the sort of thing that gets your ass canned in REAL MEDIA.
So what listeners got from the news reader wasn't even her own words. They got her ripping off the MSM coverage (it's AP, for anyone wondering -- that's where Al Jazeera got those sections). Not only did she never note that the words she was presenting as her own were not her own words, she never said "AP is reporting" or in any way attributed it to AP.
Sandra Lupien, doing the same job before moving up to The KPFA Evening News, worked her ass off. She found stories othes were reporting -- often the things that very few were reporting -- and put them in her own words or else noted it was a quote. (Lupien had the story of Steven D. Green's arrest -- in the gang-rape and murder of Abeer as well as the murders of Abeer's parents and her five-year-old sister -- when no one knew about it and the only information was a press release the government rushed out and buried the Friday before.) Listeners to The Morning Show then got alternative news -- not just in terms of things no one else was reporting (if it's not going to make CNN's crawl at the bottom of the screen, Aflandary's not going to note it) but in terms of pulling from reports and putting it into KPFA terms that spoke to KPFA's audience.
Alfandary may think she's being more 'professional' by parroting the MSM but 'professional' does not include ripping off the works of others and passing them off as your own. Again, in REAL MEDIA that gets your ass fired.
This did not happen once, this happened repeatedly on the news breaks during The Morning Show today. One might also wonder why KPFA management has refused to take seriously the many complaints about Alfandary's work which never strays from the MSM's supposed 'center.' Had they taken those complaints from listeners seriously, they probably would have caught the fact that Alfandary's words were not her own a long damn time ago.
To be clear, should Katie Couric, Brian Williams or Charlie Gibson be caught on air in the same situation, it would be humiliating, require a public apology from the individual and the news organization and should result in their firing.
A news reader isn't a reporter. A news reader is providing headlines. During the headline section of Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman attributes (specifically or generally) and does not steal the words of others unless she notes she's quoting. That KPFA has repeatedly allowed Alfandary to do otherwise goes to serious problems with the station. That Alfandary thought it was acceptable goes to serious questions about her competency and honesty.
At the most basic, even if she got away with it without ever being called on it, you'd think she'd feel enough embarrassment on those (rare?) times when she's approached with a compliment. You'd think she'd say, "I stole every word but one in a sentence. I need to stop doing that because people think I'm writing these things. I can't enjoy any praise that I didn't earn."
But that's not been the case, now has it?
Changing words, putting it into her own words, would be acceptable. Stealing an entire sentence and substituting one word (example: "grid-locked" for "mired") is not putting it into your own words. I recently made the comment to a MSM reporter that I thought a great deal of people worked in independent media because they couldn't get jobs anywhere else. Today, Alfandary proves me right.
Again, people have complained repeatedly that Alfandary's 'reporting' in the news break is to the right of KPFA's other news reports. Well there's your answer why. She's not 'reporting,' she's swiping 'her' sentences from the MSM. (And thanks to a friend at The Chronicle who pointed that out months ago.) KPFA can plug in MSM audio feed for the 'news'. They don't do that because they're supposed to be providing their own news -- which includes their own take as unembedded media -- and listeners believe that's what they're getting. Forget members, visitors have e-mailed this site trying to figure out what was the deal with Alfandary's 'reporting'? That's "the deal." It's not her reporting. She's stealing words of MSM and passing them off as her own.
Now let's move to realities about our presidential contenders, realities they seem unaware of: They are hoping to become the President of the United States. They are not running for Prime Minister of Pakistan.
This morning, before any of them uttered a public word, at this site, the following appeared:
Before we note anything else, ICCC reports the 3900 mark for US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war has been reached. Yesterday's snapshot noted that the announcement by M-NF took the count to 3899 and it appears the 3900th came via DoD which is a good way of burying news and why DoD has been used so often in the last months for that purpose (M-NF is supposed to announce deaths, DoD then issues the names of the dead after the family has been contacted, that's how it's supposed to work).That's the official count which does not include counting those who die from injuries received after they return from Iraq. We'll return to the topic in today's snapshot.
We don't "Like Mike" at this site but we'll note that when asked of current events before, he's begged off claiming he's so busy campaigning, he can't follow the news. Apparently, none of the others can either. And Mike Huckabee or anyone else has a staff that's supposed to prepare them. So did the staff fail or did all of our candidates running to be the President of the United States not give a damn that the death toll for US service members had reached 3,900?
