Saturday, May 31, 2008

Other Items

The Liberals' Bob Rae recently joined the NDP's Olivia Chow and others in urging Parliament to pass a motion allowing American Iraq war resisters, such as Corey Glass, to stay in Canada. Last week, Mr. Glass was refused refugee status and became the first Iraq war resister to be scheduled for deportation.
Mr. Rae and Ms. Chow's plea for action recalled Pierre Trudeau and David Lewis's leadership at crucial moments of the Vietnam War. Then, as now, it took several years to build support and acceptance for American military deserters, as well as draft resisters. Beginning in the mid-1960s, war resisters who came to Canada before being drafted ("dodgers") readily received landed immigrant status. But until 1969, military resisters ("deserters") were treated differently -- because they left the armed forces and faced charges of desertion.
Allan MacEachen, as minister of immigration, initially directed immigration officers to refuse U.S. military resisters entry as landed immigrants. He reasoned that when such resisters left their units, they broke moral and legal contractual obligations to serve in their nation's armed forces.
Political and religious leaders ultimately persuaded Mr. MacEachen that distinctions between military and draft resisters were irrelevant for Canadian purposes. References to "dodgers" and "deserters" had no legal meaning in Canada. The Immigration Act made no reference of any kind to military service as grounds for prohibiting entry to Canada.
Canadians at the time questioned the Vietnam War, and Mr. Glass echoed those sentiments when he said last week "what I saw in Iraq convinced me that the war is illegal and immoral. I could not in good conscience continue to take part in it."

The above is from John Hagan's "Let's provide a haven for those who chose not to fight in Iraq" (Globe & Mail) and Vic noted it. Vic: "All the damange done by Tom Hayden, Amy Goodman and all the rest of the know nothing American 'leaders' may finally be coming to a close! For two years now, TCI has been the lone voice taking on Hayden, et al.'s half-baked nonsense of how Canada only took in war resisters who resisted the draft. Hagan's article is a sure sign that it's changed. The lies these American 'leaders' have repeated constantly HAVE been hurting today's war resisters and I think the government ordering Corey Glass deported if he does not leave [Canada] by June 12th was the wake up call because I hear people on the radio bringing up the same points now about how we [Canada] took in those refusing to be drafted and those refusing to continue serving. To play you for a moment, 'Canada granting war resisters asylum during Vietnam was NEVER about the draft!' :D"

The nonsesne that has been repeated over and over that Canada only welcomed "draft dodgers" is hurting today's US war resisters and that nonsense has largely come from the pot-soaked minds of middle-aged men who didn't do a damn thing to help war resisters during Vietnam (wouldn't garner enough press write ups!). They've installed themselves as 'leaders' of the 'peace' movement and have hurt every US war resister in Canada attempting to seek safe harbor. You know the 'peace' movement, don't you? Their slogan is "Vote Democratic And The War Ends!" That was their slogan in 2004 and 2006 as well as today. They are not part of a peace movement, they're part of the Get Out The Vote 'movement.' And at some point, the repulsion over these liars is going to reach huge levels (it's already reaching that on campuses) and they're going to have to 'restyle' themselves as most did post-Vietnam. (Back then, they were called "sell outs.")

For the third day in a row, we'll note Canada's Liberal Party issue "Liberals Call on Government to Show Compassion for War Resisters."

The Liberal Opposition is calling on the Conservative government to support a motion that would allow conscientious objectors to apply for permanent resident status in Canada, said Liberal Citizenship and Immigration Critic Maurizio Bevilacqua.
"Five years ago, the Liberal government made a principled decision not to participate in a war that wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations (U.N.). We should not now punish individuals and their families for making the same decision based on their personal principles," said Mr. Bevilacqua.
The motion, which was passed by the Immigration Commmittee and is being debated in the House today, calls on the government to allow conscientious objectors, and their immediate family members, who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the U.N. and who do not have a criminal record to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada. The motion also stipulates that the government should not proceed with any action agains any war resister who currently faces deportation.
"The government has a choice: it is not compelled to force these people to go back to a country where they may face prosecution under military law, or may be permanently branded for making a principled decision," said Mr. Bevilacqua.
"Stephen Harper has indicated that, had he been Prime Minister in 2003, Canada would have participated in the Iraq war. I hope that the fact that Mr. Harper got it wrong at the time will not prevent him from showing compassion for those who made the right decision."

May 21st Corey Glass was informed he had to leave Canada by June 12th or he would be deported. Somehow that's never been news to Amy Goodman who continues to inform her audience (dwindling, yes) of that development (while still wanting to pretend she gives a damn about ending the illegal war or about war resisters).

New topic. What about the book! What about the book! You're ignoring the book! Visitors e-mailing the public account can't stop screaming about that. Katie Couric and Todd S. Purdum were noted in yesterday's snapshot regarding the book because those two reporters were offering genuine evaluations of the media coverage leading up to the illegal war. My feelings on the book were noted here previously and it's nothing we would ever promote at this site. For those still not getting it, you can refer to Warren P. Strobel and Jonahtan Landay's "Memo to Scott McClellan: Here's what happened" (McClatchy Newspapers):

Until now, we've resisted the temptation to post on former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book, which accuses the Bush White House of launching a propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq.
Why? It's not news. At least not to some of us who've covered the story from the start.
(Click here, here and here to get just a taste of what we mean).
Second, we find it a wee bit preposterous -- and we are being diplomatic here -- that a man who slavishly - no, robotically! -- defended President Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere is trying to "set the record straight" (and sell a few books) five years and more after the invasion, with U.S. troops still bravely fighting and dying to stabilize that country.
But the responses to McClellan from the Bush administration and media bigwigs, history-bending as they are, compel us to jump in. As we like to say around here, it's truth to power time, not just for the politicians but also for some folks in our own business.
Bush loyalists have responded in three ways:
1) Scott, how could you? This conveniently ignores the issue of what Bush did or didn't know and do about intelligence on Iraq, converting the story line into that of wounded leader and treasonous former aide. (That canard was the sole focus of a CBS news radio report Wednesday night).
2) Invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Okay. When do Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, et al *not* say that? Dog bites man.
3) It was an intelligence failure. The CIA gave us bad dope on WMD and, well, they're the experts. More on this in a second.
The news media have been, if anything, even more craven than the administration has been in defending its failure to investigate Bush's case for war in Iraq before the war.
Memo to Scott McClellan: Here's what happened
Until now, we've resisted the temptation to post on former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book, which accuses the Bush White House of launching a propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq.
Why? It's not news. At least not to some of us who've covered the story from the start.
(Click here, here and here to get just a taste of what we mean).
Second, we find it a wee bit preposterous -- and we are being diplomatic here -- that a man who slavishly - no, robotically! -- defended President Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere is trying to "set the record straight" (and sell a few books) five years and more after the invasion, with U.S. troops still bravely fighting and dying to stabilize that country.
But the responses to McClellan from the Bush administration and media bigwigs, history-bending as they are, compel us to jump in. As we like to say around here, it's truth to power time, not just for the politicians but also for some folks in our own business.
Bush loyalists have responded in three ways:
1) Scott, how could you? This conveniently ignores the issue of what Bush did or didn't know and do about intelligence on Iraq, converting the story line into that of wounded leader and treasonous former aide. (That canard was the sole focus of a CBS news radio report Wednesday night).
2) Invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Okay. When do Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, et al *not* say that? Dog bites man.
3) It was an intelligence failure. The CIA gave us bad dope on WMD and, well, they're the experts. More on this in a second.
The news media have been, if anything, even more craven than the administration has been in defending its failure to investigate Bush's case for war in Iraq before the war.

That is from a blog post at Nukes & Spooks (McClatchy's DC blog) and that's only the opening. Ava and I aren't sure what we're grabbing for TV tomorrow but if we grab one program it will mean noting the press reaction to the book. But promoting the book? I'm not interested. As Landay and Strobel point out, "It's not news." (If you're still not grasping it, click here for Polly and my comments.)

