Cedric's Big Mix: 2011-06-19

Saturday, June 25, 2011

What is it they say about the instincts of children and animals

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IN YET ANOTHER BLOW TO CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, YOUNG VOTERS RANK AMERICA'S PRINCESS EVEN LOWER THAN OTHER VOTING GROUPS.

44% CALL BARRY O A FAILURE ON THE ECONOMY WHILE 31% (PRESUMABLY GENERAL STUDIES MAJORS) THINK HE'S DOING AN OKAY JOB.

INFORMED BY THESE REPORTERS THAT HE HAD LOST HIS LEAD IN YOUTH VOTERS, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O STOMPED HIS FEET AND VOWED TO "SHIP THEIR ASSES OVERSEAS TO ONE OF MY MANY WARS. THAT'LL TEACH THEM!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

US President Barack Obama gave his ridiculous I'm-ending-the-Afghanistan-War . . . in-2014-if-I'm-still-in-office speech Wednesday. Yesterday historian and journalist Gareth Porter discussed the speech on Flashpoints (KPFA) with guest host Kevin Pina. Excerpt:

Kevin Pina: What has he offered? What has President Obama put on the table in his speech yesterday?

Gareth Porter: I'm afraid my analysis is not a very optimistic one in the sense that I'm afraid he's offering a scam which is very similar to that that he's undertaken in Iraq. And I say that because what he did in his speech if you really carefully read through it, there's a passage that really demands parsing in light of the Iraq experience -- where he talks about the "responsible withdrawal" from Afghanistan being similar to what we did in Iraq. By that, he's talking about essentially, you know, once he's withdrawn the full increment of the so-called "surge" troops, that is the 33,000 that he added as a result of a decision in 2009 -- in December 2009 --

Kevin Pina: Subsequent to George Bush's committments -- troop committments.

Gareth Porter: Well that's right. I mean, first of all, he put in an increment that the Bush administration had already agreed on, he kind of taking up the burden of the Bush administration, that is in March 2009. But then in Decemeber 2009 came the big 33,000 increment which now he's talking about withdrawing that by the end of 2012 -- sorry, not the end of 2012 but September 2012, excuse me. And that is not everything that the military and the Pentagon wanted but I calculate that it's about 80% of what they asked for. [ . . .] My concern is beyond 2012. He's completely, without any details going to manuever. What he's going to do about Afghanistan once the surge troops have been removed. And what he has said is that it will be, like I said, it will be like Iraq. There will be a responsible withdrawal. He says there'll be some withdrawal after 2012.

Kevin Pina: And a larger role for contractors?

Gareth Porter: He doesn't talk about that but we know that there are contractors in Afghanistan. But look, there's -- The big problem here is that what he's talking about is the potential for a perpetual war in Afghanistan. He's really conceeded to the military the idea that even beyond 2013 -- 2013 -- the United States will continue to have combat troops there. Now he's being very vague in terms of what the policy is going to be like afterr 2013. But it's clear if you look at what happened in Iraq that this is what's going to happen.

Dana Milbank (Washington Post) heard echoes of George W. Bush's "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and also questioned the veracity of the claims Barack made:

"Drawdown from a position of strength" sounds eerily like the "return on success" phrase that George W. Bush used in Iraq -- and the similarities did not end there. "We take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding," Obama told the nation. "We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance."

To be sure, the president was characteristically muted in his celebration, warning of "huge challenges" ahead. His staff was rather less restrained; speaking under the cloak of anonymity, his aides held a teleconference Wednesday afternoon with audible chest thumping. "We haven't seen a terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan for the past seven or eight years," one boasted, finding "no indication that there is any effort within Afghanistan to use Afghanistan as a launching pad to carry out attacks. . . . The threat has come from Pakistan over the past half-dozen years or so, and longer."

So if there hasn't been a terrorist threat coming from Afghanistan for seven or eight years, why did Obama send tens of thousands of additional troops into a conflict that has claimed more than 1,500 American lives? And why is he leaving most of them there?

Justin Rainmondo (Antiwar.com) also sees questions the statements made and notes how truly illogical they were:

Ah yes, those glorious days of "unity" -- when no one, save a brave few, dared stand up against the war hysteria. When anyone who looked vaguely Muslim was attacked in the streets. United in hatred and fear -- what a grotesque nostalgia for our "progressive" president to give voice to! Like his predecessor, Obama has often praised this mystic post-9/11"unity," including twice in this speech, and therein lies the mark of the tyrant, who always welcomes the unthinking submission to authority wartime brings.
This war-narrative is getting threadbare, however, and has some significant gaps: suddenly, we are told that, seemingly out of nowhere, "our focus shifted," and "a second war was launched" – apparently all by itself, by means of spontaneous combustion. One hardly expects him to mention of the key role played by his own party, which stood by and cowered -- or cheered -- as George W. Bush led the nation down into the quagmire, banners flying. But the distancing act -- "by the time I took office" – is a little too glib: Bush gets all the blame for Iraq, and the decision to escalate the Afghan war is pushed off on "our military commanders." But isn't Obama the commander-in-chief?
Our president, a prisoner of history, bravely confronts circumstances shaped by others. He praises himself for making "one of the most difficult decisions I've made as President," the launching of the "surge" in which 30,000 more troops were sent to the supposedly neglected Afghan front. "We set clear objectives," he avers, and yet our ultimate goal was -- and still is -- obscured in murk: does anyone, including the President, know what victory looks like?

And in what may be the first editorial board of a daily newspaper since Barack's speech earlier this week to call for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Santa Fe New Mexican offers "Light? What Light? Bring 'em All Home"

The president couldn't have chosen worse words Wednesday as a framework for announcing a minimal troop withdrawal from Afghanistan: "The light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance."
Shades of Lyndon Johnson, linked forever to the "light at the end of the tunnel" he sought to show a press and public increasingly and properly wary of our war in Vietnam. That war, fought on behalf of a corrupt regime with our military's hands tied, would go on for another half-dozen years after Johnson's public-relations campaign on behalf of futility and 60,000 American deaths before we abandoned the place amid chaos.

Let's move on over to Iraq and let's start by noting The Diane Rehm Show (NPR). When Diane ignores Iraq on her Friday 'round up' of pretend stories and non-issue, it's disgusting because she knows better, she knows when the US is at war, it is the job of the US press to cover it. But Diane, for all her faults, was not a War Whore. Katty Kay was. The trash from England -- who forever thinks she's about to step into a time machine and be transported back to the 90s where she can Chris Matthews can cackle as they trash Hillary Clinton (Katty's always jumping at the bit to trash Hillary to this day) -- shouldn't be allowed on NPR to begin with. Truly, the media needed to get accountable after selling the illegal war on Iraq. Accountability would mean two-bit whores like Katty Kay weren't put back on the airwaves.