War Hawk, Do-Nothing or Against It, all of them should have had a statement. The War Hawks should have offered the praise for the 'sacrifice'. The Do-Nothings would have clucked that someday, not someday soon, something needs to be done. (No specifics, they are, after all, running campaigns.) Those Against It should have had loud statements to the press.
None did. Poor little candidates, having to run from Prime Minister of Pakistan from the shores of the US because they didn't have enough money to travel overseas.
Now a skilled candidate could have noted both. But apparently the two major parties don't have a single skilled candidate. Sorry to break it to the campaigns but American voters would be more interested in hearing sop tossed about the 3,900 Americans killed than sop about one corrupt, Pakistan ruler.
"Independent" media (broadcast and some print) largely offered us state propaganda. Meanwhile the candidates for both major parties telegraphed just how little American deaths mean to them.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
christian parenti
sandra lupien
kpfa
the morning show
aileen alfandary
That's from AP's "US Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,900" and they also note 174 is the toll thus far for the UK, 33 for Italy, 18 for the Ukraine, 21 for Poland, 13 for Bulgaria, 11 for Spain, 7 for Denmark, 5 for El Salvador, 4 for Slovakia, 3 for Latvia, 2 for each of the following countries: Estonia, the Netherlands, Romania and Thailand, and one for each of the following countries: Australia (Jake Kovco), Hungary, Kazakhstan and South Korea.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3896. Tonight? *3900*. Just Foreign Policy's total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stood at 1,139,602. Tonight? 1,139,602. Apparently they're on holiday.
Not unlike US candidates for the Republican or Democratic parties' presidential nomination. AP's David Espo notes that John McCain, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Mike Huckabee all weighed in. Don't forget Bambi! The Globe Gazette provides quotes from many and notes Mitt Romney, Dennis Kucinich and Bambi addressed it as well:
Democrat Barack Obama addressed the assassination at the beginning of a speech in Des Moines Friday morning.
"She was a respected and resilient advocate for democracy for the people of Pakistan," Obama said. "We mourn her loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family and her supporters."
No, Bambi, she was a cheap thug. While women around the world were calling out the Taliban, the thug stood alone among world leaders openly supporting that terrorist regime that destroyed women's lives. She and her trashy husband couldn't keep their hands out of the public till which is what hurt her -- not her funding the destroyers and torturers of women in Afghanistan.
It's needs to be stated clearly that a woman who gets into power is not a "good" thing if she uses her power to harm other women. Women in Afghanistan saw their rights ripped from them, saw their lives destroyed. And Bhutto provided cover and support for the Taliban. It's equally true that her campaigns promised rights for women in Pakistan but never delivered. Rights would come when she was out of power. She was a piece of trash and the US ruling elite wanted her in co-power to provide cover for the regime that makes life a living hell for the average person in Pakistan today. Bhutto, happy to avoid prison, was more than willing to go along. Had she not been killed, she probably would have stood a chance at 'winning' the election -- the US has bought many an election overseas.
Bhutto was trash. Here's Christian Parenti on 'Saint' Bhutto, "US Illusions Die With Benazir Bhutto" (Agence Global via Pacific Free Press):
But who was Bhutto?
As 'chairperson-for-life' of the Pakistan Peoples Party she brooked no dissent. The PPP had populist roots, but over the decades its democratic and redistribution programs had devolved into largely meaningless rhetoric. Bhutto's two terms as Prime Minister, in the late 1980's and then again beginning in 1993, delivered nothing. She was implicated in the murder of her brother. Pakistan under her was one of few countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Kabul. And she grew increasingly corrupt, appointing her husband as Minister for Investment -- meaning he was in charge of all state investments, at home and abroad. The couple is accused of having accumulated $1.5 billion -- much of it public money. Upon her death she was facing corruption cases in Switzerland, England, and Spain. Partnered with Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto would not have transformed the deep rot of corruption, poverty, and underdevelopment that fuels a growing discontent -- in the form of Islamic fundamentalism and Pashtun nationalism -- in Pakistan’s frontier provinces. Nor would she have controlled Pakistan's security forces, which are economically and politically quite powerful and autonomous institutions. In short, Bhutto could not have delivered for Washington, and won the local "war on terror." She could not have provided domestic stability.
