Saturday, March 01, 2008

Ruth's Report

Ruth (of Ruth's Report): As C.I. noted in Friday's "Iraq snapshot:"

From video to radio. WBAI's pledge drive is ending and Sunday The Nex Hour offers "Post-Warholian radio artists Andrew Andrew host." That's at 11:00 am to noon EST Sunday on NYC airwaves and streaming on WBAI while Monday they offer Cat Radio Cafe from 2:00 to 3:00 pm EST: "Poet Marie Howe reads from her new collection, "The Kingdom of Ordinary Time"; actor/playwright Brian Dykstra on his new one-man show on religion, "The Jesus Factor"; and actor Paul Hecht and musician Lisa Terry on "Parthenia, a Consort of Viols, Presents Hot Off the Press Concert of New Music and Poetry." Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer."

Pacifica's fundraising round is ending and I held off commenting on one of the biggest complaints from members. I will be kind and not name stations or programs but the month of February was their first fundraising drive for the year 2008. The previous Pacifica Radio stations fundraising was in the fall, in October. During the pledge drive they promoted various premiums and you, no doubt, heard many, many times that a premium offered as a gift for your pledge would make a wonderful holiday gift and I do believe most assumed they were referring to December holidays. So why do I have so many e-mails complaining that (a) they never received the premium or (b) they received it this month.

All received the forms they can file with their tax return this month.

One member e-mailed a station to point out that the payment was made in October, that the tax return arrived this month but no pledge gift had been delivered.

I have no idea why there is a slow turn around. I do understand why people who never receive their premiums feel awkward about complaining. They donated for the programming, not the gift. They were looking forward to the gifts but that was not why they donated.

But I do think the Pacifica stations need to get it together regarding the premiums. There is no reason an October pledge, with the money paid or charged in October, results in a late February mail delivery.

When this fundraising cycle began this month, the complaints started coming in as people realized, "I pledged last time, where is the premium?" I was e-mailing to a few members at the start of the month and explaining that I would raise the issue when this month's fundraiser was over so as not to hurt the pledge drive. By the middle of the month, I had created a form reply to this issue because so many e-mails were coming in on this topic.

I think it should be a given that you do not start another fundraising cycle when you have still not sent out your premiums from the last fundraiser. That is very basic. I have volunteered with many charities, the bulk of them medical, and I cannot imagine that, in our planning sessions, the first question would not be, "Did we sent out the calenders?" or whatever we had offered as a gift to those donating. That should be the first and most basic question asked as you move into your next pledge drive.

You should also caution on air staff against telling people, "It will make a great gift for the holidays." A program I greatly enjoy had the staff saying just that in October and, on the plus side, the premiums were sent out. On the minus side, every member who pledged back in October received their gifts in this middle of this month. In this instance, everyone pledged via credit cards a single sum for one of the gifts offered (a disc or a disc and a book) and their cards were charged back in October the day of their pledge. Why does it require four months to send those out?

If Pacifica wants to increase their fundraising power, the first thing to do is to examine the turnaround when someone pledges. Again, people are not pledging for the gifts. But where you might give one amount, a gift justifies pledging higher. That is why the charities I worked with always had gifts. It is a given that a person will justify to themselves pledging a higher amount because it is (a) for a worthy cause and (b) a gift is being offered. Pacifica knows that and it is why they offer premiums for pledges.

A number of members pledging listen via online stream. Of those, many are not in the broadcast area. I eliminated members from outside the United States as I was going through the e-mails on this topic. I am not saying that they do not matter but international mail may create delays. As I went through, however, I saw that the delay was true even if you lived in the city the station you pledged through broadcast from.

This is a serious issue and right now the e-mails were more puzzled than anything else. But if this becomes a pattern, watch for the puzzlement to shift to anger.

Pacifica will have another fundraising shortly. Before they do that, they need to ensure that everyone who has paid their pledge has already received their premium. That is very basic and anyone working on a fund drive for any organization or issue knows that. I will continue to monitor this and probably write about it again when the fall pledge drive rolls around. That will give them at least one more pledge cycle to work out whatever the problems have been. If the problems still exist, I will probably be naming which stations are the worst offenders and which programs are the worst offenders.

One program, in particular, has a huge problem with this and has a huge problem with this for as long as I have been doing these reports. I can go back to 2005 on them and explain how four to five months is a "speedy" turnaround for them. Without naming the program, but most will quickly guess what it is, I will note that it broadcasts on all Pacifica stations. If the issue is not addressed by the fall pledge drive, I will be naming the programs and I will not wait until the pledge drive is over to raise the issue. I will also be comparing the Pacifica turnaround with the NPR turnaround.

I had intended to write about the latest issue of Extra! this report but, when I mentioned that on Thursday, e-mails came in remind me that I had stalled on this issue. My apologies to C.I. because I had claimed that issue of the magazine earlier this month since Pacifica was in fundraising mode which meant there would not be a lot to highlight from the radio. For those who have wondered about the reports and missed it, I have been helping out with the writing at The Third Estate Sunday Review.







at

Other Items

During the 1950s I grew up in a family who rooted for the success of African Americans in their just struggle for civil rights and full legal equality. Then in 1962 it was the terror of my own personal imminent nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis that first sparked my interest in studying international relations and U.S. foreign policy as a young boy of 12: “I can do a better job than this!”
With the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1964 and the military draft staring me right in the face, I undertook a detailed examination of it. Eventually I concluded that unlike World War II when my Father had fought and defeated the Japanese Imperial Army as a young Marine in the Pacific, this new war was illegal, immoral, unethical, and the United States was bound to lose it. America was just picking up where France had left off at Dien Bien Phu . So I resolved to do what little I could to oppose the Vietnam War.
In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson gratuitously invaded the Dominican Republic , which prompted me to commence a detailed examination of U.S. military interventions into Latin America from the Spanish-American War of 1898 up to President Franklin Roosevelt’s so-called “good neighbor” policy. At the end of this study, I concluded that the Vietnam War was not episodic, but rather systemic: Aggression, warfare, bloodshed, and violence were just the way the United States Power Elite had historically conducted their business around the world. Hence, as I saw it as a young man of 17, there would be more Vietnams in the future and perhaps someday I could do something about it as well as about promoting civil rights for African Americans. These twins concerns of my youth would gradually ripen into a career devoted to international law and human rights.
So I commenced my formal study of International Relations with the late, great Hans Morgenthau in the first week of January 1970 as a 19 year old college sophomore at the University of Chicago by taking his basic introductory course on that subject. At the time, Morgenthau was leading the academic forces of opposition to the detested Vietnam War, which is precisely why I chose to study with him. During ten years of higher education at the University of Chicago and Harvard, I refused to study with openly pro-Vietnam-War professors as a matter of principle and also on the quite pragmatic ground that they had nothing to teach me.

That's the opening to international law expert Francis A. Boyle's "Principle Confronting Power:
In Memory of Hans Morgenthau" (Global Research). Boyle is the author of many books and his new one is entitled Protesting Power -- War, Resistance and Law (available in hardcover for $75.00 and in softcover for $24.95).

In the New York Times today, Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributes this:

The top American military commander in Iraq will recommend that President Bush order a brief pause in troop reductions from Iraq this summer, but the White House expects that the withdrawals will resume before Mr. Bush leaves office, a senior administration official said Friday.

It was the topic in hearing after hearing -- House and Senate -- last week. Was there going to be a "pause" and, if so, what did that mean? The fact that Stolberg is now quoting an "unnamed official" makes it feel more like a trial balloon, as though the White House is wondering how much damage it could bring to the GOP candidate in 2008?

