Friday, November 09, 2012

Bring on the facts


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

SOMEWHERE MELISSA HARRIS LACEWELL PARRY'S HEAD IS EXPLODING -- SENDING CHEAP WEAVE FLYING EVERYWHERE.

BUT COULD IT BE THAT THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A NEW SENSE OF RESPECT FOR THE FACTS?

IF SO, HALLELUJAH, AND MAY WE ALL LAND GENTLY AS WE RETURN TO TERRA FIRMA.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:  




Let's start with Dan Murphy -- and sadly I don't mean Soul Asylum.  No, we're talking about world class liar Dan Murphy.  The Christian Science Monitor needs to declare him a columnist -- not a good one either -- and he's about as honest as William Safire was.  But on the left we're supposed to cheer because he lies for 'our side.'  He writes crap that reads like, "I have the hots for Campbell Brown but Dan Senor married her so I hate his guts." 


What the election says to nit-wit Dan Murphy is that another Dan (Senor) will have "no more influence in the White House today than he did yesterday."  Dan Senor advised Mitt Romney and Dan Senor is evil, evil, evil.  Dan The Nit Wit Murphy explains, "Mr. Senor was a key political player for the Bush administration in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, advising Paul Bremer on how to run the country in 2003 and 2004."  I would ask, "How does this crap make it into print"  -- but crap like this is why the Christian Science Monitor is no longer a daily paper. 


Dan Senor may be many things.  I casually know Campbell Brown, I do not know Dan Senor.  And I remember being surprised by that pairing and being told that Dan's basically media anyway.  Meaning he's PR.  That's something I heard repeatedly over the years.  Yet Murphy's explaining that Senor was basically running the CPA.  How strange because I spent hours, during the Iraqi Inquiry, pouring over each day's testimony, on the phone with friends who were covering the Inquiry or who were attending it for other reasons, and never did I encounter Dan Senor's name.  Paul Bremer?  Over and over.  Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, generals, etc and etc.  No Dan Senor.  But Dan Murphy wants us to know that "Senor was a key political player for the Bush administration in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, advising Paul Bremer on how to run the country in 2003 and 2004."


Well I can be wrong and often am.  And were Dan Murphy correct, I would be writing, "Stupid me . . ."  I have no problem owning my mistakes.  But I wasn't wrong.  September 12th, Chris Good and Shushannah Walshe (ABC News) reported:

Senor is the former spokesman for the American government in Iraq (the Coalition Provisional Authority at the beginning of the Iraq war under George W. Bush) and is a particularly close adviser to Romney on the Middle East.

Oh, he was a spokesperson.  Yeah, that jibes with what I was told years ago.  It also goes with what's been reported over and over and over.  Now unless I'm remembering wong -- and I can be wrong and often am --  Dahr Jamail's Beyond The Green Zone: Dispatches From An Unembedded Journalist In Occupied Iraq mentions Dan Senor on exactly one page.  Now I haven't picked up the book in years (not an insult, it's a great book, I recommend it highly) but I believe that's page 68, I'm seeing it in my mental picture as bottom of that page and the sentence starts "Coalition spokesman Dan Senor . . ."


Am I wrong on that?  Could be but don't think so.

So a spokesperson is what we're talking about.  And Dan Murphy's inflated him to what?  Cabinet-level planner of the Iraq War?  He's as nutty as the other partisan Democrats passing talking points off as facts and he's certainly not a journalist.


Dan Murphy refers you to a piece US House Rep Adam Smith wrote for Foreign Policy about how 24 foreign policy advisers to Romney worked in the Bully Boy Bush administration.  That's shocking?  Like it's shocking that so many of the Clinton White House people quickly drifted to Barack or Hillary in 2007 and 2008?


Dan Senor's not mentioned in Adam Smith's article. But Senor's the topic of Murphy's first four paragraphs and a photo of Senor (with Paul Ryan) is used to illustrate the article.  Dan Senor was a spokesperson.  Dan Murphy needs to dial back the crazy.


Dan Murphy's attack and distortion of Dan Senor wouldn't rate inclusion normally were it not that fact that the Christian Science Monitor wants to advise in their little intro to Kurt Shillinger's column on civility that, to bring it back to politics, "It starts with citizens." 


Really?  I kind of think it's starts with reporters or 'reporters' who think they can lie and distort.  What the hell did Dan Senor do to rate him being called out the day after the election?  And that question from someone who doesn't say "The Iraq War was wrong."  Hell no.  I say the Iraq War is a criminal war.  Not wrong, criminal. 

But even more reason for calling out Murphy's crap is Howard LaFranchi's garabage today that's Howard basically saying, 'I jizzed my shorts, I'm so happy!'  Over what?  Over Colin Powell possibly joining the administration in Barack's second term.


Oh.  Okay.  The rag calls out Dan Senor who was a spokesperson but it gets giddy over Collie The Blot Powell?  The man who lied to the United Nations, who helped sell the damn war?  There are no ethics and there are no standards, that is painfully clear.


I realize that when it comes to the press, no one gives head like Colin.  Please, I saw him stab Bush I in the back to journalists in the mid-90s.  He was entertaining three on background two tables over.  No one self-promotes better than Colin Powell.  The term "press whore" was invented to define him. 


But if you're going to call out someone for being a spokesperson for the US government in Iraq then you damn well can't applaud the person who stood before the United Nations spouting one lie after another to justify an illegal war.