Of course if that happened, we wouldn't realize just what a stupid imbecile Katty Kay is.

There was Katty, in the second hour, avoiding Iraq even when National Journal's Michael Hirsh managed to work it in for one sentence. Katty quickly changed the subject. At the end of the show, Katty found there was time to fill. So she launched into China -- where no US forces are on the ground. Maybe Brit's shouldn't host American programs that the US government pays for if they're so stupid that they really think that after the violence in Iraq this week, China was the way to go?

But there was Katty, wanting to talk abot Syria and proving she's the stupidst and sorriest excuse for a journalist today.

KATTY: How nervous are people, Nancy? I mean, not just in Syria, of course, but in all . . . I mean -- uh, how many countries does Syria border? I can't count them, but it's right there in the middle of that area. And it's causing -- the ripples of what is happening in Syria are being uh watched very carefully from Israel --

Nancy A. Youssef: That's right!

KATTY: -- from Lebanon, of course, from Turkey, from Iran. They must all be watching what's going on there.

Do they not teach geography in England?

She doesn't know what borders Syria but managed to cheerlead the impending Iraq War?

Iran does not border Syria. Iraq, howevver, does. What a stupid moron. She wants to talk about Syria but doesn't know the countries around it. In 2002 and 2003, you couldn't escape Katty insisting that the US must go to war with Iraq. And today she doesn't even know that Iraq borders Syria. (And that Iran doesn't.)

NPR can't deal with Iraq these days and not just Diane's bad show, but all of NPR -- forty dead in four Baghdad bombings yesterday and not one damn story on any of their three major "news magazines" NPR airs daily. That's putting the Crock in the Joan B. Kroc Fellowship. Iraq does get discussed elsewhere, it can be done. On Antiwar Radio, Scott Horton spoke with journalist Patrick Cockburn about Iraq.

Scott Horton: My first question, if it's alright, is going to be about the sujbect of your book there, Moqtada al-Sadr, and the future of Iraq and whether or not that includes the American occupation after the end of this year which is the deadline for withdrawal in the Status Of Forces Agreement. I'm sure you're aware that the Secretary of Defense and others in the administration have made it pretty clear that they want Malki to "invite us" to stay longer. I just wonder, of course, you've always told me on this show is that Moqtada al-Sadr is the answer to that question. Is that still the case and is his position still the same?

Patrick Cockburn: If US troops remain then this is not going to be without opposition -- particularly from Moqtada, from the Sadrists. So, you know, up to now the assumption has been that they would not stay. I don't think they've quite taken on board that having some troops -- depending on how many troops -- stay, having troops remain and trying to be some sort of player in Iraq you know is going to create a reaction in the opposite direction.

Scott Horton: Well so I mean as far as the oversimplified math of it goes, is it still a matter of Maliki, the prime minister, needs Moqtada al-Sadr's support and Sadr will not support him if he makes this compromise and therefore he will not? Is it that easy?

Patrick Cockburn: No, everything in Iraq is sort of complicated because everybody has the ability to checkmate everybody else. I mean Maliki got back in because ultimately the Sadrists backed him. He got support from the US and -- excuse me [coughs] -- he got support from Iran. Somebody, an Iraqi leader, said to me, you know it's a lucky Maliki, you know, he's got support from the Great Satan -- which the Iranians call the US. And he got support from the Axis of Evil -- which is what the US calls Iran. Now he needed Moqtada to get back. He needed various other people to get back. He did deals. Now is he going to drop everybody say now he's back in and return to what made him so unpopular previously and try and sort of set up an autocracy. We don't know. He keeps sort of ducking and diving. But I don't think having a continued US presence is going to stabilize Iraq.

The Youth of Iraq continue attempting to save their country with protests demanding the basic rights owed alll human beings. Today's protests were called "Firm Roots Friday." The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "Our Correspondent in Baghdad: Streams of crowds approaching Tahrir amidst pressures and hurdles imposed by heavily deployed security forces around the Squar while the crowds chant 'THEY ARE ALL THIEVES!'" Here for video of the Baghdad protesters chanting "'Jethab Nourie Al Maliki' (Nourie Al Maliki is a Liar)!!!"

Friday, June 24, 2011

Mr. Roboto goes home

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

TODAY IN PITTSBURGH, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O FEELS HE WILL BE RIGHT AT HOME AND FINALLY AMONG HIS OWN AS HE VISITS THE NATIONAL ROBOTICS ENGINEERING CENTER ON THE CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.

SAID AMERICA'S PRINCESS, "I FEEL LIKE I'M HEADED TO THE MOTHER SHIP!!!!"

MEANWHILE BARRY O'S KOOL AID DRINKING BUDDIES DON'T APPEAR TO BE FOOLING ANYONE OR DETRACTING FROM WHAT IS INDEED AN ANTI-GAY POSITION ON HIS PART.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last night US President Barack Obama gave a speech. (We covered the speech in yesterday's snapshot.) The reaction outside of the Cult of St. Barack has not been pretty.

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observes, "On the ground in Afghanistan, however, it doesn't seem like a drawdown, and the troops aren't expecting any major change. Rather, they are expecting long deployings and a long occupation in an already decade-old war." Speaking this morning on The Takeaway, John Hockenberry shared, "I guess what escapes me from the speech last night is a real strategy. I mean, people may call it a strategy, but I don't see a strategy here." Yesterday on the Pacifica Evening News (KPFA and KPFK), anchor John Hamliton discussed Barack's speech with Phyllis Bennis. Excerpt:

John Hamilton: We've just heard the president promise troop reductions by the fall of 2012. interestingly, just in time for elections. Of course, we should remember that the much ballyhooed surge of 30,000 troops that Obama ordered into the country in December of 2009 was actually the second major increase in troop levels. On taking office, he immediately ordered an increase of 17,000 soldiers. With that in mind is it fair to call this the beginning of the end of the Afghanistan War?

Phyllis Bennis: No, it made clear that the continuation of a huge number of US troops, NATO troops and US-paid mercenaries is going to continue for an indefinite period. This announcement of what amounts to a really token withdrawal leaves in place a huge component of the current 250,000 US and allied military forces. This is not going to change that. The fact that 33 [33,000 by September 2012] out of 250,000 military forces are going to be pulled out in the course of a year and a half is hardly the beginning of an end.