Certainly, John McCain is married to the illegal war and the escalation in the popular narrative. A public outcry over a "pause" (one that the article explains -- carefully -- may or may not end before Bully Boy finally leaves the White House) could prevent it from taking place. But there's really not (at present) the groundwork for such outrage. While some notable organizations have continued to keep Iraq front and center the media hasn't. This week, Jeremy Scahill rightly noted that Iraq should be the central issue. He noted that on a program that hasn't made Iraq the central issue since spring 2006. And find the outlet (print) that does? The Nation? We'll get back to that joke in a moment. In the latest issue of The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild shows up with an editor's note to praise Howard Zinn's "Election Madness" and to note that Zinn argues "we should focus most of our energies in organizing mass movements at the grassroots" and not on electoral politics. "This," Rothschild maintains, "has long been the philosophy of The Progressive, and remains so today." Oh really? I must be confused because I thought the current motto was "No round of Bash The Bitch left unplayed." Where is Iraq on the magazine's website? We get Rothschild's non-stop gushing over Obama, his Obama-session non-stop. Even writing of Raph Nader's entry into the presidential race, he has to put it into the Obama equation. It's as though Obama's his boyfriend and he's obsessed with his boyfriend. No matter what the topic is, it's "Obama did the sweetest thing last night . . ." Or, "Did I tell you what Obama said this morning . . ." When they leave the campaign trail, the magazine only embarrasses itself more since they can travel around the world but apparently Iraq fell off the globe. Not an article or column on Iraq in the March issue. Way to "focus".

We'll get to the laughable Nation magazine in a moment. First, IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:

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. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."

The Progressive will not put out another issue before that action takes place and, apparently, it was too much to expect that they could alert readers to an important action. It was more important that they cover sports, that they cover "a progressive state legislator," "Ghandi on the West Bank," Stab stringing words together to say very little (a hallmark of Stab's writing) and oh, so much less.

From Margaret Kimberley's "Progressives Cave to Obama" (Black Agenda Report):

The end of movement politics has infected nearly everyone, like a mysterious illness in a science fiction film. If a movement still existed, MoveOn would not have made an Obama endorsement via popularity contest. They never bothered to make demands of him, to ask questions before giving him their support. Their endorsement is worthless because it gives Obama cover and asks nothing in return.
MoveOn spreads the conventional wisdom that super delegates are more likely to be pro-Clinton and are willing to subvert the popular will on her behalf. They have even circulated a petition to prevent super delegates from choosing the nominee. What MoveOn doesn't say is that both Clinton and Obama have used their political action committees to make contributions to super delegate campaign funds. They also fail to mention that Obama leads in making these contributions.
His PAC has given $698,200 to super delegates. Hillary Clinton has made $205,500 in contributions to super delegate coffers. In other words, Obama is more adept at buying votes than Clinton. "Yes we can" indeed.
MoveOn is not alone. It is incomprehensible that The Nation magazine endorsed Obama after making the following statement. "This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for post-partisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years."
If The Nation has so many qualms about Obama, why endorse him at all? The editors could have simply made a statement of non-support for Obama or Clinton. The sad plight of progressives is all too obvious. "While his rhetoric about ‘unity' can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought." The Nation should explain to readers why Democrats ought to "redefine the center" with independents and Republicans instead of having their own agenda and fighting to make it a reality.
If even The Nation bows down in thrall of the over hyped "center," then all hope for true change is gone. In other words, capitulation is the order of the day, and Obama makes it more palatable than Hillary Clinton does.

Anyone still wonder why the illegal war drags on?

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;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ


















at

US military compound in Iraq has troubles

None of the 26 buildings in the new $740 million U.S. Embassy complex in Baghdad is ready to be occupied. Fire alarms intended to safeguard more than 1,000 U.S. government employees aren't working. Kitchens in some of the buildings are fire hazards.
A senior State Department official in December certified that embassy construction was "substantially complete," but department inspectors found "major deficiencies" at the unoccupied embassy, according to their inspection report, which Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., released Friday.
McClatchy reported earlier this week that the new chief of the State Department's embassy-building arm, Richard Shinnick, has voided the Dec. 16 certification -- made under his predecessor, retired Army Gen. Charles Williams -- that the embassy is nearly ready to be occupied.
In a blistering letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Waxman, who chairs the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, accused the State Department of withholding documents about the troubled project.

The above is from Warren P. Strobel's "At new U.S. Embassy in Iraq, even kitchens are fire hazards" (McClatchy Newspapers). A note on the permalinks to the left. McClatchy News' Iraq section has long been linked. That's their folder containing their reporting and their blogs. The Los Angeles Times has added a blog on Iraq as has the New York Times and both are linked to in the permalinks. Since they are linked to Leila Fadel's Baghdad Observer for McClatchy has its own link as does Inside Iraq which is the blog McClatchy's Iraqi correspondents blog at.

The earlier report Strobel's article refers to his "State Dept. orders another review of troubled Baghdad embassy:"

The State Department's new embassy construction chief has rejected his predecessor's certification that the $740 million new U.S. embassy in Baghdad is "substantially completed" and has instead begun a top-to-bottom review of the troubled project.
The official, Richard Shinnick, said in an interview the State Department hopes that the sprawling embassy complex -- originally scheduled to be completed last September -- will be ready by March 31.
But he said repeatedly that he's not setting a target date because past deadlines have forced a rush to complete the embassy's defective work. "That's not the message I want to send," he said.
The central issue appears to be the firefighting systems.
The embassy will house more than 1,000 U.S. diplomats and military personnel, many of whom live and work at a palace of former president Saddam Hussein that is subject to frequent rocket and mortar attacks -- adding urgency to completing the new complex.

In the Los Angeles Times, Alexandra Zavis and Yesim Comert update on the Turkish invasion of northern Iraq that ended yesterday:

A statement by the Turkish military command said the weeklong operation had achieved its goals by denying militants from the Kurdish Workers Party, or PKK, a permanent and secure base in the mountainous border region from which to launch attacks on Turkish territory."It is out of the question that the terrorist organization is entirely eliminated with one regional operation," the Turkish command said in the statement posted on its website. "However, it has been shown to the organization that the north of Iraq is not a safe place for terrorists."
Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, confirmed the pullout."
As of this morning, 4 a.m., the Turkish troops who entered Kurdish territory have withdrawn and gone back to their side of the border," Zebari told The Times by telephone. "This is good news; we welcome that."
However, PKK spokesman Ahmed Denis disputed that the withdrawal was complete. Though he agreed Turkish troops had left the Zab area, the focus of some of the most intense clashes in recent days, he said some remained in other places.
"Until this moment there are two military units, about 200 Turkish soldiers, which are trapped and in the range of fire of the PKK," Denis said. "Thirteen of them were killed since last night."

The New York Times' Sabrina Tavernise and Richard A. Oppel Jr. contribute:

But a senior American military officer in Iraq said it was "too early to call this a withdrawal," and a representative of the Kurdish fighters in Iraq, Ahmed Denis, said some Turkish troops were still inside Iraq.
Turkish officials said the withdrawal was already under way when Mr. Gates arrived in Turkey on Thursday.
The Turkish military said the operation had dealt a serious blow to the P.K.K.'s network. But because it does not allow reporters to accompany it on operations and because the fighting took place in a remote area, it was impossible to verify the claims of either side.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.









at

Friday, February 29, 2008

Iraq snapshot

Friday, February 29, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, a priest is kidnapped in Mosul, the Turkish invasion of nothern Iraq apparently ends, and more.
 
