BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
IN AN EFFORT TO FURTHER ALIENATE THE LGBT COMMUNITY, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WENT TO WAR WITH CBS NEWS OVER A BLOG POST THAT TALKED ABOUT ELENA KAGAN BEING GAY.
WHICH REALLY SCREAMED OF HOMOPHOBIA.
RUSHING TO INTERJECT HERSELF INTO THE CONVERSATION, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LINEBACKER ANITA DUNN INSISTED THAT CBS WAS "APPLYING OLD STEREOTYPES TO SINGLE WOMEN". OLD STEREOTYPES?
YOU MEAN IN THE 50S, A SINGLE WOMAN WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GAY? OR ON TV IN THE 60S, SALLY ROGERS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GAY?
OR MAYBE ANITA DUNN'S DOING HER USUAL SONG AND DANCE OF OVER-REACTING?
AND MAYBE THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULD LEARN HOW TO REFUTE RUMORS WITHOUT MAKING IT SOUND LIKE BEING GAY IS DISGUSTING?
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
"The attacks on September 11, 2001 set in motion the sustained increased use and heavier reliance on the reserves with over 761,000 reservists and guardsman mobilized to date, one third of whom have been activated two times or more," declared US House Rep Susan David yesterday. "The Department of Defense and the services have begun a transformation of the Guard and Reserve to an operational force with greater strategic capability and depth. This includes an equipping strategy to ensure the reserve components have the same equipment as their respective active component and an effective force management strategy to ensure the reserves are not over utilized. In response to the continued reliance on the reserves, Congress took some key steps to address the concerns that emerged. First it established the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves to provide a comprehensive independent assessment of the Guard and Reserves and its potential future roles. Secondly, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, Congress: (1) elevated the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the grade of 4-star general, (2) made the National Gurad Bureau a joint organization and (3) required specific actions with regards to equipping the Guard and Reserves. Congress also mandated the establishment of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program to assist Guard and Reserve members and their families' transition back to their communities after deployment."
She was speaking at the opening of a the Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. Davis chairs the Subcommittee and, as they explored issues of interest to the Guard and Reserve, they received testimony from Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs Dennis McCarthy, Lt Gen Jack Stultz (Chief of Army Reserve), Vice Adm Dick Debbink (Chief of Naval Reserve), Lt Gen John Kelly (Commander, Marine Force Reserve), Lt Gen Charles Stenner (Chief of Air Force Reserve), Lt Gen Harry Wyatt (Director Air National Guard) and Maj Gen Raymond Carpenter (Acting Director Army National Guard). We'll note this exchange between Ranking Member Joe Wilson and Dennis McCarthy.
Ranking Member Joe Wilson: [. . .] With that, another fact, Secretary McCarthy, is that it's so difficult to distinguish between Guard, Reserve, Active Duty except on the issue of retirement. And so I certainly hope that we can make some changes. In particular, current law allows a mobilized Reserve component member to earn three months credit toward retirement for every 90 days of aggregate service on active duty. Congress intended for those to be counted as active duty regardless of whether the active duty period occurred across fiscal years. But the Department has somehow implemented this that if it is across the fiscal years that it doesn't count at all. What is DoD going to do to fix this or what should we do to clarify? But there's no question that we certainly meant to disregard fiscal year.
Dennis M. McCarthy: Congressman Wilson, I'm well aware of that anomaly. I think everyone understands that it's not what either the Congress intended and it's not what -- uh -- is -- uh -- it's not the right thing to do. So it is going to take a fix. I'm not sure whether it will be a legislative or a directive fix. I suspect it will be the latter. I'm sorry -- I suspect it will be the former and that we will have to come to Congress on that. But I know that it's on the agenda to be -- to be resolved.
Ranking Member Joe Wilson: And I hope it will be resolved as quickly as possible. Additionally, we have a circumstance where we have mobilized Reserve component members who can earn retirement as Reservists or Guard members wounded or injured if they're placed in a Wounded Warrior Unit under the orders of the Wounded Warrior. Again, they don't receive credit for the period of time recovering from the wounds and, again, I just know my colleagues and I did not mean for that to be. So I hope that's corrected or please give us advice how we can correct it.
Dennis McCarthy: The change of a Wounded Warrior's status -- when they're mobilized, wounded and then have their status changed -- is purely a directive issue. It's something that was done a couple of years ago and I think that the result that you've described was an unintended consequence. But it's got to be fixed and I know that the people in Personnel and Readiness have that for action.
Ranking Member Joe Wilson: And I appreciate the effort because, uhm, we-we know that these troops are so dedicated, they want to be operational, they want to serve, but it's also very important for their families that there be proper protection.
We'll also note this exchange between US House Rep Joe Wilson and Carpenter:
US House Rep Walter Jones: I have -- this has been kind of an ongoing issue with a father of a National Guardsman in eastern North Carolina who was deployed on active duty, fought in Iraq and this father has met with me two or three times wanting to know why that a Guardsman who has fought for this country, active duty, called upon, that they do not qualify as an active duty Soldier or Marine with the GI Bill for educational benefits. Is this an issue that you hear quite a bit about? I think that Senator [Jim] Webb was at one time trying to put legislation in on the Senate side that would deal with this. And does this ring a bell with you?
Maj Gen Raymond Carpenter: Sir, I'm not aware of the specific case that you cite. But I do know that one of the things we hear from National Guardsmen and from states out there is the GI Bill -- what we call the new GI Bill -- applies to soldiers who deploy but does not necessarily apply to soldiers who are in a [. . .] Title 32 status. And a lot of the soldiers that I talk to see that as an inequity and so they raise that issue with us. I am not sure about the specific instance you talk about where somebody who was mobilized and deployed to the theater was not eligible for the GI Bill but if you'll give me the details, I'll certainly look into it.
The hearing addressed many other issues. Ava will continue the Walter Jones coverage at Trina's site tonight, Kat will cover a portion of Don't Ask, Don't Tell at her site and Wally's grabbing an aspect of the hearing (possibly an overview but it may be a specific testimony) at Ann's site tonight.
As noted yesterday, Binghamton, New York is getting a counter at City Hall which will count the financial costs to US tax payers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Post-Standard's editorial board explains:Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan made a startling discovery a while back: By this September, Binghamton residents will have contributed $138.6 million to help pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- or rather, that's their share of the debt piled up by these military engagements. And that's not counting any supplemental billions requested by President Barack Obama and approved by Congress later this year.And they explain that people can check the costs to their own communities by visiting Cost Of War. George Basler (Press & Sun-Bulletin) reports:The counter is being funded entirely by private contributions from the Broome County Cost of War Project, a local grassroots organization.At Wednesday's event, Ryan said, he believes he has the authority as mayor to hang the sign.Legal questions surrounding the sign could soon be moot. Councilman Sean Massey, D-5th District, plans to introduce a resolution at Monday's council work session to have the council support the sign. He thinks a majority of the seven-member council - all Democrats, like the mayor - will support it.But, Massey said, he doesn't think the council has to approve the sign. He said Ryan, as mayor, has control over the physical site of city hall.WBNG News quotes the mayor stating, "That's where all the money comes from and we need up paying all the unfunded mandates. We end up not having the money to and that's where the national priorities come in they have to change."
Turning to peace news. Last Friday's snapshot noted 12-year-old Frankie Hughes who peacefully protested the Iraq War in Senator Tom Harkin's office and was arrested for protesting. On top of that, her mother, Renee Espeland, was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) reported on it Saturday and updated it mid-week to note that the charge against Frankie's mother was dropped with Polk County Attorney John Sarcone telling Rothschild, "Looking at all the circumstances, what happened didn't need to be addressed with a criminal charge. It was never an appropriate thing to begin with. They were just wrong-spirited."
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq's continued war on the press"
"Treating veterans and mistreating them"
"I Hate The War"
"Condi Takes Time Out To Perform Again!"
"Walter Jones discusses strain on the Guard"
"Better or worse?"
"Military Personnel Subcommittee"
"Terry finds a woman!"
"Ugly Betty"
"What mattered"
"book 'em friday"
"skimming kitty kelley"
"The sexist Tina Fey"
"How Barack killed reproductive rights"
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
"Ugly Betty"
"How To Be A Movie Star II"
"Hey, Melissa, F.U."
"Under The Yum Yum Tree"
"Oprah as a child's fable"
"Disagreeing with Ed Rendell"
"Fringe"
"What???????"
"THIS JUST IN! SUPERMODEL TIME!"
"Raking in the big bucks"
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Raking in the big bucks
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
WORK?
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WORKS REAL HARD. PREENING AND SMILING AND GLAD HANDING IN MIAMI, HE NETTED $2.5 MILLION FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
SAID BARRY O, "IT BEATS SITTING ON THE HOODS OF CARS AT THE AUTO TRADE SHOWS!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
This morning the US House Armed Services Committee held a hearing. They were taking testimony from an "independent" panel on the Quadrennial Defense Review. Chair Ike Skelton called the hearing to order and moved to welcome members of the 'independent' panel who were present but would not be giving testimony. He declared, "Congress created the independent panel in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. It was charged with conducting an assessment of the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] and presenting its findings to Congress. Last year, we expanded the panel by adding eight additional members appointed by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee."
And behind the curtain, waiting to provide testimony were William J. Perry and -- drum roll and possibly serial killer theme from a slasher movie -- Stephen J. Hadley.
Can someone explain that? Nancy Pelosi, you took impeachment "off the table." The country, the world didn't get the needed impeachment of Bully Boy Bush. You were a coward and put your own personal interests ahead of what the country and the Constitution needed -- what the Constitution demanded. But did you have to allow the criminals to be appointed by Congress to 'independent' panels?