For actual news, you can refer to Claire Shipman, Susan Rucci and Jonann Brady's "Hey Hill: Love Your Hair, Now Iron My Shirt; Did Hillary Clinton Get Torpedoed by Sexist Media Coverage?" (ABC News). Miguel notes Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: Getting Out the Vote in Puerto Rico" (HillaryClinton.com):

Getting Out the Vote in Puerto Rico: Today's New York Daily News reports that "Hillary Clinton returned to sun-swept Puerto Rico late Friday....'Make sure your voice is heard and your votes count,' Clinton told about 2,000 enthusiastic supporters...I am no stranger or newcomer to the concerns of Puerto Rico.'...A Univision-El Vocero poll this week showed Clinton with a considerable lead over Obama in the fight for the island's 55 pledged delegates." Read more.
Today On The Trail: Hillary hosts a "Solutions for Puerto Rico's Families" event in Caguas, Puerto Rico, where she also launches her campaign caravan through the following other cities: Cataño, Bayamon, Guaynabo, Trujillo Alto, Carolina, Rio Piedras, and San Juan.
Automatic Delegate Watch: Louisiana automatic delegate Buddy Leach announced his support for Hillary Clinton today. Leach is a former Congressman and former member of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee.
Florida and Michigan Matter: The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meets today regarding the allocation of the pledged delegates from Florida and Michigan. "Millions of voters in Florida and Michigan have waited patiently for more than four months to know whether their votes will count and whether they will play a meaningful role in determining who will be the Democratic nominee," [general counsel, Lyn] Utrecht writes. "It is time to resolve this pivotal matter." Read more.
In Case You Missed It: South Dakota's Argus Leader endorsed Hillary yesterday, calling her the "Top Candidate for Dems...Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota. Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that…Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many." Read more.
On Tap: Tomorrow, Sunday, June 1, Hillary will host an election night celebration in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

And Laura notes Maggie Williams' "South Dakota and Montana" (HillaryClinton.com):

With the South Dakota and Montana primaries just three days away, we are working hard turning out every last vote for Hillary. And that means we need you to get on the phones and talk to voters.
Hillary has no better surrogate than you. When you talk to voters about why you support our campaign, they're much more likely to get out and vote for Hillary. We're counting on your help in South Dakota and Montana -- because every vote helps us win the nomination!
Click here to start making calls for Hillary.
Thank you so much for everything you've put into this campaign.

Laura is calling and has been calling. If you have the time, she urges you to do so.

Since yesterday morning, the following community websites have updated:

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

And all listed above are in Puerto Rico (as am I) trying to get out the vote. Ignore Nancy Pelosi (most Democrats in the House do), this race isn't over.

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
















at

Protests and Pfleger

Thousands of followers of militant Muqtada al Sadr peacefully took to the streets Friday following his call to protest a bilateral pact that would govern the economic, security and political relationship between Iraq and the United States.
The Status of Forces Agreement and an economic and political accord are expected to be completed by July and must pass the parliament before being finalized. Already voices of dissent are in the air.
The United Nation's mandate that allows foreign forces to occupy Iraq will not be renewed at the end of the year. So any future U.S. military involvement in the war-torn nation can only continue with such an agreement.
From Sadr City to Kufa in southern Iraq, thousands of followers of Sadr prayed and then peacefully stood in protest. In Sadr City, followers set fire to an American flag and an image of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in Saddam Hussein's green military uniform.
"A curse upon him who agrees!" demonstrators chanted. "We are with you Sayyed Muqtada for liberating Iraq from the aggressors."

The above is from Leila Fadel's "Iraqi officials worry about security deal with U.S." (McClatchy Newspapers). We noted that in yesterday's snapshot but the call on that came in late and I said we'd note the article Saturday but I wasn't sure I could plug it into the snapshot. Had the piece been filed earlier on Friday, it would have been featured heavily in the snapshot. (As it was, the ABC News' article had already been used with a first-hand description of one protest.)

On the same topic, from Ned Parker and Saif Hameed's "Iraqis protest U.S. security pact" (Los Angeles Times):

The Iraqi leader signed a joint declaration with President Bush late last year that set principles for the negotiations on the status of forces agreement, which aims to cover military, trade and cultural relations. They planned to finalize a new security agreement by July 31.
Sadr, whose movement battled U.S. and Iraqi forces in spring in Sadr City and the southern port city of Basra before agreeing to truces in both places, came out strongly this week against any agreement legitimizing the presence of U.S. forces after 2008.
The cleric warned in a statement that his movement would hold protests every week until the Iraqi government renounced plans for the pact.
Members of Maliki's U.S.-allied government also have started to speak out in favor of imposing major restrictions on U.S. forces after the United Nations mandate authorizing their presence expires Dec. 31.
Iraq has said it will submit the agreement to parliament for approval, whereas the White House has argued that the agreement is administrative and does not need to be voted on in Congress.
The negotiations are an emotional issue in Iraq, which won full sovereignty from British colonial rule in 1932 under a treaty that allowed Britain to keep military bases and which paved the way for it to later intervene in Iraqi affairs.

I wish we could quote that one in full and, if the above excerpt interested you and you have the time, please click on the link to read the entire article. Regarding the submission of the treaty to the Iraqi parliament, an e-mail came in from a visitor regarding that aspect in yesterday's snapshot and stating, "It's been agreed to!" A lot of things are agreed to in Iraq. Very few happen. Take the provincial elections which have been pushed back now how many times? al-Maliki is a puppet and the White House doesn't want to submit the treaty to the Senate. In April, Representatives and Senators pointed out the glaring inconsistency during the week of The Crocker & Petraeus Variety Hour (whose final days were filled with B-list guesters offering testimony to Congress). You better believe that there is and will be pressure on the puppet not to submit the treaty to Parliament. (And considering that al-Maliki violated Iraq's constitution and ignored the Parliament to illegally renew the UN 'authorization,' it's hard to believe any but the blind faith crowd would automatically assume such a treaty would go before the Iraqi Parliament.)

One of the Senators loudly calling out the nonsense that the Senate's being bypassed for this treaty while Iraq's Parliament's being consulted was Senator Hillary Clinton (other senators included Joe Biden, Russ Feingold and Norm Coleman -- the latter is a Republican and he wasn't the only one to call out the nonsense; in the House Susan Davis spoke at length about it and there were many others doing so). Which is our transition to Susan Saulny's "Mocking of Clinton at Obama’s Church Reverberates" (New York Times) about the attack from Michael Pfleger -- longtime friend, campaigner of Barack's -- on Hillary at Barack's church last Sunday:

The Clinton campaign repeated on Friday, for a second day, its displeasure with how Mr. Obama has handled the situation, calling for him to reject Father Pfleger more forcefully.
In a statement issued Thursday, Mr. Obama, who was not at the church during the sermon, said he was "deeply disappointed" with Father Pfleger’s "backward-looking" remarks.
The Clinton camp said it had hoped for more.
"Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics," said Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. "We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father Pfleger's despicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so."
On Friday, an Obama spokesman said the campaign had nothing new to add.

You're seeing the same arrogance the Obama campaign has demonstrated throughout the primary campaign (and the same arrogance that would doom him as a general election nominee). As noted in the snapshot yesterday, the archbishop has called out Pfleger, has stated that the remarks were "a personal attack" on Hillary. But despite the fact that Pfleger was one of the first friends Barack made in Chicago, despite the fact that Pfleger was part of (until two weeks ago) the Barack Obama campaign, despite the fact that Pfleger has donated to Barack's campaigns and Barack has steered over $100,000 to Pfleger's church (tax-payer money) and despite the fact that the Obama campaign utilized Pfleger twice publicly in the primary campaign (Pfleger campaigned for Obama in Iowa and was also used by the Obama campaign in March to insist to reporters -- that the campaign steered to Pfleger -- that Wright's appalling remarks were not 'shocking'), depite the fact that the attacks came at the church Obama has attended for over twenty years, the Obama campaign wants to act as if they don't owe an apology. The pathetic groupies in The Cult of Obama think this is playing well. But, then, they also thought Wright was a non-issue if they spun hard enough. They also think Ayers & Dohrn are non-issues if they spin hard enough (and did anyone whitewash the realities of Weather more than David Corn?). It's a doomed campaign as a general election campaign and the coddling it has received from allged members of the press can take some blame for that if Barack becomes the nominee.