Starting with war resistance.  Courage to Resist interviews war resister Robin Long who is seeking safe harbor status in Canada.  Long was stationed at Fort Knox and hearing stories from returning service members that didn't have a thing to do with democracy.  "In the army you just want to fit in," Long explained noting how the US military uses collective punishment to discipline their own -- which is to create a shunning among the enlisted.  Those returning from Iraq, "a lot of them were bragging about I guess you could say what was going on there," Long explained, and he was hearing and seeing things that weren't being covered in the media such as pictures of the first kill ("holding a head up" for the photo "and smiling with a peace sign," photos of an Iraqi run over by a jeep, etc.).  After self-checking out of the military, he stayed in a friend's basement for two months and then went to Canada with two friends.  At the border, Long was asked if he was AWOL ("which I found out later that they weren't allowed to do") and replied that he was on leave. About his decision, Long says he has no second thoughts.  If he is deported would he be stopped at the US border and taken to jail?  Long shared that war resister Brad McCall had a friend take his car back to the United States and when the car crossed the border into the US "they were holding him at gun point, the guy that was bringing his car back, thinking that he was the war resister.  So that's a pretty good idea of what's going to happen to me if I try to cross the border.  If I'm deported they're going to be waiting there."
 
War resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey.  Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.  That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored. 
 
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, 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).

 

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. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause.  Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible.  The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies.  It won't be easy but it must be done.  Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
 
 
Iraq Veterans Against the War is calling the gathering "Winter Soldier," after a quote from the U.S. revolutionary Thomas Paine, who wrote in 1776: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
Organisers say video and photographic evidence will also be presented, and the testimony and panels will be broadcast live on Satellite TV and streaming video on ivaw.org.
Winter Soldier is modeled on a similar event held by Vietnam Veterans 37 years ago.
In 1971, over 100 members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with fellow citizens. 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.
"Initially even the My Lai massacre was denied," notes Gerald Nicosia, whose book "Home to War" provides the most exhaustive history of the Vietnam veterans' movement.
"The U.S. military has traditionally denied these accusations based on the fact that 'this is a crazy soldier' or 'this is a malcontent' -- that you can't trust this person. And that is the reason that Vietnam Veterans Against the War did this unified presentation in Detriot in 1971."
"They brought together their bona fides and wore their medals and showed it was more than one or two or three malcontents. It was medal-winning, honored soldiers -- veterans in a group verifying what each other said to try to convince people that these charges cannot be denied. That people are doing these things as a matter of policy."

Early this morning, Gareth Jones and Paul de Bendern (Reuters) were reporting that Turkey's invasion has "wound down" at least in terms of "ground offensive". Tim Butcher (Telegraph of London) states, "Turkey has pulled out of northern Iraq after a week-long offensive against Kurdish rebels.  The Turkish army claimed to have killed 240 Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) members with the loss of 27 of its own troops."  Mark Bentley and Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) note that this was Turkey's "biggest military incursion into the country in 11 years."  Suna Erdem (Times of London) observes, "The announcement came a day after President Bush urged Turkey, its Nato ally, to end the incursion, but the military statement said the start and end dates had been set by general staff without any outside influence."
 
On the Turkish Embassy (in the US) website, bulletin points include, "This operation" -- the invasion of nothern Iraq -- "will be limited in size, scope and duration.  Turkey has been among the staunchest advocates of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and national unity of Iraq.  Turkish civilian and military authorities have been in contact with the relevant Iraqi and US authorities at highest levels prior to the operations."  AFP reports that the Turkish military began returning to Turkey this morning while AGI states, "All the soldiers that had taken part in the attack on the Iraqi part of Kurdistan are back in Turkey."   AFP also notes that the PKK states they killed 100 Turkish soldiers during the invasion, "downed a Turkish attack helicopter" and their death toll was 5.  So was the "limited . . . duration" always supposed to translate as the invasion ending today?  One caught by surprise is the Turkish Daily News which, in a Friday article, notes, "NATO allies Turkey and the United States failed to reach a consensus yesterday over a timetable for the withdrawal of Turkish troops" and quotes Yasar Buyukanit, Turkey's Chief of General Staff General, stating, "Short term is a relative notion.  Sometimes it is a day, sometimes it is a year."  Al Jazeera quotes their corespondent Mike Hanna, "The Turkish military insists that the decision was taken by the military alone but reports we're receiving from across the border in Turkey is that questions are being raised about the Turkish withdrawal coming so soon after what appeared to be mounting US pressure on the troops to pull out" and notes that a PKK spokesperson (Ahmed Davis) confirms that the Turkish military has withdrawn. [Sidebar, Naomi Klein's husband, journalist Avi Lewis, is hosting a weekly program on Al Jazeera entitled Frontline USA.  Click here for a YouTube clip and here for another YouTube clip.] However, Mark Tran (Guardian of London) quotes unnamed US officials in Baghdad who caution that all Turkish troops may not be out of Iraq.  Tran notes US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and others note the comments of the Bully Boy of the United States but is anyone noting yesterday's approximately $6.2 billion four-year loan to Turkey from the World Bank?
 
Azad Aslan writes the Kurdish Globe's editorial which opens with, "Similar to previous incursions, the recent Turkish invasion into south Kurdistan has only one major goal: to diminish and belittle the sovereignty of Kurdistan Region."  Hiba Dawood (whom many know from Free Speech Radio News but Dawood is also a UPI correspondent) notes another editorial from a Kurdish paper (Al Ahali) that was written "by Faisal Abdul Hassan, an Iraqi exile in Morocco, said the Iraqi central government had no efficient response to the assault except sending a 'bashful' demand to the Turkish government to withdraw from Kurdistan."  At the White House today, Gordon Johndroe worded carefully regarding the end of the invasion when he told reporters, "We've seen those reports that are just coming out.  I think there's one thing that remains clear, and that is the United States, Turkey and Iraq all will continue to view the PKK as a terrorist organization that needs to be dealt with.  So we will continue to have cooperation with them on dealing with that organization."  NPR offers an audio report via Ivan Watson on today's Morning Edition.
 
 
Yesterday's snapshot noted Turksih entertainer Bulent Ersoy who spoke out against the invasion and she was then the subject of criticism.  Pelin Turgut (Time magazine) explains, "So pervasive is the nationalist climate that Ersoy has been vilified for declaring -- on a national TV equivalent of American Ido, where she is a judge -- that if she had a son, she would not have sent him to fight this war.  She is now under investigation for being 'anti-military.'  Ersoy is widely popular but the response to her declaration has been bellicose."  Nicholas Birch (The Scotsman) offers the quote and news.  The quote differs from Reuters' version yesterday only slightly, "I am not a mother, nor ever will be, but I would not bury my child for somebody else's war." At which point, Turkey's version of Dennis Miller (Erbu Gundes) exploded, "May God give me a son so that I can send him off to our glorious army" followed by a phrase trotted out for military funerals leading Ersoy to add, "Always the same cliched phrases.  Children go, bitter tears, funerals . . .  And afterwards, these cliched phrases."  Birch reports, "An Istanbul prosecutor promptly opened an investigation into her for alienating the people from military service, a crime punishable by up to three years in jail."  The Turkish Daily News explains the criminal sentence (if found guilty) is two years but it "could be increased by one-third because the crime was committed via public medium."  They also add this to her quote, "These wars are not like ones in the past.  It is all decided by people sitting at tables and deciding that some boys should die.  I am not a mother so I cannot relate to a mother's pain when she hears her son has died.  But I am a human being."  Today's Zaman reports that she has the support of European Parliament member Cem Ozdemir who states, "Bulent Ersoy is voicing the pain felt by mothers, and she is also questioning the ongoing Iraqi occupation. . . .  We hope that a period of suppression is not started in Turkey that will deal a heavy blow to freedom of thought." 
 