John Hamilton: And of course, in the past when we've seen troops removed from Afghanistan, we've often seen them a concurrent escalation in the number of contractors sometimes by a ratio of 2:1 or even higher --

Phyllis Bennis: It's very unlikely we're going to see that now. Most [audio goes out . . .] Already 100,000 private contractors in Afghanistan. I don't know that they can even absorb significantly more than that.

John Hamilton: Well Phyllis Bennis, as the old song goes, "One-two-three-four, what are we fighting for?" In the case of Afghanistan, that remains a difficult question to answer.

Phyllis Bennis: It remains a very difficult question and what we're seeing is that there is no strategy that's been determined here. There's no definition of a military victory. The announcement had been made at the very moment just after President Obama had first been inaugurated, when he first sent 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, he said, 'We're going to send these troops and then we'll decide on a strategy.' Rather backwards logic but nonetheless what didn't happen was any decision about a strategy. We've heard lots of discussions about counter-insurgency versus counter-terrorism, boots on the ground versus small groups but none of that has been a real strategy for what everybody agrees will never be a military solution to this conflict in Afghanistan but will have to have political solutions. That political solution remains as far away tonight as it has ever been.

Noting some other reactions, US Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee:

"Tonight President Obama took a step in the right direction by outlining a drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan over the coming year. I have called for a sizeable and sustainable drawdown because I believe the human, economic and military resources we are spending in Afghanistan are unsustainable. The President's announcement is a step forward, but I will continue to push the President to bring this war to a close and redeploy troops out of Afghanistan while providing the support they and their families deserve.

"Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything we've asked of them -- including finding Osama Bin Laden. But we need to make sure our military operations are targeted to meet the threats of today.

"Our terrorist enemies are not bound by lines on a map. Leaving tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan is not the best use of our resources --especially as we work to tackle our debt and deficit. It's time to redeploy, rebuild our military and refocus on the broader war on terror. I was glad to see President Obama take a step in that direction today.

"But as Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I know that the costs don't end when our men and women leave the battlefield -- for so many troops and their caregivers, that is just the beginning. This must be a consideration for the President and our entire nation whenever we make strategic military decisions. I will continue to push to make sure our veterans and military families are one of the foremost concerns during this drawdown and that they get the care they need and deserve."

US Senator Bernie Sanders's office issued a statement as well:

This country has a $14.5 trillion national debt, in part owing to two wars that have not been paid for. We have been at war in Afghanistan for the last 10 years and paid a high price both in terms of casualties and national treasure. This year alone, we will spend about $100 billion on that war. In my view, it is time for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for waging the war against the Taliban.

While we cannot withdraw all of our troops immediately, we must bring them home as soon as possible. I appreciate the president's announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal should occur at significantly faster speed and greater scope.

Senator Tom Harkin's statement notes thanks to those who have and are serving in the Afghanistan War, the death of Osama bin Laden and the disruption of the Taliban before noting that a real withdrawal is needed:

We cannot justify the continued loss of life when we have already lost thousands of men and women in our military, including 71 Iowans since 9/11; we also can't sustain the nearly $10 billion we are spending each month in Afghanistan this year.

The President is taking the right action in redeploying troops from Afghanistan, but as I and several other senators urged him earlier this month, there should be more troops coming home sooner.

Not all senators had something worth saying. At the Senate Foreign Relations hearing this morning, for example, Senator Barbara Boxer (one of my two senators) made a point, while questioning Hillary Clinton to giggle -- yes, giggle -- about Afghanistan. If she thinks death and dying is funny, she ought to check out her eye make up in a hand mirror, that should really have her howling. Having giggled, she then declared that her role, as a US senator, "we have to be humble if we don't agree." I'm sorry, I missed that 'humble' attitude when Bush was in the White House. Barbara Boxer's a fool and her tired and embarrasing self needs to be out of the Senate.

From the Senate to the House, US House Rep Mike Honda's office has sent out this statement from theh Congressional Caucus Peace and Security Taskforce (which he co-chairs with Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey) and from the Congressional Progressive Caucus (which he co-chairs with Raul Grijalva):

The Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Taskforce call on Congress and the President to immediately end our war in Libya. The US has been engaged in hostilities for over 90 days without congressional approval, which undermines not only the powers of the legislative branch but also the legal checks and balances put in place nearly 40 years ago to avoid abuse by any single branch of government.
We call on our colleagues in Congress to exercise their legitimate authority and oversight and immediately block any funding for this war. Before the Executive branch further weakens the War Powers Resolution, and before we attack another country in the name of our "responsibility to protect," we must recommit ourselves to our Constitutional duty and obligation to hold the purse strings and the right to declare war. For decades, the House recognized the need for appropriate checks and balances before another war was waged. We must do the same.
We call on Congress to exhibit similar foresight by promptly ending this war and pledging to uphold the laws that characterize America's commitment to democratic governance.

US House Rep and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement which included, "It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of U.S. forces would happen sooner than the President laid out -- and we will continue to press for a better outcome." In 2004, when everyone was taken in by Barack, Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) saw through that hideous DNC speech. He should have been primed, in 2008, to see through more nonsense. He missed all that but does regain his footing with a firm critique of yesterday's speech which includes:

The president's rhetoric, overall, was hideous. "The tide of war is receding," he said, and he repeated the "tide" metaphor a little later on. But war is not a fact of nature, like an ocean. It is a rash act of rulers.

Obama all but claimed to be clairvoyant, saying, "The light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance." I'm not sure what telescope he's using, but I wouldn't rely on that, either in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

Then, when he decided to draw the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama fed the American superiority complex. "We must embrace America's singular role in the course of human events," he said. He told us not to succumb to isolationism -- a spiel that echoed George W. Bush. The only difference was that Obama stressed the need to be "pragmatic" about the way the United States responds, arguing that often "we need not deploy large armies overseas" or act alone.

While Barack 'saw' progress, reality has begged to differ. Tom Engelhardt (CounterPunch): "Here's the funny thing though: a report on Afghan reconstruction recently released by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority staff suggests that the military and foreign "developmental funds that have poured into the country, and which account for 97% of its gross domestic product, have played a major role in encouraging corruption. To find a peacetime equivalent, imagine firemen rushing to a blaze only to pour gasoline on it and then last out at the building's dwellers as arsonists."