Hadley's not the only one. In fact, the gossip girl Hadley's partner in crime in outing CIA agent Valerie Plame's on the panel. Explain HOW THE HELL THAT HAPPENS?
It happens because we have an INEFFECTIVE and INEPT Congress. They created this panel in 2007. If you're mind's functioning, you grasp that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress then (and now). There are 20 members on the panel. Congress only appoitns 8. They forked over 12 to the Secretary of Defense. With him/her selecting the majority of the members, it will never be independent and Congress needs to stop insulting the American people.
Nancy can at least take comfort in the fact that Stephen Hadley and his roll dog weren't appointed by Congress. Robert Gates appointed Hadley. He's also the one who appointed Richard Armitage. (Click here for DoD press release.)
Richard Armitage. The Hedda Hopper of the DC set stepped forward, for those who don't remember or never knew, after an investigation was opened into the outing of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame. Dick revealed he was a real Chatty Cathy and, WOOPSIE!, he's the one who told journalist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was CIA. After that, you really should be off the government payroll, after that you really are done. You shouldn't be trusted with any information at all. It's as though Dick burned down the White House while playing with matches and, shortly afterward, the US government decided to make him a ranger in charge of Sequoia National Forest.
Why does the country have so many problems? Your answer is found in that 'independen't panel. Be a government employee who outs a CIA agent and you get to continue doing government work, being paid for by the government? Congress creates an 'independent' panel but gives the Secretary of Defense the power to select the bulk of the committee members. It's nonsense and it's why DC runs in circles chasing its own tail. There is no accountability and you can do the most vile and disgusting thing and continue to receive the US tax payer money instead of having to get a real job. And that's Dick Armitage and Stephen Hadley both. Throughout 2005, at this site and at Third, we were noting Hadley's role in the outing (click here for a July 2005 piece at Third). From SourceWatch:
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was "the senior administration official" who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials" told Raw Story reporters Larisa Alexandrovna and Jason Leopold November 16, 2005.
Identified by the Washington Post as Rice's "top lieutenant", Hadley, "along with CIA Director George J. Tenet -- took responsibility for allowing into Bush's State of the Union 2003 address a dubious and ultimately inaccurate claim about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain nuclear materials." [2]
Hadley not only outed Valerie Plame, he also couldn't properly vet a speech? And he's chairing a panel today -- with his salary paid for by the US tax payers?
There's no accountability and Congress rushes to turn over their own powers to flunkies in the executive branch. And it's there in the fact that Robert Gates remains Secretary of Defense when he should have been replaced long ago. How many scandals do you get to have on your watch before you are asked to step down? At the end of January, Kevin Baron (Stars & Stripes' Stripes Central blog) called out the 'independent' panel:
Independent? In this town? You can't throw a lobbyist into DC without hitting a former government official somewhere. Last week the president of the left-leaning Center for a New American Security trumpeted his own selection to the panel. By the way, the Pentagon's policy chief in charge of the QDR, Michele Flournoy, was the last president of CNAS.
Maybe "bipartisan revolving door panel" is a better term.
"Prevailing in today's wars will also help our military prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies," Hadley prattled on after noting that losing "today's wars" would create further conflict. Could it? If so, maybe Hadley doesn't need to be on the panel?
If you sold the Iraq War, should you really be advising anything at this point? Hadley served on the White House Iraq Group. From SourceWatch:
The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public.
[. . .]
Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus, in the August 10, 2003 Washington Post, seem to have broken the story of the White House Iraq Group, [. . .]:
The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Saddam Hussein, as a participant put it.
Systematic coordination began in August 2002, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."
"In September 2002, the White House was beginning a major press offensive designed to prove that Iraq had a robust nuclear weapons program. That campaign was meant to culminate in the president's Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati." [1]
Why are we allowing anyone with these issues to advise -- on the tax payer dime -- what's needed and not needed?
I know Ike Skelton and like him, but he made a real fool of himself today patting himself and the Committee on the back as he claimed that they worked really hard to be not just bi-partisan but non-partisan. While appointing criminals to a panel? You want to brag about that? In fairness, repeating, Congress itself did not appoint Hadley and Armitage; however, when it surrendered the right to appoint all the members, they invited it, when they surrendered their own powers, they courted it. It's on them.
And Hadley couldn't stop mentioning Iran and he was far from the only one bringing it up in the hearing. That too is on the Democratically controlled Congress.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Distortions and rumors, it's Iraq"
"PTSD, costs of war"
"Terry Gross can't find a woman writer"
"The economy"
"This and that"
"books"
"Obama tanks in approval ratings and so do I!"
"If I like it, it always gets cancelled"
"If this were American Idol, he'd be kicked off already"
"Maddow The Buffoon"
"PR Watch, War Criminal"
"Polls, Eric Massa, 24"
"It's a tough life"
"THIS JUST IN! HARD TIMES FOR POSERS!"
"The final frontier"
"THIS JUST IN! LEAVE IT TO A SPACE CADET!"
WORK?
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WORKS REAL HARD. PREENING AND SMILING AND GLAD HANDING IN MIAMI, HE NETTED $2.5 MILLION FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
SAID BARRY O, "IT BEATS SITTING ON THE HOODS OF CARS AT THE AUTO TRADE SHOWS!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
This morning the US House Armed Services Committee held a hearing. They were taking testimony from an "independent" panel on the Quadrennial Defense Review. Chair Ike Skelton called the hearing to order and moved to welcome members of the 'independent' panel who were present but would not be giving testimony. He declared, "Congress created the independent panel in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. It was charged with conducting an assessment of the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] and presenting its findings to Congress. Last year, we expanded the panel by adding eight additional members appointed by the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee."
And behind the curtain, waiting to provide testimony were William J. Perry and -- drum roll and possibly serial killer theme from a slasher movie -- Stephen J. Hadley.
Can someone explain that? Nancy Pelosi, you took impeachment "off the table." The country, the world didn't get the needed impeachment of Bully Boy Bush. You were a coward and put your own personal interests ahead of what the country and the Constitution needed -- what the Constitution demanded. But did you have to allow the criminals to be appointed by Congress to 'independent' panels?
Hadley's not the only one. In fact, the gossip girl Hadley's partner in crime in outing CIA agent Valerie Plame's on the panel. Explain HOW THE HELL THAT HAPPENS?
It happens because we have an INEFFECTIVE and INEPT Congress. They created this panel in 2007. If you're mind's functioning, you grasp that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress then (and now). There are 20 members on the panel. Congress only appoitns 8. They forked over 12 to the Secretary of Defense. With him/her selecting the majority of the members, it will never be independent and Congress needs to stop insulting the American people.
Nancy can at least take comfort in the fact that Stephen Hadley and his roll dog weren't appointed by Congress. Robert Gates appointed Hadley. He's also the one who appointed Richard Armitage. (Click here for DoD press release.)
Richard Armitage. The Hedda Hopper of the DC set stepped forward, for those who don't remember or never knew, after an investigation was opened into the outing of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame. Dick revealed he was a real Chatty Cathy and, WOOPSIE!, he's the one who told journalist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was CIA. After that, you really should be off the government payroll, after that you really are done. You shouldn't be trusted with any information at all. It's as though Dick burned down the White House while playing with matches and, shortly afterward, the US government decided to make him a ranger in charge of Sequoia National Forest.
Why does the country have so many problems? Your answer is found in that 'independen't panel. Be a government employee who outs a CIA agent and you get to continue doing government work, being paid for by the government? Congress creates an 'independent' panel but gives the Secretary of Defense the power to select the bulk of the committee members. It's nonsense and it's why DC runs in circles chasing its own tail. There is no accountability and you can do the most vile and disgusting thing and continue to receive the US tax payer money instead of having to get a real job. And that's Dick Armitage and Stephen Hadley both. Throughout 2005, at this site and at Third, we were noting Hadley's role in the outing (click here for a July 2005 piece at Third). From SourceWatch:
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was "the senior administration official" who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials" told Raw Story reporters Larisa Alexandrovna and Jason Leopold November 16, 2005.
Identified by the Washington Post as Rice's "top lieutenant", Hadley, "along with CIA Director George J. Tenet -- took responsibility for allowing into Bush's State of the Union 2003 address a dubious and ultimately inaccurate claim about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain nuclear materials." [2]
Hadley not only outed Valerie Plame, he also couldn't properly vet a speech? And he's chairing a panel today -- with his salary paid for by the US tax payers?
There's no accountability and Congress rushes to turn over their own powers to flunkies in the executive branch. And it's there in the fact that Robert Gates remains Secretary of Defense when he should have been replaced long ago. How many scandals do you get to have on your watch before you are asked to step down? At the end of January, Kevin Baron (Stars & Stripes' Stripes Central blog) called out the 'independent' panel:
Independent? In this town? You can't throw a lobbyist into DC without hitting a former government official somewhere. Last week the president of the left-leaning Center for a New American Security trumpeted his own selection to the panel. By the way, the Pentagon's policy chief in charge of the QDR, Michele Flournoy, was the last president of CNAS.
Maybe "bipartisan revolving door panel" is a better term.
"Prevailing in today's wars will also help our military prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies," Hadley prattled on after noting that losing "today's wars" would create further conflict. Could it? If so, maybe Hadley doesn't need to be on the panel?
If you sold the Iraq War, should you really be advising anything at this point? Hadley served on the White House Iraq Group. From SourceWatch:
The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public.
[. . .]
Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus, in the August 10, 2003 Washington Post, seem to have broken the story of the White House Iraq Group, [. . .]:
The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Saddam Hussein, as a participant put it.