Meanwhile, Amit R. Paley and Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) report that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was talking big in Baghdad and they observe: Maliki's confidence seems untethered to political reality. Predicting when his government will fall has become a parlor game in certain circles in Baghdad. And some of his pronouncements -- like one on Thursday that "sectarianism has been eliminated" -- have struck Iraqi and American officials as bordering on the delusional. Sectarian killings are still common and political reconciliation remains elusive, a fact underscored by the veto this week of a law calling for nationwide elections, one of the few major pieces of legislation approved by parliament."  They go on to quote "a senior U.S. official in Baghdad" who states basically, to replace the puppet at this time would mean even more "stagnation."  The puppet as metaphor for the illegal war.
 
Noting al-Maliki's "unity" speech, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes that violence continues in Iraq and that, "One of our Shiite Iraqi staffers asked if Maliki would go to Adil, a restive Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad where Sunni insurgents still operate and Shiites know they are not welcome. Maybe he can check out Hurriyah where Sunni residents have not returned. They were run out of the neighborhood in 2006 and some men were burned alive. Maybe he can ask the more than 88,000 mostly Sunni contractors that work with the U.S. to fight Al Qaida how they feel about the reconciliation effort. Many of them are former insurgents, very few have been absorbed into the government. People complain now that many act as warlords, in each neighborhood the law is in their hands."
 
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that left two people wounded, a Diyala Province home bombing that went off during the midst of an Iraq military raid claiming the life of 1 corpse and a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 2 lives.
 
Shootings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Judge Abid Jassim and attorney Ahmed Al-Luizi were shot dead in Mosul. 
 
Kidnappings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the archbishop of the Cahtholic Church in Mosul was kidnapped and 3 "of his companisons" were killed. The BBC explains, "Archbisop Paulos Faraj Rahho was seized as he left a church in the eastern al-Nour district, it added. . . . Most of Iraq's estimated 700,000 Christians are Chaldeans -- Catholics who are autonomous from Rome but recognise the Pope's authority." Catholic World News states, "Bishop Paulos Faraj Raho was seized by terrorists who attacked his car as he left the Holy Spirit cathedral in Mosul after leading the Stations of the Cross on Friday, February 29.  Three companions who had been in the car with him were killed."   AP reports that Pope Benedict XVI has issued an appeal for "reason and humanity".
 
Corpses?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad, Sameea Sofi's corpse was discovered outside of Kirkuk, General Mudhir Hadi Salih and General Amir Muhammad Al-Jibouri's corpses were discovered in Diyala province (blindfolded, shot to death)  and the corpse of Ahmed Khalaf was discovered in Kirkuk (he was a local council member in Hawija). 
 
Turning to US politics.  "What I learned being in and out as you correctly point out is that there are a lot of people who have a lot of questions about the government and they don't exactly know where to turn to for answers because the corporate media don't tell the people the truth," so explains Cynthia McKinney to Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) in a video produced by Terry Morrone (a typo yesterday, it is "Terry Morrone").  Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party presidential nomination.  In a wide ranging interview, former US Congress women McKinney explains why she became a member of the Green Party:
 
The Democrats are the ones who failed to repeal the Patriot Act, the Democrats are the ones who continue to fund the war.  The Democrats are the ones who say that the Bush tax cuts are alright even though they railed against them when they were in the minority.  Now that they are in the majority and they could do something about it they fail to do it.  And so I decided on my birthday that I would declare my independence from the Democratic Party. And I would declare my independence from any national leadership that was complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and all of the rest of it.  I reject and I'm happy to have joined with other people in the Green Party who reject that as well. 
 
And in terms of rejection, some Greens are less than pleased with Ralph Nader who announced his campaign for president on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday.  The Green Party notes: "Green Party leaders expressed their disappointment in Ralph Nader's decision, announced on Thursday, not to seek the 2008 Green presidential nomination."  They quote the party's co-chair Phil Huckelberry declaring, "A lot of Greens have supported Mr. Nader and wanted him to win the party's nomination.  There has been an active effort by many Green leaders to 'draft' Mr. Nader as a Green candidate, and his success in recent Green primaries demonstrates that he remains a very popular figure within the Green Party.  There is widespread disappointment among Greens that he chose to go a different route."  Here's a tip, one that Jess (rightly) pointed out two Sundays ago -- no party holds primaries with a place-holders.  That is ridiculous.  If you can't declare you are running by a party's primary, you get no votes.  You get no one holding your place.  As Jess noted two Sundays ago, that needs to change immediately so that it never happens again.  There's a chance of a roundtable at Third this Sunday to address this topic. 
 
Ralph Nader's presidential website is up and running (and allowing comments).  Among the topics written of thus far are impeachment and Palestinians.  He has selected a running mate, Matt Gonzalez.  Gonzalez is already doing what vice presidential candidates are supposed to do: hitting hard.  Writing at CounterPunch, he takes on the myth of "anti-war" Barack Obama noting that, "I'm afraid to say I'm not just uninspired: I'm downright fearful.  . . . First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature.  Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.  The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.'  The Tribune went on to say that Obama "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.'  Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region.  But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war?  Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation?  Well, as it turns out, he's done just that."  The myth of "anti-war" Barack Obama was addressed here last night so we'll instead focus on Hillary Clinton.
 
Hillary is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.  The following statement is from Senator Clinton's office, not her campaign:
 
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.
"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.
The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel. It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.
 
As KeShawn pointed out in an e-mail today, Hillary Clinton's endorsements do not get noted on Democracy Now! -- though Goodman can repeat in headlines (two days in a row this week) the same endorsement of Barack -- among her recent endorsers is Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba.  He joins a lengthy list of retired military and defense officials who have endorsed her (active military cannot make endorsements) and you can read about that at her campaign site. Hillary was in Waco, Texas today and among the issues she addressed was reducing the strain on US service members so that they will be deployed for 12 months and not the 15 month tours that have become the norm.  Bully Boy could stop that now.  He could have stopped it before it began.  As noted yesterday, US House Rep Patrick Murphy asked General George Casey if Congress needed to pass legislation to get the tour of duty down to 12 months and keep it there but Casey felt it would 'tie up' the military's hands.  Today in Waco, Hillary pledged that any US service member serving a 12 month tour of overseas "will have at least 12 months at home."  She also addressed the issue of veterans' care and the need for a new GI Bill of Rights.  Meanwhile, her opponet Barack Obama's homophobia is the subject of Susan UnPC's recent post (No Quarter) which notes Bambi's heebie-jeebies when he came to the Bay Area.  Don't worry, Laura Flanders grants him absolution or at least provides silence from her perch as "out lesbian" for Bambi.  Meanwhile Taylor Marsh (TaylorMarsh.com) notes that the Canadian government was warned by Bambi's campaign prior to Tuesday's debate not to pay attention to Bambi's NAFTA remarks, they were just words. She covers it here as well and offers a video.
 
From video to radio.  WBAI's pledge drive is ending and Sunday The Nex Hour offers "Post-Warholian radio artists Andrew Andrew host."  That's at 11:00 am to noon EST Sunday on NYC airwaves and streaming on WBAI while Monday they offer Cat Radio Cafe from 2:00 to 3:00 pm EST: "Poet Marie Howe reads from her new collection, "The Kingdom of Ordinary Time"; actor/playwright Brian Dykstra on his new one-man show on religion, "The Jesus Factor"; and actor Paul Hecht and musician Lisa Terry on "Parthenia, a Consort of Viols, Presents Hot Off the Press Concert of New Music and Poetry." Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer."
 
