A body believed to be that of a missing, eight-months pregnant Marine was found Friday buried in the North Carolina backyard of a man she had accused of rape, authorities said.
Detectives were tipped off to the shallow grave by a note in which the suspect insisted the woman killed herself, a source close to the case said.
After some digging in a fire pit in the yard of Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean, detectives found what "appeared to be burnt human remains," said Onslow County District Attorney Dewey Hudson.
"We think we have found ... the skeletal remains of Maria Lauterbach," Hudson said.
The above is from Leo Standora's "Body likely to be pregnant Marine's is found buried in rape suspect's yard" (New York Daily News). The article goes on to say that the suspected killer sent a letter to his wife claiming Maria had killed herself and he had 'only' buried her body but the crime scene indicates murder. Maria Lauterbach was pregnant when she went missing (eight months has been reported but the article excerpted above says she was due in February). Ceasar Armando Lauren is the suspect, as noted Friday by Ed Brown, the sherriff of Onslow County and she had accused him of assault (rape, according to Standora's article). She made the charges in April of last year and they were supposed to be heard before she went missing. You can see Thursday's snapshot and Friday's snapshot for more.
A number of visitors have e-mailed to note this claim or that claim (all reported) about Maria Lauterbach. She's dead. That was obvious on Thursday if you watched the press conference (link should be in Thursday's snapshot). She can't speak for herself and I'm not interested in seeing her dragged through the mud. Her mother or her step-mother may have said some unkind things about her, I don't know. The way those things read, it was speculative. If said, the statmenets were made when she went missing in December and there are things we say out of frustration. If the family makes any statements post-discovery of the corpse, we may or may not note them.
One of the most persistent visitors has put together a theory -- based on speculative reporting -- that argues basically that Maria Lauterbach was in love with Ceasar Armando Lauren, who was married, couldn't have him and killed herself to see him blamed. I saw that film too, it was called Fatal Attraction.
He argues that because if she was pregnant and "really raped," how could she keep the baby? I am firmly pro-choice but some people aren't. Nor have I seen anything that has stated on the record -- in a non-speculative manner -- that he would have been the father of the child. I think we're all assuming that. He may or may not have been.
She's dead and, before she was, she had brought charges of a sexual assault. In April. Why were they waiting until December to hold a hearing? They would be the military. That's a question that interests me far more than who the father would have been.
She lived, as reported, in off base (Camp Lejune) military facility. But she was still in the proximity of the man she had at least accused of assault (rape is introduced in today's round of reports) and, as reported, for coming forward last year, she was being harassed by some she was serving with. Why did the military drag it's feet?
If someone charges assault (the press is now saying the assault was rape), how do you go eight months without a hearing? This is the military which has a long record before the Iraq War of sweeping sexual harassment, sexual assault, command rape and rape under the carpet. That's what I'm more interested in, the long delay and the fact that she was being harassed for filing charges while the military appears to have done nothing.
For all any of us know, the visitor e-mailing his Fatal Attraction scenario may be correct. It really doesn't matter in terms of the fact that the military had a report of assault and appears to have made no effort to resolve it. If you're one of the visitors haunting the public e-mail account with your doubts about the woman, you should agree that the miltary should have moved quickly to resolve it because you're all convinced of the man's innocence. If the man is innocent, it did no good for him to have false charges standing against him for months and months.
I don't know what happened in this case but I do know it should have been resolved quickly and I do know that the military has a long history of ignoring assaults. On women and on men. In fact, it appears the only time they move quickly is if the assault is done by a gay male. If it's done to a gay male, they drag their feet. But if you were paying attention in the summer of 2006, you saw how quickly they moved to go after a man who appears to have spied on the sleeping bodies of his male colleagues. That man was immediately isolated, his victims were immediately provided counseling. But when it's a gay man who is assaulted -- or a man who's assaulted by other men because they suspect he's gay -- the military does the same thing it does with the women who are assaulted, drags its feet.
The New York Times has no story on the above today which I find especially interesting since a friend with the paper was trying to get a link to their blog posts which -- then wrongly -- stated the corpse had been discovered. They did at least two blog entries yesterday afternoon but they've got no report on it in the paper. (We don't link to the paper's blogs here because they don't feel the need to do corrections. Everyone will remember the false claims made about Watada and how the paper not only refused to correct it, they refused to give the go -- in 'moderation' of comments -- to anyone who pointed out the serious error in that blog post.)
The paper also has no report on Iraq. I'd assumed if nothing else, they'd offer the feel-good story on "Snow in Baghdad!" They don't.
In contrast, Warren P. Strobel "New Baghdad embassy's fire-fighting system is defective" (McClatchy Newspapers) offers real news:
The fire-fighting system in the mammoth new $740 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is defective, according to documents obtained by McClatchy and U.S. officials, who said that their concerns were ignored or overruled in a rush to declare the complex completed.
"As far as I know, nothing's been fixed," said one State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation for speaking to the news media. "The lives of the people who are working in that building are going to be at stake" if the complex doesn't meet building codes, he said.
The 104-acre embassy complex, which has been hit at least once by mortar fire, will house more than 1,000 U.S. diplomats, coalition military officials and associated personnel. U.S. diplomats in Iraq are still headquartered in a former palace of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad's Green Zone and haven't moved into the new embassy complex.
Last month, 19 days before he retired, State Department buildings chief Charles E. Williams certified key elements of the embassy's fire-fighting system as ready for operation, according to the documents McClatchy obtained.
Strobel was one of the guests for the roundtable on the second hour of yesterday's The Diane Rehm Show, just FYI.
Today, the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force - West died Jan. 11 in a non-combat related incident in Al Anbar province."
The New York Times does offer Dan Frosch's "3 Buddies Home From Iraq Are Charged With Murdering a 4th." Actually, two of the three are charged with the killing of two former service members. Kevin Shields was discovered murdered on December 1st. Bruce Bastien Jr. has come forward and said that Louis Bressler shot Kevin dead in cold blood (possibly because he feared Kevin Shields would out the three on their "the robbery plans" they were plotting) and Bressler is also accused of being the one who shot Robert James dead on August 4th. Frosch reports:
At a court hearing in the Shields case on Tuesday, Mr. Bressler and Mr. [Kenneth] Eastridge, both strikingly youthful, fidgeted nervously with their shackles, their eyes darting around the courtroom, their lips flashing an occassional grin to the gallery.
Their lips flashing an occassional grin to the gallery while they stand trial for murder? Bressler's attorney maintains his client is being framed. Bastien has also told the military "that he knows that an Iraqi civilian was struck on at least one occassion" while the men were all serving in Iraq by Kenneth Eastridge whom he "accused . . . of firing without provocation on Iraqi civilians while on patrol in Baghdad, using stolen AK-47s."
Juan Gonzalez is the co-shot of Democracy Now! and Micah highlights his "I smell Barack Obama baloney" (New York Daily News):
There was Sen. Barack Obama the other night, surrounded by his legions of young supporters, proclaiming the Iowa primary a "defining moment in history."
Maybe I'm getting old, or have watched too many silver-tongued politicians promise heaven on Earth only to shatter our hopes, but count me a doubter of the Obama revolution.
Anyone who delves past his soaring speeches and mesmerizing gaze and follows the money trail will find plenty to question.
The Democratic candidate of "change," for example, has raised nearly $100 million in campaign contributions, nearly as much as the Hillary Clinton money machine. Three of his four largest group of bankrollers are executives of Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and JPMorgan Chase.
What kind of change is that?
Among his other top contributors are executives of Exelon Corp., the largest nuclear power operator in the nation. In 2005, Obama talked in a Senate hearing of leaving "on the table" the building of new nuclear power plants - the kind of change that has Exelon ecstatic.
There is much to admire in the Obama campaign, but his attempt to be both champion to the downtrodden and cultivator of corporate titans is not one of them.
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
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
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Usually, when we note Margaret Kimberley in a snapshot during the week (her latest column), we don't note it on Saturday. Cheryl wanted to be sure everyone saw this section of Kimberley's "Obama’s Hollow Victory" (Black Agenda Report):
Most black Americans will be happy, some overjoyed, to see a black man in the Oval Office. That joy will exist despite the fact that Obama has denied that racism is still a factor in public policy issues. In his speech at the Democratic convention in 2004 he stated, "There is no black America." No one should have been surprised when Obama had to be prodded before he said anything about the Jena 6, or claimed that, "The ineptitude was colorblind," in the response to Hurricane Katrina.
The media have already begun making fantastic claims attributing the backhanded treatment to his multi-racial heritage. Those ridiculous assertions must be dismissed out of hand. There is a lot less to Obama than meets the eye. He is little more than a very slick and very savvy politician. He knows how to impress and please powerful people, and speaking up for black Americans accomplishes neither one of those things.
Obama has masterfully out maneuvered the amateurish Hillary Clinton. She isn't smart enough to know that she should at least attempt to give Democratic voters a little bit of lip service. While she voted in favor of a senate resolution against the Iranian government, Obama stayed on the campaign trail and conveniently missed the vote. In fact he is just as willing to go war as she is. He says his first act as president will be to bring the troops home from Iraq, but anyone who bothers to look at the fine print knows that the promise is hollow:
"I will give them a new assignment and that is to bring our troops home in a careful, responsible way [emphasis mine], but to end this occupation in Iraq. I will call in my Secretary of State and initiate the diplomacy that's needed to make sure that exit is accompanied by negotiations between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds."
"Careful" and "responsible" are code words for maintaining the status quo and negotiations can go on forever. President Obama will not be bringing troops home, but he knows that mouthing anti-war sentiments will bring in votes from Democrats tired of being dismissed by party leaders.
The prospect of an Obama presidency already has already taken on a sickening familiarity. When Clarence Thomas was confirmed as a Supreme Court justice the mantra of denial went something like this, "Just wait until he gets in there. He has a job for life and he'll do what he wants." Thomas certainly has done what he wants and he wants nothing more than to vote exactly the way Antonin Scalia does.
Saturday's generally been the day for Kimberley. That was true when she was with The Black Commentator and true now that she, Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon have formed Black Agenda Report. If her latest goes into a snapshot during the week and you see something we didn't note in the snapshot (which doesn't really have the room for lengthy excerpts most of the time) or something you want emphasized again, just say so like Cheryl did.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
mcclatchy newspapers
warren p. strobel
the new york daily news
the new york times
juan gonzalez
leo standora
dan frosch
iraq
iraq veterans against the war
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, January 12, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Iraq snapshot
Friday, January 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, false predictions come back to haunt the White House, Adam Kokesh and Cindy Sheehan receive good legal news, guess who's made an agreement with the US to transport Iraqi oil, and more.
Starting with war resisters. In 2005, David Hughey spoke at the Veterans for Peace conference in Irving, Texas:
I am the father of Private Brandon Hughey who is at this time in Canada. I'm basically a card-carrying Republican. Used to be.
My story basically began when my young son called me from Canada and told me that he didn't want to risk his life for Bush and Cheney's son. That cuased me a great deal of concern. As a matter of fact, it caused great conflicts. Our first several conversations over the telephone were basically fights.
But I started reading. I did a lot of research, an incredible amount of research. And I actually found myself not being able to believe what I was seeing happen to this country. So I sent my son basically a manifesto that said I support him. It took a lot out of me.
as I guess you can tell, I'm not much of a speaker.
So it's brought me to this point, basically, to make a long story short. You know, I've read the Constitution of the United States of America. I've read a lot of books written by a man named James Madison, a lot of things by Thomas Jefferson. When I did that, it helped me figure out that all of this is totally wrong.
I had some really good quotes, but I can't recall 'em off the top of my head.
I just thought I'd come up and introduce myself. I do support my son.
The speech can be found in journalist Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. Laufer co-hosts Washington Monthly Radio which will feature, among other guests, Gore Vidal on the January 13th broadcast. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey were the first war resisters to publicy seek refugee status in Canada. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.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. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure :
1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada.
For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).
Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
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).
Yesterday, we ntoed that Maria Lauterbach had been missing since mid-December. The soldier who was eight months pregnant when she went missing is now said to have been murdered and CNN reports that Onslow Country Sherriff Ed Brown stated today that they are looking for her corpse and that Ceasar Armando Lauren ("a fellow Marine whom Lauterbach had accused of sexual assault") is a suspect. WTOL quotes family neighbor Kent Zimmerman saying that Maria Lauterbach was "very polite, very respectful." The Cleveland Leader states, "According to court documents, the anticipated birth of Lauterbach's baby 'might provide evidentiary credence to charges that she was sexually assaulted by a senior military person.' Investigators also said that the military had been pursuing rape charges against Lauren, and had plans to hold a hearing in December."
