[Katrina] Vanden Heuvel's most recent piece in The Nation runs under a title in the form of a query, "Obama's War?" Whose war does she think it is anyway? Even the mainstream media calls it Obama's war -- sans question mark. Her piece ran shortly after Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and almost a month after both Afghan and Pakistani civilians were first bombed at Obama's orders. She concludes her piece, after citing the deployment of additional troops, "Up to this point the Afghan war belonged to George W. Bush, but Obama's escalation threatens to make it his own. There's still time to change direction. President Obama don't make this your war"! (Emphasis mine. If escalation of the AfPak war (the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan) only "threatens" to make the war Obama's, what will it take to give him ownership?)
Having supported Obama during the election when he was very clear about his coming Crusade in Afghanistan and having made no demands in exchange for their support, the liberals are now reduced, their leverage gone, to begging for a change in course. Pity, pathos, disgust or a sense of betrayal -- it is hard to know what to feel when one encounters this stuff.
Similarly Cagan's United for Peace and Justice, dominated by the "Progressive" Democrats of America ("P"DA) and the "Communist" Party of the U.S.A ("C"PUSA) -- more or less the same thing, not because "P"DA is radical but because the "C"PUSA is not -- has been all too silent on Obama's AfPak War. As a result there have been discordant rumblings among the rank and file about UFPJ's failure to call a national demonstration against the wars flaring from Iraq to Pakistan and refusal to join the only one called, that by ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) for March 21.
-- John Walsh, "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again" (Dissident Voice).
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Truest statement of the week II
John Walsh said on February 26th, 2009 at 12:51pm #
"P"DA is complicit in war.
In response to Laura Bonham’s claim that "P"DA is principled and consistent on the question of war, I have to ask, Is she kidding? Or whom does she think she is kidding?
"P"DA supported John Kerry in 2004 when he ran on a prowar platform.
"P"DA supported Barack Obama in 2008 - even as he called for a 100,000 increase in men and women in the active duty army and marines and even as he called to step up the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So far as I know, "P"DA will not be joining the March 21 national mobilization in DC against what the mainstream media call Obama's war.
Obama has been bombing Pakistan, an act of war, without any Congressional declaration of war, an impeachable offense. "P"DA has not called for impeachment.
If Bush were doing any of this "P"DA would be yelling at the top of its lungs. But I hear only quiet when Obama does these things -- perhaps a few statements on the web site to cover their ass, but no action at all.
As Eugene McCarthy, echoing Daniel Webster, said of the war on Vietnam, it went on because too many placed party over principle. That is exactly what "P"DA is doing.
john walsh
-- John Walsh responding to PDA propaganda left in comments at his article "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again" (Dissident Voice).
"P"DA is complicit in war.
In response to Laura Bonham’s claim that "P"DA is principled and consistent on the question of war, I have to ask, Is she kidding? Or whom does she think she is kidding?
"P"DA supported John Kerry in 2004 when he ran on a prowar platform.
"P"DA supported Barack Obama in 2008 - even as he called for a 100,000 increase in men and women in the active duty army and marines and even as he called to step up the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So far as I know, "P"DA will not be joining the March 21 national mobilization in DC against what the mainstream media call Obama's war.
Obama has been bombing Pakistan, an act of war, without any Congressional declaration of war, an impeachable offense. "P"DA has not called for impeachment.
If Bush were doing any of this "P"DA would be yelling at the top of its lungs. But I hear only quiet when Obama does these things -- perhaps a few statements on the web site to cover their ass, but no action at all.
As Eugene McCarthy, echoing Daniel Webster, said of the war on Vietnam, it went on because too many placed party over principle. That is exactly what "P"DA is doing.
john walsh
-- John Walsh responding to PDA propaganda left in comments at his article "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again" (Dissident Voice).
A note to our readers
Hey --
Sunday and we're done surprisingly quickly. A busy edition and a long one but one that is over. Later today Dee Dee Myers appears on NBC's Meet The Press, by the way. We had a 'heads up' post planned noting that and other things but there wasn't time to rough it out and the illustration wasn't ready.
Along with Dallas, the following worked on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
We thank everyone for their assistance.
And what did we come up?
Truest statement of the week -- This is from an article John Walsh wrote. Walsh has gotten truest before.
Truest statement of the week II -- He has never gotten two truests in one week. No one has. (Mike said to put in that stat because his readers love it when he notes things like that.) We thought the first (and possible only) ever multiple truest should go to Walsh. Here he's responding to a flack for Pathetic Democrats of America who left a comment at his article.
Editorial: Wishin' And Hopin' -- We love this editorial. We thought about going heavy and had that prepared. But we were in Dusty mood and Dona pointed out that we had some lengthy things and also a very hard hitting edition. She recommended we go for an important topic and do it with a light touch. By the way, Ty reminds, we couldn't figure out one line we quote because I (Jim) went online and looked up the lyrics. "That's not right, it's . . .," I insisted. Wrongly. C.I. got in on it and said, "What the hell are you talking about?" C.I. then pulled down various pieces of sheet music to show the real lyrics. After we read the lyrics and then listened, I could hear that was what was being said. So be warned about trusting the lyrics online at those lyric sites. (I could not find any Dusty site online that had lyrics. I would assume a site devoted to just Dusty Springfield would have the lyrics correct.)
TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff -- Ava and C.I.'s amazing TV commentary. I was really worried about Tuesday's speech. It's always difficult to get them to hold off on something. I didn't even ask this time. When Wednesday's snapshot was done, I did make a point to leave a call me message for them and, when Ava returned it, asked her if C.I. was holding back for the piece to go up here? She said C.I. was worried about that but that she and C.I. honestly believed that speech would be over and forgotten by the week's end. And that is how it turned out. So much for the press management the new administration believes it is so great at. Ava and C.I. open with Oprah -- the liar who sold the illegal war and now visits some of the people wounded due to her lies and promotion. They then move on to huckster Al Sharpton. Covering a blip of TV time we don't believe anyone else caught. Then it's on to Barack. Non-stop Barack. This is a powerful commentary from them and I think they've touched every base possible and then some.
More faux change from Barack -- The new 'policy' is not a return to the original policy. Barack is instead offering a policy that is half of the policy Bully Boy Bush offered. That's not change. We could have gotten that with John McCain. And you'll note Barack's treated like a savior for taking an awful policy and making it only half-awful. It's embarrassing the way his faux change gets applauded.
Amazon.com: Bargains and sexism offered -- Music article. This almost got ditched. Kat insisted on it and Dona backed her up saying this is a hard hitting edition and we need something on entertainment to add to the mix. They were both correct. The Weepies album is a great one. My favorite tracks are "Can't Go Back Now" and "Lighting Candles." We were really hoping that Amazon would continue the sale until Tuesday so we could urge you to go download it at that bargain price (entire album for $1.99) but they didn't. We'd suggest that future sales last through Tuesday. Tuesday is when new music is released, makes sense for them to offer sales through Tuesday each week. (The Weepies' Hideaway is still a bargain at $8.99 to download the full album.) As always, C.I. and Betty lead on the Diana Ross section. (And C.I. knows and loves Diana and has known her for years. C.I. says put in that disclosure before someone shows up whining in the e-mails.) E-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com, by the way.
Crazy Ray LaHood? Not so crazy after all. -- An update to an article last week. We got a ton of e-mails on this article. A lot of you enjoyed it. And some of you praised us for the flip that comes about mid-way (Derek called it "highly cinematic"). That flip wasn't planned. The article was supposed to continue in that vein. Jess didn't care for that. He asked why we were taking the word of Robert Gibbs and C.I. had already alluded to something that hadn't really registered. C.I. explained that LaHood had been seen with two members of the commission and, presumably, what LaHood was suggesting was echoing the upcoming report. C.I. tracked down three addtional people who could confirm those sightings and Jess and C.I. argued for a new section to be written. That's where the 'flip' begins. Were it not for that, we would have written the same let's-mock-Ray-LaHood article everyone else did.
The Katrina goes to Phyllis Bennis -- While Ava and C.I. worked on the TV commentary, the rest of us looked for a hard hitting topic to write about. Elaine brought up Phyllis Bennis' bad article. Ruth and Marcia grabbed on -- there were several suggestions of topics at this point -- to Elaine's suggestion and added to it that it could be a Katrina which we hadn't done in awhile. The fact that an illustration already existed for that made it an easier sale. This turned out very well, we think.
Liar-in-chief Barack -- I'd just finished reading Ava and C.I.'s commentary out loud to everyone when Wally and Cedric both insisted that either we do a humor post or a short post or something. They said this needed to be underscored and really emphasized. So we pulled the part revealing Barack is LYING today about the 16 months and how he didn't break a promise and paired that with Isaiah's comic (thank you to Isaiah for the use of his comic). To further emphasize their catch, I posted Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary at The Common Ills mirror site this morning.
TV Spotlight: Washington Week -- Ava and C.I. wrote a lengthy commentary. Before we saw it, they gutted several things. Including a longer excerpt from Washington Week. They put that over into this and also noted some tech issues regarding the program. This is their article, by the way.
The Condi II -- Iraqi refugees do not need to return to Iraq. It is not safe. Nor is it true -- a point we forget here but one C.I. covered in Friday's "Iraq snapshot" -- that the US is in any place to call on other nations to help with the 'burden' of Iraqi refugees. See C.I.'s snapshot for more on that.
The Bronze Booby goes to . . . David Martin -- Read it and be enraged. How dare he. First off, that's an editorial comment that should have never made it into what was supposed to be a reporter reporting. Second off, that comment is designed to enrage and that no one noticed that does not bode well for those involved.
Iraq roundtable -- Rebecca called a roundtable Friday night. Third was represented by Ava, C.I. and myself. I learned how Rebecca does it so smoothly. I'm not sure it would work for me here. First off, Rebecca (as she's pointed out) has been friends with Elaine and C.I. forever (they were roomates in college). So she can get them to participate and she can also do things that I can't (she can shorthand and do so knowing that her shorthand won't lead to a longer discussion because she knows where they stand on pretty much everything whereas a shorthand attempt on my part could lead to a long discussion). She also assigns ahead of the roundtable and during the roundtable. If she wants to -- she didn't this Friday -- she can also put Elaine and C.I. on the spot and they'll humor her. (Whereas Elaine would cuss me out. I'm laughing but that's true. Ask her, she'll tell you. And Elaine and I get along very well before e-mails in a panic start coming in.) The other big thing is that there's more of a jockeying here (which I may encourage). Rebecca's roundtables are more laid back. It's also Rebecca's personality which is better at squelching things and getting away with it. Check out the start of the roundtable where Ruth's comments lead to something Rebecca talks over and hands off to someone not even trying to talk. What was going on there? We were naming people who were disappointments. Rebecca cut that off and hollered "WAIT!" Everyone did and the roundtable went on pause. Ava and C.I. noted they had everything being said and that the topic could be raised but it needed to be raised after the speech was discussed. Which was Rebecca's point in ignoring all the attempts. (Elaine, who is sick this week so we really appreciated her helping out here, told me that Rebecca saw the looks on Ava and C.I.'s face during this and that's one reason she screamed "WAIT!" and overruled the attempts to introduce a new topic at that point.) And that parenthetical, C.I.'s pointing out, is another issue. Betty, Cedric and I participated by phone. Everyone else was face to face. Rebecca makes a special point to bring in people on the phone because they're not able to see each other and whose body language means they're about to speak. But she also is able to direct traffic in person and our roundtables here are generally more spread out. With more people participating by phone.
Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Kat, Betty, Ruth, Rebecca, Marcia, Stan, Cedric and Wally wrote this and we thank them for it. Stan? Not on the highlights but in terms of editorial decision this edition I need to give a shout out to Stan. This is a hard hitting edition and not only are the bulk of the articles here that way, the ones that ended up on the cutting room floor were as well. We're trying to get all those who are not the core six (those of us signing this note) done and off to their own things as early as possible. Stan ended up sticking around (on the phone) and helped tremendously when we were selecting which pieces were making this edition and which weren't. There are two pieces that made the final cut just because of his strong advocacy for them. Thank you, Stan.
And that's it, we'll see you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Sunday and we're done surprisingly quickly. A busy edition and a long one but one that is over. Later today Dee Dee Myers appears on NBC's Meet The Press, by the way. We had a 'heads up' post planned noting that and other things but there wasn't time to rough it out and the illustration wasn't ready.
Along with Dallas, the following worked on this edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
We thank everyone for their assistance.
And what did we come up?
Truest statement of the week -- This is from an article John Walsh wrote. Walsh has gotten truest before.
Truest statement of the week II -- He has never gotten two truests in one week. No one has. (Mike said to put in that stat because his readers love it when he notes things like that.) We thought the first (and possible only) ever multiple truest should go to Walsh. Here he's responding to a flack for Pathetic Democrats of America who left a comment at his article.
Editorial: Wishin' And Hopin' -- We love this editorial. We thought about going heavy and had that prepared. But we were in Dusty mood and Dona pointed out that we had some lengthy things and also a very hard hitting edition. She recommended we go for an important topic and do it with a light touch. By the way, Ty reminds, we couldn't figure out one line we quote because I (Jim) went online and looked up the lyrics. "That's not right, it's . . .," I insisted. Wrongly. C.I. got in on it and said, "What the hell are you talking about?" C.I. then pulled down various pieces of sheet music to show the real lyrics. After we read the lyrics and then listened, I could hear that was what was being said. So be warned about trusting the lyrics online at those lyric sites. (I could not find any Dusty site online that had lyrics. I would assume a site devoted to just Dusty Springfield would have the lyrics correct.)
TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff -- Ava and C.I.'s amazing TV commentary. I was really worried about Tuesday's speech. It's always difficult to get them to hold off on something. I didn't even ask this time. When Wednesday's snapshot was done, I did make a point to leave a call me message for them and, when Ava returned it, asked her if C.I. was holding back for the piece to go up here? She said C.I. was worried about that but that she and C.I. honestly believed that speech would be over and forgotten by the week's end. And that is how it turned out. So much for the press management the new administration believes it is so great at. Ava and C.I. open with Oprah -- the liar who sold the illegal war and now visits some of the people wounded due to her lies and promotion. They then move on to huckster Al Sharpton. Covering a blip of TV time we don't believe anyone else caught. Then it's on to Barack. Non-stop Barack. This is a powerful commentary from them and I think they've touched every base possible and then some.
More faux change from Barack -- The new 'policy' is not a return to the original policy. Barack is instead offering a policy that is half of the policy Bully Boy Bush offered. That's not change. We could have gotten that with John McCain. And you'll note Barack's treated like a savior for taking an awful policy and making it only half-awful. It's embarrassing the way his faux change gets applauded.
Amazon.com: Bargains and sexism offered -- Music article. This almost got ditched. Kat insisted on it and Dona backed her up saying this is a hard hitting edition and we need something on entertainment to add to the mix. They were both correct. The Weepies album is a great one. My favorite tracks are "Can't Go Back Now" and "Lighting Candles." We were really hoping that Amazon would continue the sale until Tuesday so we could urge you to go download it at that bargain price (entire album for $1.99) but they didn't. We'd suggest that future sales last through Tuesday. Tuesday is when new music is released, makes sense for them to offer sales through Tuesday each week. (The Weepies' Hideaway is still a bargain at $8.99 to download the full album.) As always, C.I. and Betty lead on the Diana Ross section. (And C.I. knows and loves Diana and has known her for years. C.I. says put in that disclosure before someone shows up whining in the e-mails.) E-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com, by the way.
Crazy Ray LaHood? Not so crazy after all. -- An update to an article last week. We got a ton of e-mails on this article. A lot of you enjoyed it. And some of you praised us for the flip that comes about mid-way (Derek called it "highly cinematic"). That flip wasn't planned. The article was supposed to continue in that vein. Jess didn't care for that. He asked why we were taking the word of Robert Gibbs and C.I. had already alluded to something that hadn't really registered. C.I. explained that LaHood had been seen with two members of the commission and, presumably, what LaHood was suggesting was echoing the upcoming report. C.I. tracked down three addtional people who could confirm those sightings and Jess and C.I. argued for a new section to be written. That's where the 'flip' begins. Were it not for that, we would have written the same let's-mock-Ray-LaHood article everyone else did.
The Katrina goes to Phyllis Bennis -- While Ava and C.I. worked on the TV commentary, the rest of us looked for a hard hitting topic to write about. Elaine brought up Phyllis Bennis' bad article. Ruth and Marcia grabbed on -- there were several suggestions of topics at this point -- to Elaine's suggestion and added to it that it could be a Katrina which we hadn't done in awhile. The fact that an illustration already existed for that made it an easier sale. This turned out very well, we think.