 

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
at

Other Items

President Bush's leading nemesis in the Middle East, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, begins a two-day state visit to Iraq on Sunday, attempting to highlight Iran's role as the region's major power and upstage Bush and the U.S. military presence.
Unlike Bush, who's traveled to Iraq twice unannounced and on his last visit never left an American base in Anbar province, Ahmadinejad not only announced his trip in advance but also is planning to visit two major Shiite Muslim holy sites, Karbala and Najaf, at the end of a mammoth Shiite pilgrimage that was marred by a suicide bombing.
The out-of-town visits raise security questions in the face of the continuing threat from Sunni Islamist extremists. But the images of Ahmadinejad at sacred sites are certain to impress Iranians, who in two weeks will vote in parliamentary elections at a time when soaring oil prices haven't eased Iran's economic troubles.


The above is from Leila Fadel's "Iranian Pres. Ahmedinejad's visit to Iraq may upstage U.S." (McClatchy Newspapers). While Iran's elected leader prepares to visit Iraq, no front runner from the Democratic or Republican party running for president in the US intends to end the illegal war. From Yochi J. Dreazen's "Many Troops Would Stay In Iraq if a Democrat Wins" (Wall St. Journal):


Despite the rhetoric of the Democratic presidential candidates, significant numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq regardless who wins in November.
In their final push to win the nomination, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York are repeating their vow to start withdrawing U.S. forces shortly after taking office. But both candidates draw a distinction between "combat" troops, whom they want to withdraw, and "noncombat" troops, who will stay to battle terrorists, protect the U.S. civilian presence and possibly train and mentor Iraqi security forces.
Conducting such missions would likely require the sustained deployment of tens of thousands of American military personnel, foreign-policy advisers from both campaigns acknowledge.
"No one is talking about getting to zero," said a foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Obama.



Meanwhile Fellicia Smith's "Woman bails out on Army, lands in jail" (Repository)reported earlier this month on Michelle Harrold who signed up with the army and then realized she'd made a mistake before starting boot camp. She self-checked out and "was arrested at her parents' home on a warrant for military desertion" -- but remember the US military does not pursue people who go AWOL -- that's the lie anyway. From the article:

"There is virtually no way to get out if you find out you don't want to do it," Harrold said. She was deployed to Fort Jackson, S.C., in August.
I WANT OUT
Upon her arrival at Fort Jackson, Harrold told superiors she had made a mistake and wanted out.
"I guess I couldn't handle it," Harrold said. "It's not an easy process to go through, missing your family. People are really mean to you in the military. I got beat up twice."
Douglas Smith, a spokesperson for the Army's recruiting command at Fort Knox, said if someone truly wants out of their commitment, it's possible before or after leaving for boot camp.
"We're an all-volunteer force, but we don't go out of our way to talk about this," Smith said. "Our expectation is that they're going to honor their side of the contract, and were going to honor ours.
"Going AWOL (absent without official leave) is not the way to handle it. Until the person ships off to basic training, they can ask to be signed off."
No one listened to her desire to leave the military, Harrold said.


KeShawn asks that we highlight "Hillary Clinton to be Joined by Senior Retired Military and Defense Officials at Today’s Foreign Policy Speech: Clinton Unveils List of Flag Officers Endorsing Her for President:"

Hillary Clinton will set out her approach to American foreign policy in the 21st Century in a speech at George Washington University today. Joining her will be a group of senior retired military and defense officials who have endorsed her to be this nation's next Commander-in-Chief. They are: General Wesley Clark, Lt. General Joe Ballard, Major General Antonio M. Taguba, Rear Admiral David Stone, Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. and former Secretary of the Army Togo West. Generals Taguba and Watkins will formally announce their endorsement of Senator Clinton today.
Many of our nation’s most distinguished military officers stand proudly with Hillary Clinton because they believe that she has the strength, experience and leadership necessary to be President and Commander-in-Chief. They include three four-star generals, a former chairman and vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other Americans who have served their country with honor and distinction.
In addition to the endorsements of Generals Taguba and Watkins, Senator Clinton is proud to announce the endorsement today of Admiral William Owens (Ret.).
Admiral Owens served with distinction for more than 30 years in the Navy, rising to become Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s second highest ranking military officer.
Major General Taguba served his country with distinction for 34 years, retiring from the Army in 2007. The son of a Filipino-American who survived the 1942 Bataan Death March, General Taguba led the Army’s investigation into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in 2004.
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. served nearly 30 years in the Army and completed his military career as the Chief Operations Officer/Deputy Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency.
Admiral Owens, General Taguba, and General Watkins are among 27 flag-rank military officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation’s next Commander-in-Chief. They join more than 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans’ steering committees.
Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief

1. General Wesley Clark
2. General John M. Shalikashvili
3. General Johnnie E. Wilson
4. Admiral William Owens
5. Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
6. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
7. Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
8. Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
9. Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
10. Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
11. Major General Roger R. Blunt
12. Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
13. Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
14. Major General Paul D. Eaton
15. Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
16. Major General Antonio M. Taguba
17. Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
18. Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
19. Rear Admiral David Stone
20. Brigadier General Michael Dunn
21. Brigadier General Belisario Flores
22. Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
23. Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
24. Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
25. Brigadier General Preston Taylor
26. Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
27. Brigadier General Jack Yeager

That should have gone in a snapshot already this week in some form but if KeShawn hadn't e-mailed this morning, I probably would have forgotten. There's a hearing (Senate) that took place yesterday that hopefully will make it into the snapshot in at least limited form today. A few visitors have e-mailed asking why we didn't note Russ Feingold and the Senate on Iraq this week? No members asked. We're not interested in for show actions. Feingold is a grown up. If he wants to end the illegal war, he knows how to do it. We had real things to note because they mattered, things to note because they wouldn't get attention (and the hearings we've noted this week received no attention unless they were reduced to a single-sentence talking point), we haven't had time for a number of things. But we have focused on matters. Story of the week should have been Senator Jim Webb's exchange with General George Casey. We managed to include that and it was far more important than the for-show performance in the Senate.

In other Iraq news, Senator Hillary Clinton's office released the following yesterday:

Senator Clinton Cosponsors Legislation to Ban Use of Private Security Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan
Washington, DC -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.
"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.
The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel. It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
-------------
Adding to C.I.'s entry, Jim here, this came into the public account:


In celebration of Women's History Month, Women's Voices. Women Vote is honoring women in the blogosphere, through our Women's Voices Making History contest.
We're inviting people to nominate their favorite female bloggers through March 21. After the nominating period, we will list the top 10 female bloggers at www.wvwv.org and ask you to vote for your favorite.
Check out the form and vote for your favorite blogger today, and encourage your readers to do the same. We've created a button for your site that will take your readers directly to the voting form.
Click here to nominate your favorite female blogger today!
Thank you-
Sarah Johnson
Communications Director
Women's Voices. Women Vote

C.I. will note this tomorrow as well and we'll note it at Third this weekend. Think of a blogger to nominate (C.I. will tell you The Common Ills is not a blog, NOT, so think someone else) and consider participating.



at

al-Maliki sees 'success' in his rule

Civilian and military leaders here assured U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Thursday that Turkey's incursion into northern Iraq would be limited to redoubts occupied by Kurdish separatists but offered no guarantees on how soon their troops would withdraw.
In meetings with the Turkish officials, Gates pushed, he said, for the operation to be wrapped up as quickly as possible and for the Turks to more clearly explain to the Iraqi government the size and scope of the offensive.
The Turkish military, which has long battled Kurdish separatists who strike at Turkey from bases in the mountains of northern Iraq, launched the large-scale ground operation last week backed by artillery and warplanes. The fighting has angered Washington's Iraqi allies and raised concern that the conflict could spread in a relatively stable area of Iraq.
Gates previously had urged that the operation end after a week or two. But he told reporters traveling with him back to Washington that the Turks had given no timetable for their withdrawal.