I'm sorry that I don't have time for lengthy statements and am editing down some of the releases sent. This is from the national Libertarian Party:

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle responded to President Obama's June 22 speech with the following comments today:

"President Obama's speech was disappointing, but not surprising. The withdrawals he announced are painfully inadequate. Obama's withdrawals, even if they are carried out as he described, will still leave about 70,000 American troops in Afghanistan, probably for years to come. The president is commander-in-chief of the military. He has the power to end the war now, and withdraw all American troops, and that's what he should do.

"The U.S. has no business fighting a war in Afghanistan. Nearly three years ago, our Libertarian National Committee adopted a resolution calling for the withdrawal of our armed forces from Afghanistan. We are saddened and angry that there are now more troops there than ever.

"Obama talked about 'ending the war responsibly.' I think the word 'responsibly' is a weaselly escape hatch in case Obama doesn't want to withdraw more troops later. He will just say, 'That would be irresponsible -- I need to keep the war going strong.'

"This war causes the Afghan people to justifiably feel a greater hatred toward America. It makes American taxpayers poorer. And it emboldens other would-be aggressors, who can point to American intervention in Afghanistan whenever they feel like doing the same elsewhere.

"There are two big winners from the continuation of this war: Our military-industrial complex, which seems to have the president in its back pocket, and the Afghan government, which continues to enjoy tremendous benefits at the expense of the American taxpayer.

"If anything, Republican reactions to the president's speech were even more ridiculous than the speech itself. Republican Senator John McCain fretted that this withdrawal was not 'modest' enough. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, feeling the need to criticize Obama despite the fact that they basically agree on everything, complained of an 'arbitrary timetable.' Republican House Speaker John Boehner worried about losing our 'gains' in Afghanistan. All these comments show an inability to comprehend an intelligent, modest foreign policy, as well as a serious lack of respect for American taxpayers."

Though the Green Party didn't e-mail a statement, I did check to see if they had one. As has been the case so frequently since Bush departed the White House, when the Green Party should have been speaking out, they elected to be silent. Their silence is duly noted and if they're not a real political party, it's not my job to note or cover their candidate for president in 2012. For more on the nonsense of the Green Party, please visit Trina's site tonight for a guest post. In this community, Elaine weighed in on the speech with "The lousy speech" and Stan weighed in with "That awful speech."

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Pimp Mama Arianna

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IT TAKES A REAL WHORE TO BE PUT OUT ON THE STREET BY ARIANNA HUFF BUT SAM STEIN'S NEVER MET A JOHN HE COULDN'T SERVICE.

FRESH FROM WIPING DOWN HIS FACE AND THE BACK SEAT OF HIS CAR, SAMMY STEIN LEAVES THE STREET LAMP TO RUSH OUT AND WHORE AS ONLY A TWO-BIT HOOKER CAN.

"FORMER GAY RIGHTS PROTESTERS NOW SET TO SUPPORT OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS" PROCLAIMS THE HEADLINE TO THE HAND JOB SAMMY SNOW JOB STEIN.

IF YOU'RE REALLY STUPID -- AND ARIANNA HOPES YOU ARE, DUMB JOHNS GET A LITTLE ROUGH ON SAMMY BUT THEY TEND TO PAY MORE PER TRICK AS WELL -- YOU'LL READ SAMMY'S HAND JOB WITH YOUR LIPS MOVING AND NOT REALIZE WHAT A DAMN LIAR THE LITTLE WHORE IS.

BUT IF YOU HAVE 2 FUNCTIONING BRAIN CELLS, YOU'LL QUICKLY REALIZE THIS ISN'T REPORTING, IT'S DAMN DIRTY WHORING.

1 AND 1 OBAMA "GAY RIGHTS PROTESTER" PLANS TO ATTEND A DIN-DIN WITH BARRY O. THIS IS A 'TREND' STORY IN THE MANNER OF NEWSWEEK'S TRENDS -- INVENTED, MADE UP AND FOOL OF LIES. THE ONLY OTHER PERSON ACTUALLY QUOTED DIDN'T ATTEND A PREVIOUS EVENT NOT DUE TO BARRY O AT ALL.

IN OTHER WORDS, EVERY THING SAM STEIN HAS WRITTEN IS A DAMN LIE. HE'S A TWO-BIT WHORE WITH CUM ON HIS LIPS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

On the latest Law and Disorder Radio (began airing Monday on WBAI and around the country on various radio stations throughout the week), co-host Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) noted a bill which made it through the House and now faces the Senate.