Liar-in-chief Barack -- I'd just finished reading Ava and C.I.'s commentary out loud to everyone when Wally and Cedric both insisted that either we do a humor post or a short post or something. They said this needed to be underscored and really emphasized. So we pulled the part revealing Barack is LYING today about the 16 months and how he didn't break a promise and paired that with Isaiah's comic (thank you to Isaiah for the use of his comic). To further emphasize their catch, I posted Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary at The Common Ills mirror site this morning.
TV Spotlight: Washington Week -- Ava and C.I. wrote a lengthy commentary. Before we saw it, they gutted several things. Including a longer excerpt from Washington Week. They put that over into this and also noted some tech issues regarding the program. This is their article, by the way.
The Condi II -- Iraqi refugees do not need to return to Iraq. It is not safe. Nor is it true -- a point we forget here but one C.I. covered in Friday's "Iraq snapshot" -- that the US is in any place to call on other nations to help with the 'burden' of Iraqi refugees. See C.I.'s snapshot for more on that.
The Bronze Booby goes to . . . David Martin -- Read it and be enraged. How dare he. First off, that's an editorial comment that should have never made it into what was supposed to be a reporter reporting. Second off, that comment is designed to enrage and that no one noticed that does not bode well for those involved.
Iraq roundtable -- Rebecca called a roundtable Friday night. Third was represented by Ava, C.I. and myself. I learned how Rebecca does it so smoothly. I'm not sure it would work for me here. First off, Rebecca (as she's pointed out) has been friends with Elaine and C.I. forever (they were roomates in college). So she can get them to participate and she can also do things that I can't (she can shorthand and do so knowing that her shorthand won't lead to a longer discussion because she knows where they stand on pretty much everything whereas a shorthand attempt on my part could lead to a long discussion). She also assigns ahead of the roundtable and during the roundtable. If she wants to -- she didn't this Friday -- she can also put Elaine and C.I. on the spot and they'll humor her. (Whereas Elaine would cuss me out. I'm laughing but that's true. Ask her, she'll tell you. And Elaine and I get along very well before e-mails in a panic start coming in.) The other big thing is that there's more of a jockeying here (which I may encourage). Rebecca's roundtables are more laid back. It's also Rebecca's personality which is better at squelching things and getting away with it. Check out the start of the roundtable where Ruth's comments lead to something Rebecca talks over and hands off to someone not even trying to talk. What was going on there? We were naming people who were disappointments. Rebecca cut that off and hollered "WAIT!" Everyone did and the roundtable went on pause. Ava and C.I. noted they had everything being said and that the topic could be raised but it needed to be raised after the speech was discussed. Which was Rebecca's point in ignoring all the attempts. (Elaine, who is sick this week so we really appreciated her helping out here, told me that Rebecca saw the looks on Ava and C.I.'s face during this and that's one reason she screamed "WAIT!" and overruled the attempts to introduce a new topic at that point.) And that parenthetical, C.I.'s pointing out, is another issue. Betty, Cedric and I participated by phone. Everyone else was face to face. Rebecca makes a special point to bring in people on the phone because they're not able to see each other and whose body language means they're about to speak. But she also is able to direct traffic in person and our roundtables here are generally more spread out. With more people participating by phone.
Highlights -- Mike, Elaine, Kat, Betty, Ruth, Rebecca, Marcia, Stan, Cedric and Wally wrote this and we thank them for it. Stan? Not on the highlights but in terms of editorial decision this edition I need to give a shout out to Stan. This is a hard hitting edition and not only are the bulk of the articles here that way, the ones that ended up on the cutting room floor were as well. We're trying to get all those who are not the core six (those of us signing this note) done and off to their own things as early as possible. Stan ended up sticking around (on the phone) and helped tremendously when we were selecting which pieces were making this edition and which weren't. There are two pieces that made the final cut just because of his strong advocacy for them. Thank you, Stan.
And that's it, we'll see you next week.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: Wishin' And Hopin'
Wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreamin' each night of his charms,
That won't get you into his arms
Nor will it end the illegal war and we feel we need to add that due to all the 'anti-war' 'leaders' so busy wet dreaming over Barack that they have no time to work towards ending the Iraq War or, for that matter, calling their Dream Lover out.
Friday, Barack spoke at Camp Lejeune and broke his 'promise' on 16-months, lied that he always said he'd listen to military commanders (not on the 16-month -- as Ava and C.I. explain), and revealed there's no real withdrawal. It's a draw down. Which the White House would prefer everyone spell "drawdown." So we'll call it a "draw down."
Here's ego maniac I Need Attention Benjamin of CODESTINK, "While the move toward withdrawal is positive, this timeline and leaving tens of thousands of residual troops sounds more like occupation-lite than an end to occupation. But compared to the past eight years of moving backward, at least there's an atmosphere now where we can continue to apply pressure on the administration to push forward." The previous administration is gone, Medea. So what's your damn point?
The previous administration is one that you and CODESTINK said were War Criminals and needed to be impeached. So you're telling America that the Bush Administration is now the acceptable standard to judge by? Do you realize how insane you sound?
'Cause wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin',
Plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start
That won't get you into his heart
And we have to remind I-Need-Attention, Leslie Cagan, Tom Hayden and all the other losers posing as leaders of that fact. Tom, we know you'd gladly flop on your back and throw your legs up in the air, spread them as wide as your bad knees will allow them go, and 'receive' Barack.
Well, hey, Tom-Tom, go for it.
But don't confuse that lust with any work that's needed for the peace movement.
What these losers posing as leaders are doing is showing the world that they just care for Barack.
He can bomb Pakistan. (As he's done.) He can chat up PBS (as he did Friday) about his need to 'take on' Iran (one day after US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice makes threats to Iran). He can escalate the war on Afghanistan. He can bring about no withdrawal at all for Iraq.
And none of that matters to the losers posing as leaders.
So to Tom-Tom, Carl Davidson, Jeffy Cohen, Leslie Cagan, Medea and all the other wet-pantied, lovesick fools, we urge you to declare your love for Barack, to work towards bedding down with Barack and to stop pretending you are a part of -- let alone a leader -- of the peace movement.
Just walk right up to him and say, "Barack, this circus ride goes round and round with you or without you but it'd be cool if you'd hop on and give a spin.. You won't regret it." Who knows what will happen? But, lovelies, we'd caution to be sure Michelle's not in ear shot when you proposition Barack.
And we again remind you . . .
Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start
That won't get you into his heart
The sooner you start openly working on what . . . excuse us, on who you want and stop pretending to give a damn about Iraq, the better it will be for the real peace movement.
Such as those participating in this month's actions: The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
--
"Wishin' And Hopin'" written by written by Hal David and Burt Bacharach.
Plannin' and dreamin' each night of his charms,
That won't get you into his arms
Nor will it end the illegal war and we feel we need to add that due to all the 'anti-war' 'leaders' so busy wet dreaming over Barack that they have no time to work towards ending the Iraq War or, for that matter, calling their Dream Lover out.
Friday, Barack spoke at Camp Lejeune and broke his 'promise' on 16-months, lied that he always said he'd listen to military commanders (not on the 16-month -- as Ava and C.I. explain), and revealed there's no real withdrawal. It's a draw down. Which the White House would prefer everyone spell "drawdown." So we'll call it a "draw down."
Here's ego maniac I Need Attention Benjamin of CODESTINK, "While the move toward withdrawal is positive, this timeline and leaving tens of thousands of residual troops sounds more like occupation-lite than an end to occupation. But compared to the past eight years of moving backward, at least there's an atmosphere now where we can continue to apply pressure on the administration to push forward." The previous administration is gone, Medea. So what's your damn point?
The previous administration is one that you and CODESTINK said were War Criminals and needed to be impeached. So you're telling America that the Bush Administration is now the acceptable standard to judge by? Do you realize how insane you sound?
'Cause wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin',
Plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start
That won't get you into his heart
And we have to remind I-Need-Attention, Leslie Cagan, Tom Hayden and all the other losers posing as leaders of that fact. Tom, we know you'd gladly flop on your back and throw your legs up in the air, spread them as wide as your bad knees will allow them go, and 'receive' Barack.
Well, hey, Tom-Tom, go for it.
But don't confuse that lust with any work that's needed for the peace movement.
What these losers posing as leaders are doing is showing the world that they just care for Barack.
He can bomb Pakistan. (As he's done.) He can chat up PBS (as he did Friday) about his need to 'take on' Iran (one day after US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice makes threats to Iran). He can escalate the war on Afghanistan. He can bring about no withdrawal at all for Iraq.
And none of that matters to the losers posing as leaders.
So to Tom-Tom, Carl Davidson, Jeffy Cohen, Leslie Cagan, Medea and all the other wet-pantied, lovesick fools, we urge you to declare your love for Barack, to work towards bedding down with Barack and to stop pretending you are a part of -- let alone a leader -- of the peace movement.
Just walk right up to him and say, "Barack, this circus ride goes round and round with you or without you but it'd be cool if you'd hop on and give a spin.. You won't regret it." Who knows what will happen? But, lovelies, we'd caution to be sure Michelle's not in ear shot when you proposition Barack.
And we again remind you . . .
Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'
Plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start
That won't get you into his heart
The sooner you start openly working on what . . . excuse us, on who you want and stop pretending to give a damn about Iraq, the better it will be for the real peace movement.
Such as those participating in this month's actions: The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
--
"Wishin' And Hopin'" written by written by Hal David and Burt Bacharach.
TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff
Last week, one song kept going through out heads as we followed assorted broadcasts. Sometimes it was sung by Linda Ronstadt, sometimes by the Springfields (Dusty's group).
Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine,
And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm glow of your wine.
We'd look at each other and start singing during the strong broadcasts and during the weak. And sadly, there was a lot of weak.
Let's start with the strong. Big Bro O tore herself away from sex tips, sex scandals, 'uplifiting' via bad books, Suze Orman (she and Oprah have so much in common) and her usual crap-fest long enough to go to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Ginmar loathed Oprah's Thursday broadcast. We liked it and for many of the reasons Ginmar hated it. First off, Oprah's nothing but afternoon trash. She started out that, tried to smear a little lip gloss on, but still remains that. This is the woman who gets outraged over every little thing and hoards a hell of a lot more than food but then wants to offer up that happiness comes from doing without. She's a joke and, with each passing year, she becomes more of one. Her recent weight gain only makes it more likely she will orbit the earth -- certainly her feet never touch the ground.
Oprah Winfrey was sacrificed years and years ago. The wig-headed woman in front of the cameras bears as much resemblance to Oprah as it does to an actual human being: NONE.
So the thought of Oprah taking her tired act (and ass) to Walter Reed Army Medical Center was one we found made for strong TV. It's was a bit like seeing John Wayne wandering through the wounded from Vietnam. Or has everyone forgotten that Oprah used her trashy show to pimp the Iraq War? Has everyone forgotten how a woman in the audience called the garbage out and Oprah got curt and nasty?
There was Oprah -- in the only moment of TV she should be remembered for -- getting all mean and nasty, that fat neck tensing up, as she let the little peon know that Oprah knows what's what and so do her guests, thank you very much, now shut up and let Judith Miller provide us with more 'facts.'
That's right, Oprah pimped the war, she even brought on Judith Miller to do so.
Oprah rallied her audience of shut-ins to the Bully Boy and to cheer on the Iraq War.
So the idea that the Closet Case had to be confronted with the loss of limbs she caused was something we really, really enjoyed.
Big O tried to grin and pull it off but she couldn't. No, no one beat her with a prosthetic limb. That would have made for classic TV. There she was in her Della Reese-like wig with multi-layers (she does realize it looks like a bird's nest, right?), wearing her lumpy white sweater (she has no taste) and a pair of tight (on her) black pants which really reminded us of the Big Girl's favorite 'slimming' outfit of a decade past -- bulky dark sweater and leggings.
With one soldier, John Hoxie, you could see Oprah attempting to use that iron will to make his wounds into her own personal salvation but it never took. And if you watched closely, you saw she grasped it as well.
It was like watching Adolf Eichmann touring a Nazi concentration camp.
Yeah, the Big O had a crew of Leni Riefenstahls there to make her look better but, have you watched, these days they can't even make her look 'fresh-faced.'
She posed, she tried to appear interested (the left finger and thumb around the chin while Justin Knowles spoke about a bombing blowing off his leg -- "I saw my leg when I got blown up"), but couldn't pull it off. By the time she was speaking with Nicholas Koulchar, who lost both legs serving in Iraq, it didn't even look like she was trying.
That occasional nervous twitch in her eyes had been replaced with a strained face and more and more white of the eyeball showing. She looked like Joan Crawford in Johnny Guitar -- no, that's not a pretty sight.
Ginmar didn't like the way Oprah interacted with a female soldier because Oprah kept referring to her as a mother -- even emphasizing that more than soldier. We'd agree Oprah showed no respect at all for women who serve but we were actually loving that section as well. Who is Oprah's audience? Largely women staying home with small children. So there was Oprah explaining to America that she herself was one of the great hazards.
No, she didn't put it that way but she allowed her show to be used to sell the Iraq War and a soldier serving there, a mother like so many in her audience, was wounded, lost her left hand. When Juanita Wilson shared that her young daughter asked her for a sandwich, she had to explain that she couldn't make her one.
Oprah's ratings have been falling for some time and the longterm commitment so many stations have to make when they take her syndicated show is the only reason several big markets are still carrying it. Big cities have moved on past Oprah. As her show struggles, it's good to see TV's War Criminal forced to meet her victims.
And grasp that the audience -- still hanging on to Oprah, still living in their own little world, encased in safe reading and celebrity gossip -- Thursday, like Oprah, got confronted with some reality.
We began brainstorming about what we'd like to see. We thought a special that teamed up Henry Kissinger and The Big O. She could accompany him to Vietnam and provide comfort while he was confronted and then they could head on over to Iraq. But would Kissinger provide her comfort?
We decided whether he could or not didn't matter because he'd probably never make the airport -- Vietnam authorities would have locked him away in a jail to await trial. So the second half of the special could do what her series does, exist to fuel her own ego.
Good TV. Not great, but good. Unintentionally, to be sure, but in a weak week, Oprah stood out . . . with blood on her hands.
Weak was Al Sharpton. Al spent last week (and the week before) railing against a comic because, studies have shown, editorial cartoons lead to more school-age violence than any other factor. They don't? Oh, then maybe Al wasted his time? His time? Try his life.
And he made that very clear when he appeared on MyTV last week. Yes, Al Sharpton -- while publicly demonizing Rupert Murdoch -- had a special on Murdoch's MyTV. That's because Al's never been anything but a damn hypocrite. Or, as What About Our Daughters pointed out last November, a camera whore.
So there was 'political' and 'spiritual' leader Al Distraction sitting across from D.L. Hughley (whom WAOD also called out in the previous link) and acting the fool. At one point, when Rev Jesse Jackson was being smeared, Al spoke out, right?
Wrong.
He didn't do a damn thing. Saying Jackson got 88 votes in his 1988 campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination isn't just an insult it grossly inaccurate. 88 votes in that run would not have allowed him to win the primaries in DC, Alabama, Georgia,, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia and Puerto Rico. Nor would 88 votes have allowed him to win the caucuses in Vermont, Michigan, South Carolina and Delaware. Rev Jackson received over 6 million votes.
What did Al do?. He looked around. Like a tired, old man. He sat on the couch, looked around. Then looked down, then sort of buried his head.
That last action is something we encourage him to do much more often. Especially when the impulse to speak takes him.
And then there's Barry. Big Barry to some, Princess Tiny Meat to us.
Did he have his own reality show? Was he a contestant on American Idol?
He seemed to be everywhere last week.
Tuesday night he was yammering away in an alleged address to Congress -- one in which he forgot the Iraq War. Supposedly, the US economy is in the toilet and Barack would go on later in the week to continue to commit approximately $11 billion a month to the illegal war. If he was going to talk to Congress -- and address the nation -- he needed to remember the ongoing, illegal war. He didn't. Ross Colvin (Reuters) noted, "When former President George W. Bush addressed the U.S. Congress in January 2008 he gave three pages of his speech to the Iraq war. On Tuesday night his successor Barack Obama spoke a single sentence." What was the sentence? "We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war." (Click here for full transcript.)
Barack's silence on Iraq Tuesday night mirrored the commercial broadcast network's silence Monday evening. Only viewers of PBS' evening newscast The NewsHour would learn that three US soldiers were killed that day. Gwen Ifill, "Three US soldiers and their interpreter were killed in Iraq. The US military reported they died in combat in Diyala Province, north of Baghdad. For the month of February, 13 Americans have died in Iraq." Why does the country need an evening newscast from ABC, CBS and NBC when they can't even report the basics? All three broadcast networks MADE time Monday evening to show footage of the Oscars, to show stock footage from India (due to the best picture win). They, like their president, just didn't have time to do the damn news.