Currently there is tension in Australia and England over the issue of blood provided by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) reports, "British soldiers and civilians contractors seriously injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are being tested for HIV, hepatitis and other diseases as a health campaigners reacted angrily to the news that they had been given blood from American donors who [had] not been properly screened. British defence officials confirmed that the US military had not followed its own procedures by testing all the donors after the blood was given to 18 British service personnel and six civilians." The Daily Mall reports that Frances Shine, whose son Steve Shine lost "his left leg when his tank was blown up in Basra, southern Iraq" and who now must wait to find out if he received tainted blood. In Australia, Mark Dodd (The Australian) reports, "Defence officials are urgently checking whether Australian soldiers have been exposed to contaminated blood amid fears 18 British troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan received tainted transfusions. . . . ADF spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic said he believed the risk of Australian troops being infected was low but checks were being made." The Australian Defence Force spokesperson states, "It's a very low probability any of our people would have been infected." Michael Evans (Times of London) explains, "The Pentagon revealed at a meeting in Washington in early November that, according to its records, 11 British servicemen had received life-saving blood transfusions from American volunteer donors at US military centres in Iraq and Afghanistan over the six-year period. None of the donors had been pre-screened to detect for any sign of HIV, hepatitis C, syphilis or other blood diseases." CNN quotes the UK undersecretary of defense Derek Twigg stating, "The (U.S. Defense Department) has told us that for the British service personnel they have records for, they know that the blood that they received is clean. However they do admit that their records are incomplete." Thomas Harding (Telegraph of London) points out, "The infections could have occurred any time between 2001 and last year to soldiers or civilian security guards who needed emergency blood transfusion while being treated in American field hospitals in Iraq or Afghanistan." Pay attention to this from the CBC: "In emergency situations, military forces sometimes use other coalition medical facilities, blood or blood products if they are available sooner, the ministry explained on its website. If supplies are exhausted, medical officials use emergency donor panels which are later screened." The warning went out in November -- so why did the UK wait so long to notify anyone? And when you put the above together, it may apply to US service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The US military supplied the blood -- not some US hospital's mobile blood bank doing runs through Ramadi.
Yesterday at the US State Department, the department's deputy spokesperson Tom Casey delivered the briefing. He was asked, "Mr. Casey, on Turkey, do you favor a political dialogue between Turkey and the Kurdish organization PKK?" He rsponsed, "We favor putting the PKK out of business. It's a terrorist organization. . . . We want a political dialogue between the Government of Turkey and the Government of Iraq, which is ongoing and continuous, over how to defeat the PKK. I don't believe anyone in the U.S. Administration has ever called for dialogue with a terrorist organization." That was yesterday. Today Reuters reports, "Turkish artillery shelled northern Iraq on Friday morning, but there were no immediate reports of any casualties or material damage, a Kurdish government official said." This as Reuters reports that Turkey and the US have reached an agreement where "Turkey will help the United States to operate and transport neighbouring Iraq's oil as part of its drive to become an energy hunb" according Hilmi Guler, the Energy Minister of Turkey.
Meanwhile, the escalation is set to wind down in Iraq. Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) noted yesterday that it was one year since Bully Boy announced that the "surge" would take place (and Congress, of course, rolled over offering only 'symbolic' resistance). Ricks and DeYoung observe, "In many cases -- particularly on the political front -- Iraqi solutions bear little resemblance to the ambitious goals for 2007 that Bush laid out in his speech to the nation last Jan. 10. 'To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis,' he pledged. 'Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year . . . the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.' Although some progress has been made and legislation in some cases has begun to slowly work its way through the parliament, none of these benchmarks has been achieved. Nor has the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki taken over security responsibility for all 18 provinces, as Bush forecast it would. Last month's transfer of Basra province by British forces brought to nine the number of provinces under Iraqi control." There were no provincial elections, there was nothing. Yesterday, in a Pentagon briefing, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates declared, "And so I think that our hope is that in the relatively near future we will see some progress on one or more of the key pieces of legislation that we've talked about at the national level, but we clearly are hoping that the reconciliation and improvement in the political environment that has taken place at the local and provincial level over the past number of months will now meet further progress coming at the national level." Yes, we have repeatedly heard that song and dance every year of the illegal war.
As the US Institute of Peace's Barbara Slavin (on leave from USA Today) declared on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, "One disturbing note, I mean, there has been an increase in violence apart from the US combat. There have been more suicide bombings, more attacks. It seems to be stepping up again. So you know, we've had all these stories celebrating the surge and saying what a huge success it's been, obviously it has not succeed in securing the country." To see the failures of Bully Boy you don't have to drop back a year. South of Baghdad and Diyala Province (to the north) are targeted for slaughter this week. In ten minutes Thursday, 40,000 pounds of bombs were dropped outside of Arab Jabour and Jamie Gumbrecht and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) remind the administration "recently held" the region "up as a security success" with Bully Boy, speaking in November, declaring, "Slowly but surely the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society. You see, when Iraqis don't have to fear the terrorists, they have a chance to build better lives for themselves."
From Bully Boy's November 2, 2007 speech at Fort Jackson, South Carolina (remember, he can't really appear before the general public with his disapproval ratings):
Here's what this progress means to one shopkeeper in the former al Qaeda stronghold of Arab Jabour. He's a local butcher. He says that as recently as June, he was selling only one or two sheep per week. Now, the terrorists cleaned out and residents returning home, he's selling one or two sheep per day. Slowly but surely, the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society. You see, when Iraqis don't have to fear the terrorists, they have a chance to build better lives for themselves. You must undertand an Iraqi mom wants her child to grow up in peach just like an American mom does.
Does that "Iraqi mom" see the bombs falling and say, "It's okay, it's just the US bombing us this time?" Or does she it as terrorism as well? In the same speech, Bully Boy got a qucik shout out to Diyala Province, "In Diyala province, tribal groups come together for the first time to foster reconcillation." The 'success' stories only a two months ago has fallen apart and civilian populations are now being targeted in collective punishment which is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "The US is claiming success in a massive air-strike campaign sough of Baghdad. More than 40,000 pounds of bombs were dropped on the Arab Jabour district in one of the most intense air attacks since the US invasion. . . . The Pentagon says no civilians were killed but the claim hasn't been independently verified." However, in their briefing yesterday Gates babbled on -- apparently thinking no one was listening -- and declared the latest attacks on the population were going well because "frankly, after these places, there's not much else -- not many places they can go." That statement led to this, "Three follow-ups, then. The current bombing south of Baghdad, after this you say there's not many places they can go. I mean, after this, is it all over? And what should Americans, after yesterday seeing -- nine service members killed in Iraq, what would you say to the American people? Should they still expect days of heavy casualties? What do you forecast?" Gates had no real replies but noted he didn't find it to be "a suprise" that the US would "see some higher casualties" -- all heart -- and that "this job is not finished. There is more to do." Yeah, we've heard that every year of the illegal war as well.
But, hey, speaking with NBC's David Gregory today (link has text and video), Bully Boy showed no concern. NBC reports: "Asked about recent comments by Republican presidential hopefuly Sen. John McCain that it would be fine to have a U.S. military presence in Iraq for 100 years, Bush said it's up to Iraq. 'That's a long time,' he said, adding that there could 'very well be' a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq at the invitation of the government in Baghdad. When asked if it could be 10 years, Bush replied, 'It could easily be that, absolutely."
So, as Barbara Slavin noted, "Obviously" the escalation has "not succeeded in securing" Iraq.
It's Friday, very little violence gets reported. Among the reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives with eight more wounded. Reuters notes a Mahmudiya roadside bombing that left three police officers injured.
Shootings?
The US military announces it shot 2 people yesterday and labels them "terrorists" -- strangely the 11 also arrested are just "suspects". If you die, you're a terrorist, apparently.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
IVAW co-chair Adam Kokesh blogs, "After the government had three and a half months to preapre their case against those of us challenging our arrests from September 15th, the case finally went to trial January 3rd. Sort of. One of my tendefendants, Sholom Keller had come down from Philadelphia the day before and was staying at our new house in the Petworth neighborhood where our new office is set up. S****** ***** (an active duty US Army soldier and member of IVAW) who had been present on September 15th came up from Pensacola as a witness." "How do you resist liars?" Kokesh asked speaking to the September 15th rally before answering, "Speak the truth. How do you stop a war based on lies? It starts with the truth!" He ended his speech (available in full here) stating, "Today may very well mark the beginning of the American anti-fascism revolution. March with us. Honor the dead with us. If you are willing to risk arrest, lie in the street, if not, lie in the grass. Die-in when you hear the air raid sirens. Raise your voice and your fist with us in defiance to send a message to our leadership. If you will not make peace for us, we will make it for ourselves! Power to the people!" As Karissa Marcum (The Hill) reported that day, approximately 200 demonstrators were arrested, "[a]t least two protestors were pepper-sprayed after they tried to breach the police barricade on the west end of the Capitol. The men joined the 187 other anti-war activists who were arrested after crossing a police line. One person was charged with a felony. Iraq Veterans Against the War co-chairman-elect Adam Kokesh stood on the concrete fence and was arrested by Capitol Police wearing riot gear." In other peace and legal news, Reuters reports, "A U.S. appeals court on Friday overturned Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan's conviction for demonstrating without a permit on the White House sidewalk in 2005 and ordered a new trial. The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Sheehan's conviction had been based on errors of law by the magistrate judge that eliminated the prosecutor's burden to show her criminal intent." On a related note, this Sunday, January 13th, the Green Party presidential debate is held in San Francisco (moderated by Cindy Sheehan) with Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, Jard Bell, Kat Swift, Jesse Johnson Jr. and Ralph Nader to participate. The Green Party notes, "The first, and only, live debate between candidates on the Green Party's California ballot for President of the United States - featuring a former Democratic Party member of Congress, consumer protection icon, professor and environmental engineer - is scheduled here January 13, said John Morton of the Green Party Presidential Debate Committee." The debate starts at two p.m., Herbst Theater in the Veterans Memorial Building on 401 Van Ness Avenue.
Today a photo exhibit of the work of artist and journalist David Bacon opens at the Galeria de la Raza (2857 24th St, San Francisco 94110): "Living under the trees" "Viviendo bajo los arboles." The exhibit is from January 11th through February 23rd (Enero 11 - Febrero 23, 2008). "An exhibition documenting communities of indigenous Mexican farm workers in California through photographs and the narrative experiences of community residents and leaders" y "Una exposicion que documenta a traves de fotografias y testmonios de lideres y residentes las comundades indigenas de campesinos mexicanos." Inauguracion de exposicion (Opening Reception) Enero 11 7:30 p.m. (January 11th). Y mesa redonda de fotografos (photographers' panel) Sabado, Enero 26, 2:00 p.m. (photographers' panel, Saturday, January 26). And on WBAI, Sunday, The Next Hour features Malachy McCourt (broadcasts NYC, streams live online, 11:00 am to noon) while Monday's Cat Radio Cafe finds Janet Coleman and David Dozer joined by Hattie Gossert (author of "the immigrant suite: hey zenophobe! who you calling a foreigner?), Paul Browde and Murray Nossel (from the Barrow Street Fortnight's Two Men Talking), Dan Barrett (International Street Cannibals) and the latest on the Save Carnegie Hall Towers actions. Lastly in audio Time 4 Hemp is a podcast (free podcast) whose broadcasts feature, among others Ed Rosenthal (a regular guest on Kris Welch's Living Room), Tere Joyce, Keith Stroup, Steve Hager, Allen St. Pierre, Steve Bloom, Jack Cole, Gatewood Galbraith and Carl Olsen. Upcoming interviews will include Andy Dick.
iraq
jeremy hinzman
brandon hughey
adam kokesh
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Starting with war resisters. In 2005, David Hughey spoke at the Veterans for Peace conference in Irving, Texas:
I am the father of Private Brandon Hughey who is at this time in Canada. I'm basically a card-carrying Republican. Used to be.
My story basically began when my young son called me from Canada and told me that he didn't want to risk his life for Bush and Cheney's son. That cuased me a great deal of concern. As a matter of fact, it caused great conflicts. Our first several conversations over the telephone were basically fights.
