Thursday, March 04, 2010

I Hate The War

Dan Damon: I've been looking at some of the campaign literature and it's not big on policy. A lot of "I'm a great guy vote for me," "I was an enemy of Saddam." I don't see a lot of issues covered.

Iraqi man, political scientist: Yes, they are not deep in their planning of what they're going to do [. . .]

Dan Damon: So what proportion of people do you think will actually vote?

Iraqi man: Oh, seventy to eighty percent.

On BBC Radio's Newshour today, Dan Damon continued his interviews with Iraqis to see what they're expecting from the elections. What makes it into the snapshot, what doesn't? An e-mail at the public account asked about that. This week, the focus is on the elections. Today they probably back seat to the continuation of the Iraq War because the illegal war has not ended and I'm really tired of media types who blame the American voters or call them stupid. If voters thought Barack was going to end the Iraq War, that goes to the media -- which in some cases reported that and in other cases refused to seriously probe his stands. I've never seen anyone get the easy press -- certainly not a Democrat -- that Barack received in 2008. And it takes a lot of nerve to blame the American people for that. Most people do not have time to spend probing and reading over every issue paper a campaign issues. Let alone to then undertake a fact check on their own. Most people are working jobs, or looking for jobs (in this economy especially), caring for children or their older relatives, trying to get a few moments in overworked 'work' week -- where there 40 hours demand that they do their job and two other peoples in that 40 hours because 'productivity' allows for lay offs -- and they've still got eat, they've still got a million things to do. They don't have the time to research every issue especially when the media repeatedly tells them there's no reason to.

Last week on Democracy Now!, a man was called a terrorist. He's the one who flew his plane into the IRS headquarters in Austin, Texas. Is he a terrorist? I would use that term to describe him. In poli sci terms, he meets all the criteria for the definition.

Guess what, so does Bill Ayers. But the same show that last week wanted to label someone a terrorist for resorting to violence for political means spent forever (as did so much of the media) dismissing Ayers' record. And lying that Barack was 8 years old so how could he know? Barack was in college -- majoring in poli sci -- when Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn turned themselves after years underground -- and many, many bombings during that time.

Now it was a violent time. The government was attacking the citizens, spying on them, maligning them, working to destroy them (Jean Seberg being just the most extreme case). So we can have a discussion that weighs the pros and cons of Weather Underground's actions. That's fine. But we can't deny that Ayers is a terrorist one year and then the next turn around and call someone else a terrorist for resorting to violence for political means.

Barack was wrongly seen as anti-war because the press pimped him as such. The supposed 'anti-war' voices pimped him as such. Liar Leslie Cagan -- there is no hole she can dig in deep enough to escape her past, it will always follow her -- and so many others. Willful liars, deliberate deceivers. I'm in no mood to watch as American voters are attacked and blamed as if we're not supposed to have a working media, as though all the 'endorsers' who were 'peace' voices didn't work overtime to obscure reality. Don't blame We The People. The media failed and alleged 'leaders' of the left (and 'left') failed.

KWB e-mails (and said s/he could be referred to as such) to weigh in that "You have an opinion on everything. I don't see how you could be an expert on everything."

I'm not. I don't pretend to be. I do know a great deal because I've lived a while and then some. I did grow up in a family that closely watched politics (and was media). I did over-elect in college (undergrad and after) because so many classes interested me. I have a wide area of interests and, again, have lived way too many years. I don't have an opinion on everything. If you go to Third, when they do roundtables, you'll find many times when I say nothing or say I don't have an opinion.

Here, we cover Iraq. I've been speaking on the Iraq War -- speaking against it -- to groups since one month before it started. There are many things I know on the war because we've covered them and covered them and covered them again. In addition, I've got a huge group of friends who walk me through so much. That's journalists and reporters and veterans and professors and doctors and nurses and attorneys and comedians (who always keep me laughing) you name it.

I'm copying a Trina move here:

European court condemns UK over Iraq transfers

Reuters UK - James Mackenzie, Michael Roddy - ‎Mar 2, 2010‎
The court found that in Iraq, they were "at real risk of being subjected to an unfair trial followed by execution by hanging." The two men were tried by an ...
Government guilty on human rights The Press Association

That story broke March 2nd. I didn't cover it. Why? I didn't grasp it. It was mentioned to me by a friend at an outlet covering it and I asked for a walk through. The walk through made no sense to me. I spoke to two friends, attorneys, one in England, one in France, to get a walk through on it. I'm not disagreeing with the opinion of the court -- or agreeing with it. I have no idea if it's correct or not -- or if I think so -- because I don't understand the ruling. The friend in England gave it a try, gave explaining a try but expressed some confusion. Which is fine. The friend in France gave a great explanation of it, a great walk through but then I asked, "Have you read the decision?" The answer was "no." If he had, I would have attempted to write about it. But he hadn't and I haven't. So I didn't cover it. I had hoped to read the decision by now but I still haven't.

If I'm talking about a verdict, I have generally read the verdict and discussed it with several friends before it pops up here.