Michael Ratner: On Law and Disorder, we've often brought you up to date news on Guantanamo, the so-called war on terror, military commissions -- all that goes with Guantanamo, torture, indefinite detention -- what I would like to call "The Guantanamo Syndrome" or "The American Operation Condor." If you remember, Operation Condor was when Chilean dictator Pinochet went around the world picking up people, torturing them, murdering them and jailing them. We have our own. Let's call it The Guantanamo Syndrome. Right now as we speak, there's a new national authorization defense act going through our wonderful Congress. It's passed the House, it's now in the Senate. This is the yearly bill that basically funds the empire's wars all over the world. And it's always like a Christmas tree and people put in some of the worst provisions you can imagine. And they're continuing to put in more and more ways of expanding The Guantanamo Syndrome. And the main one is one that we've talked about before in a different context or a different statute but it's now about to be amended. People may not recall but the statute that began the War in Afghanistan was called the Authorization to Use Military Force -- the AUMF. It's a very broad statue. It allowed the president on his own to attack any nation-state, person, individual, whatever anywhere in the world who was in any way involved with 9-11 -- peripherally, in any way at all. But it was linked to 9-11. And it's a terrible statute because that's what the president -- whether it was Bush or Obama -- is now using to go after not just Afghanistan, but to go after Pakistan, to go after Yemen. The AUMF is an awful statute as currently written because the president is using that not just for the War in Afghanistan, which it was originally written for, but the war in Pakistan, the war in Yemen, probably war in North Africa, detention of people he can pick up anywhere in the world, etc. So it's an awful statute. As broad as it is, and as bad as it is and as much authority as it gives the president to make war anywhere in the world without going back to Congress, without going to the American people, it's about to get worse. The House of Representatives just made it worse and the question is whether the Senate will continue with leaving it in the statute as it is. As I said, the old AMUF allowed attacks on any nation-state, etc., involved in 9-11, anywhere in the world. This one takes out any link with 9-11. It essentially says that anyone who's a threat to the United States, involved in an act of terrorism, whether in the US or abroad, can be subject to an attack by the president -- military attack and detention. So it takes out any link with 9-11 essentially broadening the so-called War on Terror even more than President Bush had done. Now it's interesting. The Obama administration says this is unnecessary and I wouldn't say that they're dead against it, but they'd rather not have it in there. And it's not that they're being so wonderful about this. It's just that they're already going way beyond the current AMUF in attacking anybody in the world. So they're essentially saying, "Don't put it in writing and make a red flag out of it, let's keep it away." So they're expanding war powers. So if you look at the American empire as one that is now sustained by war, some 771 military bases plus the power in one person -- the president -- to attack anywhere in the world, you're talking about an empire that's built on tanks, aircraft carriers and the Pentagon and war. And it's not going to be any good going forward. If there's any characteristic of this empire that seems out there and up front right now, it's that this is an empire of war. The National Defense Authorization Act also has some special provisions about Guantanamo. I won't go through all the details but basically we've already said on this show, Guantanamo is becoming a permanent aspect of the detention system in this world or in this country. It's open now forever, it seems. there's laws that say you can't bring people to the US for trial. There's preventative detentions and military commissions. This National Authorization Detention Act -- hard to believe -- but makes those provisions even worse. It now says that any non-citizen held by the US military -- any non U.S. citizen held by the US military in a foreign country cannot be brought to the United States. Not just people in Guantanamo can't be brought here but people in any foreign country. So if someone's picked up -- as they have been in the past -- for like bombing the USS Cole or something -- they can no longer be brought to the United States for trial even though the Cole people were brought to the US for trial -- or at least some of them. That means they have to be tried in the so-called military commissions or rum trials, trials that are completely no good for anything. A pretty amazing bill basically saying "No more Constitutional courts, let's just try these people in some court we set up somewhere in the world." Very, very bad provision. It also says that any non-US citizen in the United States who's involved in a terrorist attack cannot be tried in a regular US federal court but must be tried in a military commission. So there you go. If you thought we were moving towards fascism in this country -- at least certain aspects of it -- there we see it -- open and notorious. Perhaps we'll be lucky and these three provisions that I've talked about -- the broadening of the war, the prohibition on bringing anybody from any foreign country to the United States for trial, and the prohibition on trying any alleged US terrorists non-citizen in the United States in a regular court -- we're hopeful that those three provisions won't pass. But they've passed the House already and it's not clear to me that they won't go through the Senate. So it's not getting better, it's getting worse and worse and worse.

Michael Ratner hosts Law and Disorder Radio with Heidi Boghosian (National Lawyers Guild) and Michael S. Smith (both organizations) -- three attorneys. Michael S. Smith has a website and I'll try to put it on the links when the heavens open up and gift me with time. Until then, click here.

US President Barack Obama has a speech tonight. The snapshot won't go up until after his speech is done. Throughout the snapshot we'll be noting various voices on what's going on in the US in terms of war -- Iraq and others. Today, before the speech, Senator Patty Murray spoke on the Senate floor. Murray is also the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:

Watch Senator Murray's speech here (Senator Murray begins at 2:09:35).

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) spoke on the Senate floor to discuss her views on the need for a sizable and sustained troop drawdown in Afghanistan, and to outline her concerns over the unseen human costs of war. During the speech, Murray, who chairs the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, highlighted specific costs of the conflict to our men and women in uniform and called on her colleagues in Congress and the President to consider these costs when making decisions about the global fight against terrorism.

Key excerpts from Senator Murray's speech:

"Last week, I joined with a bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues on a letter to the President urging him to begin a sizable and sustained reduction in troop levels

-- and I hope he takes the opportunity to do that tonight.

"But Mr. President, with all of the talk about troop levels -- I want to make sure that we remember that this isn't just about numbers -- it'd about real people, with real families.

"Mr. President -- far too many of our servicemembers have sacrificed life and limb overseas -- and we must honor them and their sacrifices by making sure we take care of them and their caregivers not just today, and not just when they come home, but for a lifetime.

###

Evan Miller

Specialty Media Director

U.S. Senator Patty Murray

202-224-2834

The snapshot will end with Senator Murray's remarks in full.

NPR gave live coverage to the speech and the reason for the live All Things Considered coverage was apparently to propagandize. It's past time for NPR to lose its government funding. Doing so might force it to be honest. Rachel Scott pretended everyone would be pleased with what Barack was offer because . . . -- well because nothing happened. Since NPR's 'analysis' is always the US government line, maybe they need to stick to reporting -- something Rachel Scott and Scott Horsley also mispractice but are semi-trained in at least.

Barack created false choices and straw men. The end result of all his pretty words? 10,000 US troops will leave Afghanistan by the end of the year. That won't even remove the service members he sent in (30,000) in his so-called "surge." It's disgusting.

He loved to intone "responsible end" when there was nothing responsible about the Afghanistan War -- at the start or currently. Nor was there anything responsible about the Iraq War then or now.

His speech was a failure on every level. He declared, "In Afghanistan, we've inflicted serious losses on the Taliban and taken a number of its strongholds." So we're going to go with "kills" to declare a win? Not my way, but okay, let's go with "kills." If you're going to boast about kills, you better have something worth boasting about and "we've inflicted serious losses" is nothing. Not 1 year into a war, certainly not ten years in. Those who measure by kills know that the war is a bit of a joke on that level since the fighters in Afghanistan (various fighters) fighting the US can blend in and disappear so easily and so readily. the US has done little damage to the fighters (despite racheting up a huge number of civilian "kills"). To hear a fancy pants with manicured nails talk about "kills" is, in itself, a study in contrasts. It only becomes more absurd when you realize that outside of the Whole Foods Set, no one would be impressed with the "kills" Barack was so proud of. It's not my system of measurement but it's the one he elected to use and it was a very weak measurement.

President Barack Obama: Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way. We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end.

He has not ended combat missions in Iraq anymore than Bush created a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." Both liars think they can bully the public into believing them if they just repeat a lie over and over. 9 US soldiers have died in Iraq so far this month. And they died in combat as Barack should know unless he's too busy golfing to get any briefings.

He declared, "We have learned anew the profound cost of war -- a cost that has been paid by the nearly 4,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq, and the over 1,500 who have done so in Afghanistan -- men and women who will not live to enjoy the freedom that they defended." Poor, little, unprepared tyke, he can't even tell you -- in a speech written by others -- in a speech he read off two teleprompters -- the number of US military deaths in the Iraq War. Forget the jounalism outlets that keep their own counts (AP and AFP), the Pentagon keeps a count, the Defense Dept. The number is 4466. (1623 deaths in the Afghanistan War, FYI). Along with 4466, there are other important numbers he refused to note. 45 is the number of US soldiers who've died since Barack declared "combat operations" over (and accomplished?). Today Reuters reports that US forces and Iraqi forces conducted a Kirkuk raid in which they captured 2 al Qaeda members. Sounds like a combat mission. 237 is another important number.