Systematic coordination began in August 2002, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."
"In September 2002, the White House was beginning a major press offensive designed to prove that Iraq had a robust nuclear weapons program. That campaign was meant to culminate in the president's Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati." [1]
Why are we allowing anyone with these issues to advise -- on the tax payer dime -- what's needed and not needed?
I know Ike Skelton and like him, but he made a real fool of himself today patting himself and the Committee on the back as he claimed that they worked really hard to be not just bi-partisan but non-partisan. While appointing criminals to a panel? You want to brag about that? In fairness, repeating, Congress itself did not appoint Hadley and Armitage; however, when it surrendered the right to appoint all the members, they invited it, when they surrendered their own powers, they courted it. It's on them.
And Hadley couldn't stop mentioning Iran and he was far from the only one bringing it up in the hearing. That too is on the Democratically controlled Congress.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Distortions and rumors, it's Iraq"
"PTSD, costs of war"
"Terry Gross can't find a woman writer"
"The economy"
"This and that"
"books"
"Obama tanks in approval ratings and so do I!"
"If I like it, it always gets cancelled"
"If this were American Idol, he'd be kicked off already"
"Maddow The Buffoon"
"PR Watch, War Criminal"
"Polls, Eric Massa, 24"
"It's a tough life"
"THIS JUST IN! HARD TIMES FOR POSERS!"
"The final frontier"
"THIS JUST IN! LEAVE IT TO A SPACE CADET!"
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
It's a tough life
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
DESPITE CLAIMS THAT PASSING OBAMACARE WOULD MEAN A BUMP FOR THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, HE TOOK A DIP TO WHAT AP CALLS HIS LOWEST EVER. APPARENTLY THEY WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION WHEN HE WAS SMEARING AN OPPONENT AS A WIFE BEATER TO SECURE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR THE U.S. SENATE OR WHEN HE HAD DAVID AXLEROD SUPPLY AXELROD'S FORMER PAPER WITH SEALED COURT DOCUMENTS ABOUT ANOTHER OPPONENT'S DIVORCE.
ANOTHER POLL FINDS THAT IF THE 2012 ELECTION WAS HELD TODAY AND THE GOP CANDIDATE WAS RON PAUL, HE WOULD TIED BARACK.
IN THE POPULAR VOTE! BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT THE COURT WHICH IS WHY BARRY SUPPORTS JUDGES WHO SUPPORT HIM.
SEX KITTEN GEORGE WILL FEELS BARACK ONLY HIRES PEOPLE WITHOUT EXPERIENCE AND WHO ARE UNQUALIFIED -- SO WILL IS APPARENTLY IS SUBMITTING HIS OWN RESUME FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AS A RESULT.
AND EVEN WORSE, THE LATEST ATTEMPT BY A 'REPORTER' TO TONGUE BARRY O'S A-HOLE HAS COME UP DRY, DAVID REMNICK'S BAD BOOK DIDN'T CRACK THE TOP 50 ON THE BEST SELLER LIST.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Ethan McCord: Okay. Well we were in a firefight a few blocks away when this incident happened. We heard the gunships opening fire. Us on the ground didn't know what was going on at the time but when we were told to move now to get to this position, we went down to that position. And what we came across was actually quite horrifying in a sense but it didn't seem real. Even in real life, it didn't seem real. It seemed like something you would see out of maybe a movie or something like that. The first thing I did was run up to the van and I saw a little girl sitting on the seat and a little boy half-way on the floorboard with his head laying on the seat next to his sister and the father slumped over. I originaly thought that the boy had passed. And the little girl had a wound to the stomach and had glass in her hair and eyes and my immediate response was to grab this child and I grabbed the medic and we went into the back and there were houses behind where the van was and I took the girl there and we worked on her as much as possible making sure that there was no exit wounds or anything because we really didn't know what had exactly happened at that time. And, uhm, handed the girl to the medic who then ran her to the Bradley. I in turn went back to the van and that's when I saw the boy somewhat take a breath. And I started yelling out that the boy was still alive, the boy's alive. I grabbed him and started running him towards the Bradley myself and I placed him in the Bradley which I got yelled at aftewards for doing that.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Gates whines others are "never held accountable""
"Suicides, PTSD and the fallen"
"The economy and Carole King"
"Terry Gross' manly man's world"
"Crimes and war"
"bob somerby, rachel maddow"
"Space"
"It's supposed to be hormonal"
"Elizabeth Taylor not getting married"
"Blackmail, movies, Bette Davis and more"
"Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett"
"24, the Surpeme Court, Chuck, DPC (e-mails)"
"The final frontier"
"The final frontier"
DESPITE CLAIMS THAT PASSING OBAMACARE WOULD MEAN A BUMP FOR THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, HE TOOK A DIP TO WHAT AP CALLS HIS LOWEST EVER. APPARENTLY THEY WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION WHEN HE WAS SMEARING AN OPPONENT AS A WIFE BEATER TO SECURE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR THE U.S. SENATE OR WHEN HE HAD DAVID AXLEROD SUPPLY AXELROD'S FORMER PAPER WITH SEALED COURT DOCUMENTS ABOUT ANOTHER OPPONENT'S DIVORCE.
ANOTHER POLL FINDS THAT IF THE 2012 ELECTION WAS HELD TODAY AND THE GOP CANDIDATE WAS RON PAUL, HE WOULD TIED BARACK.
IN THE POPULAR VOTE! BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT THE COURT WHICH IS WHY BARRY SUPPORTS JUDGES WHO SUPPORT HIM.
SEX KITTEN GEORGE WILL FEELS BARACK ONLY HIRES PEOPLE WITHOUT EXPERIENCE AND WHO ARE UNQUALIFIED -- SO WILL IS APPARENTLY IS SUBMITTING HIS OWN RESUME FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AS A RESULT.
AND EVEN WORSE, THE LATEST ATTEMPT BY A 'REPORTER' TO TONGUE BARRY O'S A-HOLE HAS COME UP DRY, DAVID REMNICK'S BAD BOOK DIDN'T CRACK THE TOP 50 ON THE BEST SELLER LIST.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Yesterday's snapshot noted Robert Gates, US Defense Secretary, and his embarrassing attempts to lash out WikiLeaks. We'll start there today with this from Tuesday's Pacifica Evening News (airs on KPFA and KPFK each weekday -- as well as other stations).
John Hamilton: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized the internet group WikiLeaks today over its release of a video showing a 2007 US helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Baghdad including civilians and two news employees of the Reuters news agency. Gates said the group -- which says it promotes leaks to fight government and corporate corruption -- released the video without providing any context explaining the situation. Speaking with reporters on route to South America, Gates said, "These people can put out anything they want and they're never held accountable for it, there's no before and there's no after." The stark helicopter gunsight video of the July 12, 2007 attack has been widely viewed around the world on the internet since its release by WikiLeaks on April 5th.
Male voice [from the clip]: Line 'em all up.
Second male voice [from the clip]: Come on fire.
[sound of gunfire]
John Hamilton: Many international law and human rights experts say the Apache helicopter crew in the footage may have acted illegally. The video includes an audio track of a helicopter crew conversation many have been shocked by the images and some of the fliers' comments like this response to injuries to two Iraqi children.
Male voice: Well it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle.
Male voice 2: That's right.
John Hamilton: The US military said an investigation shortly after the incident found US forces were unaware of the presence of news staff and thought they were engaging armed insurgents, mistaking a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Among the dead civilians in the attack were Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh . WikiLeaks disputed Gates' contention that the video failed to provide context. In an e-mail, the group accused the US military of making numerous false or misleading statements including the contention that there was an active firefight between US forces and those killed. Meanwhile the Telegraph newspaper of London is reporting that WikiLeaks is preparing to make public another US military video, this time showing airstrikes that resulted in the deaths of Afghan civilians. The Telegraph reports the video shows previously classified footage showing a bomb attack on a village in Farah Province. The Afghan government initially said the May 4, 2009 airstrike killed 147 civilians and independent Afghan inquiry later revised that figure to 86 dea. The US military later estimated only 26 civilians were killed in that attack. A NATO spokesperson confirmed to the Telegraph that WikieLeaks plans to release the footage but a spokesperson for WikiLeaks declined to comment.
Gates really needs to stop blaming WikiLeaks and start expressing some form of remorse in public. Barack, Biden, Clinton, et al can say, "That happened in 2007." That doesn't mean that they shouldn't express remorse or sadness for the dead. But they were not a part of the Bush administration. Robert Gates, in 2007, was the Secretary of Defense. He needs to stop lashing out and start expressing some sense of regret for the deaths. He should also avoid statements like, "These people can put out anything they want and they're never held accountable for it, there's no before and there's no after." When civilians have been killed -- again -- by the US military and you've been the Secretary of Defense for four years, do you really want to be saying that others -- OTHERS -- can get away with "anything they want and they're never held accountable for it"? Really?
John Hamilton: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized the internet group WikiLeaks today over its release of a video showing a 2007 US helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Baghdad including civilians and two news employees of the Reuters news agency. Gates said the group -- which says it promotes leaks to fight government and corporate corruption -- released the video without providing any context explaining the situation. Speaking with reporters on route to South America, Gates said, "These people can put out anything they want and they're never held accountable for it, there's no before and there's no after." The stark helicopter gunsight video of the July 12, 2007 attack has been widely viewed around the world on the internet since its release by WikiLeaks on April 5th.
Male voice [from the clip]: Line 'em all up.
Second male voice [from the clip]: Come on fire.