But I started reading. I did a lot of research, an incredible amount of research. And I actually found myself not being able to believe what I was seeing happen to this country. So I sent my son basically a manifesto that said I support him. It took a lot out of me.
as I guess you can tell, I'm not much of a speaker.
So it's brought me to this point, basically, to make a long story short. You know, I've read the Constitution of the United States of America. I've read a lot of books written by a man named James Madison, a lot of things by Thomas Jefferson. When I did that, it helped me figure out that all of this is totally wrong.
I had some really good quotes, but I can't recall 'em off the top of my head.
I just thought I'd come up and introduce myself. I do support my son.
The speech can be found in journalist Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. Laufer co-hosts Washington Monthly Radio which will feature, among other guests, Gore Vidal on the January 13th broadcast. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey were the first war resisters to publicy seek refugee status in Canada. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.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. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure :
1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada.
For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
Courage to Resist notes:
Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).
Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.
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, we ntoed that Maria Lauterbach had been missing since mid-December. The soldier who was eight months pregnant when she went missing is now said to have been murdered and CNN reports that Onslow Country Sherriff Ed Brown stated today that they are looking for her corpse and that Ceasar Armando Lauren ("a fellow Marine whom Lauterbach had accused of sexual assault") is a suspect. WTOL quotes family neighbor Kent Zimmerman saying that Maria Lauterbach was "very polite, very respectful." The Cleveland Leader states, "According to court documents, the anticipated birth of Lauterbach's baby 'might provide evidentiary credence to charges that she was sexually assaulted by a senior military person.' Investigators also said that the military had been pursuing rape charges against Lauren, and had plans to hold a hearing in December."
Currently there is tension in Australia and England over the issue of blood provided by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) reports, "British soldiers and civilians contractors seriously injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are being tested for HIV, hepatitis and other diseases as a health campaigners reacted angrily to the news that they had been given blood from American donors who [had] not been properly screened. British defence officials confirmed that the US military had not followed its own procedures by testing all the donors after the blood was given to 18 British service personnel and six civilians." The Daily Mall reports that Frances Shine, whose son Steve Shine lost "his left leg when his tank was blown up in Basra, southern Iraq" and who now must wait to find out if he received tainted blood. In Australia, Mark Dodd (The Australian) reports, "Defence officials are urgently checking whether Australian soldiers have been exposed to contaminated blood amid fears 18 British troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan received tainted transfusions. . . . ADF spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic said he believed the risk of Australian troops being infected was low but checks were being made." The Australian Defence Force spokesperson states, "It's a very low probability any of our people would have been infected." Michael Evans (Times of London) explains, "The Pentagon revealed at a meeting in Washington in early November that, according to its records, 11 British servicemen had received life-saving blood transfusions from American volunteer donors at US military centres in Iraq and Afghanistan over the six-year period. None of the donors had been pre-screened to detect for any sign of HIV, hepatitis C, syphilis or other blood diseases." CNN quotes the UK undersecretary of defense Derek Twigg stating, "The (U.S. Defense Department) has told us that for the British service personnel they have records for, they know that the blood that they received is clean. However they do admit that their records are incomplete." Thomas Harding (Telegraph of London) points out, "The infections could have occurred any time between 2001 and last year to soldiers or civilian security guards who needed emergency blood transfusion while being treated in American field hospitals in Iraq or Afghanistan." Pay attention to this from the CBC: "In emergency situations, military forces sometimes use other coalition medical facilities, blood or blood products if they are available sooner, the ministry explained on its website. If supplies are exhausted, medical officials use emergency donor panels which are later screened." The warning went out in November -- so why did the UK wait so long to notify anyone? And when you put the above together, it may apply to US service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The US military supplied the blood -- not some US hospital's mobile blood bank doing runs through Ramadi.
Yesterday at the US State Department, the department's deputy spokesperson Tom Casey delivered the briefing. He was asked, "Mr. Casey, on Turkey, do you favor a political dialogue between Turkey and the Kurdish organization PKK?" He rsponsed, "We favor putting the PKK out of business. It's a terrorist organization. . . . We want a political dialogue between the Government of Turkey and the Government of Iraq, which is ongoing and continuous, over how to defeat the PKK. I don't believe anyone in the U.S. Administration has ever called for dialogue with a terrorist organization." That was yesterday. Today Reuters reports, "Turkish artillery shelled northern Iraq on Friday morning, but there were no immediate reports of any casualties or material damage, a Kurdish government official said." This as Reuters reports that Turkey and the US have reached an agreement where "Turkey will help the United States to operate and transport neighbouring Iraq's oil as part of its drive to become an energy hunb" according Hilmi Guler, the Energy Minister of Turkey.
Meanwhile, the escalation is set to wind down in Iraq. Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) noted yesterday that it was one year since Bully Boy announced that the "surge" would take place (and Congress, of course, rolled over offering only 'symbolic' resistance). Ricks and DeYoung observe, "In many cases -- particularly on the political front -- Iraqi solutions bear little resemblance to the ambitious goals for 2007 that Bush laid out in his speech to the nation last Jan. 10. 'To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis,' he pledged. 'Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year . . . the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.' Although some progress has been made and legislation in some cases has begun to slowly work its way through the parliament, none of these benchmarks has been achieved. Nor has the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki taken over security responsibility for all 18 provinces, as Bush forecast it would. Last month's transfer of Basra province by British forces brought to nine the number of provinces under Iraqi control." There were no provincial elections, there was nothing. Yesterday, in a Pentagon briefing, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates declared, "And so I think that our hope is that in the relatively near future we will see some progress on one or more of the key pieces of legislation that we've talked about at the national level, but we clearly are hoping that the reconciliation and improvement in the political environment that has taken place at the local and provincial level over the past number of months will now meet further progress coming at the national level." Yes, we have repeatedly heard that song and dance every year of the illegal war.
As the US Institute of Peace's Barbara Slavin (on leave from USA Today) declared on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, "One disturbing note, I mean, there has been an increase in violence apart from the US combat. There have been more suicide bombings, more attacks. It seems to be stepping up again. So you know, we've had all these stories celebrating the surge and saying what a huge success it's been, obviously it has not succeed in securing the country." To see the failures of Bully Boy you don't have to drop back a year. South of Baghdad and Diyala Province (to the north) are targeted for slaughter this week. In ten minutes Thursday, 40,000 pounds of bombs were dropped outside of Arab Jabour and Jamie Gumbrecht and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) remind the administration "recently held" the region "up as a security success" with Bully Boy, speaking in November, declaring, "Slowly but surely the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society. You see, when Iraqis don't have to fear the terrorists, they have a chance to build better lives for themselves."
From Bully Boy's November 2, 2007 speech at Fort Jackson, South Carolina (remember, he can't really appear before the general public with his disapproval ratings):
Here's what this progress means to one shopkeeper in the former al Qaeda stronghold of Arab Jabour. He's a local butcher. He says that as recently as June, he was selling only one or two sheep per week. Now, the terrorists cleaned out and residents returning home, he's selling one or two sheep per day. Slowly but surely, the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society. You see, when Iraqis don't have to fear the terrorists, they have a chance to build better lives for themselves. You must undertand an Iraqi mom wants her child to grow up in peach just like an American mom does.
Does that "Iraqi mom" see the bombs falling and say, "It's okay, it's just the US bombing us this time?" Or does she it as terrorism as well? In the same speech, Bully Boy got a qucik shout out to Diyala Province, "In Diyala province, tribal groups come together for the first time to foster reconcillation." The 'success' stories only a two months ago has fallen apart and civilian populations are now being targeted in collective punishment which is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "The US is claiming success in a massive air-strike campaign sough of Baghdad. More than 40,000 pounds of bombs were dropped on the Arab Jabour district in one of the most intense air attacks since the US invasion. . . . The Pentagon says no civilians were killed but the claim hasn't been independently verified." However, in their briefing yesterday Gates babbled on -- apparently thinking no one was listening -- and declared the latest attacks on the population were going well because "frankly, after these places, there's not much else -- not many places they can go." That statement led to this, "Three follow-ups, then. The current bombing south of Baghdad, after this you say there's not many places they can go. I mean, after this, is it all over? And what should Americans, after yesterday seeing -- nine service members killed in Iraq, what would you say to the American people? Should they still expect days of heavy casualties? What do you forecast?" Gates had no real replies but noted he didn't find it to be "a suprise" that the US would "see some higher casualties" -- all heart -- and that "this job is not finished. There is more to do." Yeah, we've heard that every year of the illegal war as well.
But, hey, speaking with NBC's David Gregory today (link has text and video), Bully Boy showed no concern. NBC reports: "Asked about recent comments by Republican presidential hopefuly Sen. John McCain that it would be fine to have a U.S. military presence in Iraq for 100 years, Bush said it's up to Iraq. 'That's a long time,' he said, adding that there could 'very well be' a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq at the invitation of the government in Baghdad. When asked if it could be 10 years, Bush replied, 'It could easily be that, absolutely."
So, as Barbara Slavin noted, "Obviously" the escalation has "not succeeded in securing" Iraq.
It's Friday, very little violence gets reported. Among the reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives with eight more wounded. Reuters notes a Mahmudiya roadside bombing that left three police officers injured.
Shootings?
The US military announces it shot 2 people yesterday and labels them "terrorists" -- strangely the 11 also arrested are just "suspects". If you die, you're a terrorist, apparently.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
IVAW co-chair Adam Kokesh blogs, "After the government had three and a half months to preapre their case against those of us challenging our arrests from September 15th, the case finally went to trial January 3rd. Sort of. One of my tendefendants, Sholom Keller had come down from Philadelphia the day before and was staying at our new house in the Petworth neighborhood where our new office is set up. S****** ***** (an active duty US Army soldier and member of IVAW) who had been present on September 15th came up from Pensacola as a witness." "How do you resist liars?" Kokesh asked speaking to the September 15th rally before answering, "Speak the truth. How do you stop a war based on lies? It starts with the truth!" He ended his speech (available in full here) stating, "Today may very well mark the beginning of the American anti-fascism revolution. March with us. Honor the dead with us. If you are willing to risk arrest, lie in the street, if not, lie in the grass. Die-in when you hear the air raid sirens. Raise your voice and your fist with us in defiance to send a message to our leadership. If you will not make peace for us, we will make it for ourselves! Power to the people!" As Karissa Marcum (The Hill) reported that day, approximately 200 demonstrators were arrested, "[a]t least two protestors were pepper-sprayed after they tried to breach the police barricade on the west end of the Capitol. The men joined the 187 other anti-war activists who were arrested after crossing a police line. One person was charged with a felony. Iraq Veterans Against the War co-chairman-elect Adam Kokesh stood on the concrete fence and was arrested by Capitol Police wearing riot gear." In other peace and legal news, Reuters reports, "A U.S. appeals court on Friday overturned Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan's conviction for demonstrating without a permit on the White House sidewalk in 2005 and ordered a new trial. The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Sheehan's conviction had been based on errors of law by the magistrate judge that eliminated the prosecutor's burden to show her criminal intent." On a related note, this Sunday, January 13th, the Green Party presidential debate is held in San Francisco (moderated by Cindy Sheehan) with Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, Jard Bell, Kat Swift, Jesse Johnson Jr. and Ralph Nader to participate. The Green Party notes, "The first, and only, live debate between candidates on the Green Party's California ballot for President of the United States - featuring a former Democratic Party member of Congress, consumer protection icon, professor and environmental engineer - is scheduled here January 13, said John Morton of the Green Party Presidential Debate Committee." The debate starts at two p.m., Herbst Theater in the Veterans Memorial Building on 401 Van Ness Avenue.
