Monday, June 27, 2011

Does that Gate ever close?

Used to be a president nominated someone to a Cabinet position and, if the Senate confirmed the person, the day the confirmation vote took place you had your new Secretary. That template didn't factor in Robert Gates who just will not leave. As he continues The Never Ending Farewell Tour, you find yourself asking, "Didn't Leon Panetta get confirmed already?"

Yes, he did.

Not unlike his own odor (a mixture of unwashed ass and cheap cologne), Gates refuses to go away. Today on Morning Edition (NPR), Rachel Martin gushes over Gates. Really? Really because I know NPR's ethics policy. It's really strict on what you can get or do with people you're covering. So why am I thinking of that ethics policy and remembering an NPR employee all but dry humping Gates' leg to get a public but off-the-record photo with him?

In fact, I'd hate to think that all this never ending blitz on Gates -- instead of the suggestion that he do the honorable thing (pack his desk and go home all damn ready) -- this cooing adoration from the press resulted from something other than journalistic training. But I guess ethics in a bordello can be boiled down to "get the money upfront," eh, Rachel?


As we've pointed out before, you will know the whores posing as press by their inability to explore (or in Rachel's case, even mention) Iran-Contra and Gates' involvement in that.

Under his tenure, the DoD is most infamous for an employee refusing to testify about sexual assaults to the Congress. She remains employed by DoD. That's because Gates gave the order for her not to testify. But we're not going to see the press go into that either, are we?

Or the fact that sexual assault increased under Robert Gates, that despite all his many statements, he didn't do a damn thing to ensure the safety of those serving when it came to sexual assault. And we certainly won't hear about how testy he got in Congress when sexual assault was the topic and a Representative or Senator had the nerve to leave "fawning mode" and actually ask him a tough question on that topic.

It's really telling in all these 'reporters' efforts to offer 'tributes' to Robert Gates, that no one thinks to explore the actual record. The actual record includes the rate of sexual assault.

Let's give him credit for an accomplishment: In 2006, he repeatedly told Congress that stop-loss was being phased out. That year, and in 2007, he implied it was on the verge of ending. This year, just a little while ago, he was finally able to announce that it had ended. Five years after he assured Congress it was being phased out and he didn't expect to see anyone stop-lossed and . . .

How about the rate of suicide within the Army?

Is that the reason the press refused to cover the May suicide statistics? Were they released at an unfortunate time? As the press was rushing to pant and moan over Gates?

The rate of suicide among members of the military has only increased under Robert Gates' 'leadership'.

Find me the article or commentary which notes that fact.

You won't. The press has spent nearly 3 months whoring for Robert Gates. The press that is supposed to the watchdog, the press that is supposed to inform the public. To serve the public in fact. Not to serve up glossy portraits of ugly officials (and Gates is butt ugly and don't get me started on his pores) as though they were film stars. Maybe if the press hadn't been so eager to fawn over Gates throughout his tenure sexual assault and military suicide would have been addressed. In the end, they are as guilty as Gates himself.

Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Let Someone Else Be A Leader" went up yesterday. Today on Law and Disorder Radio (begins broadcasting at 9:00 am EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week),attorneys and hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) speak with attorney Dan Gregor about the topic of mountaintop removal and with attorney Azadeh Shahshahhani about human rights in Tunisia. Also Michael Ratner and Heidi Boghosian read from the column that Michael Ratner and Margaret Ratner Kunstler have written (The Progressive) about the current war on protest and dissent in the US. Michael Ratner and Margaret Ratner Kunstler are the authors of the new book Hell No, Your Right To Dissent. In addition, don't miss the opening commentary -- especially the exploration of a war 'critic'.

We'll close with this from Phiip C. Restino Jr.'s "Impeach Obama Now Or Forever Hold Up Peace" (IHC):

The sovereign nation of Libya posed no such threat whatsoever to the United States, and Obama’s ordering of more than 120 Cruise Missiles fired into Libya in just the first day of his own March 19th “Shock and Awe” is nothing less than another outright illegal U.S. war of aggression similar to the illegal U.S. war of aggression on Iraq launched 8 years to the day prior, minus the land invasion which is the next step in the process if the American people don’t draw the line and call for a stop to it now.
With such a clear cut case ready to make for impeaching President Obama over his war on Libya, along with the legal experts and the political figures ready to proceed with a call for impeachment, then why has there not been a call from the leaders of the national antiwar organizations for impeaching Obama when making such a call now could actually prevent him from going ahead with a land invasion into Libya and even be enough of a threat of impeachment to force him to finally end the 10-year U.S. wars and occupations by using his unique ability as Commander in Chief to order a cease-fire?
People involved in the national antiwar organizations have told me that the issue of racism is a major factor in their failure to call for impeachment of President Obama for what amounts to the same crimes cited in their former calls for impeachment and present calls for prosecution of President George W. Bush over his war on Iraq. If calling for the impeachment of the first Black American U.S. President for prosecuting illegal wars of aggression is racist, then that first needs to be squared with all the brown-skinned people being killed under his command. Even more so, if calling for the impeachment of the first African-American U.S. President for prosecuting an illegal war of aggression on Libya is racist, then that first needs to be squared with all the brown-skinned Africans being killed under his command before such a claim be taken seriously. A friend put it to me this way, if racism is applying different standards based on race, then not calling for impeachment because of race is in fact racism as well.
I spoke recently with the president of a major national antiwar organization about the silence from his organization regarding a call for impeachment of President Obama and he told me that the reason he and his organization are against applying the same standard of impeachment in their public call for accountability to President Obama, even after his recent attack on Libya, as they had so strongly applied to President George W. Bush in regards to his war on Iraq was the possibility of groups that were “racist” joining their call for the impeachment of Obama not because they agreed with his prosecuting the U.S. war on Libya being impeachable but instead because they were racists and just wanted to remove Obama from office because he was a person of color. If that’s really the thinking of the leaders of the national antiwar organizations in America, then I say who needs “controlled opposition”?



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


































at