And it is past time that others join Andrew S. Ross' "Campaign question-5: Obama's latest racial problem" (San Francisco Chronicle) in wondering, "Apart from the appallingly racist nature of Father Michael Pfleger's remarks about Hillary Clinton, what is one to make of the congregation who seemed to lap it all up?"

Micah notes Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: 'Top Candidate for Dems':" (HillaryClinton.com):

Argus Leader Endorses Hillary: South Dakota's Argus Leader today endorsed Hillary, calling her the "Top Candidate for Dems...Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota. Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that…Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many." Read more.
Automatic Delegate Watch: Washington State Democratic Party Chair Eileen Macoll endorsed Hillary yesterday: "On the issues that matter most -- from establishing universal health care to improving our schools to ending the war in Iraq--she has never backed down and never wavered. Hillary has what it takes to beat John McCain this Fall and win back the White House." Read more.
Endorsement Watch: Puerto Rican music artist Ricky Martin yesterday endorsed Hillary: “These elections will have historic repercussions both in the United States and the world. Senator Clinton has always been consistent in her commitment with the needs of the Latino community…she has always fought for what is most important for our families." Read more.
"She's Going to Pull It Off" Hillary had "one of the best turnouts of her South Dakota campaign" yesterday at a stop in Huron, where supporters waited to see her "in a line stretching down the block." One supporter said, "She's what we're for. She's against the war in Iraq…Hillary doesn't crack under pressure." Another supporter remarked, "We really think she’s going to pull it off in the end." Read more.
On the Air in Montana: Hillary began airing her first television ad "Only One" in Montana: "She's the only one in this campaign who voted against the Bush energy bill against six billion dollars to the oil companies, the only one taking on the insurance companies to guarantee health coverage for every American and she's the one who'll end fifty five billion dollars in giveaways to corporate special interests and cut taxes for the middle class instead." Watch here.
Previewing Today: Hillary travels to Puerto Rico to host a rally in Old San Juan.

I'm going to be replying to e-mails in this entry and the next one. One question was about Huron in yesterday's snapshot? The person I dictated the snapshot to sarcastically said, "Where the hell is Huron?" Which is why the bit of trivia was added (Cheryl Ladd was born there). If anyone else had never heard of Huron, South Dakota it gave them a bit of trivia about a great city they were unaware of previously.

Another question was about no videos on Friday. There won't be videos on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays. Limiting the videos to community members who can enjoy them, there is a huge increase iin the number of members pulling up the site over the weekend. We have members who exclusively have dial up. We have members who have access to broadband at work but, on days off, do not. The videos (especially campaign ones) cause an Adobe script error for a lot of dialup members. Not only do they get the error message, their computers run slower while they have TCI pulled up. This has been raised in e-mails and I've always replied, "We don't have to post videos at all." But they're willing to deal with it (partly to get the word out on the Hillary campaign). Gina and Krista polled last week to see if everyone would be fine with no videos for the weekend since the number of dial up users increases significantly? The community was fine with that. What Gina and Krista didn't factor in is that 5 entries show up when you pull up this site at any time. There are usually two entries on Saturdays. That means the other three are from Friday. So I made the decision not to include videos on Friday. If they're on the page, the error message will (slowly, I'm told) pop up and, while on the page, the computer will run slowly (as they try to page up or down). And if you missed it, the UK Computer Gurus encourage you to use Crazy Browser if you're having a problem in Explorer with that Adobe message (some are clicking and reclicking on "OK" -- to end "script" -- and it never goes away).

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





mcclatchy newspapers





at

Friday, May 30, 2008

Iraq snapshot

Friday, May 30, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, did the demonstrations take place as planned?, the media looks at their own pre-war behaviors, and more.
 
Late yesterday  Canada's Liberal Party issue "Liberals Call on Government to Show Compassion for War Resisters."
 
The Liberal Opposition is calling on the Conservative government to support a motion that would allow conscientious objectors to apply for permanent resident status in Canada, said Liberal Citizenship and Immigration Critic Maurizio Bevilacqua.           
"Five years ago, the Liberal government made a principled decision not to participate in a war that wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations (U.N.). We should not now punish individuals and their families for making the same decision based on their personal principles," said Mr. Bevilacqua.        
The motion, which was passed by the Immigration Commmittee and is being debated in the House today, calls on the government to allow conscientious objectors, and their immediate family members, who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the U.N. and who do not have a criminal record to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada. The motion also stipulates that the government should not proceed with any action agains any war resister who currently faces deportation.     
"The government has a choice: it is not compelled to force these people to go back to a country where they may face prosecution under military law, or may be permanently branded for making a principled decision," said Mr. Bevilacqua.    
"Stephen Harper has indicated that, had he been Prime Minister in 2003, Canada would have participated in the Iraq war. I hope that the fact that Mr. Harper got it wrong at the time will not prevent him from showing compassion for those who made the right decision."
 
Kristen Thompson (Vancouver's Metro) reports that retired US Col and former US diplomat Ann Wright will be speaking in Vancouver Sunday "at an event honouring women war resisters".   While Wright speaks up, many stay silent and war resisters in Canada today need support as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor.  You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: 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.  In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses 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.  Lahey quotes NDP's Oliva Chow, who steered the motion, explaining, "If (Liberal leader) Stephane Dion were to say tomorrow that he supports this motion . . . we will then debate it.  So we need people to call Mr. Dion . . . 'whose side you on Mr. Dion'?"  The number to call is (613) 996-5789.       
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
 
Dropping back to this from the November 16, 2007 snapshot:

Another reality that some (the press) has a hard time acknowledging is the number of service members electing to check out of the military on their own. AP reports that this year the desertion rate has jumped to "the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase" since the start of the illegal war. AP continues to deny reality by offering the claim that the US military does little to track down those who go AWOL or desert -- despite the mountain of public evidence to the contrary.
As to the figure cited, September 21st, Nick Watt (ABC's Nighline) examined war resisters and noted the number of people being processed for desertion at Fort Knox "jumped 60% last year" (to 1,414 for Fort Knox -- US military figures) while concluding his report with, "If the total for the first six months of 2007 doubles by year end, it will become the highest annual total in twenty-six years." At 80% the total has more than doubled and not only is there another full month left in the year, it's also true that you have to be gone at least 30 days to be declared a deserter (unless you're Agustin Aguayo and the military wants to screw you over) and, in addition, the military figures have been 'lower' than they should be before (NPR caught that earlier this year) and the rolls aren't up to date for AWOL let alone desertion.
 
So last year saw the largest number of army desertions.  What else did last year see?    Australia's ABC notes that the deaths of 115 members of the US army were classified as suicides "in 2007, the most in one year since the service began keeping records in 1980."
Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "The study found a 'significant relationship' between the risk of suicide to the number of days a soldier serves in Iraq and Afghanistan.  About one-quarter died while serving in Iraq of Afghanistan, the report found.  The largest percentage of suicides occurred during the first three months of a deployment to Iraq or Afghnistan, the report found.  The largest percentage of suicide attempts came during the second quarter of deployment."  Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic (ICH) observes, "These traumas return home with us and we carry them, sometimes hidden, for agonizing decades. They deeply impact our daily lives, and the lives closest to us. To kill another human being, to take another life out of this world with one pull of a trigger, is something that never leaves you. It is as if a part of you dies with that person. If you choose to keep on living, there may be a healing, and even hope and happiness again, but that scar and memory and sorrow will be with you forever. Why did the recruiters never mention these things? This was never in the slick pamphlets they gave us."
 