And before Dan Murphy whines that he was talking about neocons and how they won't be advising Barack, grab a damn clue with both hands.  From the October 24th snapshot:


Barack's had necons throughout his administration.  We regularly call out Victoria Nuland who is better known as Mrs. Robert Kagan and who is even better known as Dick Cheney's National Security Adivsor (2003 to 2005).   In February 2011, whistle blower Sibel Edmonds (Boiling Frogs) noted some of the many neocons serving in Barack's administration: Marc Grossman, Dennis Ross and Frederick Kagan (that would be Victoria Nuland's brother-in-law).  In 2010,  Kristine Frazao (Russia Today -- link is video and text) thought Kagan's addition was so important, she did a report on just that, opening with, "They're ba-a-a-ck!  The US government may be done with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld but another neoconservative is returning to the government payroll.  That same year, Allen McDuffee (ThinkTanked) observed, "Because we overinflated the impact of neoconservatives during the Bush administration and paid little attention to them before that, we're missing the fact that neocons are having the same influence in the Obama administration they've always had, according to a report issued by the Brookings Institution." And if we drop back another year, we can land on
This morning leading neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan held a meeting at the Mayflower Hotel -- in support of President Obama's Afghanistan policy. Kristol and Kagan, as Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen has reported, have formed a successor organization to the Project for the New American Century, which came into disrepute for its advocacy of the Iraq War. The new one is called the Foreign Policy Initiative. Its contention is that America remains, in the words of Madeleine Albright, the "indispensable nation"and, furthermore, that neocons can play a valuable role in coming years in ensuring that it remains one.

So Dan Murphy's thrilled that Barack's administration is pure and protected from the neocons -- the ones who've already made their way in.  But don't tell Dan Murphy.  In the meantime, you can click here for a piece by Campbell Brown at Slate from August on journalism, politics and disclosures. And Dan Murphy can click there too because it's got a great photo of Campbell and he can obsess over her one more time.


While Dan Murphy foolishly believes there will be and has been no necons fluttering around Barack, you can find more honesty at the Libertarian Reason where Ed Krayewski observes:

Is there a charitable interpretation of much of the left's silence about Barack Obama's war policies? Either they don't know about them, they don't care about them or they find building the welfare state a more urgent cause than dismantling the warfare state. Maybe they assume he wouldn't be a Nobel Peace Prize laureate if he weren't a peacemakrer? You can suggest other interpretations in the comments.
Nevertheless, while Barack Obama built a name for himself on his 2002 opposition to the Iraq War (as a state senator out of Hyde Park, Chicago, mind you, where supporting the Iraq War would have been political suicide), he made it clear on the campaign trail he wasn't a non-interventionist. He promised if there was information on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan and the Pakistani government didn't act on it, he would. You couldn't get through the campaign season without hearing at least one Obama booster (or even the president himself) trumpeting that kept promise. Ending the war in Iraq was another promise Obama ran on in 2008. He claims he's kept it and campaigned on ending the Iraq war. Obama, of course, actually tried to renege on the status of forces agreement negotiated under President Bush and extend the war in Iraq.


It's a good commentary but, like too many, he seems unaware of what Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th:



 
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence. 

On the elections, language warning, Susan (On the Edge) offers her observations of just re-elected US President Barack Obama here.  Via Jane Fonda, you can check out Peggy Simpson's piece for Women's Media Center about how female candidates faired in Tuesday's election.  At Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford and Bruce A. Dixon weigh in on the results of the presidential election and the meaning of the results.  Ruth asked that we note Dennis Loo's World Can't Wait piece about the ongoing Drone War and the


When host Joe Scarborough raised the criticism on his show Scarborough Country on October 23, 2012 that Obama's drone attacks are killing a lot of innocents, including 4 year old children, guest Joe Klein, Time Magazine's political columnist, an ardent Obama partisan, defended the drone attacks with these words:
"the bottom line in the end is - whose 4-year-old get killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror."
Whose 4-year-old gets killed? This stunningly naked xenophobic and reactionary statement by Joe Klein topped an earlier comment of his in this same show in which he described the virtue of drone warfare:
KLEIN: It has been remarkably successful" --
SCARBOROUGH: "at killing people" –
KLEIN: "At decimating bad people, taking out a lot of bad people - and saving Americans lives as well, because our troops don't have to do this . . . You don't need pilots any more because you do it with a joystick in California."
This is one of the most prominent political columnists in America speaking, an ardent Democratic supporter: "You don't need pilots anymore because you do it with a joystick in California."


Posted by at 17 comments:

Thursday, November 08, 2012

What was bought, what was sold


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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O GOT RE-ELECTED AND, TO HEAR KAI WRIGHT AND OTHERS TELL IT ELECTION NIGHT ON TV, IT WAS DUE TO SHADING.  AS THE COMMERCIALS SAY, "MAYBELLINE HAS IT!"

DOW PLUNGED 313 POINTS FOLLOWING THE NEWS.

BUT NOT TO WORRY, IT'S ALL ABOUT SOFTENING UP RESISTANCE FOR BARRY O'S EFFORTS TO GUT THE SAFETY NET.

AMERICA, YOU GET WHAT YOU VOTE FOR.  IN 2013, BE PREPARED TO KISS SOCIAL SECURITY GOOD-BYE.

WHAT?  YOU REALLY THOUGHT HE'D JUST CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON SCISSORING AWAY THE CONSTITUTION?


FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Last night the plurality of US citizens voting on the presidential race re-elected Barack Obama president of the United States by a thin margin. As Isaiah noted this morning in his comic, the second term is where Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan found out what happens when the love's gone -- Bill almost impeached for lying about a blow job, Reagan with the ghost of impeachment hovering over Iran-Contra and Richard Nixon with Watergate which really helped to draw attention away from the slush fund and so many other crimes. Even Supreme Court selected Bully Boy Bush, when he won a term by the votes and not by the Supreme Court, struggled.



Already Barack's buddy and former OMB Director Peter The Swinger Orszag, as Alexa noted this afternoon at Corrente, has taken to Bloomberg Television to proclaim that it's time to cut Social Security. Thank yourselves, Americans, you voted for the bastard -- and, yes, that term is linguistically correct when applied to Barack. The thing with Bush's first term, he wasn't elected. His crimes were appalling, his disregard for the Constitution, his Executive Signing Statements, Guantanamo, his illegal war, all of it was disgusting and, yes, criminal. And those of us who are citizens of the United States could insist, "The Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, he didn't win it." But then came November 2004 and enough Americans went to the polls to say that they were okay with this, tha it was fine and dandy to torture and worse. At that point, when US voters embraced it, it became a lot more difficult to say, "Hey, that's him, it's not us."
The people embraced Bully Boy Bush -- a plurality -- in the 2004 election and a plurality embraced Barack Obama yesterday. Granted the American people were uninformed by a media that increasingly is exposed as not incompetent but as deliberately deceitful.