For such a heavily promoted, 'big' speech, interest in it 'waned' quickly. Not that there was all that much interest to begin with. Andrew Malcom (Los Angeles Times) explained the size of Barack's audience Tuesday night, "However, Obama still lags the audience-drawing power of one President Bill Clinton. Sixteen years ago this week, when there were millions fewer Americans, Big Bill drew nearly 15 million more viewers -- 66.9 million for his first congressional speech in 44.2 million homes for a 44.3 rating."
The morning after the not-so-big speech, US Vice President Joe Biden would appear on NBC's Today Show for a segment that lasted approximately five minutes. The last seconds of the interview would find Matt Lauer asking about Iraq. Matt wanted to know, ". . . Are you keeping a campaign promise or breaking a campaign promise" on Iraq in Barack's upcoming speech and Joe replied, "We're keeping a campaign commitment." (The entire Iraq exchange -- it's small -- can be found in Wednesday's Iraq snapshot.)
A promise or commitment was being kept? It wasn't.
But damned if the bulk of the press didn't work overtime to pretend otherwise. Friday morning on CBS' The Early Show, Bill Plante would inform, "The president makes good on a campaign promise today. Down at Camp Lejeune, he will announce an end to the US combat mission in Iraq, . . . with a few conditions, as of August 31, 2010. Just a little later than he promised." The Brookings War Hawk was quoted (by Plante) calling it a "significant change" from Barack's campaign promise and then the Brookings spoke to the camera stating "but to me that's good." Of course it is. And to those who want the illegal war ended, it's bad. But no one appeared to grasp that except for a few elected Democrats who were largely ignored. Remember that.
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric Friday (here for the online folder for CBS Evening News with Katie Couric video) briefly noted them at the end of a report. Chip Reid explained, "Many anti-war Democrats are disturbed that so many troops could remain in Iraq for nearly two years but John McCain who called Mr. Obama's plan naive during the campaign today called the new version reasonable." And then Reid mouthed that US Secretary of the Defense Robert Gates said "Barack always said even on the campaign trail he'd listen to military commanders." Remember that too. We'll be coming back to it. CBS didn't.
They had no time for Democratic opposition (which should have been particularly newsworthy since the president is supposed to be a Democrat) but they had time for passing an editorial by reporter David Martin off as a report. During the days of Cronkite, Martin probably wouldn't have gotten away with his little stunt. He would have had to reword it. Reword what?
"[Joe Dan] Whorely and all the other fighting men and women who carried the rest of us on their backs, have the most invested in the president's decision."
What the hell was that?
CBS News is already looking into that statement (which has already led to a few viewer complaints) but the question is how the hell that ever made it on air?
A good-sized portion of the US public was opposed to the illegal war before it ever started. Speaking as two who were, nobody "carried" us. We didn't ask a damn person to go to Iraq. In fact, we've applauded those who have refused to do so or have refused to return.
One such person is Matthis Chiroux who wrote last month:
March 12, I'll attend a board hearing in St. Louis, Missouri, to determine what the nature of my discharge from the Individual Ready Reserve will be. The Army has alleged "misconduct" and they're shooting for a "general discharge," but I'm pushing for "honorable," as my refusal to deploy was not an act of misconduct.
I will attend this hearing in uniform as ordered, but only for the purpose of these administrative proceedings. I'm not contesting the fact that I did not report as ordered to deploy to Iraq. However, I intend to paint a clear picture of my convictions to the military, and I seek to corroborate them with first hand accounts of occupation.
No person is bound to act against the dictates of conscience, let alone their understanding of the law. I know the occupation of Iraq and further the Global War on Terror to be an illegitimate and ultimately murderous campaign waged for economic gain, fueled by misinformation and greed. I know it to be in violation of not only international law, but the U.S. Constitution. Far more importantly, it is against the dictates of my own conscience, and never again will I compromise my humanity to support or ignore the crimes of my government.
The United States was not attacked by Iraq. How dare David Martin claim that anyone carried our burden, how dare he presume to speak for the entire United States or do so while pretending to just be reporting. That was highly offensive and it never should have made it on air. We spoke to CBS news execs (who repeatedly told us it was being handled) and we spoke to people who worked on CBS Evening News during the Cronkite years. We were told back then that the statement would have immediately been flagged and Martin would have been instructed to rework that statement.
Martin then declared, "And US military officers do not expect to meet their goal of getting all US combat troops out of Iraqi cities by this June." Goal?
The US most likely will not be pulling out of Iraqi cities by June and that's been admitted before. But why is that a "goal"? Every other time they report on the Status Of Forces Agreement, the news outlets tell us that this is happening, that these are contractually bound events, things that must take place. The out of Iraqi cities in June is not a "goal." It's stated in the SOFA that it WILL take place. We think the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement is meaningless. We've always maintained that. But you can't treat it as the Holy Grail one moment and then refer to it as a 'goal' in another.
Martin gets some credit for noting, "In the back of everybody's mind is the last time a president declared combat ending and troops coming home. That was more than 4,000 troops ago." But he loses all credit when his reporting leaves the impression that the US is in Iraq to fight (and fighting) al Qaeda. Explaining how the US has 'succeeded' in some areas such as Falluja, Martin then declared, "al Qaeda is hanging out in places like Mosul." If it's "al Qaeda," it's "al Qaeda in Iraq" (or "Mesopotamia") which is a product of the illegal war. In a report that acts as if the US was attacked by Iraq, that's no small point of difference.
Always on the campaign trail, Barack himself appeared on The NewsHour (click here for transcript and video) with Jim Lehrer and what was most obvious was that, like the previous White House occupant, he tires easily. This explains why he (yet again) trotted out his line about how hard it is for him to sign letters . . . Wait, let's let him tell it (in the cleaned up transcript):
But I will tell you that the most sobering things that I do as president relate to the deployment of these young men and women. Signing letters of those who have fallen in battle, it is a constant reminder of how critical these decisions are and the importance of the Commander in Chief, Congress, all of us who are in positions of power to make sure that we have thought through these decisions free of politics and we are doing what's necessary for the safety and security of the American people.
That's Barack, Friday, all tuckered out, so tired that he makes it sound like, after someone dies in Iraq, Barack's stuck signing their letters. "Letters of those"? No, letter to the families of the fallen. Don't blame us, we never spread the lie that Barack was smart. Nor did we ever claim he could speak well. That would be the press which repeatedly cleans his uh-uh-uhs and stumble-bum speaking manner up. Take the exchange with Lehrer. Here's how PBS' transcript says one section took place:
BARACK OBAMA: And I won't lie to you. I wish that they weren't all having to be made at once. It would nice to be able to stage them on one another.
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
BARACK OBAMA: Let's - you know, we'll take, you know, the economy first and then we'll take Afghanistan after that and then Iraq after that and Iran after that and, you know, the banking system somewhere out there, autos, you know. It would be wonderful if we didn't have all the planes in the air at the same time.
Here's the way the above really was spoken:
BARACK OBAMA: I-I I won't lie to you. I-I wish that uh-uh they weren't all having to be made at once. It would nice to be able to stage 'em -- one another.
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
BARACK OBAMA: Let's - you know, we'll take, you know, the economy first and then we'll take Afghanistan after that and then Iraq after that and Iran after that and, you know, uh-uh banking system somewhere out there, autos, you know. It would be wonderful if-if we didn't have all the planes in the air at the same time.
The stumble bum Barack. That is. Not taking in. To account. His pattern of. Creating periods where. There. Are. None. The strip-the-gears way he has of speaking, the start and stop motion that betrays someone with huge fundamental, cognetive problems.
The press created the lie that he could speak well. He can't. And our biggest regret when he speaks today is that he's not wearing a flowing wig. Either a Farrah or one of Tina Turner's from the sixties would work great. That way he could get the hair toss really going as he robotically swings his head from one teleprompter to another. He is stiff, he is robotic and he is one of the worst speakers to ever occupy the White House.
The press refuses to tell you that just like they refuse to tell you he is lying -- and so are they. Washington Week on PBS Friday came closest to getting at the truth. We'll note the following exchange:
Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Leujune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says --
Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen.
Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possilbe.
Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 trooops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be training Iraqi secruity forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.
There was a strong discussion on the plan. It offered more reality than most of the 'reports' on other broadcasts did. But even so, it left out an important thing.
We gave you two flags with "Remember that." Hopefully you have.
Barack Obama, the lie says, always said he'd listen to commanders on the ground. Therefore, his blowing off his 16-month 'promise' is not a big deal. Right? That's what he said he'd do, after all.! But it's not what he said.
And it's a damn lie for people to pretend it's what he promised.
During the battle for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton was very clear about what she planned to do. Barack lied the way he always does. He told his wet-pantied-and-briefs crowd one thing and he told reporters another (which rarely received the amplification it needed). Unlike a report read by a few people, the debates were watched by many.
In the debates, Barack was repeatedly clear that withdrawal would start immediately, take 16 months and that there would be no interference with the civilian leadership decision on that. The military could have input on ways to carry out his order but, if president, that would be the order.
Doubt us?
April 16, 2008 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack, aired on ABC, moderated by Charlie Gibson and George:
GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that." So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus." Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.
Is that clear enough for you?
Feb. 21st UT Texas debate between Barack and Hillary Clinton, he declared:
On the issues that have come up that a commander in chief is going to have to make decisions on, I have shown the judgment to lead. That is the leadership that I want to show when I'm president of the United States. On the issues that have come up, that a commander in chief is going to have to make decisions on, I have shown the judgment to lead. That is the leadership that I want to show when I'm president of the United States.
What last week demonstrated is that he is not up to his job. He's either a liar or he's weak-willed. Or maybe both. But let's all drop the lie that what Barack announced on Friday was in keeping with what he promised and that, although it may fudge on the months, he always said he would listen to the military. BOLD FACED LIE. He said he would give the order for a 16-month withdrawal (the mission) and he would take into account their suggestions on how to achieve that mission.
Silver threads and golden needles can't mend these hearts of ours, no, nor can they turn President Pinocchio into a real boy.
Silver threads and golden needles cannot mend this heart of mine,
And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm glow of your wine.
We'd look at each other and start singing during the strong broadcasts and during the weak. And sadly, there was a lot of weak.
Let's start with the strong. Big Bro O tore herself away from sex tips, sex scandals, 'uplifiting' via bad books, Suze Orman (she and Oprah have so much in common) and her usual crap-fest long enough to go to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Ginmar loathed Oprah's Thursday broadcast. We liked it and for many of the reasons Ginmar hated it. First off, Oprah's nothing but afternoon trash. She started out that, tried to smear a little lip gloss on, but still remains that. This is the woman who gets outraged over every little thing and hoards a hell of a lot more than food but then wants to offer up that happiness comes from doing without. She's a joke and, with each passing year, she becomes more of one. Her recent weight gain only makes it more likely she will orbit the earth -- certainly her feet never touch the ground.
Oprah Winfrey was sacrificed years and years ago. The wig-headed woman in front of the cameras bears as much resemblance to Oprah as it does to an actual human being: NONE.
So the thought of Oprah taking her tired act (and ass) to Walter Reed Army Medical Center was one we found made for strong TV. It's was a bit like seeing John Wayne wandering through the wounded from Vietnam. Or has everyone forgotten that Oprah used her trashy show to pimp the Iraq War? Has everyone forgotten how a woman in the audience called the garbage out and Oprah got curt and nasty?
There was Oprah -- in the only moment of TV she should be remembered for -- getting all mean and nasty, that fat neck tensing up, as she let the little peon know that Oprah knows what's what and so do her guests, thank you very much, now shut up and let Judith Miller provide us with more 'facts.'
That's right, Oprah pimped the war, she even brought on Judith Miller to do so.
Oprah rallied her audience of shut-ins to the Bully Boy and to cheer on the Iraq War.
So the idea that the Closet Case had to be confronted with the loss of limbs she caused was something we really, really enjoyed.
Big O tried to grin and pull it off but she couldn't. No, no one beat her with a prosthetic limb. That would have made for classic TV. There she was in her Della Reese-like wig with multi-layers (she does realize it looks like a bird's nest, right?), wearing her lumpy white sweater (she has no taste) and a pair of tight (on her) black pants which really reminded us of the Big Girl's favorite 'slimming' outfit of a decade past -- bulky dark sweater and leggings.
With one soldier, John Hoxie, you could see Oprah attempting to use that iron will to make his wounds into her own personal salvation but it never took. And if you watched closely, you saw she grasped it as well.
It was like watching Adolf Eichmann touring a Nazi concentration camp.
Yeah, the Big O had a crew of Leni Riefenstahls there to make her look better but, have you watched, these days they can't even make her look 'fresh-faced.'
She posed, she tried to appear interested (the left finger and thumb around the chin while Justin Knowles spoke about a bombing blowing off his leg -- "I saw my leg when I got blown up"), but couldn't pull it off. By the time she was speaking with Nicholas Koulchar, who lost both legs serving in Iraq, it didn't even look like she was trying.
That occasional nervous twitch in her eyes had been replaced with a strained face and more and more white of the eyeball showing. She looked like Joan Crawford in Johnny Guitar -- no, that's not a pretty sight.
Ginmar didn't like the way Oprah interacted with a female soldier because Oprah kept referring to her as a mother -- even emphasizing that more than soldier. We'd agree Oprah showed no respect at all for women who serve but we were actually loving that section as well. Who is Oprah's audience? Largely women staying home with small children. So there was Oprah explaining to America that she herself was one of the great hazards.
No, she didn't put it that way but she allowed her show to be used to sell the Iraq War and a soldier serving there, a mother like so many in her audience, was wounded, lost her left hand. When Juanita Wilson shared that her young daughter asked her for a sandwich, she had to explain that she couldn't make her one.
Oprah's ratings have been falling for some time and the longterm commitment so many stations have to make when they take her syndicated show is the only reason several big markets are still carrying it. Big cities have moved on past Oprah. As her show struggles, it's good to see TV's War Criminal forced to meet her victims.
And grasp that the audience -- still hanging on to Oprah, still living in their own little world, encased in safe reading and celebrity gossip -- Thursday, like Oprah, got confronted with some reality.
We began brainstorming about what we'd like to see. We thought a special that teamed up Henry Kissinger and The Big O. She could accompany him to Vietnam and provide comfort while he was confronted and then they could head on over to Iraq. But would Kissinger provide her comfort?
We decided whether he could or not didn't matter because he'd probably never make the airport -- Vietnam authorities would have locked him away in a jail to await trial. So the second half of the special could do what her series does, exist to fuel her own ego.
Good TV. Not great, but good. Unintentionally, to be sure, but in a weak week, Oprah stood out . . . with blood on her hands.
Weak was Al Sharpton. Al spent last week (and the week before) railing against a comic because, studies have shown, editorial cartoons lead to more school-age violence than any other factor. They don't? Oh, then maybe Al wasted his time? His time? Try his life.
And he made that very clear when he appeared on MyTV last week. Yes, Al Sharpton -- while publicly demonizing Rupert Murdoch -- had a special on Murdoch's MyTV. That's because Al's never been anything but a damn hypocrite. Or, as What About Our Daughters pointed out last November, a camera whore.
So there was 'political' and 'spiritual' leader Al Distraction sitting across from D.L. Hughley (whom WAOD also called out in the previous link) and acting the fool. At one point, when Rev Jesse Jackson was being smeared, Al spoke out, right?
Wrong.
He didn't do a damn thing. Saying Jackson got 88 votes in his 1988 campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination isn't just an insult it grossly inaccurate. 88 votes in that run would not have allowed him to win the primaries in DC, Alabama, Georgia,, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia and Puerto Rico. Nor would 88 votes have allowed him to win the caucuses in Vermont, Michigan, South Carolina and Delaware. Rev Jackson received over 6 million votes.
What did Al do?. He looked around. Like a tired, old man. He sat on the couch, looked around. Then looked down, then sort of buried his head.
That last action is something we encourage him to do much more often. Especially when the impulse to speak takes him.
And then there's Barry. Big Barry to some, Princess Tiny Meat to us.
Did he have his own reality show? Was he a contestant on American Idol?
He seemed to be everywhere last week.
Tuesday night he was yammering away in an alleged address to Congress -- one in which he forgot the Iraq War. Supposedly, the US economy is in the toilet and Barack would go on later in the week to continue to commit approximately $11 billion a month to the illegal war. If he was going to talk to Congress -- and address the nation -- he needed to remember the ongoing, illegal war. He didn't. Ross Colvin (Reuters) noted, "When former President George W. Bush addressed the U.S. Congress in January 2008 he gave three pages of his speech to the Iraq war. On Tuesday night his successor Barack Obama spoke a single sentence." What was the sentence? "We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war." (Click here for full transcript.)