[sound of gunfire]
John Hamilton: Many international law and human rights experts say the Apache helicopter crew in the footage may have acted illegally. The video includes an audio track of a helicopter crew conversation many have been shocked by the images and some of the fliers' comments like this response to injuries to two Iraqi children.
Male voice: Well it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle.
Male voice 2: That's right.
John Hamilton: The US military said an investigation shortly after the incident found US forces were unaware of the presence of news staff and thought they were engaging armed insurgents, mistaking a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Among the dead civilians in the attack were Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh . WikiLeaks disputed Gates' contention that the video failed to provide context. In an e-mail, the group accused the US military of making numerous false or misleading statements including the contention that there was an active firefight between US forces and those killed. Meanwhile the Telegraph newspaper of London is reporting that WikiLeaks is preparing to make public another US military video, this time showing airstrikes that resulted in the deaths of Afghan civilians. The Telegraph reports the video shows previously classified footage showing a bomb attack on a village in Farah Province. The Afghan government initially said the May 4, 2009 airstrike killed 147 civilians and independent Afghan inquiry later revised that figure to 86 dea. The US military later estimated only 26 civilians were killed in that attack. A NATO spokesperson confirmed to the Telegraph that WikieLeaks plans to release the footage but a spokesperson for WikiLeaks declined to comment.
Gates really needs to stop blaming WikiLeaks and start expressing some form of remorse in public. Barack, Biden, Clinton, et al can say, "That happened in 2007." That doesn't mean that they shouldn't express remorse or sadness for the dead. But they were not a part of the Bush administration. Robert Gates, in 2007, was the Secretary of Defense. He needs to stop lashing out and start expressing some sense of regret for the deaths. He should also avoid statements like, "These people can put out anything they want and they're never held accountable for it, there's no before and there's no after." When civilians have been killed -- again -- by the US military and you've been the Secretary of Defense for four years, do you really want to be saying that others -- OTHERS -- can get away with "anything they want and they're never held accountable for it"? Really?
Iraq Veterans Against the War notes Ethan McCord and Josh Stieber who served in Bravo Company 2-16 were interviewed yesterday on The Marc Steiner Show:
Marc Steiner: Ethan McCord, welcome to the program, good to have you with us.
Ethan McCord: Thank you sir.
Marc Steiner: And you have served this country in the armed services for a long time. You went from the Navy to the Army.
Ethan McCord: Correct.
Marc Steiner: And you and I had a really interesting conversation this afternoon. You're seen in this video coming up after the American military had opened fire, both on the eight men and then on the van.
Ethan McCord: Right.
Marc Steiner: And you were seen carrying these children away. Your perspective on it, I thought, was pretty profound and I think -- I'd just like you tell your story as you did this afternoon.
Ethan McCord: Okay. Well we were in a firefight a few blocks away when this incident happened. We heard the gunships opening fire. Us on the ground didn't know what was going on at the time but when we were told to move now to get to this position, we went down to that position. And what we came across was actually quite horrifying in a sense but it didn't seem real. Even in real life, it didn't seem real. It seemed like something you would see out of maybe a movie or something like that. The first thing I did was run up to the van and I saw a little girl sitting on the seat and a little boy half-way on the floorboard with his head laying on the seat next to his sister and the father slumped over. I originaly thought that the boy had passed. And the little girl had a wound to the stomach and had glass in her hair and eyes and my immediate response was to grab this child and I grabbed the medic and we went into the back and there were houses behind where the van was and I took the girl there and we worked on her as much as possible making sure that there was no exit wounds or anything because we really didn't know what had exactly happened at that time. And, uhm, handed the girl to the medic who then ran her to the Bradley. I in turn went back to the van and that's when I saw the boy somewhat take a breath. And I started yelling out that the boy was still alive, the boy's alive. I grabbed him and started running him towards the Bradley myself and I placed him in the Bradley which I got yelled at aftewards for doing that.
Marc Steiner: Talk about that, why were you yelled at by your platoon commander?
Ethan McCord: Because I -- my main focus wasn't on pulling security, going to a rooftop and pulling security. My main focus was to pull those children out. The first thing I thought of when I saw those children were my children at home. And, uh, I can't stand to see children like that, so that was my main priority and I didn't care what anybody said at that time.
[. . .]
Marc Steiner: [. . .] let's talk about the language and what happens in these situations and I think, Ethan, Josh -- Josh, you wrote an interesting piece kind of reflecting on that and, Ethan, you were talking today about what actually happens in this battle, that people who have not experienced this don't understand and, Josh, let me start with you. You really kind of articulated well in your article that even though you became against killing and are now a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War that that notwithstanding you're also trying to make people understand things they just don't understand unless they've been through this.
Josh Stieber: Right, yeah. I mean one of my major points is saying that, again, this is an indication of the system as a whole and just seeing the public outcry about the video directed at individual soldiers I think is wrong. I think there should be outcry about it because obviously a lot of things that the video show are very intense things but again they were not out of the ordinary and this weekend Secretary of Defense Gates gave his stamp of approval and said pretty much that the soldiers were doing what they were supposed to. Again, this is what the military looks like and this is what war looks like and if people don't try to understand that and try to understand the context in which all this happened from the context of that day to the context of what our military training looks like then we're missing a much needed conversation about the nature of this entire war in general. And again just focusing on a few people and to try to put it into an analogy, the saying "the nature of the beast," what is shown in this video is the nature of the beast and I feel like directing all our outcries to what the stains look like then we're not going to ask the questions in our own society of what the rest of the beast looks like and how we put people in this situation where a lot of guys thought that they were doing good things and that they were serving their country or defending the weak through their actions and obviously ended up doing something a lot different than they expected.
Marc Steiner: Ethan, I'd like you to pick up from there. You -- you -- we were talking. You said some things to me this afternoon that really touched me pretty deeply and you were talking about how the person you went over there -- the person who joined the army was a different person than came out of the army.
Ethan McCord: Of course, yes. Before I joined the military -- even when I was in the Navy -- I was a different person and I didn't go to Iraq, I didn't actually fight in any battles, serving my country. I joined the Army, I switched over to the Army and from -- from the very git-go in basic training they're telling you -- everything is about killing this person -- from the cadences that we marched to to as they call muscle memory of firing. You know it's your instinct to just fire -- don't think about it, just fire, it's muscle memory. To what you become in Iraq . . . When I first went to Iraq, I -- I thought I was going to help the people of Iraq and maybe I was living in a fairy tale world but I thought that we were going to help these people and when we get there and, almost on a daily basis, we're getting blown up and shot at -- and this is before we even did anything there, we were just out riding around. We hadn't had any contacts or anything. But then we started getting blown up or shot at for the mere presence of us there. You tend to get a little angry and have a little ill will towards the people who are doing this because you're like "I'm here to help you and you're doing this to me? You're trying to take my life." And when you're going into a situation of it's my life or their's and, I don't care who you are, you're going to choose your life. And if that means turning yourself into something that you're not, then you're going to do that because you have to become mentally tough in the situation and even -- You turn into a very hateful person while you're there. But yeah, you're like -- I came out of the Army a much angrier person than I was before I went in. And I have a lot of problems stemming from the Army that I didn't have before. .
Robert Gates is now attacking WikiLeaks. It needs to be strongly noted that Robert Gates was Secretary of Defense when the assault took place in 2007. It needs to be noted that he was Secretary of Defense when Reuters was requesting the video for over two years. It needs to be noted that he had the authority to release the video and refused to do so. When the incident became something a news agency filed regular and repeated requests, as Secretary of Defense, he should have familiarized himself with the incident. There should be a report that exists -- one he should have requested -- other than the after-action report filed sometime around July 19, 2007. Robert Gates knows that it's in Robert Gates best interests to attack WikiLeaks and defocus. But it is not in the country's best interests. As for the President of the United States? He should have been having several talks with Gates about this since the video was released online. The fact that the administration has refused to express regret over the loss of life is inexcusable and saying it happened under Bush is no excuse -- not when US troops are in Iraq still.
As most people should know, should damn well know if they were paying attention, soldiers in the Army are being trained before deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan on how to say they are sorry in the event of loss of life. Why is that soldiers are being trained in this but the Secretary of Defense doesn't have to be? Or the president for that matter? This is not about a legal admission of guilt. This is about expressing remorse over what you could term a "tragic inciddent." And since the US government continues to maintain that there were no War Crimes that took place in the incident, they should have no fears about expressing remorse.
Again, soldiers are being trained on how to handle civilian and Iraq/Afghanistan troop deaths, how to express regret when the US military accidentally kills someone. If we're expecting the women and men on the ground to do that, why don't we expect -- why don't we demand -- the same from the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief?
But in the world we live in today, no demands are made on the president and hypocrites rush to see who can be the biggest fool. Justin Rainmondo (Antiwar.com) calls outsome of this nonsense of the faux left attacking WikiLeaks and founder Justin Assange:
First up is Mother Jones magazine, a citadel of Bay Area high liberalism and the left-wing of the Obama cult, with a long article by one David Kushner. The piece is essentially a critical profile of Assange, who is described as an egotist in the first few paragraphs, and it goes downhill from there. Most of the article is a collection of dishy quotes from various "experts" – including from the apparently quite jealous (and obviously demented) editor of Cryptome.org, a similar site, who says Wikileaks is CIA front. Steven Aftergood, author of the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy News blog, "says he wasn't impressed with WikiLeaks' 'conveyor-belt approach' to publishing anything it came across. 'To me, transparency is a means to an end, and that end is an invigorated political life, accountable institutions, opportunities for public engagement. For them, transparency and exposure seem to be ends in themselves,' says Aftergood. He declined to get involved."