Today a photo exhibit of the work of artist and journalist David Bacon opens at the Galeria de la Raza (2857 24th St, San Francisco 94110): "Living under the trees" "Viviendo bajo los arboles." The exhibit is from January 11th through February 23rd (Enero 11 - Febrero 23, 2008). "An exhibition documenting communities of indigenous Mexican farm workers in California through photographs and the narrative experiences of community residents and leaders" y "Una exposicion que documenta a traves de fotografias y testmonios de lideres y residentes las comundades indigenas de campesinos mexicanos." Inauguracion de exposicion (Opening Reception) Enero 11 7:30 p.m. (January 11th). Y mesa redonda de fotografos (photographers' panel) Sabado, Enero 26, 2:00 p.m. (photographers' panel, Saturday, January 26). And on WBAI, Sunday, The Next Hour features Malachy McCourt (broadcasts NYC, streams live online, 11:00 am to noon) while Monday's Cat Radio Cafe finds Janet Coleman and David Dozer joined by Hattie Gossert (author of "the immigrant suite: hey zenophobe! who you calling a foreigner?), Paul Browde and Murray Nossel (from the Barrow Street Fortnight's Two Men Talking), Dan Barrett (International Street Cannibals) and the latest on the Save Carnegie Hall Towers actions. Lastly in audio Time 4 Hemp is a podcast (free podcast) whose broadcasts feature, among others Ed Rosenthal (a regular guest on Kris Welch's Living Room), Tere Joyce, Keith Stroup, Steve Hager, Allen St. Pierre, Steve Bloom, Jack Cole, Gatewood Galbraith and Carl Olsen. Upcoming interviews will include Andy Dick.
iraq
jeremy hinzman
brandon hughey
adam kokesh
mcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
karen deyoung
thomas e. ricks
the diane rehm showBe a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Other Items
In December, I was fortunate to be at the Bloomington-Normal Citizens for Peace and Justice meeting. Four members of Iraq Veterans Against the War spoke about their military experiences.
The common thread was their feelings of being disillusioned with what they believed the military in our country should stand for.
There are IVAW members in 33 chapters in 42 states, Washington, D.C., Canada and overseas. Their mission states: "We are committed to saving lives and ending the violence in Iraq and call for immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces.''
This Iraq war is like none other.
The suicide rate among veterans has increased. The desertion rate in the military has increased by 20 percent.
Apparently, we are the United States of Amnesia. When will we learn from the past?
Soon we will celebrate Martin Luther King Day. In talking about the struggle for civil rights, not war, Martin Luther King once said that "violence was not just immoral but also impractical. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.''
BNCPJ will hold its monthly demonstration against the war at the Bloomington Post Office on Towanda Avenue from 5 to 5:30 p.m. Jan. 19.
Father Dan Berrigan, a Jesuit priest, has stated, "We are not allowed to kill innocent people. We are not allowed to be complicit in murder. We are not allowed to be silent while preparations for mass murder proceed in our name, with our money. .... We are back where we started. Thou shalt not kill; we are not allowed to kill.''
BNCPJ's next meeting is at 4 p.m. Feb. 3 at the Unitarian church. The film "Winter Soldier'' will be viewed and discussed. All are welcome.
Try something new for the new year; attend a demonstration or a meeting.
Rosemarie Moews Scarbeary
Bloomington
The above, noted by Lewis, is from the Bloomington Pantagraph's "Letters to the Editor." Winter Soldier is Vietnam veterans testifying to what they saw serving in Vietnam. It is available on DVD via Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Shortly, a similar event will take place. 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
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
People with real concerns can attend. Those playing 'resume builder' by farming themselves out as free labor to political candidates (while insisting they're 'doing something') will, no doubt, stay away.
Meanwhile, if you were wounded while serving in Iraq, you might be thrilled that you received on the ground medical attention. Later on, reality might beg to differ with that assessment. From The Daily Mail's "Mother condemns 'appalling' treatment of blood blunder soldier:"
The mother of a British serviceman who may have received contaminated blood from the US military attacked her son's "appalling" treatment today.
Steve Shine, 23, is reported to be one of 24 British soldiers and military contractors undergoing HIV and hepatitis tests following revelations that the Americans failed to screen the donors who gave them emergency transfusions.
He was given the tainted transfusion after losing his left leg when his tank was blown up in Basra, southern Iraq, a national newspaper.
His mother, Frances Shine, 46, told the paper her son had received no offers of counselling from the Army or Ministry of Defence since being told of the blunder.
And read "British civilians may also have received HIV-contaminated blood in Iraq or Afghanistan" along with it.
Today a photo exhibit of the work of artist and journalist David Bacon opens at the Galeria de la Raza (2857 24th St, San Francisco 94110): "Living under the trees" "Viviendo bajo los arboles." The exhibit is from January 11th through February 23rd (Enero 11 - Febrero 23, 2008). "An exhibition documenting communities of indigenous Mexican farm workers in California through photographs and the narrative experiences of community residents and leaders" y
"Una exposicion que documenta a traves de fotografias y testmonios de lideres y residentes las comundades indigenas de campesinos mexicanos." Inauguracion de exposicion (Opening Reception) Enero 11 7:30 p.m. (January 11th). Y mesa redonda de fotografos (photographers' panel) Sabado, Enero 26, 2:00 p.m. (photographers' panel, Saturday, January 26).
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq veterans against the war
david bacon
The common thread was their feelings of being disillusioned with what they believed the military in our country should stand for.
There are IVAW members in 33 chapters in 42 states, Washington, D.C., Canada and overseas. Their mission states: "We are committed to saving lives and ending the violence in Iraq and call for immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces.''
This Iraq war is like none other.
The suicide rate among veterans has increased. The desertion rate in the military has increased by 20 percent.
Apparently, we are the United States of Amnesia. When will we learn from the past?
Soon we will celebrate Martin Luther King Day. In talking about the struggle for civil rights, not war, Martin Luther King once said that "violence was not just immoral but also impractical. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.''
BNCPJ will hold its monthly demonstration against the war at the Bloomington Post Office on Towanda Avenue from 5 to 5:30 p.m. Jan. 19.
Father Dan Berrigan, a Jesuit priest, has stated, "We are not allowed to kill innocent people. We are not allowed to be complicit in murder. We are not allowed to be silent while preparations for mass murder proceed in our name, with our money. .... We are back where we started. Thou shalt not kill; we are not allowed to kill.''
BNCPJ's next meeting is at 4 p.m. Feb. 3 at the Unitarian church. The film "Winter Soldier'' will be viewed and discussed. All are welcome.
Try something new for the new year; attend a demonstration or a meeting.
Rosemarie Moews Scarbeary
Bloomington
The above, noted by Lewis, is from the Bloomington Pantagraph's "Letters to the Editor." Winter Soldier is Vietnam veterans testifying to what they saw serving in Vietnam. It is available on DVD via Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Shortly, a similar event will take place. 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
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
People with real concerns can attend. Those playing 'resume builder' by farming themselves out as free labor to political candidates (while insisting they're 'doing something') will, no doubt, stay away.
Meanwhile, if you were wounded while serving in Iraq, you might be thrilled that you received on the ground medical attention. Later on, reality might beg to differ with that assessment. From The Daily Mail's "Mother condemns 'appalling' treatment of blood blunder soldier:"
The mother of a British serviceman who may have received contaminated blood from the US military attacked her son's "appalling" treatment today.
Steve Shine, 23, is reported to be one of 24 British soldiers and military contractors undergoing HIV and hepatitis tests following revelations that the Americans failed to screen the donors who gave them emergency transfusions.
He was given the tainted transfusion after losing his left leg when his tank was blown up in Basra, southern Iraq, a national newspaper.
His mother, Frances Shine, 46, told the paper her son had received no offers of counselling from the Army or Ministry of Defence since being told of the blunder.
And read "British civilians may also have received HIV-contaminated blood in Iraq or Afghanistan" along with it.
Today a photo exhibit of the work of artist and journalist David Bacon opens at the Galeria de la Raza (2857 24th St, San Francisco 94110): "Living under the trees" "Viviendo bajo los arboles." The exhibit is from January 11th through February 23rd (Enero 11 - Febrero 23, 2008). "An exhibition documenting communities of indigenous Mexican farm workers in California through photographs and the narrative experiences of community residents and leaders" y
"Una exposicion que documenta a traves de fotografias y testmonios de lideres y residentes las comundades indigenas de campesinos mexicanos." Inauguracion de exposicion (Opening Reception) Enero 11 7:30 p.m. (January 11th). Y mesa redonda de fotografos (photographers' panel) Sabado, Enero 26, 2:00 p.m. (photographers' panel, Saturday, January 26).
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq veterans against the war
david bacon
Slaughter in Diyala continues
The U.S. military dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives southeast of Baghdad on Thursday in a series of airstrikes that underscored the tenuousness of U.S. progress against Islamic extremists in Iraq.
The targets were near the town of Arab Jabour, a Sunni Muslim-dominated district on Baghdad's outskirts that American officials recently held up as a security success and an example of how local Sunni tribesmen known as "concerned local citizens" had turned against al Qaida in Iraq.
But Thursday's air attack indicated that the area still has a considerable Sunni militant presence. The statement said that more than 40 targets in three large areas were hit during two passes by two supersonic B-1 bombers and four F-16 fighter jets. A U.S. military official in the area said the targets were al Qaida in Iraq weapons caches and bomb-making materials.
The blitz dropped 38 bombs in its first 10 minutes, the statement said.
[. . .]
In a November speech, President Bush hailed the progress, talking about a butcher from Arab Jabour reopening his shop.
"Slowly but surely the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society. You see, when Iraqis don't have to fear the terrorists, they have a chance to build better lives for themselves," Bush said.
The above is from Jamie Gumbrcht and Nancy A. Youssef's "In Iraq, U.S. airstrikes target insurgents near supposedly safe zone" (McClatchy Newspapers). Oh that 'turned corner' that turned into . . . another corner. The same thing done over and over and hailed as 'progress.' In the New York Times, Solomon Moore is either still looking for his own voice or has decided to be the paper's new Dexy, hence his really bad 'report' that we'll note this from:
Iraqi Army officials said they were certain that the airstrikes had killed many insurgents but added that they were unable to conduct an official body count by nightfall. Dozens of suspected insurgents were detained during the assault, Iraqi Army officials said.
Is that the new "witch" test inverted? "It's a corpse. They must have been 'insurgents'." 40,000 pounds in only ten minutes and no one's really sure who got killed. That's targeting civilian populations with collective punishment and it is illegal.
In other news of War Crimes, Polly notes this from BBC:
The only US army officer to be charged over the Iraq jail abuse scandal has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the US military authorities.
Lt-Col Steven Jordan was in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison's interrogation unit when pictures of US soldiers abusing prisoners were taken in 2003.
He was cleared of mistreatment charges in August, but convicted of disobeying orders not to discuss the inquiry.
That conviction has now been thrown out, angering human rights campaigners.
At Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers), an Iraqi correspondent post "e-mail to a friend:"
The latest in Baghdad is a more suttle, but a more important story to tell. Because all the deliberate chaos and violence was like a curtain, keeping everyone so distressed there're incapable of seeing the real issues - the ones for which the war was faught in the first place.
Now, people may have the energy, I hope - and the heart, to look up and start taking stock of the situation. They should begin to ask questions and demand answers of those whom they elected. Have many lost faith in their religious leaders? Have they had enough of being manipulated by them in the name of their brand of Islam? Have they had enough?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
mcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssef
the new york times
solomon moore
The targets were near the town of Arab Jabour, a Sunni Muslim-dominated district on Baghdad's outskirts that American officials recently held up as a security success and an example of how local Sunni tribesmen known as "concerned local citizens" had turned against al Qaida in Iraq.
But Thursday's air attack indicated that the area still has a considerable Sunni militant presence. The statement said that more than 40 targets in three large areas were hit during two passes by two supersonic B-1 bombers and four F-16 fighter jets. A U.S. military official in the area said the targets were al Qaida in Iraq weapons caches and bomb-making materials.
The blitz dropped 38 bombs in its first 10 minutes, the statement said.
[. . .]
In a November speech, President Bush hailed the progress, talking about a butcher from Arab Jabour reopening his shop.
"Slowly but surely the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society. You see, when Iraqis don't have to fear the terrorists, they have a chance to build better lives for themselves," Bush said.
The above is from Jamie Gumbrcht and Nancy A. Youssef's "In Iraq, U.S. airstrikes target insurgents near supposedly safe zone" (McClatchy Newspapers). Oh that 'turned corner' that turned into . . . another corner. The same thing done over and over and hailed as 'progress.' In the New York Times, Solomon Moore is either still looking for his own voice or has decided to be the paper's new Dexy, hence his really bad 'report' that we'll note this from:
Iraqi Army officials said they were certain that the airstrikes had killed many insurgents but added that they were unable to conduct an official body count by nightfall. Dozens of suspected insurgents were detained during the assault, Iraqi Army officials said.
Is that the new "witch" test inverted? "It's a corpse. They must have been 'insurgents'." 40,000 pounds in only ten minutes and no one's really sure who got killed. That's targeting civilian populations with collective punishment and it is illegal.