237 is the number of US service members who have died in the Iraq War since Barack Obama -- the peace candidate -- was sworn in as president. (233 on June 6th, four more have died since then for a total of 237.)

To hear him lie that freedom was defended in Iraq was among his more outrageous claims. The Iraq War was based on lies. The Iraq War has also seen religious minorities targeted in Iraq, the LGBT community targeted, women targeted, and much more. There is no freedom in Iraq as Nouri's constant attack on peaceful protesters demonstrates.

Leaving the speech (but this does counter the claims Barack put forward), British citizen Emma Stone was an advisor to US Gen Ray Odierno when Odierno was the top US commander in Iraq. She returns to Iraq for a visit and writes about it at Foreign Policy:

Sitting in the back of the car wearing abaya and hijab, I drive south toward Karbala with two young Iraqi Army guys, both from Baghdad and Shiite. In the national elections last year, one voted for Nouri al-Maliki to be prime minister; the other voted for Ayad Allawi as he wanted a secular man to lead Iraq. They both agree that life was better under Saddam Hussein -- that there was more security before, people could travel anywhere safely, gas was cheaper, salaries went further, there was no "Sunni-Shiite." They tell me that people are very upset with public services, especially electricity, but are too scared to demonstrate. No one likes living under occupation, but people are also worried that the situation might deteriorate if the Americans leave. They both stress that Jaish al-Mahdi is not the right way.

We drive for an hour southward. We pass numerous checkpoints. No one checks my papers. I am the invisible woman in Islamic dress. It is late, so the roads are not busy. Finally, we turn off the main road, down a track, through an orchard, and arrive at a house on the banks of the Euphrates where I meet up with my Iraqi friend, and he introduces me to his companions, male and female. Talbes are arranged, and big trays of food emerge from the house. Fatoush salad. Maqluba - -chicken and rice. We stuff our faces. I sit in a swing chair, chatting with my friend, who talks about his experiences of working with the U.S. military. They have big hearts he tells me, but they are naive. They don't know how to do contracting. They spent lots of money, but so much was wasted. They did not know who was good and who was bad. Many projects were not implemented well. Others were not sustainable. The Brits last century left us with railways, roads, and bridges. What have the Americans left us?

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Nothing but bluffing

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O NOT ONLY THINKS IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MAKE JOKES ABOUT THE UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS, HE THINKS IT'S APPROPRIATE TO LIE ABOUT IT.

LAST WEEK, IN YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE BLAME HE SHARES, HE NOT ONLY PRACTICED REVISIONARY HISTORY, HE ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT BASIC ADDITION WAS BEYOND HIS CAPABILITIES. BARRY O INSISTED, "WE HAD LOST 4 MILLION JOBS IN THE SIX MONTHS BEFORE I WAS SWORN IN; LOST ANOTHER 4 MILLION DURING THE PERIOD PROBABLY SIX MONTHS AFTER I WAS ELECTED."

WOW. ALL BEFORE AMERICA'S PRINCESS WAS PRESIDENT.

BUT LET'S PUT REALITY INTO THE SPIN. "WE HAD LOST 4 MILLION JOBS IN THE SIX MONTHS BEFORE I WAS SWORN IN" -- BARRY O WAS SWORN IN BACK IN JANUARY 2009. THAT WOULD MEAN FROM JULY TO DECEMBER, BARRY O SAYS, AMERICA LOST 4 MILLION JOBS. "LOST ANOTHER 4 MILLION DURING THE PERIOD PROBABLY SIX MONTHS AFTER I WAS ELECTED." NOTICE HE SWITCHED FROM "SWORN IN" TO "AFTER I WAS ELECTED"? ELECTED NOVEMBER 2008. HE'S SAYING FROM NOVEMBER TO MAY ANOTHER 4 MILLION WERE LOST WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT 2 OF THOSE 6 MONTHS WERE WHEN BULLY BOY BUSH WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AND 2 OF THOSE MONTHS WERE ALREADY COVERED IN HIS PREVIOUS EXAMPLE.

ALL THIS TIME LATER, ALL AMERICA'S LITTLE PRINCESS HAS TO OFFER IS A BUNCH OF TASTELESS 'JOKES' ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT AND 'LET'S BLAME BUSH.' AND HE HONESTLY THINKS HE DESERVES TO BE RE-ELECTED?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Xiong Tong (Xinhua), citing a police source, reports 25 dead, thirty-four injured a twin car bombings went off in Diwaniyah, not far from the home of the governor of al-Qadisyah Province. Tim Craig and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) explain, "The explosions happened at compound that includes both the governor's home and the provincial government headquarters, underscoring how even well guarded facilities in Iraq remain vulnerable to attack." Sinan Salaheddin (AP) quotes, the governor, Salim Hussein Alwan, stating, "I was in the garage preparing to leave when the attacker hit the police barrier outside and crashed with their vehicle." Alsumaria TV notes, "Defense Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Al Askari told Alsumarianews that the bombings were triggered consecutively by suicide bombers in two car bombs. Security Forces imposed intensified security measures in the incident site, headded." Saad Fakrhildeen and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) focus on placing the attack in context and they note, "The attack follows an assault last week by an insurgent group on the main local government building in the Diyala province in eastern Iraq, and a deadly assault in March on the seat of the northern Salahuddin province's governing body." They also note that the death toll has risen to 27. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) observes of the locale "The explosion is the first of its kind in years in what had been a calm southern city." Hammoudi quotes a lawmaker from the region, Ahmed al-Khurdiri, stating, "It's really a very sad day for Diwaniyah." Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) quotes police officer Hussein Mohammed Ali stating, "I was at the checkpoint this morning near the governor's home when the explosion happened. I then felt myself on the ground and blood coming down my body and it hurt very much. Moments later, I heard another blast and I lost consciousness." Aseel Kami and Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters -- link has text and video) quote Maha al-Sagban who lives in the neighborhood, "I heard a loud blast and then another one. I opened the door and I saw three guards dead on the ground." Iman Radhi (AFP) adds that the governor was the target but escaped unharmed and that the dead include police officers. Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) observes, "This was a double suicide car bomb, obviously a very coordinated pre-planned attack. These car bombs exploded just outside the gate. Just beyond there is the governor's house and beyond that the provincial government buildings, so we can consider that this might have been an attack on the governor himself." Aswat al-Iraq notes, "Iraq's Vice-President, Tareq al-Hashimy, has called on Tuesday for the formation of special investigation committees to follow up on the security violations that took place on Tuesday, and not to ignore them, as has happened in the past, according to Hashimy's office." Al Bawaba reminds, "Tuesday's blast came a day after a string of bombings and gun attacks in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, killing at least three people."