Take CBS News (where I have -- or maybe had before this went up -- friends). Monday Ruth noted Erik Wemple's Washington Post piece about CBS News hiding footage voters should have known about. September 12th, Steve Kroft interviewed Barack for 60 Minutes. He pressed Barack on the Bengahzi attack that killed Americans Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens. Barack -- who would go to the UN and talk about YouTube videos -- would have to admit to Kroft "it was an attack on Americans." As Wemple notes, CBS releasing the video after the second debate would have been good for its web 'hits' and it would have raised the issue of accountability. It would have forced the media to do their job. Instead, they sat on it and waited until the day before voting to quietly release it online.



That's not how you run a news outlet. That's not how you inform citizens. But Scott Pelley was hired to put you asleep, not to inform you. And in that monotone, as he goes on and on about nothing oh-so-gently, he ensures that Americans remain uninformed. He does his part, I should say. Despite the fact that CBS prime time brings in huge numbers and CBS daytime holds its own, CBS Evening News just can't deliver an audience. So Pelley's impact is, like the man himself, rather small.


Like Pelley, Diane Sawyer (ABC's World News), NBC's Brian Williams and CNN's multitude of hosts refused to inform their audience that, September 26th, the New York Times' Tim Arango reported:


 
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence. 


As Ava and I noted, that report was followed by not one, but three so-called 'presidential debates' ("Days later, October 3rd, Barack 'debated' Mitt Romney. Again October 16th. Again October 22nd. Not once did the moderators ever raise the issue.") Every one of them played dumb while Barack talked about how he supposedly got the US out of Iraq. Not one of the high paid 'journalists' who moderated the debates ever raised the issue. Candy Crowley never said, "Actually, Mr. Obama, you are in negotiations with Iraq to send more US troops back into Iraq."


That would have been too much for a suck-up hilariously named "Candy."



To get that into the New York Times, Arango had to bury it in paragraph fifteen. If you're not getting what a struggle it was to get that reality into print, grasp that when the New York Times 'fact check'ed Barack in the debates on Iraq, they avoided mentioning what Arango had reported. The editorial boad disappeared what was a news outlet exclusive -- an exclusive in their own paper -- and they disowned it.





With little to no amplification, it is true that the American people had little hope of hearing of these important news items. However, they knew Bradley Manning was imprisoned. They may not have known that election day was also his 898th day being locked away -- still without a trial -- but they knew he was locked away.
Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions.



At Fort Meade, Maryland, during a motion hearing in Pfc. Bradley Manning’s court martial, his defense attorney David Coombs told the court Manning had submitted a plea notice indicating he would accept general responsibility for providing all charged information to WikiLeaks. The notice was the beginning of a process that could greatly simplify the upcoming trial proceedings in February.
Manning did not plead guilty to the charged offenses in the plea notice. However, significantly, he did indicate with this notice that he is willing to admit to the fact that the act of providing information to WikiLeaks did occur or that the government has evidence that would prove he did commit the act and so he is willing to plea to it.


People who supposedly give a damn about Bradley -- about the torture he's been put through -- didn't give enough of a damn to take a stand against Barack Obama. Whores like Daniel Ellsberg even went out trolling for votes for Barack. No whore like an old whore. And it needs to be made clear to Daniel that he's no longer needed as a face for the issue. You can't urge people to vote for the man who has imprisoned Bradley, the man who has pronounced him guilty, and still be an advocate for Bradley.




In a conversation about alleged WikiLeaks leaker US President Barack Obama commented on Pfc. Bradley Manning saying, “He broke the law.”
The words from Obama’s mouth come as Manning is held in prison awaiting further charges and a military trial. Manning has entered no official plea and no court proceedings have begun. Yet, the US president dubbed him guilty of breaking the law.
Many argue no truly fair or impartial trial is even possible at this point. Some hold there would never be a fair trial since the media had already convicted manning in the court of public opinion. Now that the Military’s commander-in-chief has spoke on the matter is even more unlikely the military trial will be fair and impartial.
Military officers on a potential jury now know that their commander and chief believes Manning to be guilty. To find otherwise would amount to undermining his view.




Again, Daniel Ellsberg has whored his reputation and needs to find another hobby to occupy his final days, he has blown his credibility.




Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks and currently in London at Ecuador's Embassy. Assange tells Katy Lee (AFP), "Obama seems to be a nice man, and that is precisely the problem. It's better to have a sheep in wolf's clothing than a wolf in sheep's clothing. [. . .] All of the activities against WikiLeaks by the United States have occurred under an Obama administration." Why is Assange at the Embassy? He states he fears that British officials will turn him over to the United States or that he will be sent to Sweden which will then turn him over to the US. Law and Disorder Radio host Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) is among the attorneys representing Assange. In a piece for the Guardian in August, Michael Ratner explained:




There are several unambiguous signs that the US is on track to prosecute Assange for his work as a journalist. A grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, empanelled to investigate violations of the Espionage Act – a statute that by its very nature targets speech – has subpoenaed Twitter feeds regarding Assange and WikiLeaks. An FBI agent, testifying at whistleblower Bradley Manning's trial, said that "founders, owners and managers" of WikiLeaks are being investigated. And then there is Assange's 42,135-page FBI file – a compilation of curious heft if the government is "not interested" in investigating its subject.
In this context, Assange's fears of extradition to and persecution in the US, and therefore his plea for asylum, are eminently reasonable.
What's more, Assange is rightly concerned about how he will be treated if he is extradited to the US. One need only consider how the US treated Bradley Manning, the army private who allegedly leaked the cables to WikiLeaks to see why. Manning spent close to a year in pre-trial solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, and then eight months under conditions designed to pressure him into providing evidence to incriminate Assange. During this time, Manning was stripped of his clothing and made to stand nude for inspection. Thousands of people, including scores of legal scholars and the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, have condemned Manning's treatment as inhumane, and state that it may constitute torture. There is no reason for Assange to expect he will be treated any better.
Most disturbingly, the US government is more concerned with investigating a journalist and publisher than the high-level government officials whose alleged war crimes and misdeeds Assange and his cohorts brought to light.