Barack's silence on Iraq Tuesday night mirrored the commercial broadcast network's silence Monday evening. Only viewers of PBS' evening newscast The NewsHour would learn that three US soldiers were killed that day. Gwen Ifill, "Three US soldiers and their interpreter were killed in Iraq. The US military reported they died in combat in Diyala Province, north of Baghdad. For the month of February, 13 Americans have died in Iraq." Why does the country need an evening newscast from ABC, CBS and NBC when they can't even report the basics? All three broadcast networks MADE time Monday evening to show footage of the Oscars, to show stock footage from India (due to the best picture win). They, like their president, just didn't have time to do the damn news.
For such a heavily promoted, 'big' speech, interest in it 'waned' quickly. Not that there was all that much interest to begin with. Andrew Malcom (Los Angeles Times) explained the size of Barack's audience Tuesday night, "However, Obama still lags the audience-drawing power of one President Bill Clinton. Sixteen years ago this week, when there were millions fewer Americans, Big Bill drew nearly 15 million more viewers -- 66.9 million for his first congressional speech in 44.2 million homes for a 44.3 rating."
The morning after the not-so-big speech, US Vice President Joe Biden would appear on NBC's Today Show for a segment that lasted approximately five minutes. The last seconds of the interview would find Matt Lauer asking about Iraq. Matt wanted to know, ". . . Are you keeping a campaign promise or breaking a campaign promise" on Iraq in Barack's upcoming speech and Joe replied, "We're keeping a campaign commitment." (The entire Iraq exchange -- it's small -- can be found in Wednesday's Iraq snapshot.)
A promise or commitment was being kept? It wasn't.
But damned if the bulk of the press didn't work overtime to pretend otherwise. Friday morning on CBS' The Early Show, Bill Plante would inform, "The president makes good on a campaign promise today. Down at Camp Lejeune, he will announce an end to the US combat mission in Iraq, . . . with a few conditions, as of August 31, 2010. Just a little later than he promised." The Brookings War Hawk was quoted (by Plante) calling it a "significant change" from Barack's campaign promise and then the Brookings spoke to the camera stating "but to me that's good." Of course it is. And to those who want the illegal war ended, it's bad. But no one appeared to grasp that except for a few elected Democrats who were largely ignored. Remember that.
CBS Evening News with Katie Couric Friday (here for the online folder for CBS Evening News with Katie Couric video) briefly noted them at the end of a report. Chip Reid explained, "Many anti-war Democrats are disturbed that so many troops could remain in Iraq for nearly two years but John McCain who called Mr. Obama's plan naive during the campaign today called the new version reasonable." And then Reid mouthed that US Secretary of the Defense Robert Gates said "Barack always said even on the campaign trail he'd listen to military commanders." Remember that too. We'll be coming back to it. CBS didn't.
They had no time for Democratic opposition (which should have been particularly newsworthy since the president is supposed to be a Democrat) but they had time for passing an editorial by reporter David Martin off as a report. During the days of Cronkite, Martin probably wouldn't have gotten away with his little stunt. He would have had to reword it. Reword what?
"[Joe Dan] Whorely and all the other fighting men and women who carried the rest of us on their backs, have the most invested in the president's decision."
What the hell was that?
CBS News is already looking into that statement (which has already led to a few viewer complaints) but the question is how the hell that ever made it on air?
A good-sized portion of the US public was opposed to the illegal war before it ever started. Speaking as two who were, nobody "carried" us. We didn't ask a damn person to go to Iraq. In fact, we've applauded those who have refused to do so or have refused to return.
One such person is Matthis Chiroux who wrote last month:
March 12, I'll attend a board hearing in St. Louis, Missouri, to determine what the nature of my discharge from the Individual Ready Reserve will be. The Army has alleged "misconduct" and they're shooting for a "general discharge," but I'm pushing for "honorable," as my refusal to deploy was not an act of misconduct.
I will attend this hearing in uniform as ordered, but only for the purpose of these administrative proceedings. I'm not contesting the fact that I did not report as ordered to deploy to Iraq. However, I intend to paint a clear picture of my convictions to the military, and I seek to corroborate them with first hand accounts of occupation.
No person is bound to act against the dictates of conscience, let alone their understanding of the law. I know the occupation of Iraq and further the Global War on Terror to be an illegitimate and ultimately murderous campaign waged for economic gain, fueled by misinformation and greed. I know it to be in violation of not only international law, but the U.S. Constitution. Far more importantly, it is against the dictates of my own conscience, and never again will I compromise my humanity to support or ignore the crimes of my government.
The United States was not attacked by Iraq. How dare David Martin claim that anyone carried our burden, how dare he presume to speak for the entire United States or do so while pretending to just be reporting. That was highly offensive and it never should have made it on air. We spoke to CBS news execs (who repeatedly told us it was being handled) and we spoke to people who worked on CBS Evening News during the Cronkite years. We were told back then that the statement would have immediately been flagged and Martin would have been instructed to rework that statement.
Martin then declared, "And US military officers do not expect to meet their goal of getting all US combat troops out of Iraqi cities by this June." Goal?
The US most likely will not be pulling out of Iraqi cities by June and that's been admitted before. But why is that a "goal"? Every other time they report on the Status Of Forces Agreement, the news outlets tell us that this is happening, that these are contractually bound events, things that must take place. The out of Iraqi cities in June is not a "goal." It's stated in the SOFA that it WILL take place. We think the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement is meaningless. We've always maintained that. But you can't treat it as the Holy Grail one moment and then refer to it as a 'goal' in another.
Martin gets some credit for noting, "In the back of everybody's mind is the last time a president declared combat ending and troops coming home. That was more than 4,000 troops ago." But he loses all credit when his reporting leaves the impression that the US is in Iraq to fight (and fighting) al Qaeda. Explaining how the US has 'succeeded' in some areas such as Falluja, Martin then declared, "al Qaeda is hanging out in places like Mosul." If it's "al Qaeda," it's "al Qaeda in Iraq" (or "Mesopotamia") which is a product of the illegal war. In a report that acts as if the US was attacked by Iraq, that's no small point of difference.
Always on the campaign trail, Barack himself appeared on The NewsHour (click here for transcript and video) with Jim Lehrer and what was most obvious was that, like the previous White House occupant, he tires easily. This explains why he (yet again) trotted out his line about how hard it is for him to sign letters . . . Wait, let's let him tell it (in the cleaned up transcript):
But I will tell you that the most sobering things that I do as president relate to the deployment of these young men and women. Signing letters of those who have fallen in battle, it is a constant reminder of how critical these decisions are and the importance of the Commander in Chief, Congress, all of us who are in positions of power to make sure that we have thought through these decisions free of politics and we are doing what's necessary for the safety and security of the American people.
That's Barack, Friday, all tuckered out, so tired that he makes it sound like, after someone dies in Iraq, Barack's stuck signing their letters. "Letters of those"? No, letter to the families of the fallen. Don't blame us, we never spread the lie that Barack was smart. Nor did we ever claim he could speak well. That would be the press which repeatedly cleans his uh-uh-uhs and stumble-bum speaking manner up. Take the exchange with Lehrer. Here's how PBS' transcript says one section took place:
BARACK OBAMA: And I won't lie to you. I wish that they weren't all having to be made at once. It would nice to be able to stage them on one another.
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
BARACK OBAMA: Let's - you know, we'll take, you know, the economy first and then we'll take Afghanistan after that and then Iraq after that and Iran after that and, you know, the banking system somewhere out there, autos, you know. It would be wonderful if we didn't have all the planes in the air at the same time.
Here's the way the above really was spoken:
BARACK OBAMA: I-I I won't lie to you. I-I wish that uh-uh they weren't all having to be made at once. It would nice to be able to stage 'em -- one another.
JIM LEHRER: Sure.
BARACK OBAMA: Let's - you know, we'll take, you know, the economy first and then we'll take Afghanistan after that and then Iraq after that and Iran after that and, you know, uh-uh banking system somewhere out there, autos, you know. It would be wonderful if-if we didn't have all the planes in the air at the same time.
The stumble bum Barack. That is. Not taking in. To account. His pattern of. Creating periods where. There. Are. None. The strip-the-gears way he has of speaking, the start and stop motion that betrays someone with huge fundamental, cognetive problems.
The press created the lie that he could speak well. He can't. And our biggest regret when he speaks today is that he's not wearing a flowing wig. Either a Farrah or one of Tina Turner's from the sixties would work great. That way he could get the hair toss really going as he robotically swings his head from one teleprompter to another. He is stiff, he is robotic and he is one of the worst speakers to ever occupy the White House.
The press refuses to tell you that just like they refuse to tell you he is lying -- and so are they. Washington Week on PBS Friday came closest to getting at the truth. We'll note the following exchange:
Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Leujune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says --
Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen.
Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possilbe.
Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 trooops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be training Iraqi secruity forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.
There was a strong discussion on the plan. It offered more reality than most of the 'reports' on other broadcasts did. But even so, it left out an important thing.
We gave you two flags with "Remember that." Hopefully you have.
Barack Obama, the lie says, always said he'd listen to commanders on the ground. Therefore, his blowing off his 16-month 'promise' is not a big deal. Right? That's what he said he'd do, after all.! But it's not what he said.
And it's a damn lie for people to pretend it's what he promised.
During the battle for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton was very clear about what she planned to do. Barack lied the way he always does. He told his wet-pantied-and-briefs crowd one thing and he told reporters another (which rarely received the amplification it needed). Unlike a report read by a few people, the debates were watched by many.
In the debates, Barack was repeatedly clear that withdrawal would start immediately, take 16 months and that there would be no interference with the civilian leadership decision on that. The military could have input on ways to carry out his order but, if president, that would be the order.
Doubt us?
April 16, 2008 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack, aired on ABC, moderated by Charlie Gibson and George:
GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that." So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus." Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.
Is that clear enough for you?
Feb. 21st UT Texas debate between Barack and Hillary Clinton, he declared:
On the issues that have come up that a commander in chief is going to have to make decisions on, I have shown the judgment to lead. That is the leadership that I want to show when I'm president of the United States. On the issues that have come up, that a commander in chief is going to have to make decisions on, I have shown the judgment to lead. That is the leadership that I want to show when I'm president of the United States.
What last week demonstrated is that he is not up to his job. He's either a liar or he's weak-willed. Or maybe both. But let's all drop the lie that what Barack announced on Friday was in keeping with what he promised and that, although it may fudge on the months, he always said he would listen to the military. BOLD FACED LIE. He said he would give the order for a 16-month withdrawal (the mission) and he would take into account their suggestions on how to achieve that mission.
Silver threads and golden needles can't mend these hearts of ours, no, nor can they turn President Pinocchio into a real boy.
More faux change from Barack
From Saturday the 21st through Friday the 27th, the deaths of seven US service members in Iraq were announced. You would never have known that from the bulk of the media coverage which censored the news. The same week that deaths were being censored by the press, the press 'won' the right to photograph coffins of US service members returning to the US . . . maybe.
The story begins this month on February 9th when Barack Obama holds a press conference and CNN's Ed Henry has a question.
Ed Henry: Thank you, Mr. President. You've promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. And since you've been very clear about a time table to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, I wonder what's your time table to withdraw troops eventually from Afghanistan? And related to that, there's a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming into Dover Air Force Base. And back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be, quote, snuck back into the country under the cover of night. You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy, so the American people can see the full human cost of war?
Barack: [. . .] Now with respect to the policy of opening up media to loved ones being brought back home, we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense. So I don't want to give you an answer now, before I've evaluated that review and understand all the implications involved.
A review was in process? With the DoD? No, he damn well lied. The day after the press conference, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would announce he was starting a review, as Katharine Q. Seelye (New York Times) reported. A review Barack had told America was already taking place. Only Jamie McIntyre (American Journalism Review) dared raise that issue: "The president responded with a classic dodge . . . While President Obama artfully avoided making a promise he might not want to keep, Henry had skillfully fulfilled one of journalism's basic functions: holding elected officials accountable for their own words. It's unclear whether the policy was truly under review before Henry's query put the president on the spot, but by the next day it plainly was."
And last week, Gates had another announcement: The ban had been lifted and photos could be taken . . . sort-of.
CNN reminded that supporters of dropping the ban "point out that the unmarked coffins make it impossible to identify specific remains." That's a basic point and one that needs to be remembered.
Basic points fell by the wayside as the press got ready to stroke off Barack yet again. Somehow Gates' statements were turned into a "new policy!" proclamation by outlets such as The Boston Globe and The Los Angeles Times. By contrast, Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) noted Gates was saying he needed "a group of advisers to come up with a plan on how to implement the new policy." (Gates told the press, "I have tasked the working groups to examine ways in which we might further assist the families of those who made the supreme sacrifices for our country" and that the tasks would be completed quickly because there were "short deadlines") .
Ken Fireman (Bloomberg News) explained Gates said "if their families agree" then photos of the coffins can be taken, under circumstances to be decided on at a later time.
The policy was not overturned. Overturning the policy would mean restoring what was in place prior. Instead of doing that, Barack has crafted a new policy.
This policy, the claim is, shows greater 'sensitivity' to the families of survivors. Nonsense. As noted earlier, the coffins are closed. No one's privacy is intruded upon by photos of the coffins being taken. These coffins returning are returning the bodies of US service members sent to a battlefield by the US government. You do not hide the costs of war.
You do not give "kill rights" on news photos.
Barack's latest Hopey Changing is more of the same garbage and should frighten the left. If this is how the Bush policies are to be 'changed,' then there's no change. They're halved and kept. Bully Boy pulled the United States closer to fascism than any White House occupant prior. The idea that his policies can be halved and that's an improvement is the sort of lunacy Medea Benjamin would applaud but no sane person would cheer.
Russ Kick (The Memory Hole) got the photos (like the one above) out during the Bully Boy Bush years. He didn't do it via a policy asking, "Hey, everybody, are we cool with me publishing these news photos?" Repeating, the news never provides anyone with "kill rights" to a story or photo.
The story begins this month on February 9th when Barack Obama holds a press conference and CNN's Ed Henry has a question.
Ed Henry: Thank you, Mr. President. You've promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. And since you've been very clear about a time table to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, I wonder what's your time table to withdraw troops eventually from Afghanistan? And related to that, there's a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming into Dover Air Force Base. And back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be, quote, snuck back into the country under the cover of night. You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy, so the American people can see the full human cost of war?
Barack: [. . .] Now with respect to the policy of opening up media to loved ones being brought back home, we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense. So I don't want to give you an answer now, before I've evaluated that review and understand all the implications involved.
A review was in process? With the DoD? No, he damn well lied. The day after the press conference, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would announce he was starting a review, as Katharine Q. Seelye (New York Times) reported. A review Barack had told America was already taking place. Only Jamie McIntyre (American Journalism Review) dared raise that issue: "The president responded with a classic dodge . . . While President Obama artfully avoided making a promise he might not want to keep, Henry had skillfully fulfilled one of journalism's basic functions: holding elected officials accountable for their own words. It's unclear whether the policy was truly under review before Henry's query put the president on the spot, but by the next day it plainly was."
And last week, Gates had another announcement: The ban had been lifted and photos could be taken . . . sort-of.
CNN reminded that supporters of dropping the ban "point out that the unmarked coffins make it impossible to identify specific remains." That's a basic point and one that needs to be remembered.
Basic points fell by the wayside as the press got ready to stroke off Barack yet again. Somehow Gates' statements were turned into a "new policy!" proclamation by outlets such as The Boston Globe and The Los Angeles Times. By contrast, Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) noted Gates was saying he needed "a group of advisers to come up with a plan on how to implement the new policy." (Gates told the press, "I have tasked the working groups to examine ways in which we might further assist the families of those who made the supreme sacrifices for our country" and that the tasks would be completed quickly because there were "short deadlines") .
Ken Fireman (Bloomberg News) explained Gates said "if their families agree" then photos of the coffins can be taken, under circumstances to be decided on at a later time.
The policy was not overturned. Overturning the policy would mean restoring what was in place prior. Instead of doing that, Barack has crafted a new policy.
This policy, the claim is, shows greater 'sensitivity' to the families of survivors. Nonsense. As noted earlier, the coffins are closed. No one's privacy is intruded upon by photos of the coffins being taken. These coffins returning are returning the bodies of US service members sent to a battlefield by the US government. You do not hide the costs of war.
You do not give "kill rights" on news photos.
Barack's latest Hopey Changing is more of the same garbage and should frighten the left. If this is how the Bush policies are to be 'changed,' then there's no change. They're halved and kept. Bully Boy pulled the United States closer to fascism than any White House occupant prior. The idea that his policies can be halved and that's an improvement is the sort of lunacy Medea Benjamin would applaud but no sane person would cheer.