 
Turning to Iraq where the big question today was regarding cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who had called a demonstration to protest the treaty puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki and Bully Boy are attempting to work out (on al-Maliki's side it may or may be presented to the Parliament for approval; however, the White House made clear that the Constitutional provisions on treaties will be ignored).  With speculation over al-Sadr's base (eroding or not), would his call for a protest be met or ignored?  Thousands turned out today in Baghdad and throughout Iraq; however Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) states the "turnout on Friday was lower than past marches" in Baghdad which al-Sadr's spokespeople said resulted from "the protests . . . [being] widely spread through the country . . . [and] security forces prevented marches in some areas."  AP reports, "The outcry could sharply heighten tensions over the proposal. The deal is supposed to be finished by July and replace the current U.N. mandate overseeing U.S.-led troops in Iraq."  Robert H. Reid (AP) quotes sheik Assad al-Nassiri declaring in Kufa, "We denounce the government's intention to sign a long-term agreement with the occupying forces.  Our army will be under their control in this agreement, and this will lead to them having permanent bases in Iraq." Nicholas Schifrin (ABC News) describes the scene in Baghdad: "As American helicopters hovered overhead, young and old men and even children flowed out of their weekly Friday prayers and began burning American flags and chanting 'no, no to America' and 'yes, yes to independence.'  The residents carried posters of Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric whose Mahdi Army has fought against U.S. soldiers and who is accused of carrying out much of the violence here."  Shifrin notes that Baghdad, Kufa, Basra, Amarah and Nasarriah are known to have demonstrations. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "In Sadr City, followers set fire to an American flag and an image of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in Saddam Hussein's green military uniform" while chanting, "A curse upon him who agrees!  We are with you Sayyed Muqtada for liberating Iraq from the aggressors."  The New York Times' Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Stephen Farrell (IHT, some version should be in tomorrow's Times) quote a Baghdad particpant who declares, "This isn't an Iraqi government, it's an American government.  The Americans keep pressuring Maliki to carry out what they want.  The agreement will only serve the Americans' interests"  and they quote Parliamentarian Mahmoud Othman who feels the UN mandate should be allowed to run out (end of the year) and only then should any talks take place: "The negotiations now are not equal, and the results will be more for the benefit of America.  To have a long term agreement with the Bush administration, which has five months to go, is wrong.  The Iraqi government should wait fo rthe new American administration and then have an agreement with it." [Here it is at NYT but you know they vanish things so  don't e-mail a day from now saying "It's not there!" if it's gone.]  James Denselow (Guardian of London) observes, "Despite more than five years of state collapse, civil war and chaos the US still seems to believe that it is in a position to dictate what is best for Iraq. The deadline for the UN security council resolution 'allowing' US troops to be in the country expires at the end this year. US diplomats are today desperately trying to create a bilateral SOFA by the end of July in the face of wide-ranging opposition."
 
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports  a Diyala Province mortar attack that claimed the lives of 3 women and left two men wounded, while a Buhrz roadside bombing claimed 1 life. Reuters notes a Baquba bombing that claimed the life of 1 child and left two more injured during a soccer game.
 
Shootings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports police Col Ali Kadhim Salman was shot dead in Basra and an "Awakening" Council member was shot dead in Hibhib. Reuters notes the US military states they shot dead 1 man in Tarmiya and 1 man in Tikrit -- both were 'suspects.'
 
 
 
Turning to the media and Iraq.  Earlier this week, CNN's Jessica Yellin -- while discussing the Scott McClellan book on Anderson Cooper's program -- spoke of the pressure she was under as a reporter from higher ups.  Yesterday afternoon, she posted at CNN to explain all those leaping to the conclusion that she was referring to ABC were wrong, she was referring to "my time on MSNBC where I worked during the lead up to the war.  I worked as a segment producer, overnight anchor, field reporter, and briefly covered the White House, the Pentagon, and general Washington stories."  Media Matters notes that on NBC's Today show, guest (and former host) Katie Couric and Matt Lauer disagreed about pressure from the administration during that period.
 
Katie Couric: Well, we have different points of view, and I'll start by saying I think he's fairly accurate. Matt, I know when we were covering it -- and granted, the spirit of 9-11, people were unified and upset and angry and frustrated -- but I do think we were remiss in not asking some of the right questions. There was a lot pressure from the Bush White House. I remember doing an interview and the press secretary called our executive producer and said, "We didn't like the tone of that interview." And we said, "Well, tough. We had to ask some of these questions." They said, "Well, if you keep it up, we're going to block access to you during the war." I mean, those kind of strong-arm tactics were ... really inappropriate.
 
Who's right and who's wrong?  Try who's truthful on top of that.  Couric is telling the truth.  Lauer (Poppy Bush's golfing partner and so much more) is lying.  Ava and I covered the reality of Today during the lead up to the war in 2006 ("TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader").  And to add that, while Couric and others pressed for more to be done (Today's staff fought like hell to present a wide ranging picture), Lauer didn't give a damn.  You didn't get that story from Michael Moore and why the hell aren't we surprised?
 
Less noted was another telling moment.  Todd Purdum (Vanity Fair) examines his own various reactions to the book and concludes: "I do know one thing: even the slightest distance from an all-powerful institution like the White House (or a big corporation, or The New York Times) can produce a sudden, even stunning, clarity of feeling about all that was wrong with the place, and a terrific sense of liberation at being freed from it."
 
 
Turning to US political races.   Panhandle Media is a complete utter failure and they damaged not only themselves, they damaged the work of the few truly independent journalists who actually work.  John Pilger is one of the few and you can view the hatred in the comments (some of which may be deleted when this goes up) his article (New Statesman) has received.  Pilger's not doing anything different than what he has always done, be a journalist.  But those who pretend to be his peers have so debased 'independent' media that the real independent journalists have to put up with nonsense from the Cult Panhandle Media built.  From Pilger's article (and, note, Pilger would be just as harsh on Hillary and has been before):
 
On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united.  McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of "100 years", his earlier option).  Obama has now "reserved the right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year.  "I will listen to our commanders on the ground," he now says, echoing Bush.  His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010.  Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.  His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations.
 
[ . . .]
 
Despite claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group.  "Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors," wrote the investigator Pam Martens, "consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages."  A report by United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss to poor Americans of colour who took out sub-prime loans as being between $164bn and $213bn: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people of colour in the United States.  "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign," said Obama in January, "they won't run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president."  According to files held by the Centre for Responsive Politics, the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbysits.   
What is Obama's attraction to big business?  Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy's.  By offering a "new", young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party -- with the bonus of being a member of the black elite -- he can blunt and divert real opposition.  That was Colin Powell's role as Bush's secretary of state.  An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults.  If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent.
 
Meanwhile Barack is in trouble despite the efforts of John McCormick and Manya A. Brachear (Chicago Tribune) to rescue him.  Another crackpot Barack friend, mentor and supporter (as noted in yesterday's snapshot) showed their ass: Michael Pfleger.  Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite maintains that she spoke at Trinity (Barack's church) Sunday as well (different services -- Trinity has mutliple services each Sunday) and writes: "We in the United Church of Christ are trying to have what we call 'A Sacred Conversation on Race' and I did not find Pfleger's sermon to represent what we in the UCC are trying to do in having a sacred conversation.  Instead, Pfleger's sermon was a bullying rant that was disrespectufl of the members of Trinity United Church of Christ, disrespectful of Senator Hillary Clinton and really also disrepectful of Senator Obama" blah blah.  SBT, you lost it.  You were making sense and then you had to toss out poor Barack.  Poor Barack's been friends with Pfleger since Barack first breezed into Chicago over a decade ago.  Also, the members you are offended for, the video shows no booing.  Clapping, yes.  If SBT is not the most embarrassing person in all of this named Barack or Pfleger, that's only because Senator Dick Durbin had to butt into it.  He told the Chicago Tribune, "I like Mike.  He's my friend."  You need to find some better friends, Durbin. He almost outs himself in his vast wordage.  What's the difference between Jeremiah Wright and Pfleger?  Pfleger's White and that's it.  They both 'preached' hate speech.  But Wright, according to Durbin, allowed for 'marvelous' opportunities because Barack dould say, 'What's he so angry about?'  And a race conversation, according to Durbin, could begin.  That conversation never took place.  But here's where Durbin clams up -- obviously when you ask, "What's he so angry about?" regarding Pfleger, you can't point to this and that and everything else that was trotted out for Wright's crackpot theories such as the US government created AIDS to wipe out African-Americans.  Pfleger's just a hate monger. 
 