But that's not the 'Saint' independent media -- sounding like state propaganda -- bored us all with. Aileen Alfandary led with the canonization of Bhutto on not one, not two, not three but four news breaks on KPFA's The Morning Show today. Now she couldn't tear herself away from the propaganda long enough to note that 3900 US service members had died in the illegal war but she did a lovely job of reading out loud on Iraq. Sounding very uninformed on the theft of Iraqi oil, she might have raised a few eyebrows in the first, third and fourth news break; that's because she was stealing as well.
Listen to today's archived broadcast. Alfandary tells listeners about "a draft of a general amnesty bill for detainees being held in Iraqi prisons, a measure *which* could go a long way towards reconciling Iraq's *warring* sects and factions." Read this Al Jazeera page (based on "Agencies") and note that if you replace "which" with "that" and "warring" is replaced with "antagonistic" you can see the problem. You can see it throughout including when Alfandary concludes, ""Many key draft laws - including measures to share oil revenue and to allow some members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to hold government jobs - have remained mired for months in Iraq's *grid-locked* parliament." Replace "grid-locked" with "mired" and you have the conclusion of the wire report Al Jazeera's posting. Now the fact that KPFA would -- as NEWS -- present the theft of Iraqi oil that way raised eyebrows (and resulted in a ton of e-mails) but let's face reality with Alfandary's 'reporting' which has been mainstream all along, it's called plagiarism. It's the sort of thing that gets your ass canned in REAL MEDIA.
So what listeners got from the news reader wasn't even her own words. They got her ripping off the MSM coverage (it's AP, for anyone wondering -- that's where Al Jazeera got those sections). Not only did she never note that the words she was presenting as her own were not her own words, she never said "AP is reporting" or in any way attributed it to AP.
Sandra Lupien, doing the same job before moving up to The KPFA Evening News, worked her ass off. She found stories othes were reporting -- often the things that very few were reporting -- and put them in her own words or else noted it was a quote. (Lupien had the story of Steven D. Green's arrest -- in the gang-rape and murder of Abeer as well as the murders of Abeer's parents and her five-year-old sister -- when no one knew about it and the only information was a press release the government rushed out and buried the Friday before.) Listeners to The Morning Show then got alternative news -- not just in terms of things no one else was reporting (if it's not going to make CNN's crawl at the bottom of the screen, Aflandary's not going to note it) but in terms of pulling from reports and putting it into KPFA terms that spoke to KPFA's audience.
Alfandary may think she's being more 'professional' by parroting the MSM but 'professional' does not include ripping off the works of others and passing them off as your own. Again, in REAL MEDIA that gets your ass fired.
This did not happen once, this happened repeatedly on the news breaks during The Morning Show today. One might also wonder why KPFA management has refused to take seriously the many complaints about Alfandary's work which never strays from the MSM's supposed 'center.' Had they taken those complaints from listeners seriously, they probably would have caught the fact that Alfandary's words were not her own a long damn time ago.
To be clear, should Katie Couric, Brian Williams or Charlie Gibson be caught on air in the same situation, it would be humiliating, require a public apology from the individual and the news organization and should result in their firing.
A news reader isn't a reporter. A news reader is providing headlines. During the headline section of Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman attributes (specifically or generally) and does not steal the words of others unless she notes she's quoting. That KPFA has repeatedly allowed Alfandary to do otherwise goes to serious problems with the station. That Alfandary thought it was acceptable goes to serious questions about her competency and honesty.
At the most basic, even if she got away with it without ever being called on it, you'd think she'd feel enough embarrassment on those (rare?) times when she's approached with a compliment. You'd think she'd say, "I stole every word but one in a sentence. I need to stop doing that because people think I'm writing these things. I can't enjoy any praise that I didn't earn."
But that's not been the case, now has it?
Changing words, putting it into her own words, would be acceptable. Stealing an entire sentence and substituting one word (example: "grid-locked" for "mired") is not putting it into your own words. I recently made the comment to a MSM reporter that I thought a great deal of people worked in independent media because they couldn't get jobs anywhere else. Today, Alfandary proves me right.
Again, people have complained repeatedly that Alfandary's 'reporting' in the news break is to the right of KPFA's other news reports. Well there's your answer why. She's not 'reporting,' she's swiping 'her' sentences from the MSM. (And thanks to a friend at The Chronicle who pointed that out months ago.) KPFA can plug in MSM audio feed for the 'news'. They don't do that because they're supposed to be providing their own news -- which includes their own take as unembedded media -- and listeners believe that's what they're getting. Forget members, visitors have e-mailed this site trying to figure out what was the deal with Alfandary's 'reporting'? That's "the deal." It's not her reporting. She's stealing words of MSM and passing them off as her own.