To begin with, quite obviously Assange and the Wikileaks group have a political goal in, say, publishing the Iraq massacre video – which is to stop the war, end the atrocities, and expose the war crimes of this government to the light of day. Surely the video, and the ones to come, will continue to "invigorate" our political life – perhaps a bit more than the Aftergoods of this world would like.
Kushner contacted a few members of the Wikileaks advisory board who claim they never agreed to serve – and gets one of them, computer expert Ben Laurie, to call Assange "weird." Kushner adds his own description: "paranoid: – and yet Laurie's own paranoia comes through loud and clear when he avers:
"WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I'm a member of it. I don't know who runs it. One of the things I've tried to avoid is knowing what's going on there, because that's probably safest for all concerned."
This is really the goal of harassing and pursuing government critics: pure intimidation. With US government agents stalking Assange as he flies to a conference in Norway, and one attempted physical attack in Nairobi, Assange is hated by governments and their shills worldwide. And Mother Jones certainly is a shill for the Obama administration, a virtual house organ of the Obama cult designed specifically for Bay Area limousine liberals who'll gladly turn a blind eye to their idol's war crimes – and cheer on the Feds as they track Assange's every move and plot to take him down.
Kushner asks "Can WikiLeaks be trusted with sensitive, and possibly life-threatening, documents when it is less than transparent itself?" Oh, what a good question: why shouldn't Wikileaks make itself "transparent" to the US government, and all the other governments whose oxen have been viciously gored by documents posted on the site? Stop drinking the bong water, Kushner, and get a clue.
Hillary supporters, you saw Mother Jones LIE non-stop to help gift Barack with the nomination. You shouldn't be surprised that the same LIARS who never did an accurate correction (mealy-mouthed insults to the person you lied about discredit your so-called 'correction'). The same hatred they aimed at Hillary they now aim at everyone who threatens their Christ-child. So goes it in the Cult of St. Barack. Mother Jones needs to get their act together or take their final bow. And they aren't getting the support they used to but let's see if we can cut off even more of their funds.
They should be ashamed of themselves -- and read Raimondo's article, they're not the only ones who should be. This is right-wing Bush love. This isn't the way the left is supposed to behave. But that's the Cult of St. Barack, endlessly singing "Let the circle jerk be unbroken . . ."
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Gates whines others are "never held accountable""
"Suicides, PTSD and the fallen"
"The economy and Carole King"
"Terry Gross' manly man's world"
"Crimes and war"
"bob somerby, rachel maddow"
"Space"
"It's supposed to be hormonal"
"Elizabeth Taylor not getting married"
"Blackmail, movies, Bette Davis and more"
"Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett"
"24, the Surpeme Court, Chuck, DPC (e-mails)"
"The final frontier"
"The final frontier"
The final frontier
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
ASTRONAUT AND AMERICAN HERO NEIL ARMSTRONG HAS JOINED WITH PEERS JAMES LOVELL AND EUGENE CERNAN TO EXPRESS DISMAY AND OUTRAGE OVER CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S DECISION TO DRASTICALLY CUT THE SPACE PROGRAM.
IN ADDITION TO SETTING SCIENCE BACK, BARRY O'S PROPOSALS COULD SERIOUSLY HARM THE ECONOMY.
DECLARED NEIL ARMSTRONG TO THESE REPORTERS, "I THOUGHT BARRY WOULD STAND WITH US. I MEAN, LOOK AT THE GUY. HE'S A TOTAL SPACE CADET."
REACHED BY PHONE, BARRY O STATED HE COULDN'T COMMENT AT PRESENT BECAUSE "I'M TOO BUSY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BARBARELLA DID THAT STRIP TEASE IN SPACE."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of an assault in Iraq. At The Nation today, Robert Dreyfuss weighs in and apparently, by his judgment, the worst offender in the assault is . . . Washington Post reporter David Finkel. For unknown reasons, he steers to PolitFact which quotes from Finkel but doesn't note where the conversation took place. Dreyfuss characterizes Finekl's comments as "blase defense of the slaughter" and states he "cavelierly dismisses the deaths of a dozen Iraqis as something that happens in the 'real-time blurriness of those moments'." First off, the online chat took place at the Washington Post April 6th. Second of all, comments by participants are left out in PolitFact's version. Third of all, Dreyfuss, where were you?
It's a little late to be wading in, isn't it? April 6th is when the online chat took place and we ignored it because we had an audio link to note instead: "Today, Neal Conan spoke to the Washington Post's David Finkel (who's written about the incident in The Good Soldiers and link has an exerpt of the book) on NPR's Talk of the Nation." If you read the chat in full or listen to Talk of the Nation, you find (as noted in that day's snapshot), "Finkel did not weigh in on responsibility and noted specifically that he was not villifying anyone or justifying anyone. He repeated this point more than once." That also comes through in the full online chat. Possibly if PolitFact had linked to it or noted where it took place, Dreyfuss would be less focused on Finkel? Maybe not. A right-wing talking point -- one Diane Rehm shamefully refused to counter and let stand as "the last word" -- is that the Reuters reporters killed in the assault -- Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh -- were with the 'terrorists' or "embedded" with them or some other nonsense. Again, on NPR, Diane Rehm allowed that false charge to stand. Maybe Dreyfuss can take on Diane Rehm?
During the online chat, this talking point was repeated constantly and Finkel repeatedly refuted it. One example:
Washington DC: I don't think anyone has done anything wrong here. I think Reuters had every right to embed their reporters with an enemy unit.
Do you think that Reuters should have let the US know specifically which insurgent group it had reportes with? Should US forces have withheld shooting at enemy units known to be accompanied by hostile reporters?
David Finkel: There's an assumption here I'm concerned about -- that Reuters embedded its staff with "an enemy unit." I know of no basis for that. What I was told that day, and subsequently, is that the two heard of something going on and went to check it out. That's just journalists being journalists.
Mike Lahaye (Collegiate Times) weighs in:
Before the video was secretly leaked, a request by Reuters for it to be released was unfulfilled for two and a half years. Now the military is refusing to investigate the matter to determine whether or not any wrongdoing did occur in either the event or its aftermath.
Twelve innocent civilians died because of bullets that came out of guns fired by members of the U.S. Military. The soldiers acted with a casualness that is shocking to someone who does not regularly see images of war. They refer to the victims as "dead bastards." Clearly, effective soldiers cannot mourn the lives of those they kill in the midst of battle. Still, these "dead bastards" were posing no immediate threat.
Those soldiers represent me. They represent most of you.
We sent them to war.
It is on our behalf that they killed those 12 people.
It is on our behalf that 4,386 U.S. service members and 244 U.S. contractors have died.
Really terrible things happen in war, like a soldier shooting and killing a journalist because he mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade. What is unfortunate to me is that our military was unwilling to admit to you, me and the families of the fallen how they died.
As noted in yesterday's snapshot, when Jake Tapper raised the issue with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (who was Secretary of Defense when the assault took place in 2007), Gates offered no apology, offered no remorse, offered no consoliation to the families who lost loved ones. He could have made such a statement. He could have made it without admitting to guilt (which is a fear of some) but he chose not to. He chose to disrespect the dead and now what generally happens to someone like that is happening to Gates: He's lashing out. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports, "Gates insisted it was "irresponsible" of Wikileaks to release the classified video and that it showed only a "soda straw" view of the overall war. He also lamented that Wikileaks 'can put out anything they want and not be held accountable'." Grasp that Gates can "lament" WIkiLeaks' actions -- which killed no one -- but can express no regrets (not even by terming it a "horrible accident") for the assault. KPFK's Leo Paz filed a report (LA Indymedia has text and audio) where he spoke with Iraq War veteran Cameron Wood about the Rules of Engagement:
Leo Paz: Marine Corporal Cameron Woods, from Minnesota, was part of a tank unit in the invasion in 2003 and took part in the siege of Falluja in 2004. He talked about how US army Officers gave orders to fire on any Iraq opposing the invasion.
Cameron Woods: As part of the invasion there would be a lot of times when they would have what they called a free-fire zone when we were told to shoot at anybody that we saw, whether they were shooting at us or not, they were supposed to be considered enemies because apparently they had been told to go inside or whatever. And on the second deployment, because a lot of incidents had happened and they were trying to keep things under wraps they were trying to implement what they called rules of engagement, was what they call 'em, but it was basically if you see someone firing at you or what you think is a gun then we engaged them.
Leo Paz: Corporal Woods also spoke of the nightmare soldiers have to live with after firing on civilians.
Cameron Woods: What I experienced was seeing civilinas that had been fired upon mostly in vehicles.
Leo Paz: Tell me more about that.
Cameron Woods: Set up checkpoints and you see vehicles approaching, and the vehicles don't stop and so they would fire on vehicles, we fired on buses, buses full of civilians and -- and I think part of the reason that happens is because you're essentially sending teenagers to go fight in a war, and these kids are scared and they will indiscriminately fire their weapons.. . . so you see the aftermath of that and those are the kind of images that you carry with you and those are the kind of things that haunt you. It's those types of situations that cause post traumatic stress.
Monday, the Kansas City Star editorialized on the topic:
But the real horror from the 2007 incident should come from the policy that led to that moment. It's clear in the video those in the helicopter arrived with a mind-set, amid a highly dangerous insurgency, that Iraqis were enemies. They did not come to this conclusion on their own. In fact, it reflects both U.S. policy and the incredible difficulty of successfully even defining, much less carrying out, a mission such as the one this nation faced in Iraq, and now faces in Afghanistan.