Russ Kick (The Memory Hole) got the photos (like the one above) out during the Bully Boy Bush years. He didn't do it via a policy asking, "Hey, everybody, are we cool with me publishing these news photos?" Repeating, the news never provides anyone with "kill rights" to a story or photo.
Amazon.com: Bargains and sexism offered
Yesterday when you were young
Everything you needed done was done for you.
Now you do it on your own
But you find you're all alone what can you do?
So opens The Weepies' Hideaway. The Weepies?
They are the folk duo Deb Talan and Steve Tannen. Hideaway is their latest album (released in April of last year) and it's been a best seller on the folk charts. Kat tipped you off Wednesday that it was available for $1.99 at Amazon -- download the entire album for $1.99. It's now back up to $8.99. Still a bargain for anyone who bothers to listen.
And that's one of the good things about Amazon, they provide some real bargains -- bargains that just pop up and, if you're not regularly visiting, you can miss them.
Not that Amazon's without its problems. We had complaints in e-mails this week. First up, Dusty Springfield. We're Dusty fans. We mention her twice in this edition, for example. And we were very bothered by an e-mail from a reader who paid for Dusty Springfield's Gold and downloaded it only to discover it jumps in the midst of every song. He can't figure out if it was his downloading or if it's the download itself. (His e-mail just arrived and we're downloading Gold as we speak. It's taking longer than any download we've done before so if we have an answer, we'll provide it. Otherwise, check back next week.) That is a problem. And you'd assume that customer service would deal with your issue and do so quickly.
You'd assume that.
But you'd be wrong.
Check out, for example, this Amazon description (written by Amazon, not by a customer, check the link) of Melanie:
No talent who came out of Woodstock and who continued actively performing more than a quarter century later remained as closely associated with the 1960s and "flower power" than Melanie. Born Melanie Safka in Astoria, Queens, in 1947, she made her first public appearance at age four on a radio show, later studying at the New York Academy of Fine Arts. After mounting a singing career while in college, she later sang in clubs in Greenwich Village, and was signed to a publishing contract in 1967. She recorded her first single, "Beautiful People," for Columbia Records that same year. Her relationship with the record company was short-lived, however, and after one more single she left the label.
A community member brought it to Amazon's attention January 10th, Elaine blogged about it January 12th. The description has not been fixed. Melanie's a "no talent"? They think that's appropriate or a way to move downloads? "Hey, spend money on this, it's by a no talent!" Amazon's customer service is and remains a joke.
And that wouldn't have happened with a male artist.
Stephanie only downloads female artists from Amazon. She wasn't aware of that until she noticed that every time she logged in, Amazon's recommendations to her would include MP3 tracks by female artists ("usually ones I had downloaded other MP3s by") but would include all male artists for the album recommendations. "I just started downloading last winter and I checked the albums stored on my computer and it's all women. My CD collection has more variety but that's all I've downloaded. It really ticks me off that these 'related' artists are all male, week after week. It would tick me off even if I had purchased both men and women but having just downloaded women, they should be recommending women to me."
MP3 tracks recommended are female and the MP3 albums recommended are male? Yeah, we lived through that before. "Singles artists" are women, the sexist narrative went, men are "album artists." Obviously the digital age is not free of sexism.
As if to prove that fact, Amazon decided to promote Motown last month as part of Black History Month and notice the banner they used.
When people think of Motown, most people think of Diana Ross. She was the Queen of Motown. She scored 19 number one hits (that counts "We Are The World") and eighteen were with Motown. 12 of those were as part of the Supremes. No other Motown artist landed 19 songs on top of the Hot 100 and no other did so with 18 songs released by Motown ("We Are The World" was not a Motown single). Motown's longest chart topper is the Diana Ross and Lionel Richie duet "Endless Love" which spent nine weeks at number one.
Berry Gordy bet the label on Diana in the sixties because she was talented and she was a workhorse (working herself to the point of exhaustion). She became one of the biggest superstar Motown produced, bigger than Stevie Wonder, bigger than Marvin Gaye, bigger than Smokey Robinson. Only Michael Jackson could be considered bigger.
But you don't see Diana in the banner, do you?
You don't see any woman. But you certainly don't see Diana. Queen of the label. The face of Motown for most people. Her group was the only American group to hold its own (and thrive) during the British Invasion.
How can you pretend to honor Black History Month and Motown and ignore Diana Ross? Just another case of a woman being stripped out of the place she earned in history. Diana broke down the barriers being a 'first' at many clubs that did not book African-Americans prior to her. But Amazon didn't want to recognize her. What's really hilarious is that most people staring at the Amazon banner won't be able to recognize any of the males except for the young Michael Jackson.
Amazon is not without its problems and we're sorry if we've ever written in such a way to indicate that it is. Most of our readers (and most TCI community members) prefer Amazon to iTunes which is why we utilize it. Equally true is that Amazon often has real bargains and is generally a little cheaper in cost than iTunes.
Real bargains like an album of 14 tracks for just $1.99.
That was Hideaway last week.
And if only for "Can't Go Back Now," it was worth it. But there are many other tracks to fall in love with on the download. The price is now $8.99 and it's still worth it. Check out the singing on the title track of, "Even the stars, sometimes fade to gray, even the stars, hideaway." When it works, Amazon hooks you up with an artist you're unfamiliar with. When it works, they hook you up with The Weepies, for example. When it doesn't? It's just more of the same sexism that's dominated the music industry for decades.
----------
Ty note: Malvin89 e-mailed to insist that Michael Jackson had to have more number one hits than Diana Ross. Nope. Not yet anyway. On the Hot 100 (or Top 100 as it was called at another time, the pop charts) Michael Jackson sang on 17 number one hits -- like Diana's credits, you need to count "We Are the World" in that number. Five of those number one hits were for Motown -- four Jackson 5 songs and "Ben" as a solo artist.
Everything you needed done was done for you.
Now you do it on your own
But you find you're all alone what can you do?
So opens The Weepies' Hideaway. The Weepies?
They are the folk duo Deb Talan and Steve Tannen. Hideaway is their latest album (released in April of last year) and it's been a best seller on the folk charts. Kat tipped you off Wednesday that it was available for $1.99 at Amazon -- download the entire album for $1.99. It's now back up to $8.99. Still a bargain for anyone who bothers to listen.
And that's one of the good things about Amazon, they provide some real bargains -- bargains that just pop up and, if you're not regularly visiting, you can miss them.
Not that Amazon's without its problems. We had complaints in e-mails this week. First up, Dusty Springfield. We're Dusty fans. We mention her twice in this edition, for example. And we were very bothered by an e-mail from a reader who paid for Dusty Springfield's Gold and downloaded it only to discover it jumps in the midst of every song. He can't figure out if it was his downloading or if it's the download itself. (His e-mail just arrived and we're downloading Gold as we speak. It's taking longer than any download we've done before so if we have an answer, we'll provide it. Otherwise, check back next week.) That is a problem. And you'd assume that customer service would deal with your issue and do so quickly.
You'd assume that.
But you'd be wrong.
Check out, for example, this Amazon description (written by Amazon, not by a customer, check the link) of Melanie:
No talent who came out of Woodstock and who continued actively performing more than a quarter century later remained as closely associated with the 1960s and "flower power" than Melanie. Born Melanie Safka in Astoria, Queens, in 1947, she made her first public appearance at age four on a radio show, later studying at the New York Academy of Fine Arts. After mounting a singing career while in college, she later sang in clubs in Greenwich Village, and was signed to a publishing contract in 1967. She recorded her first single, "Beautiful People," for Columbia Records that same year. Her relationship with the record company was short-lived, however, and after one more single she left the label.
A community member brought it to Amazon's attention January 10th, Elaine blogged about it January 12th. The description has not been fixed. Melanie's a "no talent"? They think that's appropriate or a way to move downloads? "Hey, spend money on this, it's by a no talent!" Amazon's customer service is and remains a joke.
And that wouldn't have happened with a male artist.
Stephanie only downloads female artists from Amazon. She wasn't aware of that until she noticed that every time she logged in, Amazon's recommendations to her would include MP3 tracks by female artists ("usually ones I had downloaded other MP3s by") but would include all male artists for the album recommendations. "I just started downloading last winter and I checked the albums stored on my computer and it's all women. My CD collection has more variety but that's all I've downloaded. It really ticks me off that these 'related' artists are all male, week after week. It would tick me off even if I had purchased both men and women but having just downloaded women, they should be recommending women to me."
MP3 tracks recommended are female and the MP3 albums recommended are male? Yeah, we lived through that before. "Singles artists" are women, the sexist narrative went, men are "album artists." Obviously the digital age is not free of sexism.
As if to prove that fact, Amazon decided to promote Motown last month as part of Black History Month and notice the banner they used.
When people think of Motown, most people think of Diana Ross. She was the Queen of Motown. She scored 19 number one hits (that counts "We Are The World") and eighteen were with Motown. 12 of those were as part of the Supremes. No other Motown artist landed 19 songs on top of the Hot 100 and no other did so with 18 songs released by Motown ("We Are The World" was not a Motown single). Motown's longest chart topper is the Diana Ross and Lionel Richie duet "Endless Love" which spent nine weeks at number one.
Berry Gordy bet the label on Diana in the sixties because she was talented and she was a workhorse (working herself to the point of exhaustion). She became one of the biggest superstar Motown produced, bigger than Stevie Wonder, bigger than Marvin Gaye, bigger than Smokey Robinson. Only Michael Jackson could be considered bigger.
But you don't see Diana in the banner, do you?
You don't see any woman. But you certainly don't see Diana. Queen of the label. The face of Motown for most people. Her group was the only American group to hold its own (and thrive) during the British Invasion.
How can you pretend to honor Black History Month and Motown and ignore Diana Ross? Just another case of a woman being stripped out of the place she earned in history. Diana broke down the barriers being a 'first' at many clubs that did not book African-Americans prior to her. But Amazon didn't want to recognize her. What's really hilarious is that most people staring at the Amazon banner won't be able to recognize any of the males except for the young Michael Jackson.
Amazon is not without its problems and we're sorry if we've ever written in such a way to indicate that it is. Most of our readers (and most TCI community members) prefer Amazon to iTunes which is why we utilize it. Equally true is that Amazon often has real bargains and is generally a little cheaper in cost than iTunes.
Real bargains like an album of 14 tracks for just $1.99.
That was Hideaway last week.
And if only for "Can't Go Back Now," it was worth it. But there are many other tracks to fall in love with on the download. The price is now $8.99 and it's still worth it. Check out the singing on the title track of, "Even the stars, sometimes fade to gray, even the stars, hideaway." When it works, Amazon hooks you up with an artist you're unfamiliar with. When it works, they hook you up with The Weepies, for example. When it doesn't? It's just more of the same sexism that's dominated the music industry for decades.
----------
Ty note: Malvin89 e-mailed to insist that Michael Jackson had to have more number one hits than Diana Ross. Nope. Not yet anyway. On the Hot 100 (or Top 100 as it was called at another time, the pop charts) Michael Jackson sang on 17 number one hits -- like Diana's credits, you need to count "We Are the World" in that number. Five of those number one hits were for Motown -- four Jackson 5 songs and "Ben" as a solo artist.
Crazy Ray LaHood? Not so crazy after all.
Last week's "Giggles at the smack-down hide the real issue" requires an update. The article reported how US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood got a White House smack down for floating a change for the gas tax from taxing per gallon to taxing per mile driven.
As we explained last week, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was set to release their final report on Thursday. The 15-member Commission explains:
On Thursday, February 26, 2009, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission released its Final Report. A copy of the full report can be downloaded by clicking here. The Press Release can be downloaded by clicking here, and the Executive Summary, which summarizes the report’s conclusions and recommendations, can be downloaded by clicking here. Printed bound copies of the Final Report can be ordered by e-mailing financecommissionreport@dot.gov.
The Financing Commission offers a roadmap for sweeping reform of the nation's transportation infrastructure funding and finance framework. The Commission offers specific recommendations for increasing investment in transportation infrastructure while at the same time moving the Federal Government away from reliance on motor fuel taxes toward more direct fees charged to transportation infrastructure users. The Financing Commission's recommendations are timely and provocative, as the nation grapples with staggering shortfalls in infrastructure funding and the new administration turns its attention to building what President Obama calls "the roads and bridges…necessary to make this country great again."
We noted in the article what the press couldn't or wouldn't, that Ray LaHood had been seen publicly with two members of the Commission in the previous two weeks. We pointed out that LaHood's 'crazy' idea might not be so crazy and might, in fact, be what the Commission would be proposing.
And?
It is what the Commission is proposing. They state, "Charging vehicle drivers a mileage fee embodies the 'user pays' principle and more accurately aligns the costs and benefits of the surface transportation system to those who are using it. More transparent charges for using infrastructure may also spur drivers to use the system more efficiently, reducing the overall investment need."
Would that help the environment?
We don't know. Few have even bothered to cover the Commission's recommendations let alone to evaluate it. (The Washington Post came out in favor of a gas tax based on per-mile-use Monday. Today it shares readers' opinions.)
What is clear is that Ray LaHood wasn't wandering around the dugout for 9 innings. We don't know whether he's qualified for his post or not. We do know he was attempting to do his job by consulting with the Commission. We do know he knew more than Robert Gibbs about what was about to be run around the plates.
Maybe the White House owes LaHood an apology?
---
Jim note: Last week's article resulted in a lot of e-mails of praise. I'll go into it this week in my note to the readers, but the thing most of you were praising can be credited to Jess and C.I.
As we explained last week, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission was set to release their final report on Thursday. The 15-member Commission explains:
On Thursday, February 26, 2009, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission released its Final Report. A copy of the full report can be downloaded by clicking here. The Press Release can be downloaded by clicking here, and the Executive Summary, which summarizes the report’s conclusions and recommendations, can be downloaded by clicking here. Printed bound copies of the Final Report can be ordered by e-mailing financecommissionreport@dot.gov.
The Financing Commission offers a roadmap for sweeping reform of the nation's transportation infrastructure funding and finance framework. The Commission offers specific recommendations for increasing investment in transportation infrastructure while at the same time moving the Federal Government away from reliance on motor fuel taxes toward more direct fees charged to transportation infrastructure users. The Financing Commission's recommendations are timely and provocative, as the nation grapples with staggering shortfalls in infrastructure funding and the new administration turns its attention to building what President Obama calls "the roads and bridges…necessary to make this country great again."
We noted in the article what the press couldn't or wouldn't, that Ray LaHood had been seen publicly with two members of the Commission in the previous two weeks. We pointed out that LaHood's 'crazy' idea might not be so crazy and might, in fact, be what the Commission would be proposing.
And?
It is what the Commission is proposing. They state, "Charging vehicle drivers a mileage fee embodies the 'user pays' principle and more accurately aligns the costs and benefits of the surface transportation system to those who are using it. More transparent charges for using infrastructure may also spur drivers to use the system more efficiently, reducing the overall investment need."
Would that help the environment?
We don't know. Few have even bothered to cover the Commission's recommendations let alone to evaluate it. (The Washington Post came out in favor of a gas tax based on per-mile-use Monday. Today it shares readers' opinions.)
What is clear is that Ray LaHood wasn't wandering around the dugout for 9 innings. We don't know whether he's qualified for his post or not. We do know he was attempting to do his job by consulting with the Commission. We do know he knew more than Robert Gibbs about what was about to be run around the plates.
Maybe the White House owes LaHood an apology?
---
Jim note: Last week's article resulted in a lot of e-mails of praise. I'll go into it this week in my note to the readers, but the thing most of you were praising can be credited to Jess and C.I.
The Katrina goes to Phyllis Bennis
This week we have a Katrina to give out. The Katrina goes to . . .
Phyllis Bennis who showed up at ZNet Friday with "Obama To Announce Iraq Troop Withdrawal."
Among other things she writes:
Those troops won't include officially-designated "combat" troops (though can you imagine any U.S. soldier in Iraq who doesn't think she or he is facing the trauma of combat on a daily basis??). But those tens of thousands of troops will remain in Iraq. According to General Ray Odierno, U.S. commander in Iraq, U.S. strategy "will require a significant number of troops to train the Iraqi military, conduct targeted counterterrorism operations and protect American personnel and assets." Other officials speak of the plan to leave behind "intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft." And that's just the part that they're making public.
There's also another problem. That huge contingent of "non-combat" troops that is left behind after the pull-out of official combat troops might actually include a whole bunch of combat troops. How? Well, the New York Times spelled it out last Dec. 4: "Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama's goal [of pulling out combat troops] could be accomplished at least in part by re-labeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis." They would do what combat troops do, they would walk and talk and bomb and shoot like combat troops. But they wouldn't be called combat troops, so they could stay in Iraq.