Now let's move to realities about our presidential contenders, realities they seem unaware of: They are hoping to become the President of the United States. They are not running for Prime Minister of Pakistan.
This morning, before any of them uttered a public word, at this site, the following appeared:
Before we note anything else, ICCC reports the 3900 mark for US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war has been reached. Yesterday's snapshot noted that the announcement by M-NF took the count to 3899 and it appears the 3900th came via DoD which is a good way of burying news and why DoD has been used so often in the last months for that purpose (M-NF is supposed to announce deaths, DoD then issues the names of the dead after the family has been contacted, that's how it's supposed to work).That's the official count which does not include counting those who die from injuries received after they return from Iraq. We'll return to the topic in today's snapshot.
We don't "Like Mike" at this site but we'll note that when asked of current events before, he's begged off claiming he's so busy campaigning, he can't follow the news. Apparently, none of the others can either. And Mike Huckabee or anyone else has a staff that's supposed to prepare them. So did the staff fail or did all of our candidates running to be the President of the United States not give a damn that the death toll for US service members had reached 3,900?
War Hawk, Do-Nothing or Against It, all of them should have had a statement. The War Hawks should have offered the praise for the 'sacrifice'. The Do-Nothings would have clucked that someday, not someday soon, something needs to be done. (No specifics, they are, after all, running campaigns.) Those Against It should have had loud statements to the press.
None did. Poor little candidates, having to run from Prime Minister of Pakistan from the shores of the US because they didn't have enough money to travel overseas.
Now a skilled candidate could have noted both. But apparently the two major parties don't have a single skilled candidate. Sorry to break it to the campaigns but American voters would be more interested in hearing sop tossed about the 3,900 Americans killed than sop about one corrupt, Pakistan ruler.
"Independent" media (broadcast and some print) largely offered us state propaganda. Meanwhile the candidates for both major parties telegraphed just how little American deaths mean to them.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
christian parenti
sandra lupien
kpfa
the morning show
aileen alfandary
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, December 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the 3900 mark is reached and the bulk of All Things Media Big and Small drops the ball, and more.
Starting with war resisters. Brett Clarkson (Ottawa Sun) notes that the "growing community of Iraq war resisters who've fled to Canada from their native U.S. are hinging their hopes on a motion to be introduced in Parliament in February by NDP MP Olivia Chow. Chow, who fiercely opposes the Iraq war, is the last hope for the 50 or so deserters, who face deportation after the Supreme Court refused to hear a final bid by former U.S. soldiers Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey to be given refugee status in Canada. With all their legal avenues exhausted, the deserters are hoping enough politicians in Ottawa will vote in favour of Chow's motion to allow them to be granted refugee status in Canada." Among the war resisters in Canada is Brad McCall. Anthony Lane (Colorado Springs Independent) explains the basics of McCall's story, "lured into the Army by a recruiter's slick pitch and the promise of a $20,000 signing bonus. After joining, though, his bonus only came to half that amount, he says, and he soon realized he could not support the Army's mission in Iraq, nor could he stomach the thought of having to kill a person. With his inquiries to get out of the Army as a conscientious objector seemingly facing long odds, McCall made plans to hit the road instead, speaking nonchalantly with the Indy about his travel plans the night he left."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
First up, who sent the message today that Iraq is not important?
A great many. Here's reality for Media bound and determined to make themselves useless on the topic of Iraq: 3900.
That's the number ICCC reported this morning before anyone started broadcasting, before anyone started scribbling. It's the number of US service members killed in the illegal war since it started. (It leaves out those who died from injuries -- physical, mental and emotional -- after returning to the US from Iraq. As well as those who kill themselves on R&R in the MidEast -- but we're not supposed to note that detail either.) ICCC is the Defense Department's count of 3898 plus the two (see yesterday's snapshot) deaths that Multi-National Forces announced on Wednesday. Which, once the families of the two are notified, will bring DoD's count to 3900.
Somehow that's not news to many in media. It's shameful. But pimping a US backed leader's death is apparently more important than noting the non-leaders sent into an illegal war by the White House to die. Well, we always care about the famous -- or at least All Things Media Big and Small does.