In other news of War Crimes, Polly notes this from BBC:
The only US army officer to be charged over the Iraq jail abuse scandal has been cleared of any wrongdoing by the US military authorities.
Lt-Col Steven Jordan was in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison's interrogation unit when pictures of US soldiers abusing prisoners were taken in 2003.
He was cleared of mistreatment charges in August, but convicted of disobeying orders not to discuss the inquiry.
That conviction has now been thrown out, angering human rights campaigners.
At Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers), an Iraqi correspondent post "e-mail to a friend:"
The latest in Baghdad is a more suttle, but a more important story to tell. Because all the deliberate chaos and violence was like a curtain, keeping everyone so distressed there're incapable of seeing the real issues - the ones for which the war was faught in the first place.
Now, people may have the energy, I hope - and the heart, to look up and start taking stock of the situation. They should begin to ask questions and demand answers of those whom they elected. Have many lost faith in their religious leaders? Have they had enough of being manipulated by them in the name of their brand of Islam? Have they had enough?
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
mcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssef
the new york times
solomon moore
Thursday, January 10, 2008
I Hate The War
JAY: So, then, what do you make of Obama's promise of change and all the rhetoric that's been going along with his campaign?GRAVEL: It's foolish. Foolish. Dangerous. Dangerous, because he doesn't even recognize that he can't deliver. That's dangerous. I would rather -- Hillary. At least she knows what she's talking about. He doesn't.
JAY: Edwards?
GRAVEL: Edwards? He probably knows better, what he's talking about, than Obama. Obama of the three is the most dangerous, because he raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that's what he's doing. And he’s used the line [inaudible] reason out what he's saying. You know, the statement I like that I've heard from young people: there's no ‘there’ there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times--what specifically are you going to change? You're going to change the health care system? Not really. You're going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He's supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He's on the education committee. He's supported by the NEA. Where's change? I don't see any change. But he doesn't say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it's like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that's what he's doing. It's terrible, because what you read into it isn't what's going to happen, 'cause he's going to have the reality. The simplest one of all is we have a $50 to $70 trillion fiscal gap. There's no money to do anything, never mind this imperialism, which is why there's no money to do anything. Here. You recall that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama all said, when asked by Tim Russert, would you have the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2013? And all three of them equivocated, weren't sure that they could do it. And then you heard just last night, oh, yeah; I'm going to start withdrawing them immediately. What are they talking about? Say one thing; say another thing. You know, withdrawing immediately, what does that mean? We'll withdraw ten this month, and then I'm going to change my mind next month? It's gross hypocrisy - is really what it is. It's politics as usual, and that's sad, because we're at a turning point in '08. If we continue with American imperialism, we're done as a nation.
The above, noted by Hilda (Hilda's Mix), is from Paul Jay's interview "Mike Gravel rates Democrat opponents" (Information Clearing House). Please note, this is video and text. And of course, Mike Gravel calls it like it is. Something independent media (in the US, more on that in a bit) can't be bothered with. They continue the lie that Bambi is against the illegal war and Bambi was always against the illegal war and Bambi voted against the 2007 Iran resolution and one lie after another.
Lynda noted that I seemed "disjointed" in the snapshot today. That's putting it mildly. I made an observation to Jim, on the phone with Jim, Tuesday and he 'claimed' it for The Third Estate Sunday Review. The snapshots are dictated and I didn't have time to self-censor while dictating so things were pulled out quickly (after) to leave the point Jim wants to carry over to Third out of it. But to be clear, the Bambi-love in 'independent media' reveals it to be neither 'independent' nor 'media.' Unless you consider People magazine the media (Professor Patti does, remember when she compared African-Americans to dogs based on her exhaustive reading of People?). But it's gotten so bad that 'independent media' is going after Gloria Steinem. I don't tolerate that. As Mike noted tonight, that site has been pulled. (Also see Rebecca's post tonight.)
When the Zapatistas were being trashed by some of the indymedia types due to the outcome of the 2006 Mexico election, we noted that the Zapatistas are a movement and more important than a political candidate. By the same token, Gloria Steinem's work is more important than propping up a War Hawk candidate. But it's good that they drug Gloria into it because it did demonstrate to a few more that they weren't concerned about the illegal war. They aren't.
They don't give a damn about the illegal war. They rush to write about anything else. And then they lie that Bambi's an 'anti-war' candidate. It doesn't bother them to lie because they don't care. You can see it in what they choose to cover. Nine US service members killed in Iraq today, a slaughter going on in Diyala Province and what are they doing? Trashing Gloria.
It just demonstrates that they are not journalists, they are mouthpieces and groupies for Bambi. That was the most important thing today for them, to trash Gloria. And, in doing so, they revealed that their problems with Hillary Clinton really were just over the fact that she's a woman. That she's a she. They want to accuse her of playing the 'gender card' or of 'identity politics' and it's like the Bully Boy speaking in that they reveal/confess their own bias. Bambi and Hillary have no differences on the illegal war. Does Edwards?
Mike quotes Edwards e-mail sent out today (when the deaths of 9 US servicemembers was in some of the media coverage) and notes that Iraq didn't make Edwards' laundry list. So if you're voting for one of the three front runners, there's no difference. You'll have to either focus on something other than Iraq to make your determination, hope Gravel stays in for you to vote in your state's primary or consider going Green or independent. That's reality.
And it's not hard to say. Unless you're personally vested in one of the campaigns. If you are, then you're not really a journalist.
And let me add, you have the option of not voting. A coffee fetcher e-mailed to gripe me out about noting that. I've noted it before. The coffee fetcher can tell his mistress that her late and (by her) lamented USSR could compel people to vote but this is the United States and we have the right to vote and we have the option of not using that right. I vote in every election, myself. That's me. I know others who don't for various reasons including that they consider it a protest vote. Noting that reality isn't, pay attention coffee fetcher, "endorsing" non-voting. It's telling the truth. I realize that your employer is so far from the truth that you're probably confused but that is reality.
And independent media is far, far from the truth. Which is how the Cult of Bambi got created to begin with. Kat has a post on one of the female attackers of Gloria. It should be noted that the Bambi crowd is crowing, of the attacker, "She should be president!" Really? On the basis of a (bad) column, she should be president? It kind of demonstrates their intellectual capabilities, doesn't it? So it wasn't very difficult for independent media to pull the wool over the eyes of idiots like that.
They know nothing about her. So what are they rooting for? The attack on Gloria. They've been hoping for that attack. For those of us old enough to have seen the past attacks (including by The Ego of Us All), we're aware that Gloria inspires silent hatred among the sexists and, when they think there's a window of opportunity, they rush in. Thing is, any woman trashing Gloria Steinem for her NYT column isn't a feminist. She can hide behind "I'm young and my parents pay all my bills" (get a job, loser) "and this is how I see it," but she's just trashing a woman to get a little attention. Pathetically, it's not even for herself. She's attempting to advance her poster boy. Anyone with even a basic grasp of history would grasp how common that has been and how common the attacker is. She didn't even try, as some had the good sense to, to launch her attack via a woman's press. Because she doesn't have that option because she's not a feminist. If she was really trying to reach Gloria Steinem, she would have done that. She didn't because she's only interested in trashing Gloria in a place that will get her the attention she so desperately craves and advance her pathetic candidate Barack Obama.
Gareth notes Andrew Stephen's "Obama unmasked" (The New Statesman):
So it all came as a shock to the pundits and pollsters on the night of 8 January when, despite predictions of an overwhelming Obama triumph, it became clear that the voters of New Hampshire had given Hillary Clinton the victory over Obama she badly needed. The reason for the media's distortions, I believe, is that Obama's relationship with the press and the electorate is still at the stage of starry-eyed infatuation. Yes, he is a mesmerising political orator who offers a magic elixir that somehow contains both stimulants and sedatives: that we need not worry about the present or future, because we can look forward to a new dawn of hope and reassurance in the safe hands of President Obama. Exactly how and why this would happen is not clear, but it is heady and exciting stuff.
I suspect that the longer the relationship continues, however, the more Obama's many faults and shortcomings as a presidential candidate will emerge. In his speech admitting defeat in New Hampshire on Tuesday, for example, a hint of his bad-tempered haughtiness emerged. He is not the fresh-faced young idealist the media like to portray, but a hard-headed 46-year-old lawyer whose monumental drive and political calculations make the Clintons seem like a pair of amateurs. The media and electorate may have fallen in love with him spontaneously, but Obama has been carefully plotting his strategy to seduce them for decades.
A little "blow"
Even dedicated political operators such as the Clintons, for example, did not publish self-promoting memoirs at the age of 33 - but that is exactly what Obama did, revealing his use of cocaine ("a little blow") before anybody else could beat him to it, for example. In those memoirs, Dreams from My Father, he burnished a personal and political résumé that, in places, seemed almost unbelievable - so I was not surprised to read in his introduction to the reissued edition of "selective lapses of memory" and "the temptation to colour events in ways favourable to the writer".
I'll provide two brief examples of how Obama did just that. He wrote movingly of a turning point in his life when, as a nine-year-old, he read in Life magazine of a "black man who had tried to peel off his skin". But the Chicago Tribune - it and the Chicago Sun-Times being honourable exceptions to the media quiescence I have described - reported that "no such Life issue exists", and an exhaustive search of similar magazines failed to find any article remotely similar to the one Obama had described. The Obama media machine, too, obligingly enabled television crews this month to interview Obama's very elderly Kenyan "grandmother"; the only problem was that the woman in rural Kenya was not Obama's grandmother, but the alleged foster mother of Obama's father. "Give me a break . . . this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," huffed Bill Clinton, visiting Dartmouth College on the eve of the New Hampshire vote, telling his audience the US media are not being tough enough on Obama.
Politically, there is remarkably little difference between the three leading Democrats - Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
In a country with a real independent media, Stephen's article would not be an exception. But it is. There is The Black Agenda Report and Paul Street and not much else. That's reality. Instead American audiences have gotten fluff and spin and one lie after another that Barack Obama is the "anti-war" candidate. Why does the war drag on? Because independent media isn't interested in truth. They're interested in propping up a bad candidate for his (emphasis on "his") presidential run.
They have refused to cover the non-stop war against women in Iraq. They've refused to cover war resisters. They've refused to cover the parents speaking out about lies the US military command told them. In 2005, a spark went off in this country and independent media was there. Since then? Not really. Maybe they worried it would put too much pressure on the Democrats? (And what is independent media -- for the most part -- in this country but an arm of the Democratic Party?)
Pretend it's your brother or sister or son or daughter or wife or husband that's died in Iraq and the military has lied to you. Maybe, like Lanny Davis, you only found out the truth because you traveled a great distance to fight face to face for the truth. Your story doesn't matter to independent media. They don't know how to pair reality up with Bambi's Chicken Sop for the Soul. Lanny Davis' story about his son (Richard) is too much reality for them to handle. Better to waste more time with articles on polling or spit-polishing Bambi.
But the war is very real. And it is ongoing. And none of the three front runners in the Democratic race for their party's presidential nomination has done a thing to indicate they'll end it. All three refused to make a pledge to end it, if elected, by 2013. Sure John Edwards tosses out a few crumbs here and there. For a day or two. Then he falls silent. Finds another topic. If he loses the nomination, he should apply to work in independent media because he has demonstrated that he can play grass hopper leaping from topic to topic and never really saying anything. That is independent media.
I was explaining this to someone at a daily paper last month (actually to two -- one a friend, the other someone I don't know) but independent media has no more cards to play. They can't continue to scream about the embed program (that they rightly refused to take part in). The reason being, Alive in Baghdad and others report from Iraq and they don't interview them. (An exception being Deepa Fernandes.) But, okay, let's say independent media can't afford that and can't afford to send someone to Iraq. Okay, well that would mean if they cared about the illegal war and they were unable to cover it from Iraq, they would instead cover it via the home front. They would do that through the peace movement, through war resisters, you name it. But that hasn't happened either. A call to Canada isn't expensive at all. The peace movement isn't shy. But where are they in independent media? Like Lanny Davis who lost his son and suffered lies (he was told Richard was AWOL) that only ended because of his own determination and action, those stories don't get told by independent media. They didn't tell Abeer's story either.