And other violence today? Jamal Hashim and Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) report a Garma roadside bombing left one person wounded, an al-Mussyab bombing claimed 3 lives and left seven injured, 2 Baghdad roadside bombings claimed 2 lives and left eight people injured and Baghdad mortar attacks left three people injured. Reuters adds, "A roadside bomb went off after a U.S. military convoy passed by, wounding a civilian, in Samarra".

From violence, let's move over to politics but we'll start in the US. The Never Ending Robert Gates Farewell Tour -- far less entertaining than Cher or Kiss' farewell tours -- has finally ended today as the US Senate confirmed a new Defense Secretary. Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes:

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) voted to confirm Leon E. Panetta as the next Secretary of Defense. Panetta was confirmed by a vote of 100-0. Sen. Murray released the following statement following the vote.

"It is more important than ever that we continue to have a qualified, experienced leader at the Pentagon, and I was proud to cast my vote for Leon Panetta as the next Secretary of Defense. He has shown strong leadership during his time as Director of the CIA, and has dedicated much of his life to public service. Secretary Panetta has some big shoes to fill at the Department of Defense, and I want to thank Secretary Gates for his service and wish him well on his retirement back in my home state of Washington.

"I spoke to Leon last week, and I voiced my concerns about the unseen and too often overlooked human costs of our ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I know that the costs don't end when our men and women leave the battlefield. And I am going to keep working with the new Secretary to make sure all of the costs of war, including the rising rate of suicide among servicemembers, the lack of access to much needed mental health care, and the impact of increased number of tours on members of the armed forces and their caregivers, are being taken seriously by the Pentagon and the Administration.

"And as he assumes his new position, I am confident that the new Secretary will keep his own experiences as a 1st Lieutenant in the Army in mind as he makes decisions that impact the brave men and women fighting for our country. I look forward to working with Secretary Panetta on these issues and many others as he works to make sure America remains safe and secure."

###

Eli Zupnick

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Patty Murray

202-224-2834

eli_zupnick@murray.senate.gov

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

How do you keep the music playing?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AS HEADLINES LIKE THIS "Analysis: Passion for Obama today not like it was in 2008 " BECOME MORE AND MORE COMMON IN EVEN THE KOOL-AID DRINKING MSM, REALITY BEGINS TO EMERGE THAT WHAT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O BARELY PULLED OFF WITH NO TRACK RECORD IS NOW NEAR IMPOSSIBLE WITH THE ANCHOR AROUND HIS NECK THAT IS THE LAST 3 YEARS.

"I DON'T BELIEVE IT! I DON'T BELIEVE IT!" WHITE HOUSE TART JAY CARNEY SCREAMED INTO THE PHONE THIS MORNING AS HE FURIOUSLY HUMPED HIS BODY PILLOW WITH BARRY O'S PHOTO ON IT. "FOR ME THE MUSIC NEVER ENDS!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

We'll start in the US and open with non-Iraq War news. The Feminist Majority Foundation issued the following this afternoon:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 20, 2011

Contact: Francesca Tarant

Phone: 703.522.2214

Email: media@feminist.org

Supreme Court: Wal-Mart Too Big to Sue

Today's Supreme Court decision in favor of Wal-Mart will make it much more difficult for women to sue large companies for sex discrimination. In a 5-4 vote, the court said workers must show common elements among millions of employment decisions in order to proceed with a large class-action suit.

"First we have the government deciding that certain financial interests are too big to fail. Now we have the majority of the Supreme Court ruling that large employers are too big to sue concerning systematic employment discrimination," said Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal. "Without the ability to take effective class action lawsuits, women and minorities lose a major pillar in the fight to eliminate employment discrimination."

The court's five Republican-appointed justices ruled in favor of Wal-Mart, while the four justices appointed by Democrats -- including three women -- sided with the employees. More than 20 large corporations supported Wal-Mart in the case, including Intel Corporation, Altria Group Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, and General Electric Corporation. Organizations fighting for women's rights, human rights and civil rights backed the workers.

The initial lawsuit was filed in 2001 by Betty Dukes, a former Wal-Mart employee, and six other women. They allege Wal-Mart systematically paid and promoted women employees less. They were seeking what could have been billions of dollars in punitive damages and back pay for all female employees of the big-box chain since 1998.

Now on to the Iraq War issues. Over the weekend, the Defense Dept issued the following:

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn.
Spc. Marcos A. Cintron, 32, of Orlando, Fla., died June 16 at a medical facility in Boston, Mass., of wounds suffered June 6 at Baghdad, Iraq, when insurgents attacked his unit with indirect fire. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan.
For more information, the media may contact 1st Infantry Division public affairs office at 785-240-6359 or 785-307-0641.

That means the number of US soldiers who died from the June 6th attack is now at six and the number of US soldiers killed in the Iraq War for the month of June stands at 9 thus far. Spc Marcos A. Cintron Natalie Sherman (Boston Herald) quotes Wilfrido Cintron (father of Spc Marcos A. Cintron), stating, "He wasn't conscious, but I know that he knew that his family were there and that we were struggling for him. The family, we remember him as happy. We remember him as a hero." Along with his father, his survivors include an eleven-year-old daughter and a thirteen-year-old daughter.

Spc Robert Hartwick died in the June 6th attack and his service was Saturday. Mary Beth Lane (Columbus Dispatch) reports: "Mourners filled the pews of the Logan Church of the Nazarene this morning as Hartwick, of Rockbridge in Hocking County, was eulogized as an American hero." Chelby Kosto (ABC 6 -- link has text and video) adds, "Thousands lined the streets near the church with flags. They had their hands over their hearts and they saluted the local hero." Emilo Campo Jr. also died in the June 6th attack and his service was Friday. Dan Linehan (Mankato Free Press) reports:

Friends, family, a two-star general and a priest remembered Campo Friday during his funeral Mass in Madelia as a free spirit, a soldier and a Catholic. He died earlier this month in a rocket attack in Baghdad at the age of 20.