The 3000 mark was reached December 31, 2006. And, in one year's time, a thousand more have died. The 2007/110th Congress held their first session on January 4, 2007. At that point the number dead was 3006. There was a huge shake-up in the Congress, for any who've forgotten. Democrats promised a lot with regards to Iraq and they delivered nothing. In the November 2006 elections, they had a sweep. They had hoped to win control of one house. They won control of both houses of Congress. Since their first session, 894 US service members have been announced dead in Iraq. Since the Democrats were handed control, Byron W. Fouty and Alex R. Jimenez went missing. They were part of a group that was slaughtered. (By Iraqis waived through checkpoints, for those who've forgotten.) Hopefully, they are still alive. But they went missing May 12th. (They are two of four missing since the start of the illegal war. Keith M. Maupin went missing April 16, 2004 and Ahmeda Qusai al-Taei went missing right before the November elections, October 23, 2006. Ahmeda Qusai al-Taei is the US soldier who married an Iraqi and was captured while visiting her in Baghdad, outside the Green Zone.) The count doesn't include the deaths from physical wounds following the departure from Iraq. Five service members are known to have died after returning to the US, died from the physical injuries they received in Iraq. The number is probably higher. This year three died, from physical wounds received in Iraq, after leaving Iraq: Jack D. Richards (July 29, 2007), Gerald J. Cassidy (September 25, 2007) and Anthony Raymond Wasielewsk (October 8, 2007). In addition there are the many who have come back with mental traumas and have taken their own lives. They aren't included in the count either.
3900 is the number. And anyone thinking of themselves as being a journalist damn well should have noted it today. A century from The Progressive can put it on a calender for one of their Hidden History of the United States: "December 27, 2007, the 3900 mark was reached for the official number of US service members killed in the Iraq War. A year prior, when the 3,000 mark was hit on New Year's Eve, consumers of so-called independent media wondered whether it was the holiday or the lack of giving a damn about the illegal war. Fate decided to clarify for them in 2007 by allowing the mark to be reached on a non-holiday." For those wondering, Associated Press is covering it. The Seattle Times has attached it to a Washington Post report as a sidebar: "The U.S. military said two soldiers were killed in fighting Wednesday in Ninevah province in the north. As of Wednesday, at least 3,900 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war." There are other examples. Where's Little Media?
3900 thrice betrayed. Betrayed by the executive branch of the federal government that sent them to die in vain in an illegal war based on lies. Betrayed by the Democratic leadership in Congress who took over control of both houses in January 2007 but did nothing to end the illegal war. Betrayed by so much of Little Media which just doesn't give a damn and, besides, they've got an election to 'win' for Barack Obama. Michael Schwartz (US Socialist Worker) observed this month of the illegal war, "So the U.S. is trying to coerce the Middle East into pumping the oil far more quickly than it would do if left alone. That coercive process isn't going to end with a war in Iraq. They're going to have to coerce Iran, they're going to have to coerce Kuwait, they're going to have to coerce Saudia Arabia. The Democrats and Republicans have signed on for a long-term project of international bullying by the United States, which will involve small and large wars, gutting our economy in order to maintain the huge military presence, and then all the consequences of global warming. This is the numb of the disaster -- the real consequences of the American presence in the Middle East. Fortunately, the people of Iraq are doing a fairly good job of resisting right now, but the people of the United States have to force a change in American foreign policy at its very base."
Noting the Baquba bombing yesterday, Damien Cave (New York Times) notes the death toll increased to four dead (three was the number in the snapshot yesterday) and that the collaborators' deaths follow "Tuesday, [when] several members of an Awakening group were killed by a suicide truck bomber near a checkpoint outside the Baiji oil refinery, in nothern Iraq." On the Tuesday car bombing, Anne Penketh (Independent of London) also notes that the Sunnis collaborating with the US were targets and observes, "Although the US has trumpeted its success in Anbar province and Baghdad, where al-Qa'ida has been marginalised by the US military 'surge' and local tribal chiefs turning on the insurgents, US officials say the network is regrouping in the north."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings that claimed 1 life and left eleven wounded and five Diyala Province roadside bombings -- "a health care center, market area, the mayor's office . . . a house in town" and "a police vehicle".
Shootings?
The US military announces 11 people were killed in Al Kut and states they were "terrorists" which required "fire, and . . . supporting aircraft". The US military also announces 12 'kills' from December 22 to 25th in Diyala Province and, again, tosses around the term 'terrorists'. AFP notes, "Iraq officials said the dead included two civilians." Some of the dead are thought to be conected to the Mahdi Army (but estranged from Muqtada al-Sadr in various reports -- and we used "thought to be," nothing is known). CBS and AP ponder the effects the deaths could have on the "six-month freeze on activities that the Mahdi Army leader -- radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- called in August and has signaled in the past week he might extend."