Wow, Phyll. That was news. Back in December. See the December 4th "Iraq snapshot" and "Mark the calendar, New York Times provides some truths" -- Jeremy Scahill obviously did to read his little rip-off "This (Old) News Just In . . . Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation." He posted that at Aging Socialite Cat Litter's Box December 5th, the day after the article was in print despite his telling use of "is reporting" to describe a day-old report. Those who can do; those who can't rip off.
And while Jeremy and Phyllis have given Barack plenty of cover, while they've each reached a hand down his pants while the other hands held their own tongues, Iraq fell off the radar and Barack was able to lie. You are responsible Phyllis Bennis and Jeremy Scahill. You refused to be the voices you present yourself as, voices who call out War Hawks.
Phyll goes on to insist, "According to the U.S. agreement with Iraq - known as a SOFA, or status of forces agreement and signed by a reluctant and defeated White House in the last days of the Bush administration -- they couldn't stay in Iraq indefinitely." Bold faced, bulls**t lie. Whacked Out Patrick Cockburn is among the ones who have pushed that lie. The White House was not reluctant to sign that -- nor were they defeated.
Phyll, if you can quit smoking Barack's BVDs for a minute, the White House didn't have to sign it. They could have gone to the UN. You stupid, lying idiot, get your damn facts straight.
This isn't unlike when a year after Nancy Youssef reported the US military was keeping figures on Iraqi deaths, you showed up on CounterSpin suddenly having just discovered that bit of information.
Reality, Phyll, the White House pushed that treaty masquerading as a SOFA through. They did so over Democratic Congressional opposition -- that was Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Susan Davis and pretty much everyone including, yes, Barack.
The White House ignored the objections, just as they ignored the Constitution.
Now in Iraq, where the Parliament finally passed the treaty on Thanksgiving Day, you had a record low turnout in the Parliament, you had MPs leaving the country to avoid voting on the controversial treaty. You had Ryan Crocker and others not only strong-arming for votes but strong-arming for the votes to take place.
So get your damn facts straight, Phyll.
Know what the hell you're talking about.
The Bush White House did not work overtime on anything. They didn't even work on anything unless they wanted something very badly. They worked like crazy to get the treaty rammed through the Iraqi Parliament. They refused the Democratic demand to extend the UN mandate for six months.
Lying to yourself that the treaty the White House wrote and pushed through was forced on the White House may help you cum, Phyllis, but it's not reality.
Phyllis goes not to pant, "Three months difference in the pull-out timetable (a timetable! remember the Bush rejection of timetables until Iraqi pressure forced the issue in his last days in office??) is of relatively little significance." Uh, Phyll, three months does matter.
It matters because (a) it's breaking a promise, (b) that's at least 90 days more that US service members and Iraqis remain at risk because of the US involvement and (c) Barack's lying again.
The press is helping him. As usual, Ava and C.I. talk about what Phyll and others won't. See, in April 2008, Barack promised that troops would be withdrawn in 16 months if he was elected. He promised that and Charlie Gibson asked him about it. Barack was very clear that the mission he would task the military was 16 months and they could add input and suggestions on how to best achieve that but that, as president, he would set the mission and it would be 16 months.
He didn't keep his promise. He's lying. People are risking their lives and, as Phyllis finally grasps, the Iraq War is not ending.
Phyllis, you're a tool and a fool and the world can't afford either.
Stop lying. Stop embarrassing yourself. You're on the edge of Tom Hayden Foolery and, as yet, there's no known cure for anyone who reaches that stage.
----------
Note: Ava and C.I. did not work on the writing of this article.
Phyllis Bennis who showed up at ZNet Friday with "Obama To Announce Iraq Troop Withdrawal."
Among other things she writes:
Those troops won't include officially-designated "combat" troops (though can you imagine any U.S. soldier in Iraq who doesn't think she or he is facing the trauma of combat on a daily basis??). But those tens of thousands of troops will remain in Iraq. According to General Ray Odierno, U.S. commander in Iraq, U.S. strategy "will require a significant number of troops to train the Iraqi military, conduct targeted counterterrorism operations and protect American personnel and assets." Other officials speak of the plan to leave behind "intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft." And that's just the part that they're making public.
There's also another problem. That huge contingent of "non-combat" troops that is left behind after the pull-out of official combat troops might actually include a whole bunch of combat troops. How? Well, the New York Times spelled it out last Dec. 4: "Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama's goal [of pulling out combat troops] could be accomplished at least in part by re-labeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis." They would do what combat troops do, they would walk and talk and bomb and shoot like combat troops. But they wouldn't be called combat troops, so they could stay in Iraq.
Wow, Phyll. That was news. Back in December. See the December 4th "Iraq snapshot" and "Mark the calendar, New York Times provides some truths" -- Jeremy Scahill obviously did to read his little rip-off "This (Old) News Just In . . . Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation." He posted that at Aging Socialite Cat Litter's Box December 5th, the day after the article was in print despite his telling use of "is reporting" to describe a day-old report. Those who can do; those who can't rip off.
And while Jeremy and Phyllis have given Barack plenty of cover, while they've each reached a hand down his pants while the other hands held their own tongues, Iraq fell off the radar and Barack was able to lie. You are responsible Phyllis Bennis and Jeremy Scahill. You refused to be the voices you present yourself as, voices who call out War Hawks.
Phyll goes on to insist, "According to the U.S. agreement with Iraq - known as a SOFA, or status of forces agreement and signed by a reluctant and defeated White House in the last days of the Bush administration -- they couldn't stay in Iraq indefinitely." Bold faced, bulls**t lie. Whacked Out Patrick Cockburn is among the ones who have pushed that lie. The White House was not reluctant to sign that -- nor were they defeated.
Phyll, if you can quit smoking Barack's BVDs for a minute, the White House didn't have to sign it. They could have gone to the UN. You stupid, lying idiot, get your damn facts straight.
This isn't unlike when a year after Nancy Youssef reported the US military was keeping figures on Iraqi deaths, you showed up on CounterSpin suddenly having just discovered that bit of information.
Reality, Phyll, the White House pushed that treaty masquerading as a SOFA through. They did so over Democratic Congressional opposition -- that was Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Susan Davis and pretty much everyone including, yes, Barack.
The White House ignored the objections, just as they ignored the Constitution.
Now in Iraq, where the Parliament finally passed the treaty on Thanksgiving Day, you had a record low turnout in the Parliament, you had MPs leaving the country to avoid voting on the controversial treaty. You had Ryan Crocker and others not only strong-arming for votes but strong-arming for the votes to take place.
So get your damn facts straight, Phyll.
Know what the hell you're talking about.
The Bush White House did not work overtime on anything. They didn't even work on anything unless they wanted something very badly. They worked like crazy to get the treaty rammed through the Iraqi Parliament. They refused the Democratic demand to extend the UN mandate for six months.
Lying to yourself that the treaty the White House wrote and pushed through was forced on the White House may help you cum, Phyllis, but it's not reality.
Phyllis goes not to pant, "Three months difference in the pull-out timetable (a timetable! remember the Bush rejection of timetables until Iraqi pressure forced the issue in his last days in office??) is of relatively little significance." Uh, Phyll, three months does matter.
It matters because (a) it's breaking a promise, (b) that's at least 90 days more that US service members and Iraqis remain at risk because of the US involvement and (c) Barack's lying again.
The press is helping him. As usual, Ava and C.I. talk about what Phyll and others won't. See, in April 2008, Barack promised that troops would be withdrawn in 16 months if he was elected. He promised that and Charlie Gibson asked him about it. Barack was very clear that the mission he would task the military was 16 months and they could add input and suggestions on how to best achieve that but that, as president, he would set the mission and it would be 16 months.
He didn't keep his promise. He's lying. People are risking their lives and, as Phyllis finally grasps, the Iraq War is not ending.
Phyllis, you're a tool and a fool and the world can't afford either.
Stop lying. Stop embarrassing yourself. You're on the edge of Tom Hayden Foolery and, as yet, there's no known cure for anyone who reaches that stage.
----------
Note: Ava and C.I. did not work on the writing of this article.
Liar-in-chief Barack
In their TV commentary this week, Ava and C.I. catch what the media's ignoring. Barack is Pinocchio Obama as Isaiah dubbed him this time last year.
The lie last week was that Barack didn't stick to his 16-month pledge because, as he'd always said he would do, he listened to military commanders on the ground. Bulls**t.
Ava and C.I. exposed the truth that everyone else avoided.
April 16, 2008, debating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Barack was asked about his 'plan' by ABC's Charlie Gibson:
GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that." So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie.
That's not the role of the generals.
And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus."
Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.
Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there.
Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.
A working media would have immediately pointed the above out. A working media would have led with the above on their Friday broadcasts and in their Saturday broadcasts.
TV Spotlight: Washington Week
Gwen Ifill is the moderator of Washington Week and the latest broadcast began airing Friday. Monday at the Washington Week website you will be able to find transcripts and video. Podcasts are already available. A few technical and information bits.
We (Ava and C.I.) mention the show in this week's TV commentary and there's one section we want to highlight here. Speaking are Ifill, ABC News' Martha Raddatz, The Washington Post's Dan Baltz and The New York Times' Peter Baker.:
Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Lejeune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says
Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen.
Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possible?
Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 troops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be "training Iraqi security forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq." I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.
Martha Raddatz: Now the 2011 he talked about today? Even Secretary Gates said today, 'Well it's hypothetical, but you could renegotiate the Status Of Forces Agreement. I think they will probably have some sort of reserve force even after 2011 but it will be up to the Iraqis to renegotiate that Status Of Forces Agreement. Barack Obama was very firm today saying they will all be out of there but Secretary Gates said today, 'My own view would be that we should be prepared that we should have some modest size presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that. And the thing that we all have to remember is that if they have any kind of force in there they have to have force protection which means more and more military people.
Dan Baltz: And what's the size of that residual 'residual' force after after 2011 --
Martha Raddatz: Modest size? No, I mean, I think before the Status Of Forces Agreement was signed Secretary Gates talked about the South Korea model. We have about 28,000 troops in South Korea and they've been there a very, very long time. And they've drawn down somewhat. But, I mean, there are people who predict that you have to be there a decade. I mean look at Bosnia. We had a -- we had a presence there and there wasn't even in fighting when we went in. There was already a peace accord when we went in. The war -- as much as he wants to say the war is ending, we are going to make a step to end the war -- it's really not up to us to end that war. We may be ending our involvement in that war but that war could very well go on.
Peter Baker: What about the reaction in Washington to this plan? You had uh-uh, as he said, he's completing his campaign promise, give or take a few months, he is back loading the withdrawals and leaving a residual force as he talked about on the campaign trail. Are the Republicans up in arms the way they were a year ago with this idea?
Martha Raddatz: The Republicans certainly don't seem to be up in arms. The Democrats? You had a few complaints from the Hill today, the Democrats saying 'We don't want to leave a force of 50,000.' He said 35 to 50,000 but my bet is it's going to be 50,000 for that same reason -- force protection, as well. But I -- I think
Gwen Ifill: Actually can we stop it there for a moment because it was curious to listen to John McCain who of course ran against Barack Obama much, much on this issue on the floor today at the Senate .
John McCain (on the floor of the Senate): I am cautiously optimistic that the plan as laid out by the president can lead to success.
We highlight a portion of the above in this week's commentary but there just wasn't room for all of the above. We think it's an important section and wanted to note it in full.
We mentioned the podcasts of Washington Week before but reader Joyce must have missed that. Ty advises us she wrote to complain about how long it took her to download the podcast via iTunes for the video of Washington Week ("HOURS!!!!").
If you are on dial up or wireless, it will take a bit of time to download the video of Washington Week. It will move more quickly if that is the only thing you are downloading at that time. The video version contains an extra half-hour and that might be one reason to download it. Another reason would be that the video contains Closed Captioning. For those who don't need or enjoy Closed Captioning, we would encourage to download the audio which we managed to do in less than ten minutes in the airport Saturday morning (wireless). Even dial up can download the audio version -- it will take longer, but dial up users can download it.
For those with problems downloading, we would remind that Monday afternoon the video is posted at the website (along with the transcript) which streams easily and doesn't require any downloading time.
Ty said two people e-mailed about the webcast extra? It's approximately five minutes and fifty-one seconds and entitled "Your Questions." Gwen poses questions viewers ask to Peter Baker, Dan Baltz and Martha Raddatz. The deficit, the Iraq withdrawal, etc. You can download that quickly on broadband (yes), wireless or dial up. (It's so brief that dial up users should be able to download this quicker than the audio podcast.)
For podcasting, there is a code at Washington Week in their podcast instructions which you can grab if you're using Lemmon or another podcast catcher. You'll just grab it and paste it in to subscriptions in Lemmon or whatever. If you're using iTunes, don't worry about the code. Pull up your iTunes, click on TV, click on PBS (or search "PBS" in iTunes search feature) and you'll see Washington Week and simply click on it. There is no charge for either the video or audio podcast (or for any extras like "Your Questions").
We (Ava and C.I.) mention the show in this week's TV commentary and there's one section we want to highlight here. Speaking are Ifill, ABC News' Martha Raddatz, The Washington Post's Dan Baltz and The New York Times' Peter Baker.:
Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Lejeune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says
Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen.
Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possible?
Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 troops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be "training Iraqi security forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq." I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.
Martha Raddatz: Now the 2011 he talked about today? Even Secretary Gates said today, 'Well it's hypothetical, but you could renegotiate the Status Of Forces Agreement. I think they will probably have some sort of reserve force even after 2011 but it will be up to the Iraqis to renegotiate that Status Of Forces Agreement. Barack Obama was very firm today saying they will all be out of there but Secretary Gates said today, 'My own view would be that we should be prepared that we should have some modest size presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that. And the thing that we all have to remember is that if they have any kind of force in there they have to have force protection which means more and more military people.
Dan Baltz: And what's the size of that residual 'residual' force after after 2011 --
Martha Raddatz: Modest size? No, I mean, I think before the Status Of Forces Agreement was signed Secretary Gates talked about the South Korea model. We have about 28,000 troops in South Korea and they've been there a very, very long time. And they've drawn down somewhat. But, I mean, there are people who predict that you have to be there a decade. I mean look at Bosnia. We had a -- we had a presence there and there wasn't even in fighting when we went in. There was already a peace accord when we went in. The war -- as much as he wants to say the war is ending, we are going to make a step to end the war -- it's really not up to us to end that war. We may be ending our involvement in that war but that war could very well go on.
Peter Baker: What about the reaction in Washington to this plan? You had uh-uh, as he said, he's completing his campaign promise, give or take a few months, he is back loading the withdrawals and leaving a residual force as he talked about on the campaign trail. Are the Republicans up in arms the way they were a year ago with this idea?
Martha Raddatz: The Republicans certainly don't seem to be up in arms. The Democrats? You had a few complaints from the Hill today, the Democrats saying 'We don't want to leave a force of 50,000.' He said 35 to 50,000 but my bet is it's going to be 50,000 for that same reason -- force protection, as well. But I -- I think
Gwen Ifill: Actually can we stop it there for a moment because it was curious to listen to John McCain who of course ran against Barack Obama much, much on this issue on the floor today at the Senate .
John McCain (on the floor of the Senate): I am cautiously optimistic that the plan as laid out by the president can lead to success.
We highlight a portion of the above in this week's commentary but there just wasn't room for all of the above. We think it's an important section and wanted to note it in full.
We mentioned the podcasts of Washington Week before but reader Joyce must have missed that. Ty advises us she wrote to complain about how long it took her to download the podcast via iTunes for the video of Washington Week ("HOURS!!!!").
If you are on dial up or wireless, it will take a bit of time to download the video of Washington Week. It will move more quickly if that is the only thing you are downloading at that time. The video version contains an extra half-hour and that might be one reason to download it. Another reason would be that the video contains Closed Captioning. For those who don't need or enjoy Closed Captioning, we would encourage to download the audio which we managed to do in less than ten minutes in the airport Saturday morning (wireless). Even dial up can download the audio version -- it will take longer, but dial up users can download it.
For those with problems downloading, we would remind that Monday afternoon the video is posted at the website (along with the transcript) which streams easily and doesn't require any downloading time.
Ty said two people e-mailed about the webcast extra? It's approximately five minutes and fifty-one seconds and entitled "Your Questions." Gwen poses questions viewers ask to Peter Baker, Dan Baltz and Martha Raddatz. The deficit, the Iraq withdrawal, etc. You can download that quickly on broadband (yes), wireless or dial up. (It's so brief that dial up users should be able to download this quicker than the audio podcast.)
