I would like to thank Mr. Moore for his letter of July 18 in response to my earlier letter on conscientious objectors. Although I disagree with Moore's opinion on the legality of the Iraq war, I truly welcome honest public debate on important matters such as this one.
The unsanctioned invasion of Iraq occurred March 18, 2003, a full seven months before the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1511 to ensure the "restoration of stability and security" in response to the chaos caused by the invasion. The resolution does not and could not provide retroactive exoneration. The fact remains, Stephen Harper would have committed Canada to this illegal war if he were Prime Minister at the time.
As for Afghanistan, I would much prefer that Canada was there with our original intention of peace-keeping and reconstruction. However, our troops deserve our full support in this new, combative role, which is sanctioned by the UN.
The point of my letter was that the Conservative government must respect the motion on conscientious objectors passed by Parliament. Harper himself said the government has a moral responsibility to respect such motions. This motion is based on an issue of fundamental human rights, and it is downright callous to ignore it.
According to an Angus Reid poll conducted June 6 and 7, 2008, after Parliament passed the motion calling on the government to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada and to cease all deportation and removal proceedings, two-thirds of Canadians want Canada to grant permanent residence status to U. S. Iraq war resisters.
The Harper Conservatives are afraid of raising the ire of their ideological cousins in the Republican administration but, ignoring the democratic will of Parliament and the views of the large majority of Canadians will only raise the fury of Canadian voters who want a more progressive government that reflects Canadian values.
Steve Clarke, Federal Liberal candidate for Simcoe North
The above is a letter to the the Orillia Packet & Times by Steve Clarke, Federal Liberal candidate for Simcoe North. The earlier letter to the editor that he wrote and refers to is"Gov't can't keep ignoring motion concerning war objectors: Clarke" and he also refers to Ralph Moore's letter.
From Margaret Kimberley's "Obama Pardons Bush" (Black Agenda Report):
The Senator would never have been able to launch a successful presidential race if he did not already have buy-in from very rich, very powerful people. Not only did he have to secure their support in order to run, he must continue securing it in order to win.
That is why he will never investigate the Bush administration's well documented criminal activity. The rule of law doesn't apply to presidents, to their cabinet members, to members of Congress or to criminal corporations. Obama's backers would be most unhappy if they thought their guy was going to get into office and start calling powerful people to account on any issue.
All of which means that Barack Obama will never investigate any of the crimes committed in the Bush administration. When pressed because of the long campaign against Hillary Clinton, Obama was sometimes forced to give an appearance that he would actually preserve, protect and defend the constitution if he became president. The Senator spoke on the issue himself in April, and once again proved that he is a genius at double talk:
"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there [emphasis mine] and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt [emphasis mine] because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
What kind of investigation pursues only what is already known? It seems that Obama would investigate only what he wouldn't have to look for, but not so much that Republican sensibilities would be bruised. In other words, he won't try to find wrong doing.
One of the more revealing aspects about this campaign to the real press has been watching a whack-job emerge. We're talking about the man run off by the MSM who actually had some Real Media peer support until this year. A friend on mine cautioned him in the eighties that passion was a wonderful thing but you shouldn't let it blind your journalistic judgment. He threw that out the window this year. Why? My own hypothesis is that his fear of vagina and worship of the penis dictated that it play out the way it did. Susan (Random Thoughts) offers her hypothesis here. But he is a joke to Real Media now. His past work and past bravery don't count for a thing and, should his site go belly up, he'll need to eat a lot of humble pie to get a job in Real Media this time. I don't think there is a comeback for him. He's too old. He's a joke in many newsrooms (due to the fact that he made a number of enemies while in the MSM and they have loved watching his nutty behavior since the start of the year). And there's really no way to overcome that. When you're 'controversial,' you need your supporters. He no longer has them and some of the harshest statements made in newsrooms today about him come from those who supported before 2008 became, for him, La Vida Loco.
He wants the Bully Boy to pay. That's not an unusal sentiment. What was unusual is he 'mind-read' Hillary via Bill. Bill and Hillary are married, they are not the same person. But he just knew it wasn't going to happen (punishment of Bully Boy under a Hillary presidency) and he did a lot of transferance and a let a lot of his personal bitterness over the way Iran-Contra went down dictate his approach. (Exactly what Sarah long ago warned him against when she attempted to explain the value of passion in journalism and the liabilities.) He became a caricuture of his former self. Kimberley's column no doubt would enrage him. But, thing is, she's pointing out how it was obvious long ago.
He disgraced himself and there's probably no comeback for him now. (I don't attempt to defend him these days when he's trashed by Real Media.) I mention the above due to an e-mail from a visitor who is frightened Barack will win in November because he fears futher pushes for 'post-racism' in America. (A concern many African-Americans have. A very valid concern.) I can't say anything to reassure on that concern. But he also raised the issue of how many 'journalists' embarrassed themselves and named the unnameable specifically. Regardless of the outcome in November, a lot of people have exposed themselves in public and the up-side to that is that their careers are over. They don't grasp it yet, but it is over. That will be true regardless of the outcome in November. These weren't idealistic kids just out of J-school. These were alleged professionals with lifetimes of experience that they 'called upon' to speak with such authority. A loss demonstrates that they should have stayed the hell out of it if they couldn't be anything but a cheerleader. A win is actually worse because their open-mouthed slobbering will be thrown in their faces. Over and over again. That will be very true of the unnameable. Those sentences he wrote in Jaunuary are already laughed about in newsrooms.