So let's all stop kidding ourselves that independent media gives a damn about the illegal war. Did you notice Democracy Now! today. They had plenty of time to interview an environmentalist about the candidates on that issue. Where's the interview about the illegal war. 2007 came and went. It's 2008 and where's the interview about the candidates on the illegal war? Where's Military Families Speak Out, A.N.S.W.E.R., CODEPINK, World Can't Wait, etc. with a person on Democracy Now! speaking about the candidates on Iraq? Don't point to that "we only have a minute" interview last week. That was horrible. (See "Wack job of the week").
Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (my opinion) do the best job in independent media. But even they haven't provided us with that segment or the stories of war resisters. We had no new war resister profiled on Democracy Now! in 2007. That wasn't because people stopped going public. They continued to go public. But there's just not any interest in it.
Now there's interest among people. The crowds on campuses are large. We've got a huge number of women's groups also interested in discussing Iraq. (Thank you to Dona who schedules each week.) But media interest left long ago. I'm looking at this and if you're reading it on the mirror site, hit the link in the title. You'll see all the things listed linked to on the left (the permalinks). I'm really not interested in inserting links tonight. Why bother? We've been more than kind with links.
So even with Big Media, I can't justify independent media's non-coverage. They just don't care enough about the illegal war to cover it. And I'm not interested in fluff or spin so I'm not interested in playing "here's ___" and here's "____."
Instead of the war, we get Jesse Jackson being asked about the 'house divided' (some family members supporting Bambi, some supporting Hillary). And that advances understanding how? It's a glossy news magazine kind of 'reporting.' I mean, at what point do we start getting, "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"
As Ruth's noted twice this week, NPR's The Diane Rehm Show has done real work on Iraq this week. Maybe that's because Rehm's old enough to remember how you cover a war. How when a nation goes to war, regardless of whether people are for it or against it, it is news.
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 3907. Tonight? 3921. Little Media's disinterest, please note, even during a seven-day period when 14 US service members died. During a period where we're seeing the same sort of collective punishment (a War Crime) being targeted at the civilians in Diyala Province as was done to Falluja. Just Foreign Policy's total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stands at 1,165,204.
We're told that the media (meaning big media) distracts us with nonsense. No argument. But it's not an argument that Little Media can make if they've distracted us with fluff and spin about a War Hawk candidate. That's not how it works. You can't be in the wrong and point to someone else in the wrong and play like you're doing the job.
The job's not being done.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
paul jay
andrew stephen
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
ruths report
JAY: Edwards?
GRAVEL: Edwards? He probably knows better, what he's talking about, than Obama. Obama of the three is the most dangerous, because he raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that's what he's doing. And he’s used the line [inaudible] reason out what he's saying. You know, the statement I like that I've heard from young people: there's no ‘there’ there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times--what specifically are you going to change? You're going to change the health care system? Not really. You're going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He's supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He's on the education committee. He's supported by the NEA. Where's change? I don't see any change. But he doesn't say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it's like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that's what he's doing. It's terrible, because what you read into it isn't what's going to happen, 'cause he's going to have the reality. The simplest one of all is we have a $50 to $70 trillion fiscal gap. There's no money to do anything, never mind this imperialism, which is why there's no money to do anything. Here. You recall that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama all said, when asked by Tim Russert, would you have the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2013? And all three of them equivocated, weren't sure that they could do it. And then you heard just last night, oh, yeah; I'm going to start withdrawing them immediately. What are they talking about? Say one thing; say another thing. You know, withdrawing immediately, what does that mean? We'll withdraw ten this month, and then I'm going to change my mind next month? It's gross hypocrisy - is really what it is. It's politics as usual, and that's sad, because we're at a turning point in '08. If we continue with American imperialism, we're done as a nation.
The above, noted by Hilda (Hilda's Mix), is from Paul Jay's interview "Mike Gravel rates Democrat opponents" (Information Clearing House). Please note, this is video and text. And of course, Mike Gravel calls it like it is. Something independent media (in the US, more on that in a bit) can't be bothered with. They continue the lie that Bambi is against the illegal war and Bambi was always against the illegal war and Bambi voted against the 2007 Iran resolution and one lie after another.
Lynda noted that I seemed "disjointed" in the snapshot today. That's putting it mildly. I made an observation to Jim, on the phone with Jim, Tuesday and he 'claimed' it for The Third Estate Sunday Review. The snapshots are dictated and I didn't have time to self-censor while dictating so things were pulled out quickly (after) to leave the point Jim wants to carry over to Third out of it. But to be clear, the Bambi-love in 'independent media' reveals it to be neither 'independent' nor 'media.' Unless you consider People magazine the media (Professor Patti does, remember when she compared African-Americans to dogs based on her exhaustive reading of People?). But it's gotten so bad that 'independent media' is going after Gloria Steinem. I don't tolerate that. As Mike noted tonight, that site has been pulled. (Also see Rebecca's post tonight.)
When the Zapatistas were being trashed by some of the indymedia types due to the outcome of the 2006 Mexico election, we noted that the Zapatistas are a movement and more important than a political candidate. By the same token, Gloria Steinem's work is more important than propping up a War Hawk candidate. But it's good that they drug Gloria into it because it did demonstrate to a few more that they weren't concerned about the illegal war. They aren't.
They don't give a damn about the illegal war. They rush to write about anything else. And then they lie that Bambi's an 'anti-war' candidate. It doesn't bother them to lie because they don't care. You can see it in what they choose to cover. Nine US service members killed in Iraq today, a slaughter going on in Diyala Province and what are they doing? Trashing Gloria.
It just demonstrates that they are not journalists, they are mouthpieces and groupies for Bambi. That was the most important thing today for them, to trash Gloria. And, in doing so, they revealed that their problems with Hillary Clinton really were just over the fact that she's a woman. That she's a she. They want to accuse her of playing the 'gender card' or of 'identity politics' and it's like the Bully Boy speaking in that they reveal/confess their own bias. Bambi and Hillary have no differences on the illegal war. Does Edwards?
Mike quotes Edwards e-mail sent out today (when the deaths of 9 US servicemembers was in some of the media coverage) and notes that Iraq didn't make Edwards' laundry list. So if you're voting for one of the three front runners, there's no difference. You'll have to either focus on something other than Iraq to make your determination, hope Gravel stays in for you to vote in your state's primary or consider going Green or independent. That's reality.
And it's not hard to say. Unless you're personally vested in one of the campaigns. If you are, then you're not really a journalist.
And let me add, you have the option of not voting. A coffee fetcher e-mailed to gripe me out about noting that. I've noted it before. The coffee fetcher can tell his mistress that her late and (by her) lamented USSR could compel people to vote but this is the United States and we have the right to vote and we have the option of not using that right. I vote in every election, myself. That's me. I know others who don't for various reasons including that they consider it a protest vote. Noting that reality isn't, pay attention coffee fetcher, "endorsing" non-voting. It's telling the truth. I realize that your employer is so far from the truth that you're probably confused but that is reality.
And independent media is far, far from the truth. Which is how the Cult of Bambi got created to begin with. Kat has a post on one of the female attackers of Gloria. It should be noted that the Bambi crowd is crowing, of the attacker, "She should be president!" Really? On the basis of a (bad) column, she should be president? It kind of demonstrates their intellectual capabilities, doesn't it? So it wasn't very difficult for independent media to pull the wool over the eyes of idiots like that.
They know nothing about her. So what are they rooting for? The attack on Gloria. They've been hoping for that attack. For those of us old enough to have seen the past attacks (including by The Ego of Us All), we're aware that Gloria inspires silent hatred among the sexists and, when they think there's a window of opportunity, they rush in. Thing is, any woman trashing Gloria Steinem for her NYT column isn't a feminist. She can hide behind "I'm young and my parents pay all my bills" (get a job, loser) "and this is how I see it," but she's just trashing a woman to get a little attention. Pathetically, it's not even for herself. She's attempting to advance her poster boy. Anyone with even a basic grasp of history would grasp how common that has been and how common the attacker is. She didn't even try, as some had the good sense to, to launch her attack via a woman's press. Because she doesn't have that option because she's not a feminist. If she was really trying to reach Gloria Steinem, she would have done that. She didn't because she's only interested in trashing Gloria in a place that will get her the attention she so desperately craves and advance her pathetic candidate Barack Obama.
Gareth notes Andrew Stephen's "Obama unmasked" (The New Statesman):
So it all came as a shock to the pundits and pollsters on the night of 8 January when, despite predictions of an overwhelming Obama triumph, it became clear that the voters of New Hampshire had given Hillary Clinton the victory over Obama she badly needed. The reason for the media's distortions, I believe, is that Obama's relationship with the press and the electorate is still at the stage of starry-eyed infatuation. Yes, he is a mesmerising political orator who offers a magic elixir that somehow contains both stimulants and sedatives: that we need not worry about the present or future, because we can look forward to a new dawn of hope and reassurance in the safe hands of President Obama. Exactly how and why this would happen is not clear, but it is heady and exciting stuff.
I suspect that the longer the relationship continues, however, the more Obama's many faults and shortcomings as a presidential candidate will emerge. In his speech admitting defeat in New Hampshire on Tuesday, for example, a hint of his bad-tempered haughtiness emerged. He is not the fresh-faced young idealist the media like to portray, but a hard-headed 46-year-old lawyer whose monumental drive and political calculations make the Clintons seem like a pair of amateurs. The media and electorate may have fallen in love with him spontaneously, but Obama has been carefully plotting his strategy to seduce them for decades.
A little "blow"
Even dedicated political operators such as the Clintons, for example, did not publish self-promoting memoirs at the age of 33 - but that is exactly what Obama did, revealing his use of cocaine ("a little blow") before anybody else could beat him to it, for example. In those memoirs, Dreams from My Father, he burnished a personal and political résumé that, in places, seemed almost unbelievable - so I was not surprised to read in his introduction to the reissued edition of "selective lapses of memory" and "the temptation to colour events in ways favourable to the writer".
I'll provide two brief examples of how Obama did just that. He wrote movingly of a turning point in his life when, as a nine-year-old, he read in Life magazine of a "black man who had tried to peel off his skin". But the Chicago Tribune - it and the Chicago Sun-Times being honourable exceptions to the media quiescence I have described - reported that "no such Life issue exists", and an exhaustive search of similar magazines failed to find any article remotely similar to the one Obama had described. The Obama media machine, too, obligingly enabled television crews this month to interview Obama's very elderly Kenyan "grandmother"; the only problem was that the woman in rural Kenya was not Obama's grandmother, but the alleged foster mother of Obama's father. "Give me a break . . . this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," huffed Bill Clinton, visiting Dartmouth College on the eve of the New Hampshire vote, telling his audience the US media are not being tough enough on Obama.
Politically, there is remarkably little difference between the three leading Democrats - Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
In a country with a real independent media, Stephen's article would not be an exception. But it is. There is The Black Agenda Report and Paul Street and not much else. That's reality. Instead American audiences have gotten fluff and spin and one lie after another that Barack Obama is the "anti-war" candidate. Why does the war drag on? Because independent media isn't interested in truth. They're interested in propping up a bad candidate for his (emphasis on "his") presidential run.
They have refused to cover the non-stop war against women in Iraq. They've refused to cover war resisters. They've refused to cover the parents speaking out about lies the US military command told them. In 2005, a spark went off in this country and independent media was there. Since then? Not really. Maybe they worried it would put too much pressure on the Democrats? (And what is independent media -- for the most part -- in this country but an arm of the Democratic Party?)
Pretend it's your brother or sister or son or daughter or wife or husband that's died in Iraq and the military has lied to you. Maybe, like Lanny Davis, you only found out the truth because you traveled a great distance to fight face to face for the truth. Your story doesn't matter to independent media. They don't know how to pair reality up with Bambi's Chicken Sop for the Soul. Lanny Davis' story about his son (Richard) is too much reality for them to handle. Better to waste more time with articles on polling or spit-polishing Bambi.
But the war is very real. And it is ongoing. And none of the three front runners in the Democratic race for their party's presidential nomination has done a thing to indicate they'll end it. All three refused to make a pledge to end it, if elected, by 2013. Sure John Edwards tosses out a few crumbs here and there. For a day or two. Then he falls silent. Finds another topic. If he loses the nomination, he should apply to work in independent media because he has demonstrated that he can play grass hopper leaping from topic to topic and never really saying anything. That is independent media.