The above is from Peter Spiegel's "Gates and Turks discuss Iraq incursion" (Los Angeles Times) and this morning Gareth Jones and Paul de Bendern (Reuters) are reporting that Turkey's invasion has "wound down" at least in terms of "ground offensive". Whether it has or not will emerge later in the day. What is known is that Nouri al-Maliki is a puppet of the occupation. Lloyd notes Amit R. Paley and Joshua Partlow's "Despite Problems, Iraqi Leader Boasts of Success: Rivals See Maliki's Confidence as Rash, but Publicly Deny a Move to Topple Him" (Washington Post):

"We promised we would bring national reconciliation to the sons of Iraq, and we have succeeded!" Maliki thundered to hundreds of thousands of Shiites gathered at the golden-domed Imam Hussein Shrine in Karbala. "Iraqis are once again loving brothers!"
Maliki is facing a drumbeat of criticism that his government has achieved little progress as well as constant calls for his ouster, but these days he hardly sounds like a man fighting for his political survival. He acts as if he has the upper hand over his political rivals, brusquely rejecting demands from key allies and making a bold grab for greater control of the federal bureaucracy.
[. . .]
Maliki's confidence seems untethered to political reality. Predicting when his government will fall has become a parlor game in certain circles in Baghdad. And some of his pronouncements -- like one on Thursday that "sectarianism has been eliminated" -- have struck Iraqi and American officials as bordering on the delusional. Sectarian killings are still common and political reconciliation remains elusive, a fact underscored by the veto this week of a law calling for nationwide elections, one of the few major pieces of legislation approved by parliament.
"He's failed at governing," acknowledged a senior U.S. official in Baghdad, who was granted anonymity so he could speak candidly, but the official said there was no better option. "If Maliki were to be removed by a vote of no confidence, we'd go into an extended period of stagnation."

It sounds a lot like the nonsense that was offered to the House Armed Service Committee on the "training" of Iraqi forces yesterday. As soon as they're up and running and can do the job, Gen. George Casey swears, US forces can come home. But as the committee's chair, Ike Skelton, pointed out, training started in 2004, continued in 2005, in 2006, in 2007 and now into 2008.
How long will the puppet from spring 2006 be propped up?

And of course, his concerns with the "sons" and "brothers" of Iraq only reflect the attacks on women in Iraq that thugs like him have led. Commenting on his "unity" speech, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes:

When he said it, our Iraqi staff chuckled. Yes the unidentified bodies in Baghdad have dropped, but violence has crept back up slightly, this month and the last, in the capital. The first day of February at least 99 people died in coordinated bombings here and when Shiites walked to Karbala, at least 40 died in a bombing at a roadside tent that offered refreshments to the pious walking to Karbala.
One of our Shiite Iraqi staffers asked if Maliki would go to Adil, a restive Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad where Sunni insurgents still operate and Shiites know they are not welcome. Maybe he can check out Hurriyah where Sunni residents have not returned. They were run out of the neighborhood in 2006 and some men were burned alive.
Maybe he can ask the more than 88,000 mostly Sunni contractors that work with the U.S. to fight Al Qaida how they feel about the reconciliation effort. Many of them are former insurgents, very few have been absorbed into the government. People complain now that many act as warlords, in each neighborhood the law is in their hands.
He may want to see what's happening in Basra where Shiite groups battle for power with bullets or ask the tribal sheikhs who are being targeted for turning on Al Qaida.

This morning's second entry is started but the rest will have to be dicated so it will go up shortly.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.





at

Thursday, February 28, 2008

I Hate The War

The illegal war will not end with lies. It will not end because the bulk of Panhandle Media drops all standards and pushes the lie that Barack Obama is "anti-war." He is not.

When he was running for the US Senate (which was not in 2002), Elaine and I went to one of his fundraisers. He made a pretty, little speech and then began to mingle. We asked him about Iraq. He was, after all, the "anti-war" candidate, right? He was opposed to the illegal war before it began, after all.

As Elaine and I have both noted (before he ever declared his intent to run for president) he wasn't for withdrawing troops. His attitude was that "we" were in Iraq now and "we" would have to say. Elaine and I immediately left (and, no, we didn't contribute a dime).

Somehow he's continued to be perceived as "anti-war." He's offered nonstop nonsense on Iraq and it doesn't hold up and it doesn't call for an end to the war. But he has enablers like Amy Goodman (who stays silent) and Tom Hayden (who feels the need to write "What Barack really meant was . . ." column) and Laura Flanders (who can't stop lying long enough to call him out for using homphobia as a campaign strategy in South Caroline) and . . . Go down the list, it is a very long, long list.

Since he declared his run for the Democratic nomination, all sorts of idiots and buffoons have e-mailed both Elaine and I suggesting we must have misheard. Many go on to practice the Tom Hayden strategy of saying, "Well what he really must have meant . . ."

What does the following mean?

The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because Afghanistan in fact was not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I'm not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we're going to be able to pull down troops.

That's Barack Obama in his 2004 Senate run, October, 2004. This is Mr. Bravery in a public debate with non-threat Alan Keyes.

Bambi didn't get into the Senate and suddenly back off ending the illegal war. Bambi's never called for ending the war. He didn't think it was a good idea. He thinks the Afghanistan War was 'worthy' (something Laura Flanders disagrees with but you'll notice she's never called him out on that -- Bill O'Lielly on Fox "News" she can stand up, but with Bambi she falls silent). He lied Tuesday night in the debate, falsely claiming it was hard for him to take a stand in the midst of a 'high-stakes' run for the US Senate.

He is not the anti-war senator. He gave a speech in 2002 before the illegal war started. While running for US Senator, he disappeared his speech. He wasn't in the Senate in 2002 and he's stated publicy and repeatedly that he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate at the time. But these days he likes to pretend those statements were never made. From the January 9th "Iraq snapshot:"

The New York Times? I believe we last noted Bambi telling them he didn't know how he would have voted in the January 4th snapshot: " Obama tells Monica Davey (New York Times, July 26, 2004) he doesn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate. Two years later, he's telling David Remnick (The New Yorker) he doesn't know how he would have voted." Bill Clinton noting the disappearence of the speech Obama is now so proud of? Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon (then at The Black Commentator) pointed that out before Bambi made it to the Senate (the date of that is addressed later in the snapshot). Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) reminded people of that again on December 12th of last year.

Get it? Mr. "Judgement Matters" didn't know how he'd vote, if he had been in the Senate in 2002, until 2007 when he wanted to run for president.