Those are fears Assange has of the government commanded and directed by Barack Obama. The media's certainly done their part to hide Bradley away but the American people should have known about him.
Even so, a plurality said "yes" last night.




And that's the problem. Today people whine about the US being a national security state. Some foolish ones cite Dwight Eisenhower warning against the "military industrial complex." Yes, he did warn against it. When? January 17, 1961. As he was leaving the White House and John F. Kennedy was coming in. In other words, he stayed silent when it would have mattered. In the last gasps of his presidency, he suddenly wants to alert the American people that there's a problem -- one he not only refused to fix but also helped create. So some foolish types today don't get that it's not getting taken down. Not now, not ever. It's been accepted. By presidents of both parties, yes, but also by the American people. It's outrageous, it shouldn't continue.



But that's what voting can do: validate government positions.



Last night, American voters said, "Yes to Guantanamo! Yes to indefinite detentions! Yes to illegal war -- Libya specifically! Yes to ignoring acts of Congress -- also known as laws -- such as the War Powers Act! Yes to having a kill list of American citizens!"



They said yes to that and so much more.




We were just noting Michael Ratner. He hosts Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, with attorneys Heidi Boghosian, and Michael S. Smith. In February, they discussed the NDAA with guest Chris Hedges who was suing the White House. Excerpt.



Michael Smith: The National Defense Authorization Act was signed by President Obama on December 31st of last year and takes effect this coming March. The act authorizes the military to begin domestic policing. The military can detain indefinitely without trial any US citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. Vague language in the bill such as "substantially supported" or "directly supported" or "associated forces" is used. We're joined today by returning guest Chris Hedges in his capacity as a plantiff in a lawsuit that he's just filed against President Barack Obama with respect to the National Defense Authorization Act and its language about rounding up even American citizens and salting them away forever.



Heidi Boghosian: Chris, welcome to Law and Disorder.



Chris Hedges: Thank you.




Heidi Boghosian: Can you talk about the significance of codifying the NDAA into law essentially several over-reaching practices that the executive has been implementing for awhile now?
Chris Hedges: That's correct but it's been implementing those practices through a radical interpretation of the 2001 law, The Authorization to Use Military Force Act. You remember old John Yoo was Bush's legal advisor. It was under the auspices of this act that Jose Padilla who is a US citizen was held for three and a half years in a military brig. Remember, he was supposedly one of the other hijackers that never made it to a plane. Stripped of due process. And it's under that old act that the executive branch, Barack Obama, permits himself to serve as judge, jury and executioner and order the assassination of a US citizen, the Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.



Michael Smith: Two weeks later his 16-year-old son.




Chris Hedges: Yes, exactly. So what this does is it essentially codfies this kind of behavior into law. It overturns over 200 years of legal precedent so that the military is allowed to engage in domestic policing and there are a couple of very disturbing aspects in the creation of this legislation. One of them is that [US Senator] Dianne Feinstein had proposed that US citiens be exempt from this piece of legislation and both the Obama White House and the Democratic Party rejected that. Now Obama issued a signing statement saying that this will not be used against American citizens but the fact is legally it can be used against American citizens. There was an opportunity for them to protect American citizens and to protect due process and they chose not to do that.



Michael Smith: Well he also announced that he was going to close Guantanamo.



Chris Hedges: Right, so it's very disingenous.



Heidi Boghosian: And signing statements really carry no legal force.



Chris Hedges. Right. And if they wanted to protect basic civil liberties, they certainly had a chance to do so and it was there decision not to do that. I mean, the other thing that's disturbing is that it expands this endless war on terror. So the 2001 act is targeted towards groups that are affiliated or part of al Qaeda. Now it's groups that didn't even exist in 2001. There are all sorts of nebulous terms like "associated forces," "substantially supported." When you look at the criteria by which Americans can be investigated by our security and surveillance state, it's amorphus and frightening: People who have lost fingers on the hand, people who hoard more than seven days worth of food in their house, people who have water-proof ammunition. I mean, I always say I come from rural parts of Maine. That's probably most of my family.


[Laughter.]



Chris Hedges: It's a very short step to adding the obstructionist tactics of the Occupy movement.




Michael Smith: Well that's what we've wanted to ask you because we've thought all along with the beginning of this war on terrorism that ultimately these laws stripping us of our Constitutional rights would be used against the social protest movements at home and the latest development is absolutely chilling and we wanted to ask you about that.



Chris Hedges: We don't know what the motives are. We do know that all the intelligence agencies as well as the Pentagon opposed this legislation. Robert Muller, the head of the FBI, actually went before Congress and said that if it was passed it would make the FBI's work in terms of investigating terrorism harder because it would make it harder to get people to cooperate once you hand the military that power. So I think it's interesting, to say the very least, that the various agencies that are being pulled into domestic policing -- especially the Pentagon -- didn't push for the bill. I don't know what the motives are but I know what the consequences are and that is that it hands to the corporate state weapons, the capacity to use the armed forces internally in ways that we have not seen for over two centuries. That is the consequence of the bill. What are the motives? You know I haven't gone down and reported it in Washington.



Heidi Boghosian: Chris, you know I'm thinking of the Supreme Court Case Humanitarian Law Project and the notion "providing material support." [Center for Constitutional Rights analysis here -- text and video.] And in that case it was also very vague and things that seemed benign could be construed as providing support but it strikes me that under this piece of legislation also the notion of associating with others that the government may deem terrorists becomes possibly vague.