Given the attitude these men had when their helicopters arrived on the scene, in fact, the outcome was inevitable. Beyond mourning American involvement in a truly horrible moment, beyond what has to be a shared and deep regret for those who died and their families, lessons must be drawn from this video. They must be applied in Afghanistan, and beyond (if the United States is to continue nation-building).
Why is "continue nation-building" assumed and not questioned? Why, after all that's gone on and gone wrong in Iraq, does a McClatchy Newspaper accept the premise of the 'goodness' behind the illegal war? A McClatchy Newspaper?
You couldn't wait for answers
You just had to try those wings
And all your happy-ever-afters . . .
They didn't mean a thing
So I'm not gonna try at all
To keep you from the flame
Just remember not to call . . . my name . . .
When you cry wolf
Once too often
You cry wolf
No, I won't come knockin'
You cry wolf
I won't hear you anymore
-- "Cry Wolf," written by Jude Johnstone, recorded by Stevie Nicks on her album The Other Side of the Mirror
Walter Rodgers (Christian Science Monitor) is puzzled that "a major architect of the wra in Iraq," Douglas Feith, would argue that Washington (the administration) was tricked. Hmm. That is a shocker, isn't it? And no one could have seen that coming . . . if they were comatose. Matt Damon is a bad actor with buch teeth, no neck and some of the worst skin (it takes a lot of foundation to get him 'camera ready'). But damned if a number of idiots on the left didn't treat him as if he were The Widow Zinn and rush to prop up his offensive and appalling movie Green Zone. A number of idiots did. The whole left didn't. Ava and I pointed out last month of that bad, bad movie:
The argument the (fictional) film makes is that an Iraqi exile General Al-Rawi is the bad guy and the reason for the illegal war. He is the cause of the Iraq War because he tricked people in DC. Do you get how offensive to history that is? Karl Rove may dispute "Bush lied and people died" (as he did last week on NPR's Fresh Air) but that's reality. (See Ann's post for how Terry Gross avoided one of the best known examples of Bush lying.) And it's really distressing to see some lefties rush to applaud this film. D-cup celeb Michael Moore gushes but he's not a man known for taste or intellect. Others are supposed to be a little smarter -- including a critic we'll be kind and not name but who sees the film as having a "message" that neocons were responsible. Did he miss the scene where General Al-Rawi brags to Matt Damon's character about tricking Washington?
At the Socialist Worker, Richard Seymour also caught on to the revisionary bulls**t in Green Zone and called it out ("Here neocon trickery took the US to war while the occupation failed due to bad planning, ideological zealotry, and an over-emphasis on democracy."). Excuse me, Seymour did that at Great Britain's Socialist Worker. At the US Socialist Worker, they were too busy eating Matt Damon's ass out and let's just hope it was as good for them as it was for Matt.
The Widow Zinn made a bad, bad movie that trafficked in revisionary history. And too many idiots on the left applauded that crap. Feith's now doing a variation on it? Not a damn surprise. The left set itself up for this when they decided that some punk ass actor who never did a damn thing for anyone was more important than the truth about the Iraq War. Actions have consequences and some people on the left better start grasping that and damn well better start owning their actions. They are encouraging revisionary history and there is no excuse for it. Some of the same idiots applauded the 'documentary' -- which I disclosed in real time I campaigned against and voted against and loved it when it didn't win Best Documentary -- which argued the problem with the Iraq War -- THE PROBLEM -- was that there wasn't better planning. People were applauding that s**t even though the 'film maker' was a War Hawk who not only advocated strongly for the Iraq War before it started but still advocated for it while promoting that piece of filth film. Maybe film criticism is just beyond the abilities of, for example, the US Socialist Worker? Maybe those idiots who don't know a damn thing but somehow seem to repeatedly endorse Iraq films that contain revisionary 'lessons' should do the world a favor and find another way to ply their bad writing? I'm not in the mood. Or as Stevie sings in "Cry Wolf:"
You can try but you can't get me . . .
Into the fire
'Cause I'm all out of sympathy . . .
And, baby, I can't walk this wire
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri doesn't want to leave, Chris Hill can't count"
"Memorials, cross-country walk and PTSD"
"Movie post"
"Iraq"
"Vote Gree"
"the supreme court"
"Lily Tomlin"
"Music"
"LGBT issues"
"Mondays"
"The ones who get it right"
"They killed Renee"
"He's got funds to raise!"
"THIS JUST IN! DANCE, FOOL, DANCE!"
ASTRONAUT AND AMERICAN HERO NEIL ARMSTRONG HAS JOINED WITH PEERS JAMES LOVELL AND EUGENE CERNAN TO EXPRESS DISMAY AND OUTRAGE OVER CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S DECISION TO DRASTICALLY CUT THE SPACE PROGRAM.
IN ADDITION TO SETTING SCIENCE BACK, BARRY O'S PROPOSALS COULD SERIOUSLY HARM THE ECONOMY.
DECLARED NEIL ARMSTRONG TO THESE REPORTERS, "I THOUGHT BARRY WOULD STAND WITH US. I MEAN, LOOK AT THE GUY. HE'S A TOTAL SPACE CADET."
REACHED BY PHONE, BARRY O STATED HE COULDN'T COMMENT AT PRESENT BECAUSE "I'M TOO BUSY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BARBARELLA DID THAT STRIP TEASE IN SPACE."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of an assault in Iraq. At The Nation today, Robert Dreyfuss weighs in and apparently, by his judgment, the worst offender in the assault is . . . Washington Post reporter David Finkel. For unknown reasons, he steers to PolitFact which quotes from Finkel but doesn't note where the conversation took place. Dreyfuss characterizes Finekl's comments as "blase defense of the slaughter" and states he "cavelierly dismisses the deaths of a dozen Iraqis as something that happens in the 'real-time blurriness of those moments'." First off, the online chat took place at the Washington Post April 6th. Second of all, comments by participants are left out in PolitFact's version. Third of all, Dreyfuss, where were you?
It's a little late to be wading in, isn't it? April 6th is when the online chat took place and we ignored it because we had an audio link to note instead: "Today, Neal Conan spoke to the Washington Post's David Finkel (who's written about the incident in The Good Soldiers and link has an exerpt of the book) on NPR's Talk of the Nation." If you read the chat in full or listen to Talk of the Nation, you find (as noted in that day's snapshot), "Finkel did not weigh in on responsibility and noted specifically that he was not villifying anyone or justifying anyone. He repeated this point more than once." That also comes through in the full online chat. Possibly if PolitFact had linked to it or noted where it took place, Dreyfuss would be less focused on Finkel? Maybe not. A right-wing talking point -- one Diane Rehm shamefully refused to counter and let stand as "the last word" -- is that the Reuters reporters killed in the assault -- Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh -- were with the 'terrorists' or "embedded" with them or some other nonsense. Again, on NPR, Diane Rehm allowed that false charge to stand. Maybe Dreyfuss can take on Diane Rehm?
During the online chat, this talking point was repeated constantly and Finkel repeatedly refuted it. One example:
Washington DC: I don't think anyone has done anything wrong here. I think Reuters had every right to embed their reporters with an enemy unit.
Do you think that Reuters should have let the US know specifically which insurgent group it had reportes with? Should US forces have withheld shooting at enemy units known to be accompanied by hostile reporters?
David Finkel: There's an assumption here I'm concerned about -- that Reuters embedded its staff with "an enemy unit." I know of no basis for that. What I was told that day, and subsequently, is that the two heard of something going on and went to check it out. That's just journalists being journalists.
Mike Lahaye (Collegiate Times) weighs in:
Before the video was secretly leaked, a request by Reuters for it to be released was unfulfilled for two and a half years. Now the military is refusing to investigate the matter to determine whether or not any wrongdoing did occur in either the event or its aftermath.
Twelve innocent civilians died because of bullets that came out of guns fired by members of the U.S. Military. The soldiers acted with a casualness that is shocking to someone who does not regularly see images of war. They refer to the victims as "dead bastards." Clearly, effective soldiers cannot mourn the lives of those they kill in the midst of battle. Still, these "dead bastards" were posing no immediate threat.
Those soldiers represent me. They represent most of you.
We sent them to war.
It is on our behalf that they killed those 12 people.
It is on our behalf that 4,386 U.S. service members and 244 U.S. contractors have died.
Really terrible things happen in war, like a soldier shooting and killing a journalist because he mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade. What is unfortunate to me is that our military was unwilling to admit to you, me and the families of the fallen how they died.
As noted in yesterday's snapshot, when Jake Tapper raised the issue with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (who was Secretary of Defense when the assault took place in 2007), Gates offered no apology, offered no remorse, offered no consoliation to the families who lost loved ones. He could have made such a statement. He could have made it without admitting to guilt (which is a fear of some) but he chose not to. He chose to disrespect the dead and now what generally happens to someone like that is happening to Gates: He's lashing out. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports, "Gates insisted it was "irresponsible" of Wikileaks to release the classified video and that it showed only a "soda straw" view of the overall war. He also lamented that Wikileaks 'can put out anything they want and not be held accountable'." Grasp that Gates can "lament" WIkiLeaks' actions -- which killed no one -- but can express no regrets (not even by terming it a "horrible accident") for the assault. KPFK's Leo Paz filed a report (LA Indymedia has text and audio) where he spoke with Iraq War veteran Cameron Wood about the Rules of Engagement:
Leo Paz: Marine Corporal Cameron Woods, from Minnesota, was part of a tank unit in the invasion in 2003 and took part in the siege of Falluja in 2004. He talked about how US army Officers gave orders to fire on any Iraq opposing the invasion.