You don't hear that reality. You hear a lot of lies. November 2nd, the New York Times felt the need to allow two reporters to lie in an article on Bambi. From the November 2nd "Iraq snapshot:"

On the subject of Iran, Barack Obama appears on the front page of this morning's New York Times. War pornographer Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny who lied in print (click here, here and here -- the paper finally retracted Zeleny's falsehood that should have never appeared) present a view of Barack Obama that's hardly pleasing. Among the many problems with the article is Obama as portrayed in the article -- and his campaign has issued no statement clarifying. The Times has the transcript online and from it, Barack Obama does mildly push the unproven claim
that the Iranian government is supporting resistance in Iraq. Gordo's pushed that unproven claim repeatedly for over a year now. But Obama's remarks appear more of a reply and partial points in lengthy sentences -- not the sort of thing a functioning hard news reporter would lead with in an opening paragraph, touch on again in the third paragraph, in the fourth paragraph, in . . . But though this isn't the main emphasis of Obama's statements (at any time -- to be clear, when it pops up, it is a fleeting statement in an overly long, multi-sentenced paragraphs), it does go to the fact that Obama is once again reinforcing unproven claims of the right wing. In the transcript, he comes off as obsessed with Hillary Clinton. After her, he attempts to get a few jabs in at John Edwards and one in at Bill Richardson. Here is what real reporters should have made the lede of the front page: "Presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama who is perceived as an 'anti-war' candidate by some announced that he would not commit to a withdrawal, declared that he was comfortable sending US troops back into Iraq after a withdrawal started and lacked clarity on exactly what a withdrawal under a President Obama would mean." That is what the transcript reveals. Gordo really needs to let go of his blood lust for war with Iran.
Writing up a report, Gordo and Zeleny are useless but, surprisingly, they do a strong job with some of their questions. The paper should have printed up the transcript. If they had, people might be wondering about the 'anti-war' candidate. He maintains Bill Richardson is incorrect on how quickly US troops could be withdrawan from Iraq. Obama states that it would take at least 16 months which makes one wonder how long, if elected, it would take him to move into the White House? If you can grab a strainer or wade through Obama's Chicken Sop For The Soul, you grasp quickly why he refused to pledge (in September's MSNBC 'debate') that, if elected president, he would have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013: He's not talking all troops home. He tries to fudge it, he tries to hide it but it's there in the transcript. He doesn't want permanent military bases in Iraq -- he appears to want them outside of Iraq -- such as Kuwait. But he doesn't see the US embassy in Iraq -- the largest US embassy in the world as a base. However, he does feel that even after the illegal war was ended, US troops would need to remain behind in order guard the embassy and the staff. In addition, it becomes clear that he will keep US troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi police. Because?
The reporters don't think to ask. Here's a slice of reality, the US military is not trained to train police officers. Here's another to drop on the plate, Jordan was training them. Jordan got pushed aside around the half-way mark of 2006. If Obama wanted to pull US troops out of Iraq, the most obvious solution is to turn over the duty of training police officers to a non-military force. Along with needing those for trainers, he needs some to protect the trainers. Gordo gets to the point asking, "So how will you protect the trainers without forces in Iraq?" His answer is an embarrassment, he could keep the trainers out of potentially difficult situations. And in Iraq, that would be where? In addition, he would keep troops in Iraq for counter-terrorism (but not, he insists, counter-insurgency). If this doesn't all sound familiar, you slept through this spring and summer when Congressional Dems tried repeatedly to convince the American people that "all troops out of Iraq" could also mean that US troops stay to train, as military police, to fight terrorism, etc. While he's off talking al Qaeda in Iraq (a small number and one most observers state will be forced out by Iraqis when US troops leave) and working in more attacks on Senator Clinton, it's noted that he has "a more expansive approach to Iraq than she does in that you identify in your plan the possiblity of going back into Iraq to protect the populartion if there's an all-out civil war. . . . And providing monitors to help the population relocate and go after war criminals. Those are three elements -- those are new missions for Americans after Iraq that she doesn't postulate." What follows is a comical exchange:

Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions.

NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces?

Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that.

NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?

Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over.
So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train (the police0 and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.

You've got the links, use them. As noted in the November 6th snapshot, days later Tom Hayden was there to pimp for Bambi. He went by the front page article and not the interview transcript offered online. He would later do another column noting the transcript but still pimping Bambi.

Barack Obama is not going to end the illegal war. Tom Hayden went ga-ga last week over two lines in a Houston, Texas speech: "I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009!" [We addressed it here last week and Ava and I note it here.] Now that's sop tossed out to the masses. Bambi's always defined the "dumb" war ending with the removal of "combat" troops. As outlined above, he would leave in many other groupings (and is okay with permanent bases in Kuwait). But let's stop a moment and pretend that Saint Bambi is the saint so many liars and fools are making him out to be. If he meant what he said -- and even allowing that he's just talking about "combat" troops -- doesn't he owe Bill Richardson an apology? When Richardson stated troops could be home within a year, Obama said (repeatedly) that Richardson was wrong. He repeatedly insisted it would take 16 months -- and he was just referring to "combat" troops.

I realize a lot of liars and fools ditched common sense because it interfered with wet-dreaming over Bambi, but the public record is the public record. If "combat" troops can be removed in 12 months (they actually can, but he said they couldn't), he owes Bill Richardson an immediate public apology.

But he doesn't believe that they can come out and that was an off the cuff lie he tossed out in Houston and it hasn't been examined. Tom Hayden rejoicing (over two lines) isn't "examination." Barack's never examined.

As noted in today's snapshot, Bambi advisor (and key planner and contributor to the slaughter in East Timor) Dennis Ross weighed in: "In terms of Iraq, Dennis Ross argues in The New Republic that it's time for Hillary and Barack 'to compromise on withdrawal from Iraq.' He wants to argue (wrongly) that the escalation has worked (at least somewhat -- it's not worked at all). Ross futher wants to maintain that 'if withdrawal is truly to be used as a lever to help broker such understandings" political understandings, "the approach to withdrawal needs to be more flexible and not driven by a rigid timetable.' Yes, we've heard that 'logic' every year of the illegal war (we've even heard it from Bambi himself)." Dennis Ross' column may shock some but Bambi's advisor is not saying anything Bambi hasn't repeatedly said himself (including in the public debate with Alan Keyes in October 2004).

Now Hillary Clinton's judged by her advisors. That's not the case for Bambi. One of his advisors is Zbigniew Brezezinski. ZB's claim to fame is turning Afghanistan into a slaughter field (to draw the USSR in!) and creating the climate for the current Afghanistan War all before 1981. Somehow, that's not a major concern. And though Bambi's been a Senate schill and lackey for the nuclear industry, we're told by liars like Sammy Power that Bambi's a no-nuker. Does a no-nuker have Brezezinski as an advisor?

Am I the only one who ever visited the Carter White House? I remember it very clearly, the little "toys" (replicas) of nuclear weapons decorating Brezezinski's office. Has he ever publicly rejected those "toys" he took so much pride in, the ones he maintained were the only things keeping the United States "free"? No, he never has. And that's still his attitude but for some strange reason, Bambi's advisors don't lead to probing of Bambi.

Take Sammy Power, A Problem From Hell herself. She goes on Democracy Now! to proclaim (aired this week, on Monday) that the US military needs to go into Sudan. Our Modern Day Carrie Nations has been pushing that for years now. She is a War Hawk (though the lie is that she was against the Iraq War -- she must have been against it very quietly). As we noted in Monday's snapshot, Julie Hollar explains exactly what's wrong with that crap. The article, "The Humanitarian Tempatation" (Extra!) is available online. I will try to include a link to it in the snapshot tomorrow. It's an important article and one that refutes the "humanitarian" interventionists like Sammy Power.

On Monday's Democracy Now!, Juan Gonzalez raised serious questions from Bambi's advisor (whom Amy Goodman gushes might be the Secretary of State in a Bambi White House):

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, I have one last question, having watched many of these debates, as, on one hand, he argues that the arrogance of old of the United States around the world needs to change; on the other hand, he has argued to sharply increase the size of the US military, I think, by 90,000 troops, when this country already has a military budget that is equal to the rest of the world combined. Why does the United States need more military troops?
SAMANTHA POWER: I think because, much more than I, anyway, he has spent the better part of the last decade spending time with military families and has some sense of just how broken the military is right now, at its bending or its breaking point, from the standpoint of overstretch, from the--and this, I'm talking really specifically about soldiers [. . .]