Chris Hedges: Well it is vague. And that's what's so frightening. And the lawsuit was proposed by Civil Rights attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran who approached me and said that I needed a credible plantiff. Now because I had been the Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times and because I was in the Middle East for seven years I spent considerable time with both individuals and organizations that are considered by the US State Dept to be either terrorists or terrorist groups. That would include Hamas, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Kurdistan Workers Party -- or the PKK as it's known in southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq. All of these organizations -- I mean, I used to go to Tunis and have dinner with Yasser Arafat [President of the Palestinian National Authority from 1996 until his death in 2004] and Abu Jihad [the PLO's Khalil al-Wair] when they were branded as international terrorists. And there are no exemptions in this piece of legislation for journalists. And the attorneys felt that I was a credible plantiff because of that. We have already seen under the 2001 law, a persecution of not only Muslim Americans in this country but Muslim American organizations -- in particular charity organizations and mostly charity organizations that support the Palestinians. And under this legislation, it is certainly conceivable that not only -- many of these organizations have been shut down, their bank accounts have been frozen, their organizers have been persecuted -- but under this legislation they're essentially able to be branded as terrorists, stripped of due process, thrown into a military brig and held, in the language of the legislation, until the end of hostilities -- whenever that is.


Last night was a "yes" to that. The problem with these yes votes? There is the law by word and law by custom and practice. Bully Boy Bush floated outrageous ideas that Barack Obama took further. Neither man has been prosecuted. By refusing to prosecute, these actions are now custom. Can someone object? Yes, you can object to anything. You can also file a lawsuit over anything. But in 2017 or 2018 when we suddenly decide we care once again about, for example, habeas corpus, a court's going to take into account the fact that two administrations -- two consecutive administrations have trashed it. (They'll also be taking into account that they don't wan to open the door for a lawsuit against a former president or presidents or, in Bully Boy Bush's case, occupant of the White House.) So lots of luck carrying after everything's over.


It'll be a bit like whining today about what Eisenhower oversaw the creation of in the fifties.



We can -- and should -- blame the media for a great deal. But the blame goes beyond the media.

Posted by at 10 comments:

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

The Big Girl Strategy


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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TOOK TIME OUT OF HIS BUSY MORNING ("WAFFLES!") TO CHAT WITH THESE REPORTERS BRIEFLY ABOUT WHAT HIS RE-ELECTION LAST NIGHT REALLY MEANS.

"LANE BRYANT,"  BARRY O DECLARED MUNCHING AWAY.

LANE BRYANT?

"PROBABLY $150,000 AT LANE BRYANT."

HUH?

"CANDY CROWLEY.  HOW DO YOU THINK WE GOT HER TO TANK MITT ROMNEY FOR US?  WE OFFERED HER A SHOPPING SPREE AT LANE BRYANT.  NOW JOE, I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS JOKING OR OFF HIS MEDS OR WHAT, JOE SAYS, 'GIVE HER A SHOPPING SPREE TO VICTORIA'S SECRET!' AND WE WERE ALL LIKE, 'THAT HEFFER CAN'T WEAR NOTHING AT VICTORIA'S SECRET, JOE!'  SO THAT'S WHEN JAY CARNEY -- HE'S ALWAYS GOOD ABOUT FINDING WOMEN'S CLOTHES -- THAT'S WHEN JAY CARNEY GOES, 'LANE BRYANT. IT'S FOR THE BIG GIRLS.'  AND WE WERE LIKE, 'YEAH, CANDY, SHE HEALTHY, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?'  SO THAT'S WHAT WE AGREED TO AND WE WENT TO HER AND I SAID, 'CANDY, I AM ABOUT TO MAKE YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE.'  AND SHE GOES, 'UNLESS THIS IS WHERE YOU TRANSFORM TO ANGELINA JOLIE, IT AIN'T HAPPENING.'  AND I SAID, 'EW, SNAP!'  AND THEN I OFFER HER THE LANE BRYANT AND SHE GOT SO EXCITED, SHE WEPT AND SHE PEED HERSELF A LITTLE.  I KNOW CAUSE SHE TOLD ME AND CAUSE THERE WAS THIS PUDDLE ON THE FLOOR."




FROM THE TCI WIRE:



In the United States today, a presidential election is being held.  Alastair Reith (CounterPunch) explores Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of the lies being told:
 
However, both candidates are neglecting to mention a few things about America's 'total withdrawal'.
Privatisation of occupation
A small number of troops will remain in the country, with the Office of Security Cooperation directing the activities of more than 100 military personnel tasked with training Iraq's army and helping to oversee continuing multi-billion dollar arms sales to the Iraqi military.
The US embassy in Baghdad is the largest and most expensive in the world, with 17,000 staff all operating under legal immunity.
There are also consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, each with upwards of 1000 employees.
These figures include more than just the bureaucrats and diplomats that immediately spring to mind – the embassy also houses CIA officers, intelligence analysts, defence attaches and upwards of 5,000 security contractors.
In place of uniformed soldiers, America's activities in Iraq are increasingly carried out by thousands of defence contractors – essentially mercenaries operating under the aegis of the US government.
They do everything from peeling potatoes to providing diplomats and businessmen with armed security details.
Exact figures and details of precise activities are hard to come by, but the latest report from US Central Command details 7,336 contractors working for the Pentagon in Iraq.
It's not just the Pentagon outsourcing its boots on the ground – when other government agencies (such as the US State Department) are factored in the numbers become closer to 13,500.
While Obama and Romney cross verbal swords over the withdrawal of troops and how it took place, the privatisation of America's significant and ongoing presence in Iraq does not rate a mention.
 
Also noting the US election is Wael Grace (Al Mada) who points out that Barack's 'withdrawal' has left behind US military as "trainers" and Marines guarding the US diplomatic staff as well as contractors.
 