Cameron Woods: As part of the invasion there would be a lot of times when they would have what they called a free-fire zone when we were told to shoot at anybody that we saw, whether they were shooting at us or not, they were supposed to be considered enemies because apparently they had been told to go inside or whatever. And on the second deployment, because a lot of incidents had happened and they were trying to keep things under wraps they were trying to implement what they called rules of engagement, was what they call 'em, but it was basically if you see someone firing at you or what you think is a gun then we engaged them.
Leo Paz: Corporal Woods also spoke of the nightmare soldiers have to live with after firing on civilians.
Cameron Woods: What I experienced was seeing civilinas that had been fired upon mostly in vehicles.
Leo Paz: Tell me more about that.
Cameron Woods: Set up checkpoints and you see vehicles approaching, and the vehicles don't stop and so they would fire on vehicles, we fired on buses, buses full of civilians and -- and I think part of the reason that happens is because you're essentially sending teenagers to go fight in a war, and these kids are scared and they will indiscriminately fire their weapons.. . . so you see the aftermath of that and those are the kind of images that you carry with you and those are the kind of things that haunt you. It's those types of situations that cause post traumatic stress.
Monday, the Kansas City Star editorialized on the topic:
But the real horror from the 2007 incident should come from the policy that led to that moment. It's clear in the video those in the helicopter arrived with a mind-set, amid a highly dangerous insurgency, that Iraqis were enemies. They did not come to this conclusion on their own. In fact, it reflects both U.S. policy and the incredible difficulty of successfully even defining, much less carrying out, a mission such as the one this nation faced in Iraq, and now faces in Afghanistan.
Given the attitude these men had when their helicopters arrived on the scene, in fact, the outcome was inevitable. Beyond mourning American involvement in a truly horrible moment, beyond what has to be a shared and deep regret for those who died and their families, lessons must be drawn from this video. They must be applied in Afghanistan, and beyond (if the United States is to continue nation-building).
Why is "continue nation-building" assumed and not questioned? Why, after all that's gone on and gone wrong in Iraq, does a McClatchy Newspaper accept the premise of the 'goodness' behind the illegal war? A McClatchy Newspaper?
You couldn't wait for answers
You just had to try those wings
And all your happy-ever-afters . . .
They didn't mean a thing
So I'm not gonna try at all
To keep you from the flame
Just remember not to call . . . my name . . .
When you cry wolf
Once too often
You cry wolf
No, I won't come knockin'
You cry wolf
I won't hear you anymore
-- "Cry Wolf," written by Jude Johnstone, recorded by Stevie Nicks on her album The Other Side of the Mirror
Walter Rodgers (Christian Science Monitor) is puzzled that "a major architect of the wra in Iraq," Douglas Feith, would argue that Washington (the administration) was tricked. Hmm. That is a shocker, isn't it? And no one could have seen that coming . . . if they were comatose. Matt Damon is a bad actor with buch teeth, no neck and some of the worst skin (it takes a lot of foundation to get him 'camera ready'). But damned if a number of idiots on the left didn't treat him as if he were The Widow Zinn and rush to prop up his offensive and appalling movie Green Zone. A number of idiots did. The whole left didn't. Ava and I pointed out last month of that bad, bad movie:
The argument the (fictional) film makes is that an Iraqi exile General Al-Rawi is the bad guy and the reason for the illegal war. He is the cause of the Iraq War because he tricked people in DC. Do you get how offensive to history that is? Karl Rove may dispute "Bush lied and people died" (as he did last week on NPR's Fresh Air) but that's reality. (See Ann's post for how Terry Gross avoided one of the best known examples of Bush lying.) And it's really distressing to see some lefties rush to applaud this film. D-cup celeb Michael Moore gushes but he's not a man known for taste or intellect. Others are supposed to be a little smarter -- including a critic we'll be kind and not name but who sees the film as having a "message" that neocons were responsible. Did he miss the scene where General Al-Rawi brags to Matt Damon's character about tricking Washington?
At the Socialist Worker, Richard Seymour also caught on to the revisionary bulls**t in Green Zone and called it out ("Here neocon trickery took the US to war while the occupation failed due to bad planning, ideological zealotry, and an over-emphasis on democracy."). Excuse me, Seymour did that at Great Britain's Socialist Worker. At the US Socialist Worker, they were too busy eating Matt Damon's ass out and let's just hope it was as good for them as it was for Matt.
The Widow Zinn made a bad, bad movie that trafficked in revisionary history. And too many idiots on the left applauded that crap. Feith's now doing a variation on it? Not a damn surprise. The left set itself up for this when they decided that some punk ass actor who never did a damn thing for anyone was more important than the truth about the Iraq War. Actions have consequences and some people on the left better start grasping that and damn well better start owning their actions. They are encouraging revisionary history and there is no excuse for it. Some of the same idiots applauded the 'documentary' -- which I disclosed in real time I campaigned against and voted against and loved it when it didn't win Best Documentary -- which argued the problem with the Iraq War -- THE PROBLEM -- was that there wasn't better planning. People were applauding that s**t even though the 'film maker' was a War Hawk who not only advocated strongly for the Iraq War before it started but still advocated for it while promoting that piece of filth film. Maybe film criticism is just beyond the abilities of, for example, the US Socialist Worker? Maybe those idiots who don't know a damn thing but somehow seem to repeatedly endorse Iraq films that contain revisionary 'lessons' should do the world a favor and find another way to ply their bad writing? I'm not in the mood. Or as Stevie sings in "Cry Wolf:"
You can try but you can't get me . . .
Into the fire
'Cause I'm all out of sympathy . . .
And, baby, I can't walk this wire
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri doesn't want to leave, Chris Hill can't count"
"Memorials, cross-country walk and PTSD"
"Movie post"
"Iraq"
"Vote Gree"
"the supreme court"
"Lily Tomlin"
"Music"
"LGBT issues"
"Mondays"
"The ones who get it right"
"They killed Renee"
"He's got funds to raise!"
"THIS JUST IN! DANCE, FOOL, DANCE!"
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
He's got funds to raise!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DOESN'T HAVE TIME TO WORK ON THE ECONOMY, RAHM EMANUEL TOLD THESE REPORTERS TODAY, BECAUSE HE'S TOO BUSY FUND RAISING.
AND IT'S WORKING WONDERS, SWEARS RAHM.
"FOR EXAMPLE," RAHM EXPLAINED, "IN 2000, FADED POP STAR, AND PUPPET TO HER CONTROL FREAK HUSBAND, GLORIA ESTEFAN SUPPORTED AND DONATED TO GEORGE W. BUSH. BARRY IS BRINGING ALL THESE CONSERVATIVES INTO THE PARTY AND THEY BRING BIG BUCKS WITH THEM."
AND THE ECONOMY?
"LOOK," SAID AN OBVIOUSLY IRRIATED RAHM, "IF PEOPLE WILL BE PATIENT AND VOTE BARRY INTO OFFICE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS, I PROMISE YOU THAT, DECEMBER 2016, HE'LL SPEND A MINUTE OR TWO PONDERING THE LOUSY ECONOMY."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Monday WikiLeaks released US military video of an assault in Iraq. Appearing on ABC's This Week yesterday, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates offered his thoughts on the July 12, 2007 assault in Baghdad in which 12 Iraqis were killed by US forces, "But by the same token, I think-think is should not have any lasting consequences." Isaiah illustrated that 'lovely thought' last night in "No Lasting Consequences?" and today the Defense Dept rushes to do spin control creating a quote ("Painful to Watch") that, in fact, Gates did not utter in his interview but someone thought it was just the headline for John J. Kruzel's Defense Dept propaganda ("Gates Calls Air Strike Video 'Painful to Watch'") released by the Defense Dept's "American Forces Press Service. Gates is an idiot -- one apparently still mourning the recent death of his former lover (and wasn't it cute the way the press averted their eyes on that) -- because expressing any sympathy for the dead -- killed by US service members -- would have gone a long way in mitigating the ill will that is brewing. At one point during the 2007 attack, a van pulls up -- containing two children -- and attempts to rescue those who have been shot. The van is then targeted by the US military. Today on Democracy Now!, Juan Gonzalez introduced video noting that "earlier this month, journalists from the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service, who were part of the investigative team that released the US military video on WikiLeaks, visited the family of Saleh Mutashar, the driver of the van and the father of the two children. They showed his family the recently released video footage of the attack on the van that led to his death, and then spoke to his son Sajad, his nephew Anwar and his widow Alham Abdelhussain."
AHLAM ABDELHUSSAIN: [translated] My husband did nothing wrong. He saved a wounded person and had his children with him in the car. How do I feel? What can I say? Why was he shot with his children in the car? They did nothing wrong. He was helping a journalist. What was his crime? What was the crime of our children who are left with no father and no support?
ANWAR: [translated] He was carrying wounded people during the American attacks. He was trying to help. They believe that someone who was carrying a gun will take his children along with him? Unbelievable. What can we do? God take revenge from the Americans. They destroyed us and destroyed our nations. What is the future of those children? They are orphans.
SAJAD MUTASHAR: [translated] I want to get our rights from the Americans who harmed us.
And for the record, it's now four days since Rick Rowley made an 'unusual' claim on Democracy Now! You'll note that neither he nor Amy Goodman has rushed to back that claim up. As we said in real time, if he had video of such a thing, he would have shown it. The refusal in the time since to show the video makes his dubious claims even more so. Those who play fast and loose with the truth can make many a pleasing claim but no one is helped by falsehoods or the repeating of them. Rowley shaves corners and facts repeatedly. It's a pattern with him. He made a ridiculous claim last week that Goodman allowed to be broadcast without challenge. A week later, no proof has been supplied. You'll also notice that David Enders -- on that trip to Iraq with Rowley -- has not stepped forward to back Rowley's claim up. When the left refuses to obey by any standards, we do not help ourselves. Rowley's pleasing claim was, no doubt, repeated by many and it, no doubt, stoked hatred. Rowley is very good at doing the latter. He's just not very good at supplying proof of his claims.