Kidnappings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack on two min-buses that led to "22 passengers" being kidnapped.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Friday Naomi Klein will be on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show. Klein's new book is The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism. Also Friday on PBS, NOW with David Brancaccio, the program "investigates the partnership of a Republican congressman and the Idaho Conservation League to protect a vast swath of the state's natural environment. Does their compromise legislation come at too high a price? The legislation, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), transfers some public land -- land Americans across the country pay for -- to private local ownership in exchange for protection of nearby wilderness. It also leaves land bordering the wilderness open to further recreational use, especially involving off-road vehicles." Among those speaking out on the program against the sell-out of public lands is Carole King -- King of Goffin & King in the 60s (chronological sixties), writing the music to more charting hits than may be humanly possible, easing into a group at the tail end of that decade (The City), going solo in the seventies, releasing the landmark album Tapestry, etc., still writing, still performing and working on the issue of the ecology for many, many years.
In reality based humor, The Christmas Coup Comedy Players (CCCP)'s latest broadcast aired on WBAI yesterday featured CCNN (Christmas Chaos Nostradamus Network) predicting ten events that will happen in 2008 which included, at number four, "President Bush will announce every day next year that we are winning in Iraq and that we need more troops in Iraq to keep winning." The program is archived at WBAI and featured Janet Coleman, David Dozer, John McDonagh, Marc Kehoe, Scooter, Moogy Klingman and (Wally's favorite) Will Durst.
Turning to the topic of getting rich off the war, on this week's Law and Disorder (which airs first at 10:00 a.m. EST on WBAI Mondays), Prison Legal News' Paul Wright, co-author Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass incarceration spoke with hosts Heidi Boghosian and Michael Smith (Dalia Hashad and Michael Ratner are also co-hosts of the program)
Heidi Boghosian: There's a chapter on how prison labor supports the military. Can you briefly explain that?
Paul Wright: Yes, UNICOR is the trade name of Federal Prison Industries and Federal Prison Industries was originally set up during the 1930s as a job-training program for federal prisoners -- also to give government agencies items at a lower cost than they'd otherwise get. It was supposed to be a win-win benefit: prisoners got job training earn a little bit of money -- and when I say a little bit we're talking fourteen-cents to I think their salary maxes out at a dollar, a dollar and five cents an hour, so "little" is the operative word. Government agencies are able to buy products at below market costs. As things have evolved, it turns out the Department of Defense is one of the biggest buyers of UNICOR made products and federal prisoners make everything for the military from uniforms to helmets, to retro-fitting Humvee jeeps with blast armor, to the cables for . . . missile launchers, to cluster bomb casings and a whole bunch of other stuff. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have kind of ramped up sales from UNICOR to the Department of Defense have increasingly gone up and we're talking 700, 800 million dollars a year in sales of items made by federal prisoners to the Department of Defense.
Michael Smith: Paul, that's really extraordinary, what you've described: So they're exploiting prison labor at home to make arms for soldiers to exploit colonial people abroad at the same time they're cutting back on education so they can use money to build the prisons where they exploit the labor. So what you have really is a system that you could only call a decadent system. And it reminds me, really of --
Paul Wright: (laughing) You're being too generous!
Michael Smith: (laughing) If you've got a better word, I'd like to hear it. We interviewed Marnia Lazreg who wrote a book called Torture and the Twilight of Empire in the light of I think what you've been telling us about the whole prison industrial complex and who profits from it is just another chapter in the decline of empire.
As Boghosian and Wright noted, Prison Profiteers is on sale now at Prison Legal News and will be available starting next month at bookstores and online at book dealers. The book is published by The New Press and Wright co-wrote it with Tara Herivel. Lazreg was a guest on the program that began airing December 17th (Law and Disorder airs throughout the week on many stations and you can see the website if you're interested in getting the one-hour, weekly program on the air in your area) and was noted in the December 17th snapshot.
Also featured on this week's broadcast is co-host Michael Smith's speech at the Brecht Forum on the police state. Not noted on the broadcast but of interest in terms of Iraq is 1992's Notebook of a Sixties Lawyer: An Unrepentant Memoir and Selected Writings by Smith -- Michael Steven Smith -- which has significant portions on the GI Rights Movement during Vietnam that can be applied to today.
anthony lane
brad mccall
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.