Taji has been slammed by a bombing which has left many dead and many injured. Reuters quotes police officer Ahmed Khalef stating, "There were army trainees leaving the base and small buses were waiting for them when the explosion took place.  We immediately started to rescue the wounded.  You could smell charred bodies."   Earlier today, Adam Schreck (AP) reported 27 dead (and possibly a suicide bomber) and over forty injured.  Hours later, Schreck updated to 33 dead and fifty-six injured.  The Frontier Post notes the suicide car bombing was "at the entrance to an Iraqi army base" where recruits were lining up.  AFP adds, "The explosion appears to have occurred as they left the base at lunchtime. But sources told the AFP news agency there had also been a recruitment event on Tuesday to welcome potential new soldiers. Such events have been targeted by militants in the past."  Yesterday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported a Taji car bombing as well -- one that claimed 1 life and left seven injured.
 
Yasir Ghazi (New York Times) quotes Mohamed Talal who was hoping to enlist, "I was heading to the place near the parking lot to check my name when all of sudden a strong explosion happened where people were gathering.  I turned and started to run, and I began to feel shrapnel in my back and I fell to the ground."
 
Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) states, "Our police source said that the attack was a parked car bomb, and not a suicide blast."  Reuters notes that the death toll has risen,  "A suicide bomber rammed his explosive-filled car into soldiers outside an army base near Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 31 people and injuring tens more in one of the worst attacks this year on the country's military."
 
 
Also on violence, All Iraq News notes that today Iraqiya MP Hamid al-Mutlaq called for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani to hold responsible whomever killed Diyala Province's Mohammed Jassim al-Mikdadi and strung the man's body up on an electric pole afterwards.
 
In other disturbing news, All Iraq News reports Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson declared today the intent to do away with the ration cards.  Earlier this year, Stan Cox (Al Jazeera) explained the food ration card system:
 
For more than two decades, Iraq has been running what the World Food Program (WFP) has called "the largest public food program operating in the world today". The system dates back to August 1990, when President Saddam Hussein's army invaded Kuwait. In response, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 661, imposing sanctions and blocking virtually all trade with the country. The government of Iraq quickly established a PDS to provide food and other basic necessities to all Iraqis. Little did they know the system would remain in place for more than 20 years.
Because sanctions hampered Iraq's ability to sell oil or buy food, hardship intensified in the years following the 1991 Gulf War that ousted Iraqi troops from Kuwait. In 1995, Security Council Resolution 986 created the UN Oil-for-Food Program, and the PDS was expanded. But, through the sanctions period and during the almost nine years of occupation that followed the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, a significant portion of the population remained vulnerable to hunger.
 
 
Nouri's spokesperson is asserting that they will replace it with the equivalent of US $12 in cash per month and that this will cut down on corruption.  No, it wouldn't.  Corruption isn't even an issue.  Though some -- even some at the UN -- have called for reform, this program has been effective, especially before Nouri came into power (spring 2006) and began gutting it.  All Iraq News reports that Zia al-Asadi, the secretary-general of the Sadr bloc, has declared that they reject the decision and do not see the proposed alternative being an adequate substitute.  Independent MP Jawad Albzona dismisses the move and says the amount being offered is "trivial" and will not help anyone.  Iraqiya also calls out the decision stating that the answer was to improve the ration card system, not do away with it.  They feel this will lead to an increase in food prices.  Iraqiya MP Adnan al-Janabi tells All Iraq News that ending the ration card system would be a disaster.    AFP may be the only one filing an English language report.  I'm not sure why they bothered.
 
Are we not supposed to think? I'm sorry, I thought humans were the thinking animal.  I thought we processed.  I thought we did more than just offered he-said, she-said.  Seems to me if Nouri's killing off the ration card system, you ask a few questions, you make a few observations.
 
And I'm real sorry but it's not just about the food or has the press been sleeping for the last years? 
 
Pretend I am an Iraqi.  I want to vote in the provincial elections scheduled for early next year.  And I want to vote in the parliamentary elections which are supposed to take place in 2014.  How do I do that?
 
Currently -- pay attention AFP -- I would do as I have done since the US invasion.  I would display a food ration card.  This is the identification system that's used.
 
 
 
And a move away from the card system?  With an election coming up and one supposed to follow within 12 months after the provincial elections?  I think it's safe to argue it's a pretty damn stupid time to drop the food ration cards.  Nouri can't even pull off a census.  We're supposed to believe he can handle voter registration?
 
Immediately someone wearing a dunce cap insists, "Well they can end the program and just use the cards."  Yes, they can.  If no new voters are coming into the process.  Good thing Iraq's got a population that rends old, right?  Good thing -- Oh, wait.  Iraq's median age is 20-years.  Iraq has an incredibly young population and the percentage that will be coming of age for the parliamentary election is a significant proportion of Iraq's estimated 30 million people. 
 
So what are you telling us?  The ration card system is ending but you're still going to issue cards for the next two years to take care of the voting issue?
 
We've talked about what is.  Let's note what this may be based on past history: Yet another attempt by Nouri to skew the elections in his own favor. 



Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

He's such a little four-year-old girl



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

SINCE HE'S NEVER COME OFF MANLY,  CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DECIDED "OH F**K IT!" IN IOWA AND CRIED LIKE A LITTLE TITTY BABY IN PUBLIC, IN FRONT OF THOUSANDS WITH PHOTOS AND VIDEO QUICKLY TURNING IT INTO MILLIONS.

IF TOM HANKS WERE TRULY HIS FRIEND, TOM WOULD TELL HIM, "THERE'S NO CRYING IN POLITICS!"

AS TEARS STREAMED DOWN THE DRAMA QUEEN'S FACE, YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT HE WAS YET AGAIN ON THE LAP OF LOLO SOETORO ALL OVER AGAIN.

WATCHING THE CRY BABY BOO-HOO IN PUBLIC, WE WERE REMINDED OF HOW HIS CAMPAIGN RESPONDED TO A RIVAL'S EYES JUST MOISTENING -- NO TEARS FALLING.

SO THESE REPORTERS CONTACTED PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT JESSE JACKSON JUNIOR -- THE ONLY CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR ELECTION WHO HAS NOT BEEN SEEN BY THE PUBLIC SINCE JUNE -- AND WE ASKED LITTLE JUNIOR WHAT HE THOUGHT OF HIS ONE-TIME FRIEND'S CRYING?