Fast and loose with the facts? Because they don't want to kiss goodbye 'good' illegal wars, Timothy Lynch and Nicolas Bouchet assembled a bunch of false claims for the Guardian -- claims Lynch knows would turn him into a laughingstock (okay, a bigger one) if he made them in this country so better he present them to British audiences apparently. Attacking Simon Jenkins' Guardian column from last week which noted that the US effort to promote 'democracy' in Iraq was done via thuggery, Lynch and Bouchet lie through their teeth and insist that, "The United States went to war in these countries because it believed, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers posed a serious national security threat. The short-term solution was to topple the Taliban and Saddm. Neither war was fought to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into Western-style democracies." On the first claim:
The United States went to war in these countries because it believed, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers posed a serious national security threat.
It's a shame lightening can't fall from the sky and strike dead liars who resort to revisonary history. The US did not believe that either the Taliban or Afghanistan posed a national security threat -- serious or otherwise. The proof of that is in the offer not to bomb the country that was made following September 11th. The US government requested that Osama bin Laden be turned over -- well, ordered. If he wasn't turned over, the US administration stated they would bomb the country. If turning over bin Laden would mean no bombing, then you can't claim that Afghanistan or the Taliban was a US security threat. For those who have forgotten (many have), the Taliban (this isn't an endorsement of the Taliban) responded by asking for proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the attacks. The US government maintained they had proof, the Taliban asked to see it before doing an extradition. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, spoke for the administration when he insisted that proof would be supplied . . . after bin Laden was handed over.
Without proof, Afghanistan refused to extradite the wealthiest citizen their country had (bin Laden is not from Afghanistan, he's from Saudi Arabia). At which point, the US bombed. This does not demonstrate that Afghanistan or the Taliban was a security threat. Also worthy of note is that before George W. Bush left office, the FBI would remove bin Laden from their ten most wanted list and, when the press noted, explain that they had no proof connecting him to the 9-11 attacks. Apparently Colin Powell didn't wish to share the proof with the FBI either?
Iraq? Not a security threat. There is no way you can make that claim with a straight face. Some will argue, "Easy to say now! But back then --" To which the reply, should be, "Isn't it past your bedtime?"
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"When CATO attacks and more"
"Playing kick the can with PTSD"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "No Lasting Consequences"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"Pensacola, we have a problem"
"Don't Think, Don't Disagree"
"The unthinking sexism of TGW"
Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: Who moved, who stayed?
TV: The Woman Who Loathed Women
Eleanor gets egg on her face
Fear of Cooties Ruins Tom Harkin's Life
Mailbag
Most embarrassing moment
Highlights
"THIS JUST IN! PREZ PUNK ASS!"
"Presidential Punk Ass"
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DOESN'T HAVE TIME TO WORK ON THE ECONOMY, RAHM EMANUEL TOLD THESE REPORTERS TODAY, BECAUSE HE'S TOO BUSY FUND RAISING.
AND IT'S WORKING WONDERS, SWEARS RAHM.
"FOR EXAMPLE," RAHM EXPLAINED, "IN 2000, FADED POP STAR, AND PUPPET TO HER CONTROL FREAK HUSBAND, GLORIA ESTEFAN SUPPORTED AND DONATED TO GEORGE W. BUSH. BARRY IS BRINGING ALL THESE CONSERVATIVES INTO THE PARTY AND THEY BRING BIG BUCKS WITH THEM."
AND THE ECONOMY?
"LOOK," SAID AN OBVIOUSLY IRRIATED RAHM, "IF PEOPLE WILL BE PATIENT AND VOTE BARRY INTO OFFICE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS, I PROMISE YOU THAT, DECEMBER 2016, HE'LL SPEND A MINUTE OR TWO PONDERING THE LOUSY ECONOMY."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Monday WikiLeaks released US military video of an assault in Iraq. Appearing on ABC's This Week yesterday, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates offered his thoughts on the July 12, 2007 assault in Baghdad in which 12 Iraqis were killed by US forces, "But by the same token, I think-think is should not have any lasting consequences." Isaiah illustrated that 'lovely thought' last night in "No Lasting Consequences?" and today the Defense Dept rushes to do spin control creating a quote ("Painful to Watch") that, in fact, Gates did not utter in his interview but someone thought it was just the headline for John J. Kruzel's Defense Dept propaganda ("Gates Calls Air Strike Video 'Painful to Watch'") released by the Defense Dept's "American Forces Press Service. Gates is an idiot -- one apparently still mourning the recent death of his former lover (and wasn't it cute the way the press averted their eyes on that) -- because expressing any sympathy for the dead -- killed by US service members -- would have gone a long way in mitigating the ill will that is brewing. At one point during the 2007 attack, a van pulls up -- containing two children -- and attempts to rescue those who have been shot. The van is then targeted by the US military. Today on Democracy Now!, Juan Gonzalez introduced video noting that "earlier this month, journalists from the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service, who were part of the investigative team that released the US military video on WikiLeaks, visited the family of Saleh Mutashar, the driver of the van and the father of the two children. They showed his family the recently released video footage of the attack on the van that led to his death, and then spoke to his son Sajad, his nephew Anwar and his widow Alham Abdelhussain."
AHLAM ABDELHUSSAIN: [translated] My husband did nothing wrong. He saved a wounded person and had his children with him in the car. How do I feel? What can I say? Why was he shot with his children in the car? They did nothing wrong. He was helping a journalist. What was his crime? What was the crime of our children who are left with no father and no support?
ANWAR: [translated] He was carrying wounded people during the American attacks. He was trying to help. They believe that someone who was carrying a gun will take his children along with him? Unbelievable. What can we do? God take revenge from the Americans. They destroyed us and destroyed our nations. What is the future of those children? They are orphans.
SAJAD MUTASHAR: [translated] I want to get our rights from the Americans who harmed us.
And for the record, it's now four days since Rick Rowley made an 'unusual' claim on Democracy Now! You'll note that neither he nor Amy Goodman has rushed to back that claim up. As we said in real time, if he had video of such a thing, he would have shown it. The refusal in the time since to show the video makes his dubious claims even more so. Those who play fast and loose with the truth can make many a pleasing claim but no one is helped by falsehoods or the repeating of them. Rowley shaves corners and facts repeatedly. It's a pattern with him. He made a ridiculous claim last week that Goodman allowed to be broadcast without challenge. A week later, no proof has been supplied. You'll also notice that David Enders -- on that trip to Iraq with Rowley -- has not stepped forward to back Rowley's claim up. When the left refuses to obey by any standards, we do not help ourselves. Rowley's pleasing claim was, no doubt, repeated by many and it, no doubt, stoked hatred. Rowley is very good at doing the latter. He's just not very good at supplying proof of his claims.
Fast and loose with the facts? Because they don't want to kiss goodbye 'good' illegal wars, Timothy Lynch and Nicolas Bouchet assembled a bunch of false claims for the Guardian -- claims Lynch knows would turn him into a laughingstock (okay, a bigger one) if he made them in this country so better he present them to British audiences apparently. Attacking Simon Jenkins' Guardian column from last week which noted that the US effort to promote 'democracy' in Iraq was done via thuggery, Lynch and Bouchet lie through their teeth and insist that, "The United States went to war in these countries because it believed, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers posed a serious national security threat. The short-term solution was to topple the Taliban and Saddm. Neither war was fought to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into Western-style democracies." On the first claim:
The United States went to war in these countries because it believed, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers posed a serious national security threat.
It's a shame lightening can't fall from the sky and strike dead liars who resort to revisonary history. The US did not believe that either the Taliban or Afghanistan posed a national security threat -- serious or otherwise. The proof of that is in the offer not to bomb the country that was made following September 11th. The US government requested that Osama bin Laden be turned over -- well, ordered. If he wasn't turned over, the US administration stated they would bomb the country. If turning over bin Laden would mean no bombing, then you can't claim that Afghanistan or the Taliban was a US security threat. For those who have forgotten (many have), the Taliban (this isn't an endorsement of the Taliban) responded by asking for proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the attacks. The US government maintained they had proof, the Taliban asked to see it before doing an extradition. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, spoke for the administration when he insisted that proof would be supplied . . . after bin Laden was handed over.
Without proof, Afghanistan refused to extradite the wealthiest citizen their country had (bin Laden is not from Afghanistan, he's from Saudi Arabia). At which point, the US bombed. This does not demonstrate that Afghanistan or the Taliban was a security threat. Also worthy of note is that before George W. Bush left office, the FBI would remove bin Laden from their ten most wanted list and, when the press noted, explain that they had no proof connecting him to the 9-11 attacks. Apparently Colin Powell didn't wish to share the proof with the FBI either?
Iraq? Not a security threat. There is no way you can make that claim with a straight face. Some will argue, "Easy to say now! But back then --" To which the reply, should be, "Isn't it past your bedtime?"
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"When CATO attacks and more"
"Playing kick the can with PTSD"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "No Lasting Consequences"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"Pensacola, we have a problem"
"Don't Think, Don't Disagree"
"The unthinking sexism of TGW"
Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: Who moved, who stayed?
TV: The Woman Who Loathed Women
Eleanor gets egg on her face
Fear of Cooties Ruins Tom Harkin's Life
Mailbag
Most embarrassing moment
Highlights
"THIS JUST IN! PREZ PUNK ASS!"
"Presidential Punk Ass"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)