"He was very proud about what he was doing," his mother said. She was proud, too, even when Emilio's 2008 enlistment in the National Guard meant two of her three sons were in the military.

And, pay attention to this if you live in Illinois where the politicians love your votes but betray you, if you click here and go through the photos by Pat Christman of the funderal for Emilio Campo Jr., you'll see a photo of some of the attendees including a photo feature the Minnesota Governor, Mark Dayton, US Senator Al Franken and US House Rep Tim Walz. If you die in a war and you're from Illinois, Dick Durbin, by contrast, seems to feel something he said a year or two ago covered it. Apparently Governor Pat Quinn feels the same. In Minnesota, the politicians care a lot more about the citizens of the state. [If you're late to the party on that, refer to "Respecting and (for some officials) disrespecting the fallen."]

Matthew England is another US soldier who was killed this month while serving in Iraq. Ozarks First reports, "Miles of cars, emergency vehicles and veterans line up to pay tribute to England." And his aunt Susan Vuyovich remembers her nephew, "Matt was just all over the woods and playing in the water. Matthew was just full of life and full of spunk." Mike Landis (KY3 News -- link has text and video) quotes Dorris Sayles who knew Matthew from his job at a grocery store, "He always had a beautiful smile, he was friendly to everybody." Landis notes, "England will be laid to rest Monday in Veteran's Cemetery at Fort Leonard Wood." Missouri's Governor is Jay Nixon. His office issued the following on Friday:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Gov. Jay Nixon has ordered that the U.S. and Missouri flags at state buildings in all 114 counties and the City of St. Louis be flown at half-staff on June 20 to honor the bravery and sacrifice of Private First Class Matthew Joseph England. Private First Class England, age 22, of Gainesville, was a soldier in the United States Army serving in support of Operation New Dawn in Iraq. He died on June 8 of injuries sustained when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device in An Najaf Province, Iraq.
In addition, Gov. Nixon has ordered that the U.S. and Missouri flags at all state buildings in Ozark County be flown at half-staff from June 21 to June 26.
"The lowering of the flags will honor Private First Class England and remind Missourians of his bravery and sacrifice," Gov. Nixon said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with his family as they mourn for him."
Private First Class England was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas. His awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Combat Action Badge, Combat and Special Skill Badge Basic Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Bar, Weapon: Rifle (Inscription: Rifle), Expert), and the Overseas Service Bar.

On today's Morning Edition (NPR), Tamara Keith reports on 24-year-old Christopher Fishbeck who died in Iraq June 6th and quotes Christopher's mother, Toni Kay, stating, "He told me that he felt that there was a 90-percent chance that he wouldn't make it out alive. Whether that was based on a premonition that he had or whether it was based on his knowledge of what lied ahead, I don't know but he just felt a very, very strong sense that he wasn't going to make it out." Keith also speaks with Christopher Fishbeck's wife Stephanie Kidder who, three months after her wedding, now finds herself a widow.

Christopher Fishbeck is from my state and it saddens and angers me that neither of our two US senators has issued a statement (Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein). They could, and did, show up to rave over Leon Panetta to a Senate committee but they didn't have time to tell a staffer to write up a quick press release. How very sad. They can take 'comfort' in the fact that, on this topic, they're as lousy as Ed Royce. Royce represents California's 40th Congressional District (which would include Fishbeck's Buena Park) and he's one of the worst members of Congress (judging by? his need to work 'pet issues' that don't have a damn to do with his constituents or, for that matter, with the role of the US Congress). Ed Royce can -- and does -- repeatedly bore the world with his thoughts on what is happening in other countries but a member of his district passes away in a war that the US government sent him or her into and he can't even issue a statement? Remember that the next time he's whining about Turkey or North Korea or doing anything that doesn't have a damn thing to do with his district's needs. Jerry Brown is our governor and his office issued the following last week:

SACRAMENTO -- On behalf of all Californians, Governor Brown and First Lady Anne Gust Brown honor Spc. Christopher B. Fishbeck, who bravely gave his life in service to our state and nation. The Governor and First Lady extend their deepest condolences to his family and friends at this difficult time.
In memorial, Governor Brown ordered that flags be flown at half-staff over the State Capitol today. Spc. Fishbeck's family will receive a letter of condolence from the Governor.
***
Spc. Christopher B. Fishbeck, 24, of Victorville, CA, died June 6 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with indirect fire. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, KS. Fishbeck was supporting Operation New Dawn.

Today Ian Swanson (The Hill) reports on a poll his outlet conducted (margin of error +/- 3%) which found 72% of respondents stated the US military "is fighting in too many places" and, among other results, "Forty percent said the military intervention in Iraq has made on difference when it comes to U.S. safety, compared to 32 percent who said the United States is safer because of it. Twenty percent said the country is less safe because of action in Iraq." In addition, 49% of respondents "said it is not very likely that troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year, and another 10 percent said it is not at all likely." 48% of Republican respondents stated that the Iraq War has made the US "less safe" or "has had no impact" on the US safety (43% believe it made the US safer). That finding on Republican respondents tracks with what Pew Research Center's most recent survey has found. In 2004, 49% of Republican respondents told Pew that the US should "pay less attention to problems overseas." In 2011, that segment has risen to 58%.

In his column today, Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) notes Pew but not The Hill poll (the poll was published after Raimondo's column). The Hill poll only further backs up his observations about the mood of the Republican Party currently and how the media is sidelining Ron Paul who is running for the Republican Party's 2012 presidential nomination:

Paul's influence on the foreign policy debate in the GOP is hard to deny, even if you're a "reporter." Yet deny it they have: they're not about to give any credit to someone they consider The Enemy. Christiane Amanpour spent the entire hour of her Sunday show giving John McCain a platform to denounce Republican "isolationism" -- and herself sounding the alarm throughout the other segments -- without once mentioning the most prominent "isolationist" of them all, the one who made it okay -- and then cool -- to question America's burden of empire in polite Republican company: Ron Paul.

Surely the War Party is scared to death that the so-called "isolationist" (i.e., anti-meddling) wing of the GOP will take over: what really mortifies them, however, isn't Paul winning straw polls (although they don't like it), but the other candidates echoing Paul's views, albeit in vague and very watered-down terms. That's why McCain, the architect of the GOP's last electoral disaster, and his neoconservative janissaries have taken to the hustings to exorcise the "isolationist" demon.

"Another White House conspiracy!"
"THIS JUST IN! LOOK OUT FOR THE 'PLEDGERS'!"

Cedric's Big Mix