 JUNIOR JACKSON JESSE: BARRY O CRIED ALRIGHT, LIKE A LITTLE BITCH, BUT NOT IN RESPONSE TO VOTERS -- NOT IN RESPONSE TO SANDY, NOT IN RESPONSE TO OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE DEVASTATED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE WAR IN IRAQ, WE SAW TEARS IN RESPONSE TO THE CHANCE THAT HE MIGHT NOT BE RE-ELECTED.  TEARS ABOUT HIS OWN FATE, BUT NOT HURRICANE SANDY.


EVEN JUNIOR HAD A POINT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:



 
As last month drew to a close, the US Dept of Veterans Affairs announced that the home loan program which was created as part of the GI Bill of Rights back in 1944 had awarded its 20 millionth home loan.  The VA's Undersecretary For Benefits Allison Hickey declared, "The 20 millionth VA home loan is a major milestone and is a testament to VA's commitment to support and enhance the lives of Veterans, Servicemembers, their families and survivors.  As a result of their service and sacrifice, as a group, they prove to be disciplined, reliable, and honorable -- traits that are ideal for this kind of national investment."  The VA has a history page on the GI Bill of Rights of 1944 which opens:
 
It has been heralded as one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever produced by the federal government -- one that impacted the United States socially, economically and politically. But it almost never came to pass.
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 -- commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights -- nearly stalled in Congress as members of the House and Senate debated provisions of the controversial bill.
Some shunned the idea of paying unemployed veterans $20 a week because they thought it diminished their incentive to look for work. Others questioned the concept of sending battle-hardened veterans to colleges and universities, a privilege then reserved for the rich.
Despite their differences, all agreed something must be done to help veterans assimilate into civilian life.
Much of the urgency stemmed from a desire to avoid the missteps following World War I, when discharged veterans got little more than a $60 allowance and a train ticket home.
 
Veterans of today's wars also have The Post 9/11 GI Bill. ("The Post-9/11 GI Bill provides financial support for education and housing to individuals with at least 90 days of aggregate service after September 10, 2001, or individuals discharged with a service-connected disability after 30 days. You must have received an honorable discharge to be eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.")  Many of the leaders on the Post 9-11 GI BIll are no longer in the House -- the 2010 midterms saw a number of them lose their seats.  It's another election year.  Voting in the US is done on Tuesday.  IAVA's Paul Rieckhoff (Daily Beast) looks at what the Barack Obama and Mitt Romney campaigns have addressed or haven't addressed in their campaigns:
 
Eleven years ago in October, American military forces launched a war in Afghanistan that's still raging today. One would think that the war and the postwar care for the veterans that fought in Afghanistan and Iraq would be a crucial part of the 2012 presidential campaign, but that hasn't been the case.
In stump speeches and campaign pit stops across the country, President Obama and Governor Romney have made cursory references to veterans' care and benefits, but offered little in the way of specifics. And in the debates, the candidates spent more time talking about Big Bird than they did vets' policy. ObamaCare versus "Obama Cares" and "Romnesia" are funny, but also a sad commentary on the state of our political discourse. The Main Streets in countless American towns and cities are pushed aside for carefully crafted PR zingers.
But whoever wins on Tuesday, America's 2.5 million post-9/11 veterans -- more than 60,000 in Ohio alone -- will be looking to the president to address the education, housing, employment, and health-care challenges they face every day -- and to do so substantively, the same way they have tackled the fallout from Hurricane Sandy. Just because the war in Afghanistan will end someday doesn't mean it already has, nor does it mean that the effects of it are going away anytime soon. Quite the contrary, in fact.
 
I have friends in IAVA but I'm not a fan of Paul's.  That's long established here.  So hopefully when I now say that he has written a very important column, it means something if even one of his detractors, like myself,  praise it. 
 
I can't praise Barack's lie that he ended the Iraq War, a lie he makes while also negotiating with Nouri al-Maliki to send more US troops back into Iraq.  As Tim Arango (New York Times) reported at the end of September, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."    Kevin Gosztola (FireDogLake) notes:
 
Each paper praised Obama for ending the Iraq War. The Chicago Tribune suggested, "He set and stuck to a withdrawal schedule for U.S. troops in Iraq." Actually, in 2008, George W. Bush negotiated the withdrawal schedule. It also must be noted the Pentagon wanted to keep 10,000 to 20,000 troops in Iraq as "trainers" and "anti-terrorism forces. They lowered the figure to around 3,000. The Pentagon, along with the Obama administration pressed for immunity for any US troops that would remain in the country. That was met with opposition and, when immunity could not be ensured, the withdrawal officially began.

The US presence did not completely end though. According to the State Department, 16,000 to 17,000 US personnel would remain in the country along with about 5,500 military contractors. The US occupation would also leave behind the world's largest embassy in Baghdad.
How did Obama mark the end of the war? Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick in their book, The Untold History of the United States, gave it proper treatment:
…Obama welcomed the troops home at Fort Bragg. But instead of honestly treating the Iraq War as the unmitigated disaster it had been for the United States, drawing some poignant lessons, and thanking those gathered for their sacrifice, Obama felt compelled to cloak the war's end in the kind of patriotic drivel that conjured up the powerfully haunting words of Rudyard Kipling, the erstwhile proponent of empire, who had convinced his son to enlist in the First World War, only to have him die his first day of combat. In his "Epitaphs of the War," Kipling wrote, "If any question why we died / Tell them, because our fathers lied." Obama's lies would sear just as deeply and painfully. "We're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people," he told the troops, praising their "extraordinary achievement." The "most important lesson," he declared, was "about our national character…that there's nothing we Americans can't do when we stick together…And that why the United States military is the most respected institution in our land." He commended their willingness to sacrifice "so much for a people that you had never met," which, he insisted, was "part of what makes us special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don't make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it's right. There can be no fuller expression of America's support for self-determination than our leaving Iraq to its people. That says something about who we are."…
 
 
 
If anyone thinks that the war is over in Iraq, I have only to open my "At a Glance" calendar where I have tried to note the number of Iraqi casualties each day over the last nine plus years: deaths due to explosions, bombs, assassinations. Just a few randomly selected numbers from 2012 (these are the number of dead, the number of wounded is of course much greater). 63, 54, 78, 97, 28, 36, 105, 24, 41, 115 ... the list goes on and on.
One of my hopes on this trip is to visit Iraqi families who have had to return from Syria. Having fled the violence in Iraq, they came to Syria where I met them as refugees. Now they are threatened once again, and there are no countries willing to take them. Many have returned to Iraq, and we are anxious to know how they are doing.
 