I was explaining this to someone at a daily paper last month (actually to two -- one a friend, the other someone I don't know) but independent media has no more cards to play. They can't continue to scream about the embed program (that they rightly refused to take part in). The reason being, Alive in Baghdad and others report from Iraq and they don't interview them. (An exception being Deepa Fernandes.) But, okay, let's say independent media can't afford that and can't afford to send someone to Iraq. Okay, well that would mean if they cared about the illegal war and they were unable to cover it from Iraq, they would instead cover it via the home front. They would do that through the peace movement, through war resisters, you name it. But that hasn't happened either. A call to Canada isn't expensive at all. The peace movement isn't shy. But where are they in independent media? Like Lanny Davis who lost his son and suffered lies (he was told Richard was AWOL) that only ended because of his own determination and action, those stories don't get told by independent media. They didn't tell Abeer's story either.
So let's all stop kidding ourselves that independent media gives a damn about the illegal war. Did you notice Democracy Now! today. They had plenty of time to interview an environmentalist about the candidates on that issue. Where's the interview about the illegal war. 2007 came and went. It's 2008 and where's the interview about the candidates on the illegal war? Where's Military Families Speak Out, A.N.S.W.E.R., CODEPINK, World Can't Wait, etc. with a person on Democracy Now! speaking about the candidates on Iraq? Don't point to that "we only have a minute" interview last week. That was horrible. (See "Wack job of the week").
Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (my opinion) do the best job in independent media. But even they haven't provided us with that segment or the stories of war resisters. We had no new war resister profiled on Democracy Now! in 2007. That wasn't because people stopped going public. They continued to go public. But there's just not any interest in it.
Now there's interest among people. The crowds on campuses are large. We've got a huge number of women's groups also interested in discussing Iraq. (Thank you to Dona who schedules each week.) But media interest left long ago. I'm looking at this and if you're reading it on the mirror site, hit the link in the title. You'll see all the things listed linked to on the left (the permalinks). I'm really not interested in inserting links tonight. Why bother? We've been more than kind with links.
So even with Big Media, I can't justify independent media's non-coverage. They just don't care enough about the illegal war to cover it. And I'm not interested in fluff or spin so I'm not interested in playing "here's ___" and here's "____."
Instead of the war, we get Jesse Jackson being asked about the 'house divided' (some family members supporting Bambi, some supporting Hillary). And that advances understanding how? It's a glossy news magazine kind of 'reporting.' I mean, at what point do we start getting, "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"
As Ruth's noted twice this week, NPR's The Diane Rehm Show has done real work on Iraq this week. Maybe that's because Rehm's old enough to remember how you cover a war. How when a nation goes to war, regardless of whether people are for it or against it, it is news.
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 3907. Tonight? 3921. Little Media's disinterest, please note, even during a seven-day period when 14 US service members died. During a period where we're seeing the same sort of collective punishment (a War Crime) being targeted at the civilians in Diyala Province as was done to Falluja. Just Foreign Policy's total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stands at 1,165,204.
We're told that the media (meaning big media) distracts us with nonsense. No argument. But it's not an argument that Little Media can make if they've distracted us with fluff and spin about a War Hawk candidate. That's not how it works. You can't be in the wrong and point to someone else in the wrong and play like you're doing the job.
The job's not being done.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
paul jayandrew stephenkats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
ruths report
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, January 10, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, civilians are targeted, femicide continues, Pigs say oink-oink-oink all the way home (to the arms of Bambi?) and more.
Starting with war resistance. Proving the knowledge is power, Peter J. Swing (Asian Week) explains how Ehren Watada became convinced that he had to refuse to deploy to the Iraq War, "He haunted the Fort Lewis library, which contains an extraordinary number of military documents, archives and databases, and scoured volumes on military history, particularly in Iraq. 'I read the history of units that have gone during the initial invasion to gain a broader knowledge of what I could expect,' he said. At the time, it was more than the war that was making headlines; the Valerie Plame case, Supreme Court nominations and the country's heightened surveillance, all questioned the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. 'I was looking at who was trying to protect us,' Watada said. 'Who is standing up and speaking out for the soldiers' I told myself that nobody is'." Which is how Watada began the process that led him (June 2006) to become the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq.
Stephen Funk is the first public war resister after the illegal war broke out. Camilo Mejia is the first public war resister who served in the war. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey were the first war resisters to publicy seek refugee status in Canada. November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution.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. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:
The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure :
1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada.
For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada.
For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.
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.
Maria Lauterbach is missing. AP reports she is eight-months pregnant and a Lance Corporal marine whose mother filed a missing person report on her December 19th. CNN reports that she "was assaulted by a superior officer" and, according to Sherrif Ed Brown, that she was due to give testimony about the assault. WARL reports, "Lauterbach's debit card was used on Christmas Eve to withdraw money from an automated teller machine, according to an affidavit attached to a search warrant in the case. The white man who used the card tried to cover the ATM camera with a rag, the affidavit said." Margo Rutledge Kissell (Dayton Daily News) reports, "Onslow County Sherriff Ed Brown said in a news conference Thursday that the Marine sergeant who had been deployed to California is being brought back to North Carolina 'so we can look him in the eyes and ask him some questions.' Brown said the decision to return him came after authorities met Wednesday with the commander at Camp Lejeune, where Lauterback is stationed." Rutledge Kissel also notes that Lauterbach's baby "is due Tuesday".
On Monday, we noted that Saturday's US military press release that Rowdy Inman and Benjamin Portell were apparently shot dead by a member of the Iraqi army in what was not a case of 'friendly fire' and how the families weren't told of that until after they held the services. Maria Lauterbach was living off base but still on military property. If her family hadn't sprung into action, would the US military? Lanny Davis would probably answer "no." His son Richard Davis went 'missing' and the military wasn't interested. The Belfast Telgraph explains how US service member Richard Davis was killed by soldiers and how the military refused to search for Davis, refused to do a damn thing. Father Lanny served in Vietnam, his son signed up in 1999 and served in Bosnia and later Iraq. In Iraq, Richard served with some people who didn't need to be in the service such as Jacob Burgonyne: "Army doctors reportedly examined him and said he was suffering from PTSD and should not be allowed near a weapon. But, trumpeted as a battle hero by his commanders, he was released and rejoined his comrades. Soon afterwards, Richard Davis was murdered." On July 14, 2003, Richard Davis was beaten, repeatedly stabbed ("at least 33 times") and then attempts were made to set his corpse on fire. They apparently targeted Richard Davis because he was multi-racial ("They looked at my son as a mulatto, a half-breed."). What followed was the US military contacting Lanny Davis and telling him that his son was AWOL -- "as opposed to a missing person, which meant that no official search by military authorities would be made." Then they put obstacles in his path when he tried to find out what happened to his son. Lanny Davis had to start the search himself, had to prod the military, people who served with his son and the local authorities and finally one soldier pointed to Jacob Burgoyne, Alberto Martinez, Mario Navarrette and Douglas Woodcoff -- the latter "took investigators to a highway in Columbus, Georgia. 'He took them out to the road where there was a place where they keep trash. That's when they started finding bits of my son'." Burgoyne serves time in a prison in Georgia while Martinez and Naverrette "are up for parole in three or four years and they will probably get it," according to Davis. Or, as Ruth noted earlier this week, NPR's Day by Day reported on Jason Scheuerman who took his own life in Iraq (after the military refused to provide him with help for PTSD -- a chaplain 'diagnosed' him as "possessed by demons") and the parents were told one lie after another including that their son left no suicide note. Lies, and lies.
This has happened repeatedly, where families are told one thing and another thing actually happened. On June 23, 2006, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) spoke with Nadi McCaffrey whose son Patrick and Andre Tyson were both killed in Iraq and the US military claimed it was by 'insurgents' when it was by Iraqis in the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps that Patrick McCaffrey and Andre Tyson were training:
AMY GOODMAN: But no member of his unit came to you and said, "It's not as the Army has told you. I was there."
NADIA McCAFFREY: Yes. Yes, two or three people did.
AMY GOODMAN: And did they tell you this?
NADIA McCAFFREY: They told me, yes, what they saw and what they have heard. As a matter of fact, just after Patrick and Andre were killed, one of the soldiers made his own report. And very complete, I may say. And this report was actually sent to the Sacramento Bee in Sacramento, newspaper. And this article was actually published by the Sacramento Bee. Immediately after that, this article was all over the world, because when Patrick's body returned to the airport in San Francisco, I called the media, and that made a huge fire within the news and so on, since the Pentagon had a ban on that.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's explain the idea that you called the national press to be at Sacramento airport, international airport, when Patrick's body came home, because President Bush had issued this executive order, saying that you shouldn't videotape, photograph, film the flag-draped coffins of the soldiers coming home. But you defied that?
NADIA McCAFFREY: Yes, yes. I didn't want to. That was my son. Frankly, I didn't really care, you know. I needed to do it this way for us, and I wanted to honor my son. I was not going to pass him in the dark, returning home, no. He didn't leave in the dark; why should I do that when he comes back? No. But because of that, immediately after this, this article took off and was everywhere. What happened was, the soldier who wrote this article was threatened to be court-martialed immediately. And the only reason that the court-martial didn't happen is because it became too public too fast. But he nonetheless was in serious trouble. I know that through his mother, and she was extremely worried about it. So I talked to other soldiers in his unit, and I called, you know, [inaudible] in San Francisco that I know. I needed advice from just in case something would turn ugly. He's okay. But it was not easy for him for quite a long time.
NADIA McCAFFREY: Yes. Yes, two or three people did.
AMY GOODMAN: And did they tell you this?
NADIA McCAFFREY: They told me, yes, what they saw and what they have heard. As a matter of fact, just after Patrick and Andre were killed, one of the soldiers made his own report. And very complete, I may say. And this report was actually sent to the Sacramento Bee in Sacramento, newspaper. And this article was actually published by the Sacramento Bee. Immediately after that, this article was all over the world, because when Patrick's body returned to the airport in San Francisco, I called the media, and that made a huge fire within the news and so on, since the Pentagon had a ban on that.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's explain the idea that you called the national press to be at Sacramento airport, international airport, when Patrick's body came home, because President Bush had issued this executive order, saying that you shouldn't videotape, photograph, film the flag-draped coffins of the soldiers coming home. But you defied that?
NADIA McCAFFREY: Yes, yes. I didn't want to. That was my son. Frankly, I didn't really care, you know. I needed to do it this way for us, and I wanted to honor my son. I was not going to pass him in the dark, returning home, no. He didn't leave in the dark; why should I do that when he comes back? No. But because of that, immediately after this, this article took off and was everywhere. What happened was, the soldier who wrote this article was threatened to be court-martialed immediately. And the only reason that the court-martial didn't happen is because it became too public too fast. But he nonetheless was in serious trouble. I know that through his mother, and she was extremely worried about it. So I talked to other soldiers in his unit, and I called, you know, [inaudible] in San Francisco that I know. I needed advice from just in case something would turn ugly. He's okay. But it was not easy for him for quite a long time.
.
Meanwhile, in Iraq the femicide continues. MADRE's Yifat Susskind (at Common Dreams) explores the ongoing femicide in Basra, "City officials reported on December 31 that 133 women were killed and mutilated last year, their bodies dumped in trash bings with notes warning others against 'violating Islamic teachings . . .' But ambulance drivers who are hired to troll the city streets in the early mornings to collect the bodies confirm what most residents believe: the actual numbers are much higher. The killers' leaflets are not very original. They usually accuse the women of being prostitutes or adulterers. But those murdered are more likely to be doctors, professors, or journalists. We know this because activists from the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) have taken on the gruesome task of visiting city morgues to try and determine the scale and pattern of the killings. According to OWFI, most of the women who have been murdered 'are PhD holders, professionals, activists, and office workers.' Their crime is not 'promiscuity,' but rather opposition to the transformation of Iraq into an Islamist state. That bloody transition has been the main political trend under US occupation. It's no secret who is killing the woman of Basra. Shiite political forces empowered by the US invasion have been terrorizing women there since 2003." The US was not unaware of what was going on. June 21, 2006, Eve Ensler and Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) discussed the realities for women in Iraq
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I wanted to read from an explosive U.S. government document about the situation in Iraq that was recently leaked to the Washington Post. It's an internal memo from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad that describes the situation in the Iraqi capital.
This is from a subsection titled, "Women's Rights," and it says, "Two of our three female employees report stepped-up harassment beginning in mid-May. One, a Shia who favors Western clothing was advised by an unknown woman in her Baghdad neighborhood to wear a veil and not to drive her own car. She said some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran, even at its most conservative. Another, a Sunni, said people in her neighborhood are harassing women and telling them to cover up and stop using cell phones. She said the taxi driver who brings her every day to the Green Zone has told her he cannot let her ride unless she wears a head cover. A female in the cultural section" -- this is in the U.S. cultural section -- "is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats.