More military troops are needed. Why? Sammy Power needs the military to fight the wars that will never satisfy her blood lust but she hopes, how she hopes. Sarah Sewer (aka Sarah Sewall) is another Bambi advisor. Sewer can be considered the "Mother" of the new counter-insurgency manual. (New? It's highly plagiarized -- the Bambi connection!) Apparently her appearence on PBS (Charlie Rose) at the end of December wasn't seen by many. From Ava and my "TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad:"

For those not in the know about Sewer, when not appearing on TV to look like an unwashed freak who just pulled her hair to one side, is a Bloody War Hawk. Some call her a War Whore, but we try to avoid that term and just call her a War Hawk with an "ugly" sometimes tossed in. As a War Hawk she operates out of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy which is really just a fancy way of saying she's a Destruction Pusher. There's no place on the globe that she doesn't feel her big nose can be stuck in and should be stuck in. Granted, it is a large beak, a ski run -- if you will, and it probably is difficult for her to contain it in her so-so dwellings, but not only does no one need to see it, no one wants to.

Charlie Rose and Sarah Sewer decided to have a private conversation on public television. If you missed it, Charlie Rose whimpered that it was too bad that you didn't hear candidates plugging the counter-insurgency work of Sewer and Monty McFate. "You don't hear candidates talk about this," whined Chuckie. Sewer corrected him, "We do actually." She was referring to Bambi who she pointed out "gave a speech" that was all about Sewer's desire for Eternal War but the press focused on other things. Charlie felt the need to purse his lips in self-satisfaction and say of that speech, "I'm familiar with some of the people behind the scenes that you know." He means Sammy Power -- who advised Bambi once he was in the Senate.

Yes, we are back to A Problem From Hell herself. As Ava and I noted:

Monty and Sewer worked on a little thing called the US Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual. You may have seen that piece of War Porn advertised. Ourselves, we remember the third of the page advertisement that ran in the October 2007 issue of The Progressive (page 28) which included a blurb from The Problem From Hell Sammy Power. When Our Modern Day Carrie Nations is blurbing you, you know you're on the path, if not the eve, of destruction.

That is correct, Sammy Power is a chief advisor to Bambi. Has been for years now. And Sammy Power lovers her some counterinsurgency. Somehow Tom Hayden -- allegedly opposed to counter-insurgency -- avoids that issue. (He called Sewer out once.)

We're not even up to Jeremy Scahill's report. Scahill spoke with an unnamed advisor to Bambi (everyone assumes it's Sammy Power):

A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama’s campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors.

Mercenaries are a-okay with Bambi. The advisor makes statements (sounding just like Power -- she always tries to sound 'reasoned' and sad-of-heart when promoting her wars) that Bambi will be inhereting the war and blah, blah, blah, so much can only be done, blah, blah, blah. Power (or whomever) appears to be channeling Henry Kissinger who made those exact same excuses for Tricky Dick.

This is not an anti-war candidate and people need to stop kidding. Panhandle Media needs to stop pimping. Despite some hedging, Jeremy Scahill told the truth on Democracy Now! today:
"I think the reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are actually going to be in the business of permanently ending the US occupation of Iraq." Hedging? Scahill asserts ("I think") that Bambi's moving to the right because he's anticipating running against McCain. No, he's not moving to the right for that reason. He is to the right. And Panhandle Media better get serious real damn quick because people aren't going to forgive them. They've already schilled non-stop for a War Hawk they've promoted as "anti-war." They've embarrassed themselves (I'm not referring to Scahill and I'm certainly not referring to Juan Gonzalez) and people will not forget this. They will not forget that they were lied into supporting a candidate because Panhandle Media stacked the deck repeatedly and flat-out lied.

That's not only dishonest, that's not helping to end the illegal war.

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 3969. Tonight? 3973. 27 away from the 4,000 mark. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,173,743 as the number of Iraqi deaths since the start of the illegal war.

We're still on what prolongs the illegal war. Just Foreign Policy wants to raise awareness of the death toll? Well how do they intend to do that? Supposedly by tracking deaths.

However . . . Today is February 28, 2008 and their number is 1,173,743. The problem? That was their number on February 10th as well. They haven't updated their counter in weeks. It has been at least 18 days. Wow, someone tell Dana Perino so she can mention it in a press briefing, "No Iraqi deaths in 18 days!"

Now no one's going to take them seriously when they can't bother to update their damn counter. They're new. They're not established. They aren't ICCC. They have no history online and now reporters have no reason to mention them. Mention them? Two dailys were toying with mentioning their counter in an end of February piece. Offering it as a "high" count. But that's not happening now (and probably never) because they refused to update their counter. Supposedly that counter was started to raise awareness of Iraqi deaths and to provide some numbers we could all use to grasp how many were dying. But they don't have time to update the total.

One of them has time to again slam Hillary Clinton. Are they trying to end the illegal war or are they trying to get Barack Obama into office? The two goals are not the same. They can lie, they can delude, but the goals are not the same. They've made their name "crap" to Real Media which, if only one of the two dailys had included them for the month of February, would have included them in future months. They can forget it now. No one cares. No one sees them as serious (in the big press) because if they were serious, they'd be updating their damn counter.

They made time to slam Hillary. And, in their awful post, someone showed up to slam Hillary as well. She couldn't call out Barack Obama. As Rebecca notes, she and I are no longer endorsing Cindy Sheehan. If she's serious about ending the illegal war (let alone about having left the Democratic Party and having realized how she was used), she would be calling out both Hillary and Barack. Instead, she just calls out Barack.

Sorry to Cindy Sheehan but I can't endorse that. I'm not saying "Don't vote for her!" if you're in the eighth district (in California) and I'm not saying, "Don't donate to her!" if you're anywhere in the country. But I am saying I can't endorse her. That was the only endorsement I had made. I made it because of what she had done and because, by her writing, she had grasped how she was used to prolong the illegal war and elect Democrats who would pretend to want to end the illegal war. Barack Obama is not planning to end the illegal war. Cindy has repeatedly (and recently) written columns calling out Hillary. She won't write a word about Barack. Today, she's just leaving snide comments on a thread that's bash Hillary and praise Bambi.

That's dishonest. When people are saying "F--- Hillary" and other trash and praising Bambi, if Cindy's about calling War Hawks out, it's incumbent upon her to note the reality of Bambi. She didn't. She commented multiple times. She had ha-has about Hillary.

I'm not interested in it. I have no endorsement for any election now. Due to her work to end the illegal war, I was happy to make her the only endorsement I would publicly offer. That's gone. I'm not interested in liars or fools and Bambi is not about ending the illegal war so refusing to call him out makes you one or the other. It doesn't make you a candidate worth endorsing. Either you lack bravery or you refuse to see reality. Neither ends the illegal war.

Rebecca (on the phone) pointed out that it's not just Hillary, it's also Nancy. Where's Cindy Sheehan calling out Harry Reid? Where is she calling out any man? To be clear, if she called out Hillary and Barack, no problem. But she's not doing that. She's got a standard for Hillary and denial for Bambi. The reality she should have grasped when she realized she was being used was that she was steered to Hillary. After which, she called her out. But why didn't Peace Mom get paired with "Anti-War" Senator? We've got a lot of liars in the peace movement and they orchestarted a lot that's only now evident. They orchestarted Cindy into meeting with Hillary. They're the same ones who protest Nancy Pelosi but don't protest anyone else. It seems less about ending the illegal war and more about settling some scores.

There's no problem with having a standard where you call out War Hawks? But applying that standard sometimes and other times not isn't about ending the illegal war. It's about prolonging it and we won't be a party to that, I won't be a party to that. Much happiness to her, but if she's not able to call out the War Hawk Bambi, she's not someone I can endorse. So the endorsement is withdrawn.

If you don't see the problem, read Margaret Kimberley's latest at Black Agenda Report on how it wasn't necessary for The Nation to endorse Bambi.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.










at