Jake Tapper (ABC News) quotes Cardinal Francis George of the Archidoces of Chicago in this statement: "The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates.  Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning.  Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Fr. Pfleger's remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack.  I regret that deeply."  All the links contain text (and most video) of Pfleger's hate speech yesterday.  This was Barack's response: "As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us.  That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-thinking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."  That's not an apology. 
 
Here's an apology Barack: "This will be the second time in two weeks I have apologized to someone over the actions of a Roman Catholic Priest. It is not a pleasant thing but it is the right thing. Rev. Michael Pfleger had no business giving any kind of sermon like the one he did ridiculing Hillary Clinton let alone giving a sermon anywhere else than in his own Parish at a Mass. This kind of grandstanding mockery of another human being is totally against the Catholic faith and the spirit of inclusivity and respect for all human beings that Catholics hold dear. He has sinned against God, Hillary, and his priesthood for which an apology is not enough. I hope he has scheduled a confession and a retreat to rethink his role as Priest would not hurt either.  To Mrs. Clinton I apologize as a Roman Catholic and am embarassed by this priests words and actions. I have no idea his motivations but please do not take this man's view nor his words as that reflecting Catholics, or the Catholic Church."  That's Catherine J. writing at Gather.  She didn't do anything requiring an apology.  She and Pfleger are the same faith.  But she wanted to apologize and she offered a real and heartfelt one.  That's an apology.  What Barack offered was sop and insulting.  His friend for over twenty years, his patron, his mentor, a part of his campaing (until weeks ago -- as all the media rushes to insist) trashed Hillary Clinton and others in despicable terms, in outrageous sexist slander and did so at Barack's church of 20 years -- to the applause and shouts of encouragement from Barack's church.  He owes an apology.  But he's never been forced by the press to apologize once.  He's never apologized to anyone.  "I regret . . ."  That's not an apology, it's a declined invitation.  That's Barack's buddy offering that hate speech.  Barack steered $100,000 of tax-payer money to the crackpot's church.  Yeah, he owes a big apology.
 
Pfleger thinks he can get away with this crap as well.  CNN notes his 'apology': "I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them."  He doesn't regret anything.  He thought he was cute as he minced around and did his little parody of women on stage.  You can watch the video and see him grinning.  (Liars at the Chicago Tribune tell you he was rushed off stage by organ music -- that's a lie.   Watch the video.  There is a time lapse and no organ music is played to tell him to wrap it up.)  Foon Rhee (Boston Globe) reports the Clinton campaign's Ann Lewis declared on MSNBC, "I'm not sure what the 'if' was about" -- Pfleger's statements are "simply appalling."
 
John Bentley (CBS News) notes Senator John McCain (presumed GOP presidential nominee) stating, "I have known Sen. Clinton for a long time.  I respect her, and I think that kind of language and that kind of treatment of Sen. Clinton is unwarranted, uncalled for, and disgraceful."  Barack could have said that but chose not to.  If it's a race between McCain and Obama in November, McCain's ahead currently because spoiled little princes aren't generally embraced by America.  As Ken Dilanian (USA Today) points out, "Obama has not specifically addressed what Pfleger said about Clinton."
 
Hillary's still in the race and she's winning the popular vote.  Fabien Levy (HillaryClinton.com) observes, "Wild weather did not stop residents of Huron from coming out to see Hillary on Thursday. Droves of voters turned out to see Hillary at Campbell Park, but due to inclement weather the event was moved into the Huron Events Center. Once inside, a packed house heard Hillary speak directly about the issues including our broken economy, the war in Iraq, veteran's affairs and universal health care."  Huron, South Dakota, bit of trivia, is where Cheryl Ladd was born.  So there's the trivia and now for the important take-away.  The primaries will end with neither Hillary or Barack having enough delegates awarded (through primaries and caucuses) to calim the nomination.  The race should continue to the convention in August.  Some are trying to stop democracy, some don't trust the voters, some don't trust Democrats.  Apparently, Democrats gathering together in Colorado this August is a frightening thought to Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Harry Reid.  Oh goodness, the trio worries, what might they do!  They might ensure that the people are heard.  Shame on anyone who attempts to end this historic race before the finish line is reached.  Michael P. Forbes (Austin-American Stateman) tells you what Pelosi, Reid and Dean can't and won't:
 
As the last primary votes are cast on Tuesday, some will want a coronation before the will of the Democratic Convention has been adjudicated.
There will be very loud and very determined illegitimate calls for Clinton to bow out. They will cry of suspect pleas to party unity and ill-conceived suggestions that a prolonged nominating process -- one that rightfully should go to decisive balloting for president at the Democratic Convention from August 25-28 -- is harmful to the party.         
That's baloney. The excitement of this Democratic primary season as attested to by burgeoning party coffers and unprecedented levels of voter participation serve to reinvigorate the national Democratic Party after 12 years of Republican reign in Congress and eight years of a very unpopular Republican president. With daily reminders at the gas pump and in the grocery store of an ailing economy and two wars abroad, Americans are more than ready to put Democrats back in the White House.                  
A national dialogue that continues all the way to the Democratic Convention on the attributes and abilities of Clinton and Obama and who is the Democrat most competent to be president is healthy for the political process and advantageous to the nation.  
 
 

at

Other Items

Agusta, Georgia's WRDW reports that over 20 people were protesting last night outside of Fort Gordon in support of US war resister Ryan Jackson who faces a military court today. Rest assured that our 'leaders' will find other things to gas bag on (mainly promoting Barack Obama).

On the 20 year high in veterans' sucidies, WGAL reports (link has text and video):

Donald Woodward, 23, of Lancaster County was an Iraq war veteran and committed suicide in 2006.
His mother, Lori Woodward, said the system needs to change.
"I want people to know this doesn't have to happen, they could save these young men and women," Woodward said.
Woodward has filed a wrongful death suit against the veterans' administration.

Gareth notes this from the BBC:

A US marine lied to cover up a squad's killings of 24 civilians in Iraq's city of Haditha in 2005, a US prosecutor has said at the officer's court martial.
The prosecutor's comments came during opening statements in the trial of Lt Andrew Grayson in California.
Lt Grayson is charged with obstructing justice and making false statements in connection with the case. He rejects the allegations.
He is the first of three defendants to go on trial.

NOW on PBS (which airs tonight in most markets) has won another award:

NOW on PBS Wins 2008 Gracie Allen Award for
"Outstanding Interactive Website"
Companion website for the episode "Child Brides: Stolen Lives"
investigates early child marriage around the world, and informs and
empowers users to stop it
NEW YORK, April 25, 2008 - The newsmagazine NOW on PBS has won a
prestigious Gracie Allen Award from American Women in Radio and
Television for "Outstanding Interactive Website." The website is a
companion to the national broadcast of "Child Brides: Stolen Lives," a
NOW on PBS special report. In the award-winning show, Senior
Correspondent Maria Hinojosa travels to Niger, India, and Guatemala for
a revealing exploration of child marriage in developing countries, and
how people can act locally and globally to solve the problem.
The website features exclusive video testimonials from young brides,
insightful journals from Maria Hinojosa and producer Amy Bucher, ways
for users to support programs that end the practice, and a free lesson
plan for teachers.
"Forced child marriage is today what female genital mutilation was 10
years ago -- a global issue affecting millions of girls and women, yet
one few people are talking about," said Hinojosa, an award-winning
reporter who found her role to be both a professional and personal
journey of a lifetime. "The website gives visitors a more in-depth and
interactive view of the problem, and empowers them to actually make a
difference."
The website's producer is Alexandra Walker; Senior Producer is Joel
Schwartzberg. The site, which includes a free, complete video of the
broadcast program, can be accessed at:
http://www.pbs.org/now/childbrides
ABOUT NOW on PBS
Called "fearless about challenging conventional wisdom" by Tom Brokaw
and "one of the last bastions of serious journalism on TV" by the
Austin American-Statesman, the Emmy-winning PBS weekly newsmagazine NOW
engages viewers with documentary segments and insightful interviews that probe
the most important issues facing democracy. Hosted by award-winning
veteran journalist David Brancaccio, NOW is a production of JumpStart
Productions, LLC, in association with Thirteen/WNET New York. The show
can also be accessed through On-Demand television, audio podcasting,
video podcasting, and streaming video on the NOW website at
www.pbs.org/now.