"The women say they cannot identify the groups pressuring them. The cautions come from other women, sometimes from men who could be Sunni or Shia, but appear conservative. Some ministries, notably the Sadrist-controlled Ministry of Transportation, have been forcing females to wear the hijab at work."
Now, again, that's from an internal memo from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and at the end of the memo, it's the name of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Khalilzad. Your response. You have gone to Afghanistan repeatedly. In fact, we last spoke to you on a mountain in Afghanistan. But can you talk about this?
EVE ENSLER: Well, we have been supporting women -- Yanar Mohammed, we've been supporting, who's running the women's organization in Baghdad. We have been in touch with women now for the last three years, and everything we're hearing about the situation of the women in Baghdad is just -- it is shocking, and it actually really mirrors what happened in Afghanistan. It is the Talibanization of Iraq. And if we look at the fact that sex trafficking has escalated, honor killings have escalated, women's security is abysmal, we are talking about the reversal of women's rights, in terms of Sharia law being reintroduced into the constitution.
What most people forget is the status of women in Iraq during Saddam Hussein was actually far better off than many women throughout the region. It has now been completely undermined. And we have this illusion in this country that we have freed women in Afghanistan and freed women in Iraq. Every report we're getting now from Afghanistan is that the situation is terrible and that warlords are everywhere, and the Taliban is completely present.
The US government was completely aware of what was going on and didn't give a damn. It hopped into bed with thugs because it was thought that thugs (using violence) would bring 'stability' quickly. In March of last year MADRE released a report entitled "Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy: Gender-Based Violence and the US War on Iraq." The report can be read in full in PDF format or, by sections, in HTML. As the first section makes clear, Paul Bremer was more than ready to strip women of their rights and only the protests by Iraqi women to Resolution 137 prevented it. Bremer never gave a damn. Nor did Zalmay Khalilzad whom the report notes, "As in Afghanistan, Khalilzad supported the Islamist factions of the Iraqi constitutional drafting committee. The result was a new constitution that declared Islam to be the official religion of the state and a fundamental source of legislation." The destruction is all there in the report. And the killings took place throughout and continue, see Bay Fang's "The Talibanization of Iraq" (Ms. magazine, spring 2007 issue).
In other Iraq violence, the air war goes on. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) calls it "fast, powerful and loud." Apparently "deadly" wasn't in her thesaurus. Alexandra Zavis and Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) note that the US military "dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs on Arab Jabour, in an area of mostly farmland, the U.S. military said in a statement." Actually, the US military command brags about the 40,000 tons being "dropped within the first ten minutes" of a strike on Arab Jabour today. Repeating, 40,000 pounds in ten minutes on "mostly farmland." CBS and AP explain the 'target' is "what the military called al Qaeda in Iraq safehavens on the southern outskirts of the capital." The campaign targets the Diyala Providence -- an inhabited provence despite the US bombings and despite, as CBS and AP note, Major General Mark P. Hertling's 'judgement' that "[a]ll indications are that the al Qaeda fighters retreated north from Diyala". So who's there? Sylvie Briand (AFP) reports, "Four men are lined up along an earthen wall in a Sunni village north of Baghdad as US soldiers quiz them about Al-Qaeda. 'There is no Al-Qaeda here,' says one suspect. 'But I can give you the names of Shiite militias' in a neighbouring village." He fingers al-Sadr's Mahdi Army as "the problem". Al Jazeera notes Sbdallah el-Jbouri ("local Sunni tribal leader") stating that "many civilians were feared dead and 300 families had fled" while "at least 40 hourse and the main road out of the villege were destroyed. He said that residents told him that people were believed to be trapped under the rubble of the ruined buildings and the injured were unable to reach hospital because of the damage to the road."
IPA quotes IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh explaning, "This underscores how inappropriate traditional military tactics are in what should be a police action, and how an increase in bombing goes against what we are told the 'surge' is supposed to accomplish, namely creating space for political reconciliation."
While the MSM gets giddy over the smell of destruction, one reporter is working in Iraq and guess which outlet?
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing on Sa'doon Street that lured police officers to a second bombing which claimed the lives of 1 police officer and 1 soldier (ten more were wounded) and a Baghdad bombing on Palestine Street claimed 1 life and left four more people wounded.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses were discovered in Baghdad
Turning to US 'political' commentary. The long list of embarrassments just gets longer. Mike observed Robert Scheer's disgrace yesterday. Today Lotta' Links weighs in. Lotta' Links ponders "identity politics" in terms of Hillary Clinton's win -- but he rushes to assure that "identity politics" played no part in Iowa. Isn't it always interesting to hear allegedly left male gas bags tell us that an attack on a man is out of bounds and must be called out; however, calling out an attack on a woman is "identity politics." What they fail to grasp is that they're playing "identity politics." The male is not universal but that's the lie, right? Then and now. Sexism exists and is repeatedly minimized. That's among the many points Gloria Steinem made in "Women Are Never Front-Runners" (New York Times) and obviously it was too much reality for many.
Lotta Links gets off a lot of laughable claims (such as "No generally progressive news website has been stronger than" Lotta Links "in championing the full empowerment of women" -- Ha! They can't even highlight the majority of female newspaper columnists on the left) but this may be the big one: "Women over 40 all have had countless sexist experiences". The pigs & piglets like to admit sexism -- in the past, you understand. 'Before they were adults, some men may have done some really bad things, you understand, but that was then and this is now.' Reality, women under forty can tell you about their experiences with sexism as well. (Not all, some women -- of either age group -- maintain it doesn't exist.) But Lotta Links is a student of today's hula-hoop, like so many other of these men, and remember it's the 'framing' (it took women to call out the nonsense of that hula-hoop -- and men to ignore it). So the 'frame' is, "I'll admit some bad things were done to women -- years ago -- and then I'll explain, 'Hey, Chickie-baby-boom-boom, get over it. That's the past. Get with the program!'"
The program is: "Vote for Bambi." Women, we've been thrown under the bus. It shouldn't shock us. Gays and lesbians were thrown under the bus at the end of October by Bambi. That didn't matter either. The left stayed silent and played dumb. A Democrat held an event in South Carolina -- a Democrat who wants to be president of the United States -- and he put known homophobes (plural) onstage. He did so despite many organizations asking him not to. He did so and he got away with it. Note the silence on the left. That was October and it's still not resulted in angry editorials. Has Matthew Rothschild bothered to sound the alarms? Not only did homophobes take the stage, they expressed their homophobia to those gathered. And Bambi got a pass. Meanwhile, in the real world where facts matter, Peggy Simpson (WMC) points out the obvious, Clinton "won among all Democrats older than 40" -- that's women and men and pay attention for the shocker -- "but, in contrast to Iowa, also won voters aged 25-29. She took the majority of married voters, by 38 to 33, and scored big among single women, who were 22 percent of the overall vote." In other words, she appealed to a wide range of Democratic voters. None of the gas bags want to talk about how Barack Obama can't even fire up the Democratic base, do they?
At Black Agenda Report, real journalists have repeatedly noted bi-racial Barack gears his campaign, his speeches, his whole persona to White voters. As BAR's Glen Ford noted on Democracy Now! yesterday, Bambi's "done that at the expense of black people, by constantly, relentlessly sending out signals to white people that a vote for Barack Obama, an Obama presidency, would signal the beginning of the end of black-specific agitation, that it would take race discourse off of the table." And White media gives Bambi a pass there. So women have already been tossed under the bus by Bambi -- African-American women, lesbians of all races -- and now it's time for him to toss the entire gender. And you know what, beyond the gas bags, Democratic voters really don't like that game. They're insulted by it and that's why Democratic voters have not given Bambi women thus far -- even in laughable Iowa he depended upon 'indpendents.'
But it's women voters who are playing "indentity politics." Only in the minds of so many PIGS could self-respect be seen as "identity politics." But "women voters" gave Hillary New Hampshire (so did a lot of men) and you know how we are, I mean our minds are still reeling from those kind men 'giving' us the vote, right? And there was that gorgeous strappie that we really, really wanted so, in those two minutes of thought that we're capable of, we said, 'Hmm, Hillary! Okay, where do we go to lunch?'
That's really what this nonsense is. It's saying women aren't smart enough to know how to vote. Lotta Link's Pig-In-Chief Mark shows up to tell us how to vote because we need reminders from a man. You know those paper ballots can be heavy and those touch screen's can be confusing, maybe a man can help us with those as well?
Bambi "has no generally relied on identity politics" Piggy Mark says. Of course, not, he's a man and he is 'universal,' right. Pig continues, "he has risen above it" -- must have been that dangling Y chromosome, right? Let's cut through the crap, a woman wins New Hampshire -- apparently fueled by women showing up at the polls, and Piggy Mark oinks, "Let's make our choice on what is best for the nation, not what is best for us personally." Yeah, we gals need the reminder, right? Without a man to try to shame us, we'd just go voting willy-nilly. Good of the nation? Didn't occur to us. We're not all that smart, right?
That's what the lectures and the whines from all these men really says. And it makes clear that our needs -- which our universal needs -- will always be written off as "identity politics." Our experience is the universal. We are in the majority. We are the norm.
Thank goodness Bambi has all of his White Male defenders. Without them, where would he be? People might discuss his homophobia -- HIS homophobia. When he chooses to put homophobes on stage, it is homophobia. It doesn't matter if he says, "Some of my best friends are gays and lesbians," as a politican he put homphobes on stage last October. Or people might notice that Bambi's not 'anti-war.' He's not anti-Iraq War, obviously, but he's not anti-war. Without his groupies, Bambi might actually have to compete for votes -- and that would include competing with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. For the Bambi Groupies, that is very scary and the "and Hillary Clinton" is probably scariest of all for them. Bill Clinton spoke the truth on Bambi and Iraq. Matthew Rothschild was wrong (and has issued no correction, so read Elaine's post on the pathetic nature of independent media since Rothschild's bound and determined to prove her right). Bill Clinton was right.
"But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' "
"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004* and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"
"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.
"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. "
"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004* and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"
"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.
"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. "
"*" It was 2003 when it was first disappeared as Glen Ford pointed out yesterday. There's another narrative out there right now. Lotta Links and others couldn't shut up about the "Big Dog" for years and years. Bill's every word was gold. They rushed to praise him, they rushed to quote him. Now? They ridicule or ignore him. The underlying narrative there is that Hillary is so all-powerful she's controlled his mind. He's no longer speaking for himself -- so he doesn't need to be quoted -- he's being controlled by a woman. If you're missing it, this is the right-wing smear coming from the center-left and the left. Repeating, I don't care who you vote for (or even if you vote -- nor I have endorsed any candidate except Cindy Sheehan for the 8th US Congressional district in California). Unlike like Little Media, I do care about Iraq. And it's neither fair nor honest to apply one standard to one candidate (Hillary) and to apply no standards to Bambi. He's a media-created fantasy and didn't we see how nasty it could get over the last few days as a little sunlight flooded in? If you support the illegal war then applaud Big and Little Media because they have refused to apply standards to Barack Obama (and they don't want to touch on his think-tank -- doing so would underscore that a Bambi president would result in even more wars). But if ending the Iraq War matters to you, the lessons to take away is that there are three Democrats in the race: John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Two of them are not different on Iraq (Clinton and Obama). One makes noises about being different (John Edwards) but isn't running on it and for every brave remark he makes on Iraq, he falls silent for many days. The peace movement isn't the Democratic Party. Nor is the Democratic Party the only game in town for voters. Those planning to vote Democratic currently should be informed of the realities regarding the candidates and Iraq and Little Media hasn't done that. Those looking elsewhere or open to doing so should especially pay attention this Sunday, January 13th, when the Green Party presidential debate in San Francisco (moderated by Cindy Sheehan) is held with Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, Jard Bell and Ralph Nader to participate. The Green Party notes, "The first, and only, live debate between candidates on the Green Party's California ballot for President of the United States - featuring a former Democratic Party member of Congress, consumer protection icon, professor and environmental engineer - is scheduled here January 13, said John Morton of the Green Party Presidential Debate Committee." The debate starts at two p.m., Herbst Theater in the Veterans Memorial Building on 401 Van Ness Avenue.
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)