For podcasting, there is a code at Washington Week in their podcast instructions which you can grab if you're using Lemmon or another podcast catcher. You'll just grab it and paste it in to subscriptions in Lemmon or whatever. If you're using iTunes, don't worry about the code. Pull up your iTunes, click on TV, click on PBS (or search "PBS" in iTunes search feature) and you'll see Washington Week and simply click on it. There is no charge for either the video or audio podcast (or for any extras like "Your Questions").
The Condi II
That's United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with US Ambassador to Iraq Susan Rice or, as she was dubbed last week, "Condi II."
War Hawk Suse was the name Amy Goodman, Allan Nairn and all the other posers and pretenders to 'independent' journalism avoided analyzing. They were keen to tell you that Mark Penn, of Hillary's campaign, worked at the public relations agency that handled some p.r. for Blackwater but an actual War Hawk with blood on her hands? They weren't interested. They took a pass.
Susan Rice, of the Sarah Sewall-Samantha Power-Susan Rice axis, will do her part to give American wars on Africa and she was committed to that long before the presidential campaign season got underway. However, the beggars of Panhandle Media couldn't and wouldn't inform you of that.
She's still wet behind in the ears in her post but earned the nickname "Condi II" last week when she decided to speak about Iraq and offered, "And we encourage members states to help Iraq strengthen its democratic institutions, bring its displaced citizens back home . . ."
Humanitarian organizations, relief agencies, no one is encouraging returns except for the puppet government (which now whines that it can afford to actually pay to return an Iraqi who wants to return -- the ministry over that is broke), yet there was The Condi II bellowing "All ashore that's going ashore!"
For all the talk of the need for a new American face (the better to sell a new wave of imperialism), Susan Rice demonstrated she would have fit in perfectly with the previous administration.
Others present could not believe her remarks. They couldn't believe the insensitivity, the lack of awareness or the bloodlust. Bloodlust? Rice bellowed about Iran as well, made threats that we used to get from John Bolton.
It's the same ugly face of the past. It might be a little uglier (study the picture and decide for yourself). In one speech, Susan Rice did tremendous damage to the notion that a new US was at play in the world.
Susan Rice went "rogue" -- but don't expect Saturday Night Live to offer any skits on that. They and everyone else will play dumb.
Barack spoke Friday about Iraqi refugees. His remarks did not back up Susan Rice's ravings:
Diplomacy and assistance is also required to help the millions of displaced Iraqis. These men, women and children are a living consequence of this war and a challenge to stability in the region, and they must become a part of Iraq's reconciliation and recovery. America has a strategic interest -- and a moral responsibility -- to act. In the coming months, my administration will provide more assistance and take steps to increase international support for countries already hosting refugees; we'll cooperate with others to resettle Iraqis facing great personal risk; and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle Iraqis facing great personal risk; and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle refugees and displaced Iraqis within Iraq -- because there are few more powerful indicators of lasting peace than displaced citizens returning home.
If the administration was smart, they'd ditch her right now. They're not smart. That's actually a good thing. The more The Condi II sets sail, the quicker the world learns they need to be even more wary of the new administration. Just as deadly, but with a toothy grin.
The Bronze Booby goes to . . . David Martin
This week's Bronze Booby goes to CBS News' David Martin who declared on Friday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric (here for the online folder for CBS Evening News with Katie Couric video) this 'lovely':
"[Joe Dan] Whorely and all the other fighting men and women who carried the rest of us on their backs, have the most invested in the president's decision."
Martin was not providing commentary. He was allegedly reporting. The statement is insulting and offensive.
Suck on the right one, suck on the left one, you earned them, Martin.
"[Joe Dan] Whorely and all the other fighting men and women who carried the rest of us on their backs, have the most invested in the president's decision."
Martin was not providing commentary. He was allegedly reporting. The statement is insulting and offensive.
Suck on the right one, suck on the left one, you earned them, Martin.
Iraq roundtable
Jim: Ava, C.I. and I participated in an Iraq roundtable on Friday. Others with sites participating posted the transcript Friday night and Saturday morning: "Talking Iraq," "LET'S TALK IRAQ," "Roundtable," "iraq," "Iraq roundtable," "Iraq roundtable," "Roundtable on Iraq," "Roundtable on Iraq," "The broken promise roundtable," "Iraq," "Iraq" and " Iraq roundtable." We're posting it here as well.
Rebecca: We're doing an unplanned roundtable and participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava and Jim, me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Ruth of Ruth's Report. I wanted to invite Jim to participate and he and Betty are on the phone from C.I.'s house on the West Coast. Cedric is participating by phone and all the rest -- including C.I. -- are here at Trina's home on the East Coast. I hope I remembered everyone This is another Iraq roundtable. Ruth, why don't you explain the reason for it?
Ruth: Today at Camp Leujune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama revealed his Iraq 'plan' and C.I. covers it in today's snapshot for those who need a reference or additional information. We are seeing the usual faux lefties, the usual play-members of the 'anti-war' movement emerge with their simpering statements and we are also seeing others make statements that are very disturbing. We are not cowards and we are not idiots so it is important that we speak up at a time when alleged voices of peace refuse to do so.
Rebecca: There are several people attempting to speak right now. I'm going with Jim who is not attempting to speak because of the fact that we're going with the speech and additional comments elaborating on Ruth can come in later. Jim?
Jim: Okay, I think the way this works is we're going to talk about the speech. And, I'll start with where I'm confused. We looked to see which 'left' outlets were talking about it. The Nation has an article by Robert Dreyfuss that does call out the speech and we don't normally link to him but it's "Obama's Iraq Plan Ain't It." But Dreyfuss writes, "Obama didn't say anything about the US-Iraq accord signed last year that sets a 2011 deadline for the departure of all US forces." Is that right?
C.I.: No, that's incorrect. I don't what's going on. Maybe he couldn't make it through the speech but he is wrong. Early in the speech Barack says, "And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." That's not the only reference and, I believe this in the snapshot, the White House today has a set of talking points including Gates' press conference and including Barack's endorsement of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. I don't know Robert Dreyfuss, I have no idea why he made that claim. I can provide other examples if needed but the speech is supposed to be up at the White House website and we can link to it. Barack addressed it. That's not defending Barack. The treaty's a joke, we've all said that since before it passed the Iraqi Parliament. I am not trying to pick apart Robert Dreyfuss' analysis -- which I haven't read and wasn't aware of before Jim brought it up just now -- but I am stating that Barack mentioned the SOFA. It's in the speech.
Jim: Dreyfuss doesn't buy the SOFA either and goes on to write, "Now, of course, that deadline was always seen, by both sides, as (shall we say?) 'flexible.' Prime Minister Maliki, bowing to the rising nationalist trend in Iraq, made it seem like that he wants American forces to leave, but he doesn't. In fact, his top aides have told people in Washington that they want American troops to remain in Iraq for much longer, as long as they continue to build up Maliki's armed forces." Comment?
Ava: I'm jumping in because C.I. and I are taking notes and C.I.'s giving me a look. We have heard -- C.I. and I, Kat and Wally -- what Dreyfuss is saying, we've heard that repeatedly from members of Congress and others. Is it true? We assume it is. That's always been the speculation in DC.
Rebecca: Okay. Stan?
Stan: I looked up The Progressive. They've got nothing on the speech. They've got movie talk. Ruth Conniff offered her stale attacks on Bill Clinton. Everything about Ruth Conniff is dead on arrival. So she's at the right magazine. It's not just that they don't have anything on the speech, they've got nothing on Iraq on their main page. They really are useless.
Rebecca: World Can't Wait?
Cedric: I had them and can't get them to display.
Mike: I'm having that problem too. Cedric texted me on and I tried to. I noticed this last week too, that Fridays the site doesn't load.
Cedric: But a link for them, please. They're not going to play Barack suck up. Elaine?
Elaine: I had United for Peace and Justice and they have nothing on the speech but I did find it curious that they refuse to take part in the March 21st action but are suddenly encouraging local actions. That doesn't just strike me as counter-productive, I see it as destructive, an effort to harm what The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War are organizing. From IVAW's announcement:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Rebecca: I agree with you, Elaine, that does seem like United for Peace & Justice -- long hostile to A.N.S.W.E.R. and filled with Barack enablers and cheerleaders -- Carl, Tom, Leslie, etc. -- are attempting to harm the turnout for the planned March action. Typical garbage from faux 'leaders.' Speaking of faux 'leaders,' another 'anti-war' group is CODESTINK. Trina?
Trina: The surprise here is that I'm going to ask for a link. They actually did something, I was surprised as I'm sure most of you are. They call Barack's speech today a, this is a quote, "broken promise." Good for them. Of course, I-Need-Attention Benjamin has to be her usual little suck up self and supply what I will term a whorish statement. She's useless, she needs to shut the hell up and take herself a long vaction -- provided her handlers will approve it for her. But Dana Balicki has a good quote on the speech at the start and then she goes all Medea on us: "And there hasn't been any word on military bases left in Iraq that will continue to drain billions of dollars from US taxpayers at a time where that money is very much needed at home. But the withdrawal, and a time line, is a baby step forward from past policies. As citizens, it's our job to move Obama to take giant strides." That's the full quote.
Kat: I'm reading I-Need-Attention Benjamin's nonsense over Trina's shoulder. That is such garbage that if I was standing in a room with Medea, I would pie her lying ass myself. Her premise is that after George W. we should be grateful. Meada, you stupid idiot, are you trying to sound like Nancy Pelosi? Answer that question. Shame on Medea, shame on everyone for acting like George W. Bush is the baseline. Were the last eight years that we objected objecting because Bush was an underachiever? No, it was because he was a criminal. It's not good enough for the left to say, "Barack's a little better than Bush." No, Bush is a criminal. Any sane person should be a little better. A little better doesn't cut it. The country should never again suffer under anyone like W. And we don't grade by comparison. We don't take the worst occupant of the Oval Office -- worse than Nixon according to John Dean -- and use him as the baseline. That's like saying, "We had a serial killer for a president but now we just have an arsonist so let's all be happy!" No, it's unacceptable. Just like Medea's cowardly bulls**t. Call him out. Stop this sniveling and cowardice, I'm damn sick of it.
Stan: I think Kat just nailed one of our problems. We had a psychotic, crazed killer in the White House and some want to act like since Barack manages to wipe away his drool on his own, we should be grateful. That is completely screwed up. Thank you for pointing that out.
Kat: C.I. on impeachment this morning. And I'm being nodded at by C.I. to explain. Bush is a criminal who should have been impeached. If we refuse to hold him accountable -- as may happen -- we're saying Bush acted 'normal' and 'acceptable.' When we use him as a comparison for Barack, to argue that Barack's better than Bush, we are degrading ourselves as a country and as a people. That's not good enough, that's not a standard. That is embracing and okaying the crimes of George W. Bush because we are treating them as normal by being 'grateful' that Barack doesn't do them.
Ruth: And I will add that the speech resulted in a standing ovation. Kat has done a wonderful summary but I do not believe it was planned. C.I. was answering a question --
Ava: About John Walsh's "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again."
Ruth: Yes. And in the reply just took off.
C.I.: It wasn't planned, the energy in the room created it. Credit the people present for it.
Rebecca: C.I.'s being modest, as usual. It really was something and Kat's right to apply it here because CODESTINK is saying that they think George W. Bush is acceptable. When they offer those wimpy, 'it's a move finally,' embarrassing statements, they are putting a "CODESTINK approved" sticker on George W. Bush. They need to think about their actions -- but thinking has never been Medea's strong suit or Jodie's.
Trina: Do we want to link? We don't have to.
Rebecca: I'm gesturing to those present and everyone's shrugging so unless Betty, Jim or Cedric have an objection, the answer will be yes. At least they called it a broken promise and we'll applaud that they've finally done something, no matter how minor, with the hope that something else will follow. If it doesn't, screw 'em. But no one can claim we didn't attempt to be fair even with a group we've grown to despise. Marcia, you also had a website to check.
Marcia: I had Antiwar.com which is a site run by a libertarian, Justin Raimondo and he has a column entitled "The Silence of the Liberals." And I want to emphasize one section of it here:
Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?
Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces."
In short: we aren't leaving.
Marcia (Con't): It's a very strong piece and Justin had a really strong article. And, I'm blanking on what Geoff Morrell said they'd do. But didn't he list it?
Mike: Yes, yesterday's snapshot contains that. This is Morrell at the Pentagon Thursday when CNN's Barbara Starr was asking the hard questions. Morrell, "And the three basic areas where those forces would concentrate -- and, again, this is something the president and the secretary have spoken to -- are, number one, continuing to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continuting to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continue to help them train and equip, and support them in their operations. Number two, this force of whatever size it turns out to be would also conduct intelligence-driven, warrant-based combat operations against -- against terrorists, and tehy would do so assisting Iraqi security forces, who would be in the lead. And lastly, they would be required to protect American personnel and other U.S. assets in Iraq. So those are the three fundamental areas. But, you know, I've heard all this talk about it's diseingenous to say that combat forces are being drawn down; all forces are combat forces, and those that remain will be combat forces."
Betty: It's so stupid and this was the point that we all raised repeatedly -- with C.I. leading -- that it is word games. "Combat" or "non-combat." It's just a way to reclassify and keep troops on the ground. I want to insert Thomas E. Ricks speaking on Washington Unplugged, CBS News' online show, earlier this month, "But it was a false phraseology: 'combat troops.' Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat." It's word games and people are willing to play along. And they're taking his bad speech that they applauded today at face value. This is the same man who told them during the campaigns that he would put a 16-month plan into effect. He only hedged and hemmed when Hillary was out of the race. I don't know why we believe a word out of his mouth to begin with but when someone promises you 16-months and then they up it to 19, there's a problem if you can't grasp that you've been lied to and if you can't grasp that you need to be a little wary about future 'promises' from the same person.
Rebecca: Agreed. And we'll stay with Betty because she was the brave one who agreed to step into Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box to see how they handled it.
Betty: Well Arianna stuck her as in the air, scratched her paws in the kitty litter and walked off leaving her mess to stink up the entire net. Barack's speech is being treated as news and by that I mean they offer news links to it but apparently can't actually comment on it except for the rah-rah-rah VoteVets -- a Democratic Party enabler of some time. There is no critique, there is nothing. Apparently when she feels it is time to mock special-needs children, Arianna can go full out. When it's time to speak out against politicians who sell out the people and continue the illegal war, she needs to spend several hours with her scratching post first.
Rebecca: And Mike was going to check out Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Mike: They have a strong statement and I want to emphasize this section:
We must ensure that U.S. control of Iraq, which today is accomplished primarily through military force, is not maintained over the longer term through the use of more subtle legal, financial, economic, or political means. "The Iraqi people deserve the dignity of full sovereignty and control of their own nation," says Kelly Doughery, Executive Director of IVAW and former Military Police Sergeant, "and the only way to give this to them is by the immediate and complete withdrawal of all occupying forces from Iraq – this means withdrawing all military personnel, troops, and defense contractors, closing all military bases, ceasing air operations, and removing American interests intent on controlling Iraqi oil resources."
Mike (Con't): I wanted to include that section because there's a site that never cares about Iraq -- I believe it last wrote about Iraq . . . never. But this site is pushing the angle that Kelly Doughery is on board with Barack's 'plan' and she's not.
Ava: Mike, just to be clear, you're pronouncing her last name that way because?
Mike: That's how IVAW has it.
Ava: It must be a typo. We'll leave it that way in the quote from IVAW but her name is Kelly Dougherty -- with a "t" in the last name. It's not the end of the world and typos aren't uncommon in this community but when you said "Doughery" the second time, C.I. and I were wondering what was up with that.
Rebecca: Okay, Stan, I'm tossing to you for a grade.
Stan: CODESTINK gets a thumbs up for calling it out in an action alert that works if you pull out the quotes. We graded generously. Robert Dreyfuss is the only 'front pager' at a left site who called it out. We'll give him an A+. We give that grade out to IVAW and Antiwar.com as well. The Progressive, The Huffington Post and United for Peace and Justice receive failing grades.
Rebecca: I need Ruth, Trina and Cedric to speak during this section. We're getting close to the end and I need you three to up your participation. How about your impressions of the speech or 'plan' and I want to start with Cedric because he's participating by phone.
Cedric: I was honestly hoping he would surprise us. I was hoping what had come all week before his speech would end up being some elaborate fake out on the press and he would declare something that we -- those who want to end the illegal war -- could take some pride in. Why was I thinking that? There was no reason to think that and Barack certainly has done nothing to warrant hope. But it's the six year mark next month and I was honestly hoping that he would actually do something. It was fantasy, I wasn't being reality based. But I was hoping to find something to praise and I read the speech this afternoon and there was nothing to praise in it. It was very disappointing.
Ruth: Cedric, can I ask a question?
