Sunday, September 01, 2013

915 violent deaths in Iraq for the month of August

Saturday was the last day of the month in Iraq.  Iraq Body Count has released their total for the month: 915 violent deaths.

That includes Saturday.  On that day's violence, AFP reports, "Gunmen killed five worshippers at a Sunni mosque in Baghdad on Saturday, the latest in a surge in violence that has sparked fears of a return to all-out sectarian war."  KUNA reports a Baghdad bombing left 3 people dead and five more injured while a Baghdad shooting left 1 person dead and five more injured. RTE News adds, "A car bomb killed 12 people and wounded at least 20 others in the Iraqi city of Ramadi. [. . .] Another bomb in Maeden, southeast of Baghdad, killed one person and wounded seven."  Alsumaria reports a Tikrit bombing claimed the lives of two children and left their police officer father, the mother and one of their brothers injured.

Let's note John V. Walsh from his new piece that went up a little while ago at Dissident Voice:


But the situation is grave enough, possibly leading on to a World War, that 21 Democrats have challenged the President and the Party bosses to sign the statement. They are moving beyond partisanship as Ron Paul did in challenging George W. Bush on the war on Iraq.
If that were all that the letter said, it would be momentous enough. But the statement goes further and labels Obama’s cruel war on Libya as “unconstitutional,” because it was done without so much as a nod to Congress. In the end no lawyer and no court, not even the Supreme Court, can overrule Congress when it decides what to do when it considers a serious presidential action as “unconstitutional.” In Libya Obama usurped the powers of Congress. If Congress takes the next step and determines that such an action rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” then it is an impeachable offense.
It is not hard to see the implications of the warning to Obama that the Representatives are issuing in raising Libya. If Obama attacks Syria, that will be the second offense, greatly strengthening the case for impeachment.
The implied threat of impeachment is of utmost importance because the President, long become an Emperor, will heed no warning unless it is backed by threat of punishment. 

 Please read the full column.  He notes Republican before the excerpt above starts.  I didn't include that.  I'm not trying to take away from Senator Rand Paul and others.  It's just hard to include that section because that means including the quoting from the letter that Walsh starts with.  It's an important column so make a point to read it.

And on Syria here?

We'll be covering Syria at Third.

Earlier (while it was still Saturday), I'd thought I'd be able to do something here on it.

Jim wants Ava and I to include Barack's Saturday remarks in our media piece.  So that limited what I had to write here.  (Ava and I cover media at Third each week.)

I still thought there was enough I could pull together.  I was wrong.

We want to start with the fable, mocking it, then move to reality, then get real close to reality (that requires strongly calling out someone I consider a friend*), then pull back to note how the press ignored reality in reporting on Barack's Saturday remarks.  We're seeing it as a series of fast cuts but it may need to be abrupt jump cuts for the piece to work.  (We've outlined it.)

Expect Third to go up late because this is going to be a hard piece.

But I don't whore.

I'm sorry, I don't.

And in many ways, I could stay silent about an actress-activist staying silent.  And I did.  A blind item here and a post on Nancy Reagan there, I've pretty much held my tongue.  I've defended every action -- good or stupid -- this woman's ever taken.  But I won't defend inaction or cowardice.  And I've been under serious pressure from real leftists in the artistic community to call this woman out.  I could defend her doing something, I can't defend her refusal to speak.  And I'm really tired of being treated like I'm her spokesperson or something.  She needs to speak for her own damn self.  She won't because she's a whore for the Democratic Party.  That's fine and dandy, but call yourself that, don't say you're an activist.  An activist calls out an abusive Executive Branch.  I'd hoped that before Sunday came, she'd get off her ass and actually say something -- about something than her movie or her TV show or her new workout video or whatever other ridiculous thing she's doing for money these days.

I have friends I love who are even more left than me and they're singers and directors and actors and they never get on a soapbox in public.  That's fine.  I don't fault them for that. I have friends who are apolitical and don't give a damn and that's fine too.  Outside the artistic community, I even have friends who are Republicans and that's fine.

But what's not fine is to define yourself as an activist -- to do so publicly -- to showboat on issues when Republicans in power but to cower when Democrats are in power.  I'm not in the damn mood.

And Ava and I will write about how ridiculous this woman is and we'll do it as we usually do, noting one aspect and linking it to so many other public embarrassments.

I have waited six years for this lazy ass to speak and she still can't and heavens knows that on one issue she has no right to stay silent. So basically I'm writing a piece that ends a friendship.


You have ethics or you don't.  And I'm referring to me not her.  An issue emerged in May of this year.  Her whorish silence on Iraq and other things I could overlook.  I can't overlook her silence on this issue.

And no one should.

No one.

And that's why I'm no longer able to defend her or excuse her or rescue her.  She's pissed off a lot of people.  Maybe next time instead of doing advertising for Loreal and bad TV and so-so movies, she'll find time to speak out.  Or maybe she can just admit she's not really an activist.

But what happened in May?  She sued over it decades ago.  So for her to be silent today?  She's made herself useless.  And, again, for her actions -- right or wrong -- I can defend that.  But I can't defend her silence and I'm tired of trying to.

In place of Syria here, Jim suggested I note what Ava and I had planned.  There's this idea that we play favorites and people get passes.  I really love John Kerry.  I really do.  Did you read what I wrote about him and Syria over the last five or six days?  Did it look like he got a pass?   I call out people all the time that I know and like.  And if you doubt that, I'm not really looking forward to Ava and I writing the piece that we've outlined.

Again, Third will probably go up late.  We've got a great mix with an emphasis on Syria -- in terms of ideas.  Hopefully, we'll be able to execute those ideas in an at least okay manner so they can be posted.

Also, here we are on holiday schedule.  Sunday night (or late Monday morning), I'd like to do another talking entry.  Kat's hoping to do a music piece.  There may or may not be a snapshot Monday.  (Monday is Labor Day in the US.)

The following community sites -- plus Chocolate City, Cindy Sheehan,, Great Britain's Socialist Worker, Pacifica Evening News and The New Statesman -- have updated since Friday evening:

The e-mail address for this site is