 
While some deserve praise, some don't.  Such as a spinner spinning online in an attempt to bully/trick people into voting for Barack.  First, you would have been ripped apart in an undergrad poli sci class for your gross ignorance -- forget an advanced class.  No, we don't have to vote.  Voting is a right in the United Staes.  So is owning a gun.  I don't own a gun.  Second,  Ralph Nader did work in 2000 regarding party building and ballot access.  After that?   He continued to do strong work on ballot access in terms of raising awareness.  As for helping to build the Green Party?  The reality that the Green Party was 'conflcited' (co-opted) is why he didn't run with them in 2004 or 2008.  Distortions of Nader only reveal your sublime ignorance.  In the future, stick to horse race 'coverage' because your tired little mind might be able to handle that.  As for the accusation that the Greens only show up at election time?  First,  isn't that the only time the Democrats and Republicans remember that there are voters out there?  Second, your ignorance of what takes places in the fifty states is exceeded only by your ego assuming you could absorb that information even if the media bothered to cover it.  The Michigan Green Party, to name but one state, never stops working.    From your computer screen, you may think you see the world.  But being aware of what's happening on the ground would require you traveling to many states -- something I've done repeatedly since the month before the Iraq War started.
 
Next topic on the elections: Barack Obama supporters better get outraged.  Republicans vote.  I'm sorry if that's upsetting news to anyone.  I've done every task in the world on campaigns during my lifetime and that includes getting out the vote on election day.  I've driven seniors to polls, you name it.  I live in a state that has gone Democratic in the last five elections.  We also are still voting -- due to the time difference -- when most states have stopped.  Regardless of what the prediction or, yes, 'call' is, Republcians still show up to vote in those last hours.  Many Democrats don't.  Point being, this nonsense of "Barack's going to win!"  It's hurting Barack and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't live in the PST time zone which regularly sees how this sort of 'the winner's known' talk effects turnout.  It may hurt him just a little, it may hurt him a lot.  But you should be demanding that media stop saying he or anyone has won.
 
Democrats are more likely to be working class and they're more likely to have obstacles to voting.  You start saying that Barack's won, your hurting his turnout and you're hurting the Democratic Party turnout.  Not just in the PST states, but in all the states.  Encouraging people not to vote -- calling the election the day before the vote is encouraging people not to vote -- can also hurt Senate races, House races and state and municipal races.  People are busy enough as it is, don't give those who want to vote but are buy a reason not to.  (And I'd make this point if Mitt Romney were the one the press was saying would win Tuesday.  Although I'd be less concerned about turnout being depressed as a result because, again, Republicans vote regardless.  CBS could call it for Barack at 7:30 PM EST tomorrow and Republicans on the West Coast would still show up at the polls.)
 
 
Howard Kurtz (Daily Beast) observes a Barack defeat "will also be a crushing blow for the punditocracy that headed into Election Day filled with confidence that Obama had it in the bag." Liz Marlantes (Christian Science Monitor) tries to provide caution and that's appreciated but she also reveals a knowledge gap:
 
In addition, the growing prevalence of early voting has provided analysts with a more concrete metric – allowing prognosticators to base their assumptions not only on what polls suggest will happen on Election Day, but also on what early voting patterns suggest has already happened.
 
 
English lit is not poli sci.  Maybe people who didn't study poli sci shouldn't be presenting as 'experts.'  Liz's comment above? You have nothing to base a conclusion on.  The votes have not been counted.  Not even the early votes.  Not the mail-in votes.  Not the votes that will be cast on Tuesday.  You have nothing.  You don't have early prognostics.
 
You have polling which can be an indication.  Provided the pollsters are doing their job correctly and provided that people aren't pissed off at the pollsters.  Meaning when someone says, "I'm doing a poll . . .," respondents aren't thinking, "I hate that polling firm/outlet, I'm going to f**k with this man/woman and lie about my vote."
 
Predictions don't win elections, votes do.  Nate Silver and the rest have already destroyed whatever was left of campaign reporting because the coverage is even less about issues.  (In the film, Network, these worthless types were represented by the character Sybil the Soothsayer.  Remember when so many on the left couldn't stop citing Network and insisting we heed its cautionary tales?)   Now they're taking over the last hours of the election as well.  Supporters of the nonsense Nate does like to claim, "Well sports . . ."  Correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be, I don't follow sports) but predicting a winner in sports is based upon using their past performance in that season.  There has been no 'win' in a general election this year that you can base another one on.  Tomorrow is the contest.
 
I don't care who you vote for.  If you choose not to vote in a race or not to vote in all races because you make that decision, that's your choice and be happy with it.  (I will not be voting in the presidential race, no candidate earned my vote.  I will be voting in other races)  But I do care that whomever is elected is elected by the people and not by the media.  The media overwhelmingly wants Barack to win.  That's been obvious for some time.  But preening and strutting before an election may not bring about their desired result. 
 
 
Trusting the media worked out real well in 2000, didn't it?  And it worked out real well with the Iraq War, too, right?  (Wrong in both cases.)  Do you really want to be a Quil Lawrence?  March 7, 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections.  March 8th, Quil did what?  Before votes were counted, Quil was on NPR's Morning Edition telling Steve Inskeep that Nouri did "very well."  Maybe Barack will do "very well," too?  "Very well," when the ballots were actually counted and Quil Lawrence had left the region and moved on to another story, translated as: Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya.  Second place isn't winning in an election.
 
 


RECOMMENDED: 




Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)