About The Gracie Awards
The Gracies are presented by the Foundation of American Women in Radio
and Television, the philanthropic arm of AWRT that supports educational
programs, charitable activities, public service campaigns, and
scholarships to benefit the public, the electronic media, and allied
fields. The Gracie Awards, established in 1975, honor programming and
individuals of the highest caliber in all facets of radio, television,
cable, and web-based media, including news, drama, comedy, commercials,
public service, documentary, and sports.

Congratulations to NOW.

A note on things that come in to the public account, we're not promoting Barack propaganda. If a program thinks it's 'news' that they're yet again pushing Barack, they don't know what news is. If the same program has never called out the rank sexism, if the host has offered that Hillary "cried" and then offered that he doubts it was genuine, go talk to trashy Amy Goodman, she'll gladly give you an hour and pretend you're both journalists but, hey, she chose to publish in Larry Fl**nt's Hu**ler magazine so that says all anyone needs to know about trashy Amy Goodman. But don't clog up the publc account with your nonsense. You had nothing to hype Barack with so you're reaching back at least a week into old news to try to ratchet up the indignation and it might mean something if you hadn't turned your entire program into an hour long infomercial for Barack Obama. I'm not interested and I damn well know the community isn't interested.


KeShawn notes Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: Why Hillary is the Strongest Candidate" (HillaryClinton.com):

Why Hillary is the Strongest Candidate: In a letter to all superdelegates, Hillary outlines her case for why she believes she is the strongest candidate: "I believe I am best prepared to lead this country as President -- and best prepared to put together a broad coalition of voters to break the lock Republicans have had on the electoral map and beat Senator McCain in November." Read more here. For additional information -- read the letter, memo, and general election matchup information here.
Swing-State Advantage: According to Gallup: "In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%...In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain…All of this speaks to Sen. Clinton's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election." Read more.
A Champion For Native Americans: At a campaign stop in Kyle, SD yesterday, Hillary spoke to a "mostly Native audience of about 350 people" and pledged to fight for the issues that affect Native American veterans as well as all Native American families. "I will be your champion. I will fight for you. I will stand up for you. And I will work my heart out for you." Read more.
Puerto Rico Matters: Puerto Rico and its citizens are gearing up for a "chance for Puerto Ricans to shout to the world about what's important to them” on primary day on Sunday." Because of its extraordinarily high turnout rate, it's possible that the number of voters that come out to vote on Sunday will be "about the same number that turned out in states like Missouri and New Jersey." Read more.
If You Watch One Thing Today: Staffers on Hillary's campaign describe their support. Watch here.
Previewing Today: Hillary hosts "Solutions For South Dakota's Future" events in Huron, SD and Watertown, SD.On Tap: Hillary will host a "Rally for Puerto Rico's Families" in Old San Juan, PR.

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




pbs
at

Barack did not apologize

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign on Thursday was forced to again apologize for the remarks of a Chicago pastor and friend backing his candidacy who spoke from the pulpit of Obama's longtime South Side church.
In an Internet video recorded Sunday, Rev. Michael Pfleger, an outspoken activist Catholic priest, is seen mocking Sen. Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
[. . .]
The campaign said Pfleger stepped down several weeks ago from the campaign's Catholic Advisory Council.

The above is from John McCormick and Manya A. Brachear's "Obama again apologizes for a pastor's comments" (Chicago Tribune) about the latest hatest speech from the Barack Obama campaign. The article does note that Barack steered "at least $100,000" to Pfleger's own chapel of hate in 2001 -- that would be tax payer money. That's some wall between church and state, isn't it? $100,000 to a church. A church that already had a tax-free status. Maybe after Trinity gets stripped of its tax-free status, the IRS can look into Pfleger's Chapel of Hate.

Barack won't call it out. The press will pretend he has but this is pure Obama campaign. They have never called out the sexism. Pfleger was part of the Obama campaign, he's know Barack for years, they go way back. What he said was perfectly in keeping with the same hate speech Jeremiah Wright expressed. Anyone loosely connected to the Hillary campaign mentions Barack's drug use (that Barack's written about in books and joked about on national television with Jay Leno) and the Barack campaign starts screaming for an apology from Hillary. But Barack never apologizes. And that's one more reason self-respecting women will not vote for him.

Pfleger got up on stage Sunday (last Sunday) and gave the McCain campaign yet another way to win if Barack's the nominee. Pfleger is a crackpot, an idiot, a hate monger and considering that all Barack's campaign has had to offer is false charages of "racism!" (Barack groupie Nancy Pelosi offered that this week to the San Francisco Chronicle and she needs to apologize publicly to the state of Kentucky for that), this video will not play well. The McCain camp will probably ignore the remarks on Hillary and zoom in on the effete and mincing White "Father Mike" condeming White people today (and confusing today's generation with ancestors -- listen to the video, the man can't even construct a bad logical argument, even defining his own terms he mixes everything up) and the reaction from Barack's church of 20 years. The congregation going wild over this crap.

That crackpot congregation isn't acting any different than they normally do. Trinity's offered nothing but hate non-stop and Pfleger's little screed fit right in which is why it was so well received.

The Tribune does their usual nonsense (they are the ones who made Barack a US sentor with their smear campaigns on his opponents -- Democrats and Republicans) and offers up validation of crackpot Dwight Hopkins to defend Pfleger and, oh, by the way, Hopkins "attends Trinity". Can we get a member of Jonestown to defend Jim Jones next?

Pfleger served up hate and that's been at the core of the Obama campaign from day one. They can run to the Atlantic Monthly and insist that the magazine needs to probe Bill Clinton's sex life and then play innocent and demand that Michelle's off-limits. Barack can make sexist remarks and then pretend like he didn't say anything wrong. He can flip the bird while talking about Hillary while his supporters go wild, it can be captured on video and everyone's supposed to not call it out.

Barack has no 'hope' to offer, just more sleazy trash. And there's not a great deal of difference between the hate Pfleger spewed and the hate Barack's campaign and supporters spew on a daily basis. It's why Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, could make the laughable claim that there is no racism in San Francisco and then tar and feather Kentucky. That's what that crowd does. They point fingers at everyone but themselves. They traffic in hate non-stop and then try to pretend they took the high ground.

Forget Speaker of the House, when a member of the US Congress thinks, as Pelosi does, that just because they don't like election results they can tar a state as racist, there's a problem and the problem goes straight to the campaign of Barack Obama. Barack refuses to apologize for the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton -- and they went public after Hillary's New Hampshire win when his campaign's Jesse Jackson Jr. went on MSNBC and tried to smear Hillary as vain (especially laughable coming from Fatty who went under the knife in 2004 to lose fifty pounds) and racist. They have done this over and over. And Barack's laughable statement that he's "been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us" is more sloganeering from the tackiest of candidates who still thinks he can attack women (he attacked Alice Palmer all those years ago) and pretend like it didn't happen.

It has happened over and over. Pfleger is a lifelong friend of Barack's, they go back to 1995. Barack put Pfleger on his campaign. Pfleger's little performance is in keeping with Barack's disgusting tactics. Where is the apology to Hillary?

Like Bully Boy, he an never apologize and he can say he's wrong. And you better believe, if Obama's the nominee, the McCain campaign and its surrogates will include Pfleger in an advertisement. Again, they'll ignore the sexism. They'll probably go with a slogan like "Change? Or get Whitey?" imposed over Pfleger's remarks. Barack can't win a general election and the super delegates are starting to realize that. It's why Nancy Pelosi's in such a rush to break the rules and shut down the process. What needs to be happening with Nancy is she needs to apologize to the state of Kentucky and Steny Hoyer and others need to start considering whether it's time for Pelosi to step down as Speaker because the House leader of the Democratic Party cannot tar a state as racist (while laughably claiming that racism doesn't exist in San Francisco).

As Pelosi revealed Wednesday, if she doesn't thwart the process quickly, she can't. She has to attempt to subvert democracy because otherwise the convention gets to decide (as it should decide by the rules and bylaws). She's also aware of how much support among the super delegates for Barack has weakened and crackpot Pfleger's video only weakens it more.