Not only do I not know everything, I don't even know all the things that pop up here which is why I repeatedly state, "I can be wrong and often am." It doesn't make me uncomfortable to admit that I am wrong.

Related, there's a PTSD case that we will not be mentioning here. A friend's part of the legal team on one side of that case (that's okay) and wanted my take on it so I gave it after different information (that's not okay, so, as a result, we won't cover it here).

I don't know a lot of things. We waited on covering Marc Hall's case (click here for info and to take action) because I couldn't find anyone who knew him to speak to. When I did, we started covering him. I couldn't write about him without having some sense of him. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I overdo any research. If we need to know about X, I'm still grabbing the whole alphabet. That's not because I'm smart. It's because I know how easy it is for me to be wrong and how I need to have everything lined up as much as I can before I speak. Even so I make many mistakes and have no problem saying, "My error, my apologies." Or more if it's needed.

I make many other mistakes that aren't factual. For example, we link to now. I'm talking about on the permalinks on the left. We've linked to individual articles for some time. Why didn't we link? Because I was wrong.

I didn't want to get into election politics, they're right-leaning (as a site) and a hundred other reasons. The only issue should have been are they against the war and covering it? The answer to both of those is "yes." It was my error, my failure (and a big one) not to put them on the permalinks sooner. By the same contrast, it was my error to put some left sites on the permalinks because I knew the people and just knew, just knew that they wanted to end the Iraq War. No, they wanted to profit from the illegal war and, after they'd shoved some ones in their g-strings, they moved on to a different topic.

I was a real idiot on that. I don't pretend otherwise. I am not always right. I'm probably more wrong than I am ever right. I used to think Jodi Evans, for example, was someone worth speaking to. I now avoid her with a passion and she can go ___ herself. She's a liar and she electing Barack ahead of peace. (She continues to do so, let's be honest.) I have no interest in promoting CodePink at all now. I'm not interested in them. In my offline life, I do a joke about how, back during the Jerry Brown governor days, Jodi could be trusted to get you a diet soda -- not as easy back then when diet sodas weren't all the rage -- but that was about it. (The joke is an in depth routine and I do it on request only.) I've known Jodi for years and what an idiot am I to have fallen for her little act? I can be the biggest idiot in the world and I never deny that. Offline or on.

I'm appalled by the lack of honesty on the left and to some degree that might be due to the fact that I understand the dishonesty. I freely admitted in a roundtable at Third last month that if it wasn't for this site, I probably would've voted for Barack. I'm a Democrat. It was a big deal for me to vote for president and not vote for the Democrat. If it weren't for this site, I would've done like a number of friends and just held my nose and voted. And then ignored that fact, ignored my vote and focused on other things. But having to write something every day? There's no way. I couldn't write about the need for the Iraq War to end and vote for Barack Obama who was nothing but a Corporatist War Hawk. More so than speaking to groups, this site means I can't fake it. I couldn't have voted for a War Hawk and continued this site. It just wouldn't have worked.

I've written many, many bad entries here but I've never faked it so far. I've meant what I've said however badly I've said it. (And anything worth reading here usually comes about due to community members asking for it to be tackled or sharing stories of their own.)

I'd rather be stupid (which I so often am) and fumbling around making mistakes (which I so frequently do -- I'm not referring to typos, we've never given a damn about typos here, I'm talking real mistakes) then be a parrot offering talking points. Example, a friend on the DPC asked me if we weren't getting the DPC e-mails about their videos. We are getting them. I've said "no." I have seen the videos, I haven't had time. They're on a topic that we're not in favor of community wide (Barack's big gift to Big Pharma) and I don't think that we attack the Republicans for standing against things they don't believe in. "Obstructionists," really? Well, you know what, I wish Democrats had been "obstructionists" when they were in the minority, I wish they had that kind of spine. I'm not going to attack Republicans for saying "no" to things they don't agree with. I will blow a gasket online over remarks they make in the process of saying "no" but I never expect Republicans to act like Democrats. Sadly, like so many in the US, I've gotten used to Democrats acting like Republicans.

I look around and I don't see a great deal of authenticity on the left. I see Chris Hedges and John Pilger doing the strong jobs they always do and then I see a lot of frauds and fakes (many of whom I once considered acquaintances and/or friends). It's depressing. On the plus side, on campuses today, we keep finding students who've had it, who are now going to go along with the lies just because a Democrats is in the White House. We encounters leftists and rightists who say no to war. And these people aren't showing up in the media unless it's a call in show. And no one's really speaking to them on the left, no one in an established place like The Nation or The Progressive. I'll give Matt Rothschild the benefit of the doubt but, at The Nation, they're already geared up to do nothing but continue giving Barack a rubber stamp. That's not an accusation, that's their policy and bulls**t and I've expressed that to friends with that magazine repeatedly.
I think, to find a positive, that maybe the death of all these posers like Leslie Cagan and Tom Hayden and all the damn rest were necessary. I think in a way it provided a "Kill Mommy and kill Daddy" moment that will free today's youth and allow them to be the leaders that the faux 'leaders' refused to allow them to be.

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 4376. Tonight? 4380.

The e-mail address for this site is