The bottom is already falling out of Panhandle Media and has been for some time. [. . .*] Their dream lover Barack does the same thing. Tip to the McCain campaign, the next ad needs to be something like this.
John McCain: Hello, I'm John McCain. I've been in the US Senate for a number of years and most Americans know me. For some reason, Senator Barack Obama doesn't seem to know me. He keeps linking me to George W. Bush. As most Americans know, I am my own person [McCain would probably say "man"] and it's really strange to hear Senator Obama repeatedly cry that we need to deal with issues while he repeatedly tries to turn me into someone else. Barack Obama, let me introduce myself, I'm John McCain and I'm your opponent. You don't have a record to run on and you seem to think you can refuse to let me run on mine. You seem to think you can trick the American people into believing that George W. Bush is running for re-election and not me. You already wrongly stated in public that the United States has 58 states so maybe you're not up on the Constitution but the way it works is a president can only have two terms. George W. Bush's second term is expiring. I am your opponent. You toss a lot of words around about wanting to deal with issues, then you lie and say I'm a clone or a twin of someone else. The American people are not stupid. Stop insulting them and me. It's 2008, Senator Obama, not 2000 or 2004. If you want 'change, try changing your calendar.
*What do "they do"? Edited out. Jim was reading over my shoulder while this was being written and claimed one very visual (re: Barack) for Third. I said Third could have it only if it was run by Isaiah first because he might want to run with that for a comic. I came back to the morning entries, called Dona over and asked, "Is this something that can be used by Third?" Jim's request would have pulled no more than two sentences. Ten paragraphs, however, were pulled out when Dona agreed we could build those up and build around them for a piece at Third. We're all tired of working over thirty hours straight at Third to finish an edition and some people will be catching planes later tomorrow to fly home.
The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ
Three sites will be posting later today:
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
and Wally's The Daily Jot
Ralph Nader is the independent candidate for president. This is from Team Nader:
CNN Poll: Ralph Nader at Six Percent
Posted by The Nader Team on Friday, August 1, 2008 at 10:16:00 AM
ShareThis
Good morning.
Here's something you can do right now.
Donate six dollars.
To Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
Because we're celebrating.
For two reasons.
Number one reason to celebrate: CNN poll from two days ago---Ralph Nader at six percent.
After being totally blocked out from the mainstream media for months.
(This is the fourth major poll putting us at five percent and above. Remember, John Anderson and Ross Perot both got into Presidential debates because they met the then League of Women Voters' threshold of five percent in a number of polls.)
And that's quite remarkable.
Six percent.
With little to no national news coverage.
Number two reason to celebrate: In 2004, we were on only 34 state ballots.
Now, in 2008, thanks to your help, we're heading toward 45 states.
For example, in 2004, we were not on in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Arizona, and Massachusetts.
But we will be on these states in 2008.
Today, for example, we will turn in more than 53,000 signatures in Pennsylvania. (25,000 valid required.)
So, yes, we are moving on up.
We'll take the six percent in the polls.
And we'd gladly take six percent national coverage from the mainstream media -- to match our most recent poll number.
But no.
To the mainstream corporate media, we're untouchable.
Why?
Because we represent what the majority of Americans want?
Because we favor single payer health insurance?
And Obama and McCain oppose it?
Because we would quickly end the corporate and military occupation of Iraq?
And Obama and McCain wouldn't?
Because we stand for a shift of the power away from the corporations and back into the hands of the American people?
Because we would cut the bloated, wasteful military budget?
Yes, that's why.
Because the corporate media is just doing its job.
Protecting corporate power.
And we are doing ours.
Representing the majority of the American people.
So, they are doing what they must do.
And we are doing what we must do.
So, drop a six spot here now.
And support the campaign that represents the American people.
Against the corporate masters.
And help us reach our new fundraising goal -- $100,000 by August 10.
Thanks to your generous contributions so far, we're a third of the way home.
Let's keep moving on up.
Both to our goal of $100,000 by August 10.
And let's drive our numbers in the polls to seven, eight, nine and ten points and beyond.
So that even the corporate media will have to sit up and take notice.
Together, we are making a difference.
Onward
The Nader Team
P.S. Remember, for a donation of $200 or more to Nader/Gonzalez by Sunday August 3 at midnight, we'll ship to you three anti-war books by former New York Times reporter and current Nader supporter Chris Hedges---Collateral Damage, What Every Person Should Know About War, and War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.
ShareThis
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
jan slakov
rondi adamson
washington week
pbs
bill moyer journal
now on pbs
mcclatchy newspapers
the new york times
sabrina tavernise
steven lee myers
tom sandborn