The convention is where the nominee needs to be decided and if she interferes in the process and more videos pop up afterwards (Barack's probably too damaged to win a general election at this point), Democrats need to remember that she was the one who hijacked the party.

And if you start hearing nonsense that Pfleger's remarks are no big deal, remember that media told you Jeremiah Wright (the government started AIDS!) and his crackpot nonsense was no big deal as well. They told you that over and over. But polls found otherwise.

The lies start early today, if you pay attention. Barack, the Tribune tells you, apologized. But he didn't. If he dings your car in the parking lot and tells you, "I'm deeply disappointed your car was hit," that's not an apology. If Bully Boy stands before the White House and says, "I'm deeply disappointed in the Iraq War," that's not an apology (or an admission of guilt). Barack didn't apologize. He tries to play word games and that's what got him in trouble during the ABC debate that so enraged his Cult. Pfleger's little performance exhibits all the nastiness of his Cult and the reason for that is because "Father Mike" has been part of the Obama campaign and a long time buddy of Barack's.

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


at

Thursday, May 29, 2008

I Hate The War

The Liberal Opposition is calling on the Conservative government to support a motion that would allow conscientious objectors to apply for permanent resident status in Canada, said Liberal Citizenship and Immigration Critic Maurizio Bevilacqua.
"Five years ago, the Liberal government made a principled decision not to participate in a war that wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations (U.N.). We should not now punish individuals and their families for making the same decision based on their personal principles," said Mr. Bevilacqua.
The motion, which was passed by the Immigration Commmittee and is being debated in the House today, calls on the government to allow conscientious objectors, and their immediate family members, who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the U.N. and who do not have a criminal record to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada. The motion also stipulates that the government should not proceed with any action agains any war resister who currently faces deportation.
"The government has a choice: it is not compelled to force these people to go back to a country where they may face prosecution under military law, or may be permanently branded for making a principled decision," said Mr. Bevilacqua.
"Stephen Harper has indicated that, had he been Prime Minister in 2003, Canada would have participated in the Iraq war. I hope that the fact that Mr. Harper got it wrong at the time will not prevent him from showing compassion for those who made the right decision."

The above is from Canada's Liberal Party and entitled "Liberals Call on Government to Show Compassion for War Resisters." Maybe that will do what Corey Glass couldn't, get Amy Goodman off her lazy ass and talking about war resisters? She's far from alone but after that laughable just-released (and already bombed) 'book' where she pretends interest in war resisters (she has not interviewed a war resister who needed attention -- as in their case had not been heard -- since 2006). She's hardly the only one who has deserted the topic but they didn't just put out a (bad) 'book' last month where they tried to trick the public into believing they gave a damn.

Olive notes "US soldier suicides the highest on record: army" (Australia's ABC)


The US Army says 115 soldiers on active duty committed suicide in 2007, the most in one year since the service began keeping records in 1980.
Nearly 1,000 soldiers attempted suicide.
The spike came in a year that saw the highest US casualties in Iraq and increased levels of violence in Afghanistan.

And you can pair that with this from the November 16, 2007 snapshot:

Another reality that some (the press) has a hard time acknowledging is the number of service members electing to check out of the military on their own. AP reports that this year the desertion rate has jumped to "the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase" since the start of the illegal war. AP continues to deny reality by offering the claim that the US military does little to track down those who go AWOL or desert -- despite the mountain of public evidence to the contrary.
As to the figure cited, September 21st, Nick Watt (ABC's Nighline) examined war resisters and noted the number of people being processed for desertion at Fort Knox "jumped 60% last year" (to 1,414 for Fort Knox -- US military figures) while concluding his report with, "If the total for the first six months of 2007 doubles by year end, it will become the highest annual total in twenty-six years." At 80% the total has more than doubled and not only is there another full month left in the year, it's also true that you have to be gone at least 30 days to be declared a deserter (unless you're Agustin Aguayo and the military wants to screw you over) and, in addition, the military figures have been 'lower' than they should be before (NPR caught that earlier this year) and the rolls aren't up to date for AWOL let alone desertion.

Strangely, Nancy Pelosi mentioned neither in her discussion with the San Francisco Chronicle (see snapshot) but she did lament the fact that there is not, according to her, a combat unit to spare should the US really, really want to attack another country. Priorities.

Her priorities aren't the only ones screwed up these days. Panhandle Media. Today Marjorie Cohn and the National Lawyers Guild links were all pulled due to the nonsense Marjorie wrote regarding Hillary. I like and know Majorie but she didn't do a damn thing to build this community. Members did and if they're sick of her now, then that's the way it is.

They have every reason to be sick of her. She wrote a disgusting and uninformed column. If you spoke to her, she would rush to cite Hillary and Iran and would either not know or leave out that Barack didn't vote against the Iran resolution last summer, he skipped the vote on purpose. She would be completely unaware that the resolution being voted on was not significantly different from the proposal Barack made on Iran.

Marjorie's not an idiot. She's a very intelligent person. So write it off as she's one more person poisoned by the toxic nature of Panhandle Media which can't be counted to tell the truth or inform but damn well decided to enlist in Campaign Obama.

Marjorie, to answer one question that popped up repeatedly, isn't anti-gay. I doubt she has any idea that Barack used homophobia to scare up votes in South Carolina. I doubt she knows that he announced he would put homophobes onstage at a campaign event. That he refused the efforts by human rights groups to convince not to do so. I doubt she knows that the event was protested or the words of the 'ex-gay' from the stage.

I'm glad to see that the question came from gay and straight members. I think that's a real strength of this community. It's not about "me first!" The community is very smart and very aware of the diversity in our society. That's why they now reject Panhandle Media because they're sick of the damn lies, the damn cover ups and all the crap that gets peddled.

Marjorie's one of the brightest minds in the country so if she can be poisoned by the toxic fumes of Panhandle Media, it can happen to anyone.

That's not a, "Please think about so I can put the links back!" The community made a decision. I found out about it after the fact. What's done is done.

But it's interesting to examine it in terms of what Marjorie didn't write about. No, she didn't write about Corey Glass. Does she not give a damn about war resisters? She cares about the issue very passionately. She works on that issue constantly.

So why is she smearing Hillary instead of writing about Corey Glass?

Because that's all that Panhandle Media has fed all of us who have consumed for two years now. And now that there's a problem (to steal from Ani diFranco's "Napolean"), some of the same toxic types want to suddenly note sexism -- the same ones who took part in sexist attacks. What was CounterSpin's nonsense about Katie Couric (come on, her ratings are a 'media criticism'?) but a sexist attack?

In the new issue of FAIR's Extra! check out pages six and seven for big belly laughs.

FAIR's decided it damn well better say something about the sexism in the race. Hillary might be pushed out any day! They better weigh in before the whole world grasps what hypocrites they are, right?

They're disgusting. I'm saying "they" and avoiding naming the writer because who knows what she wrote or wanted to write. Her article is in keeping with the crap FAIR -- at its own website, on CounterSpin and in Extra! -- has done the entire campaign season: ignore sexism.

So you get a dumb ass article that goes after Tucker Carlson. For those who missed it, Tucker no longer has a MSNBC show. David Schuster? FAIR's little pet? Not mentioned in the article. He was suspended (and should have been fired) for his nonsense about Hillary "pimping" Chelsea. A network suspends someone for sexism. And yet it's not mentioned in the Extra! article?

The article's garbage it's nothing but nonsense that tries to weigh in (before it's too late!) and avoids the big targets like David Schuszie and Keithie Olbermann. Can't call out Keith?

They don't call out the vile and disgusting Bill Maher either but, hey, he's a 'lefty,' right? (Wrong.) They play favorites.

Naomi Wolf got called out in Extra! (the issue before last) and that's because she's not on the friends' list. That's all it was about. Wait and wait for another 'left' to be called out. Oh, there's one other reason Naomi was called out: she's a woman.

So they question her intelligence and smirk. It's all so very amusing.

To them anyway.

They do a weekly program and Janine Jackson is apparently their two-fer. She is one of three hosts. She's a woman and a person of color. So no one's supposed to notice that the other two hosts are White males. Just like you're never supposed to notice that CounterSpin has a horrible record featuring women. (In 2006, while FAIR was calling out PBS' NewsHour for the number of women they featured on air, CounterSpin actually featured a lower proportion than did The NewsHour. But no one's ever supposed to notice that.)

CounterSpin, FAIR and Extra! all ignored it when the "pimping" remark was made. Couldn't call that out. But they could rescue David by republishing a piece on how the Fox "News" performer (who got in trouble before he went to Fox for his loose and estranged relationship with the facts) finally saw the light! (That often happens when someone leaves Fox and it's always treated as 'wonderful!' Wonderful would be them calling it out when it was needed.)

The article's a waste of time. First off, having ignored sexism (other than the one fleeting sentence last week on CounterSpin that didn't even tell you the pundit's name -- if Hillary's called a "bitch" -- by a right-winger anyway -- they can apparently find sexism finally) the entire campaign, they had a lot of ground to cover and a two pages was never going to cut it. I'm a bit limited in what I can say here because when the race for the nomination is finally over (that should be after the August convention unless a candidate drops out, anything else is a violation of the process and spitting on democracy), Ava and I plan to examine one of FAIR's most ludicrous lies. But there's nothing "FAIR" about FAIR in this campaign season. It went beyond refusing to call out their peers (always a problem for the 'media watchdog') and moved into refusing to call out the mainstream. They did it because they had their own agenda and it was not media criticism. It was get Obama into office.

Most likely, Krauthammer has one thing right; most likely, Obama’s error will not be flogged by the wider press corps. But Clinton is helped by no such preference, and that explains how her citation of Robert Kennedy’s assassination did become such a major issue--an insight into her depraved character. Indeed, even after major pundits agreed that her statement had at first been misread, they continued to pound away at her offenses, finding new ways to be offended--inventing principles she had broken. As Krauthammer created a “you can’t say Auschwitz” rule, Keith Olbermann came up with a rule about saying “assassination”—a rule he himself seems to observe in the breach (details below). But to see the way these life-forms will cling to their manufactured cases of outrage, consider the way Chris Matthews played it throughout the day on Tuesday.

FAIR didn't write that. FAIR couldn't write it. (It's Bob Somerby from today's Howler.) FAIR won't call out Keithy. He can do whatever he wants. He's a fair headed boy to them (for various reasons and, if you're interested, e-mail and I'll cover it for Polly's Brew Sunday). Keithie is not in the news business. He's a loud mouth sportscaster who doesn't know his facts and has long practiced sexism. He doesn't get called out by FAIR. Tucker Carlson they take another swing at. (I don't care for Tucker and Ava and I have called him out for his sexism in this campaign season. And done a better job than FAIR which couldn't notice that in one of his most blatant moments, he was being 'gifted' by David Schuster.)

What the campaign season has taught us about Panhandle Media?

That they are sexists pigs -- be they male or female.

That they play favorites and will resort to any lie.

There are no ethics. Keith Olbermann can say anything and get away with it. He will not be called out. He will never be called out. He's given the same pass that Bill Maher is. But Tucker Carlson is everybody's whipping boy, apparently. (I have no sympathy for Tucker. I'm talking about standards and FAIR has none.)

You've seen gay members of Panhandle Media (Laura Flanders, Rachel Maddow, etc. -- there are many more but I'm not sure two that I'm thinking of are out) play dumb about Barack's use of homophobia. You've seen women thinking they're proving something by joining in the Hillary pile on.

You can lie about anything as long as it's about Hillary. We saw that with Stephen Zunes and Jar-Jar Blinks. Facts don't matter. She's been to Iraq more than once? Who cares? If your lie makes her look bad, that's all that matters, that's all anyone in Panhandle Media cares about. There are no standards.

They've not just betrayed their audiences, they've betrayed themselves and take comfort in that. Know that whatever else happens, they have to live with themselves and they are now as bad as every MSM gas bag they have criticized.

There is no standard they won't sell out. They have no ethics. They will lie and they will lie big.

Grasp too what they really think of you.

Granted most of them love the sounds of their own voices. No question on that. But they're talking and writing for more than their own self-love. They think they're going to influence and they're willing to lie to and trick the people who have supported them. They're willing to cheat the audience and that is the worst crime anyone in the public eye can commit. It's one thing to be wiped out and fake a performance. It's another thing to set out to deceive. They have done the latter over and over.

As WBAI has seen, people aren't going to pay for that crap. WBAI is the most exteme example of a short fall (and I'm not sure they are the worst offender in this, they have a diverse lineup and not the party line so typical on most Pacifica stations -- a friend swears LA is different as well but I always see that to be the case on any issue, but we noted they are the exceptions). The Houston station has been appalling. KPFA has been bloody awful.

And they want you to pay them for this. They want you to fork over your money so they can continue to do this. Include The Progressive and The Nation in that as well. Think about all the smears of Hillary from Matty Roth, Ruth Conniff, the No Star Airs of The Nation, John Nichols (who whispered a story that he never wrote and we're all supposed to pretend like it didn't happen?), Laura the self-loathing lesbian Flanders . . .

Repeating, they never agree on anything. You could tell them that Social Security payments wer going to increase by 30% and they'd have three million different opinions. But they closed ranks (and foundation money helped there, didn't it Katty-van-van) and did non-stop attacks on Hillary.

Bob Somerby's mistake this campaign season was not covering Panhandle Media because that's where it came from. No the MSM doesn't like Hillary or Bill Clinton. They spent the nineties trying to destroy both Clintons. Aided by the right-wing. This decade it was aided by the left-wing and The Nation especially was thrilled to repeat any crackpot (and disproven) rumor. (Long disproven.) How bad was it? Matthew Rothschilds whimpering about his mother passing away (act like a grown up, Matty, or head to the kiddie table) and at the same time, he's linking to The Weekly Standard. The Progressive is linking to The Weekly Standard. And not just in an article or blog post, under Editors Recommendations. What's the story? About the group whose letters spell the "c" word. That's how toxic Panhandle Media's been this campaign season. Matty wants sympathy that his mother passed away while linking to a story about a group insulting all women. Matty's among the Panhandle types with daughters.

Katrina's got a daughter. Guess it's okay to publish Pig Ritter since her daughter's a year away from eighteen? I mean, the only women he stalked were 14-year-old girls, right? The most hilarious and insightful moment into Panhandle Media may have come near the end of Laura Flanders live radio show when she objected to the fact that Barack used a pedophile's song for his theme (or did then), a Gary Glitter song.

That wasn't necessarily an inappropriate criticism. But it was awfully strange when you consider that Flanders had Pig Ritter on her show many times and, in fact, he was on only weeks prior. So it's wrong to use a song by a pedophile but you can invite on your show someone twice busted for being an online sexual predator?

That's an interesting 'standard.'

But it goes to how disgusting they are and how little they really respect women.

They never have and they never will unless they're called on it. It makes no difference if it's a man or a woman in charge of the outlet, they will all work overtime to attack women. No standards. No equal play. Just sexism over and over.

And while they smeared Hillary and promoted Barack (Stab never wrote about how Barack was connected to the religious group she found sinister for Hillary, did she? Of course not.), they were just acting what they've always done. What the country needs is a feminist media.

It doesn't have to be cable. It does have to say, "Screw you, I'm not going along." It needs to be willing to call out all the people who regularly use sexism. And we don't have that today. We have feminists who think they can make alliances. There's no point in doing that. This campaign cycle has demonstrated that women do not matter outside of the feminist press.

I've shared for months now that I don't see what's going on as frightening for feminism. I think it's going to kick start a very active wave of feminism.

It's a shame that to get there we had to witness daily, non-stop sexist attacks. It's a shame that Panhandle Media showed us that was what they were interested in and not ending the illegal war. But they haven't tried to end the illegal war in years. They're doing exactly what they did in 2004 only more so. What you've seen is what Naomi Klein was warning about repeatedly.

If she'd had a penis maybe more would have paid attention.

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 4079. Tonight? 4083. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,217,892 up from 1,213,716 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War.

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








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