Cedric: Sure.
Ruth: You say this was a fantasy and it seems rather elaborate. Were you thinking of "I was wrong" statements?
Cedric: Absolutely. I was. I had this whole unrealistic day dream where I would have to post, "Hey, I was completely about Barack. Glad to be. I was a fool and I missed it." I actually did entertain thoughts that I would have to write something like that. So it wasn't a passing fancy, it was rather elaborate. It wasn't reality-based but, yeah, I was hoping that somehow the war would end.
Ruth: I can understand that. I'll focus on the actual remarks in terms of what the word assembly said to me. "Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." How pompous can you be? I loved C.I. comparing it to the famous passage in Lewis Carroll's The Walrus and The Carpenter. That comparison works because that is a story geared for children and Barack gave a speech that was like he was speaking down to the country. I detected a lot of Bully Boy George W. in the speech. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." That is just an annoying sentence to hear, just the word choice and the order. It grates on the ears. "Let me say this as plainly as I can". I believe that the statement which follows should make clear whether the words were plain. It was a bad speech and that section was like in a film where the leads have no chemistry so they have to keep telling the audience, "I am falling in love with you. I think we're in love. We are so happy." These are things you should be able to tell on your own. Trina:
Trina: Well, I didn't have the elaborate fantasy that Cedric did; however, there were times, brief periods of what-if in the lead up to today. Periods where I thought, "Maybe he'll surprise us." And, like Cedric, it had to do with my just wanting the illegal war to be over. It wasn't based on reality. It was more a desire to see the Iraq War ended. From the start, it was obvious nothing had changed. What worried me the most, at the end of the speech, was I couldn't tell if he believes most Americans are idiots or if he just doesn't care. The only reason that matters is because it might help for some level of understanding. But the 'plan' was a broken promise, it does nothing but continue the illegal war and it's not what 'anti-war' voters voting for him thought they were getting.
Cedric: Trina, you say a few minutes you'd have this fantasy. I was about three sentences in when I realized no fantasies were coming true. For you, when did the realization hit?
Trina: I watched it on TV and so for me the cue was the visual. He was doing that weird, snobby thing with his head. When I saw that posing, I knew nothing was going to change.
Rebecca: Jim had a question or comment -- probably for C.I. -- and I'm sliding to Jim while I try to figure out who else needs to speak. Elaine has a cold and I promised her she didn't have to worry so her one comment will be it unless she decides otherwise and she's shaking her head "no" so that's it from her. Jim?
Jim: The one area you, C.I., graded him well on was the refugees. I was wondering about that.
C.I.: Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, made a fool and ass of herself at the United Nations yesterday speaking on that subject. Barack spoke better on that section. That wasn't me saying, "Great speech, Barack."
Jim: I know that. I'm just wanting to get this on the record because someone's going to e-mail.
C.I.: I did not think that was a great speech. The section highlighted was highlighted in contrast to Susan Rice's remarks which were supposed to be reflective of the White House and were not.
Rebecca: Okay. Betty, I'm looking at Ava and C.I.'s first pages and not seeing much by you. So how about you grade Barack and I'm sorry if someone else got left out.
Betty: I agree with C.I. on the refugee thing. And just to explain that, Susan Rice -- Condi II -- was calling for Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq. It is not safe for them to return. It wasn't just stupid -- her remarks -- they were dangerous statements. So, yes, I would say it's good to know that Barack's not trying to shove all the refugees back in Iraq the way Rice was. I agree with Ruth that it was poor word choices and poor assembly for the entire speech. He really reminded me of George W. Bush. He showed up to break a promise and tried to con us. Typical of the last eight years.
Rebecca: Okay and that's going to be it. Thank you to everyone who participated. All who read, whatever your own thoughts on today's 'plan' are, please make a point to discuss it with at least one person and help get Iraq in the focus.
Jim: Jumping in quick. Rush transcript. Typos are for your reading enjoyment.
Rebecca: Thank you! I forgot that. And at all sites but The Common Ills, today's Iraq snapshot will immediately follow.
Rebecca: We're doing an unplanned roundtable and participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava and Jim, me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Ruth of Ruth's Report. I wanted to invite Jim to participate and he and Betty are on the phone from C.I.'s house on the West Coast. Cedric is participating by phone and all the rest -- including C.I. -- are here at Trina's home on the East Coast. I hope I remembered everyone This is another Iraq roundtable. Ruth, why don't you explain the reason for it?
Ruth: Today at Camp Leujune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama revealed his Iraq 'plan' and C.I. covers it in today's snapshot for those who need a reference or additional information. We are seeing the usual faux lefties, the usual play-members of the 'anti-war' movement emerge with their simpering statements and we are also seeing others make statements that are very disturbing. We are not cowards and we are not idiots so it is important that we speak up at a time when alleged voices of peace refuse to do so.
Rebecca: There are several people attempting to speak right now. I'm going with Jim who is not attempting to speak because of the fact that we're going with the speech and additional comments elaborating on Ruth can come in later. Jim?
Jim: Okay, I think the way this works is we're going to talk about the speech. And, I'll start with where I'm confused. We looked to see which 'left' outlets were talking about it. The Nation has an article by Robert Dreyfuss that does call out the speech and we don't normally link to him but it's "Obama's Iraq Plan Ain't It." But Dreyfuss writes, "Obama didn't say anything about the US-Iraq accord signed last year that sets a 2011 deadline for the departure of all US forces." Is that right?
C.I.: No, that's incorrect. I don't what's going on. Maybe he couldn't make it through the speech but he is wrong. Early in the speech Barack says, "And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." That's not the only reference and, I believe this in the snapshot, the White House today has a set of talking points including Gates' press conference and including Barack's endorsement of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. I don't know Robert Dreyfuss, I have no idea why he made that claim. I can provide other examples if needed but the speech is supposed to be up at the White House website and we can link to it. Barack addressed it. That's not defending Barack. The treaty's a joke, we've all said that since before it passed the Iraqi Parliament. I am not trying to pick apart Robert Dreyfuss' analysis -- which I haven't read and wasn't aware of before Jim brought it up just now -- but I am stating that Barack mentioned the SOFA. It's in the speech.
Jim: Dreyfuss doesn't buy the SOFA either and goes on to write, "Now, of course, that deadline was always seen, by both sides, as (shall we say?) 'flexible.' Prime Minister Maliki, bowing to the rising nationalist trend in Iraq, made it seem like that he wants American forces to leave, but he doesn't. In fact, his top aides have told people in Washington that they want American troops to remain in Iraq for much longer, as long as they continue to build up Maliki's armed forces." Comment?
Ava: I'm jumping in because C.I. and I are taking notes and C.I.'s giving me a look. We have heard -- C.I. and I, Kat and Wally -- what Dreyfuss is saying, we've heard that repeatedly from members of Congress and others. Is it true? We assume it is. That's always been the speculation in DC.
Rebecca: Okay. Stan?
Stan: I looked up The Progressive. They've got nothing on the speech. They've got movie talk. Ruth Conniff offered her stale attacks on Bill Clinton. Everything about Ruth Conniff is dead on arrival. So she's at the right magazine. It's not just that they don't have anything on the speech, they've got nothing on Iraq on their main page. They really are useless.
Rebecca: World Can't Wait?
Cedric: I had them and can't get them to display.
Mike: I'm having that problem too. Cedric texted me on and I tried to. I noticed this last week too, that Fridays the site doesn't load.
Cedric: But a link for them, please. They're not going to play Barack suck up. Elaine?
Elaine: I had United for Peace and Justice and they have nothing on the speech but I did find it curious that they refuse to take part in the March 21st action but are suddenly encouraging local actions. That doesn't just strike me as counter-productive, I see it as destructive, an effort to harm what The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War are organizing. From IVAW's announcement:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Rebecca: I agree with you, Elaine, that does seem like United for Peace & Justice -- long hostile to A.N.S.W.E.R. and filled with Barack enablers and cheerleaders -- Carl, Tom, Leslie, etc. -- are attempting to harm the turnout for the planned March action. Typical garbage from faux 'leaders.' Speaking of faux 'leaders,' another 'anti-war' group is CODESTINK. Trina?
Trina: The surprise here is that I'm going to ask for a link. They actually did something, I was surprised as I'm sure most of you are. They call Barack's speech today a, this is a quote, "broken promise." Good for them. Of course, I-Need-Attention Benjamin has to be her usual little suck up self and supply what I will term a whorish statement. She's useless, she needs to shut the hell up and take herself a long vaction -- provided her handlers will approve it for her. But Dana Balicki has a good quote on the speech at the start and then she goes all Medea on us: "And there hasn't been any word on military bases left in Iraq that will continue to drain billions of dollars from US taxpayers at a time where that money is very much needed at home. But the withdrawal, and a time line, is a baby step forward from past policies. As citizens, it's our job to move Obama to take giant strides." That's the full quote.
Kat: I'm reading I-Need-Attention Benjamin's nonsense over Trina's shoulder. That is such garbage that if I was standing in a room with Medea, I would pie her lying ass myself. Her premise is that after George W. we should be grateful. Meada, you stupid idiot, are you trying to sound like Nancy Pelosi? Answer that question. Shame on Medea, shame on everyone for acting like George W. Bush is the baseline. Were the last eight years that we objected objecting because Bush was an underachiever? No, it was because he was a criminal. It's not good enough for the left to say, "Barack's a little better than Bush." No, Bush is a criminal. Any sane person should be a little better. A little better doesn't cut it. The country should never again suffer under anyone like W. And we don't grade by comparison. We don't take the worst occupant of the Oval Office -- worse than Nixon according to John Dean -- and use him as the baseline. That's like saying, "We had a serial killer for a president but now we just have an arsonist so let's all be happy!" No, it's unacceptable. Just like Medea's cowardly bulls**t. Call him out. Stop this sniveling and cowardice, I'm damn sick of it.
Stan: I think Kat just nailed one of our problems. We had a psychotic, crazed killer in the White House and some want to act like since Barack manages to wipe away his drool on his own, we should be grateful. That is completely screwed up. Thank you for pointing that out.
Kat: C.I. on impeachment this morning. And I'm being nodded at by C.I. to explain. Bush is a criminal who should have been impeached. If we refuse to hold him accountable -- as may happen -- we're saying Bush acted 'normal' and 'acceptable.' When we use him as a comparison for Barack, to argue that Barack's better than Bush, we are degrading ourselves as a country and as a people. That's not good enough, that's not a standard. That is embracing and okaying the crimes of George W. Bush because we are treating them as normal by being 'grateful' that Barack doesn't do them.
Ruth: And I will add that the speech resulted in a standing ovation. Kat has done a wonderful summary but I do not believe it was planned. C.I. was answering a question --
Ava: About John Walsh's "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again."
Ruth: Yes. And in the reply just took off.
C.I.: It wasn't planned, the energy in the room created it. Credit the people present for it.
Rebecca: C.I.'s being modest, as usual. It really was something and Kat's right to apply it here because CODESTINK is saying that they think George W. Bush is acceptable. When they offer those wimpy, 'it's a move finally,' embarrassing statements, they are putting a "CODESTINK approved" sticker on George W. Bush. They need to think about their actions -- but thinking has never been Medea's strong suit or Jodie's.
Trina: Do we want to link? We don't have to.
Rebecca: I'm gesturing to those present and everyone's shrugging so unless Betty, Jim or Cedric have an objection, the answer will be yes. At least they called it a broken promise and we'll applaud that they've finally done something, no matter how minor, with the hope that something else will follow. If it doesn't, screw 'em. But no one can claim we didn't attempt to be fair even with a group we've grown to despise. Marcia, you also had a website to check.
Marcia: I had Antiwar.com which is a site run by a libertarian, Justin Raimondo and he has a column entitled "The Silence of the Liberals." And I want to emphasize one section of it here:
Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?
Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces."
In short: we aren't leaving.
Marcia (Con't): It's a very strong piece and Justin had a really strong article. And, I'm blanking on what Geoff Morrell said they'd do. But didn't he list it?
Mike: Yes, yesterday's snapshot contains that. This is Morrell at the Pentagon Thursday when CNN's Barbara Starr was asking the hard questions. Morrell, "And the three basic areas where those forces would concentrate -- and, again, this is something the president and the secretary have spoken to -- are, number one, continuing to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continuting to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continue to help them train and equip, and support them in their operations. Number two, this force of whatever size it turns out to be would also conduct intelligence-driven, warrant-based combat operations against -- against terrorists, and tehy would do so assisting Iraqi security forces, who would be in the lead. And lastly, they would be required to protect American personnel and other U.S. assets in Iraq. So those are the three fundamental areas. But, you know, I've heard all this talk about it's diseingenous to say that combat forces are being drawn down; all forces are combat forces, and those that remain will be combat forces."
Betty: It's so stupid and this was the point that we all raised repeatedly -- with C.I. leading -- that it is word games. "Combat" or "non-combat." It's just a way to reclassify and keep troops on the ground. I want to insert Thomas E. Ricks speaking on Washington Unplugged, CBS News' online show, earlier this month, "But it was a false phraseology: 'combat troops.' Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat." It's word games and people are willing to play along. And they're taking his bad speech that they applauded today at face value. This is the same man who told them during the campaigns that he would put a 16-month plan into effect. He only hedged and hemmed when Hillary was out of the race. I don't know why we believe a word out of his mouth to begin with but when someone promises you 16-months and then they up it to 19, there's a problem if you can't grasp that you've been lied to and if you can't grasp that you need to be a little wary about future 'promises' from the same person.
Rebecca: Agreed. And we'll stay with Betty because she was the brave one who agreed to step into Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box to see how they handled it.
Betty: Well Arianna stuck her as in the air, scratched her paws in the kitty litter and walked off leaving her mess to stink up the entire net. Barack's speech is being treated as news and by that I mean they offer news links to it but apparently can't actually comment on it except for the rah-rah-rah VoteVets -- a Democratic Party enabler of some time. There is no critique, there is nothing. Apparently when she feels it is time to mock special-needs children, Arianna can go full out. When it's time to speak out against politicians who sell out the people and continue the illegal war, she needs to spend several hours with her scratching post first.
Rebecca: And Mike was going to check out Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Mike: They have a strong statement and I want to emphasize this section:
We must ensure that U.S. control of Iraq, which today is accomplished primarily through military force, is not maintained over the longer term through the use of more subtle legal, financial, economic, or political means. "The Iraqi people deserve the dignity of full sovereignty and control of their own nation," says Kelly Doughery, Executive Director of IVAW and former Military Police Sergeant, "and the only way to give this to them is by the immediate and complete withdrawal of all occupying forces from Iraq – this means withdrawing all military personnel, troops, and defense contractors, closing all military bases, ceasing air operations, and removing American interests intent on controlling Iraqi oil resources."
Mike (Con't): I wanted to include that section because there's a site that never cares about Iraq -- I believe it last wrote about Iraq . . . never. But this site is pushing the angle that Kelly Doughery is on board with Barack's 'plan' and she's not.
Ava: Mike, just to be clear, you're pronouncing her last name that way because?
Mike: That's how IVAW has it.
Ava: It must be a typo. We'll leave it that way in the quote from IVAW but her name is Kelly Dougherty -- with a "t" in the last name. It's not the end of the world and typos aren't uncommon in this community but when you said "Doughery" the second time, C.I. and I were wondering what was up with that.
Rebecca: Okay, Stan, I'm tossing to you for a grade.
Stan: CODESTINK gets a thumbs up for calling it out in an action alert that works if you pull out the quotes. We graded generously. Robert Dreyfuss is the only 'front pager' at a left site who called it out. We'll give him an A+. We give that grade out to IVAW and Antiwar.com as well. The Progressive, The Huffington Post and United for Peace and Justice receive failing grades.
Rebecca: I need Ruth, Trina and Cedric to speak during this section. We're getting close to the end and I need you three to up your participation. How about your impressions of the speech or 'plan' and I want to start with Cedric because he's participating by phone.
Cedric: I was honestly hoping he would surprise us. I was hoping what had come all week before his speech would end up being some elaborate fake out on the press and he would declare something that we -- those who want to end the illegal war -- could take some pride in. Why was I thinking that? There was no reason to think that and Barack certainly has done nothing to warrant hope. But it's the six year mark next month and I was honestly hoping that he would actually do something. It was fantasy, I wasn't being reality based. But I was hoping to find something to praise and I read the speech this afternoon and there was nothing to praise in it. It was very disappointing.
Ruth: Cedric, can I ask a question?
Cedric: Sure.
Ruth: You say this was a fantasy and it seems rather elaborate. Were you thinking of "I was wrong" statements?
Cedric: Absolutely. I was. I had this whole unrealistic day dream where I would have to post, "Hey, I was completely about Barack. Glad to be. I was a fool and I missed it." I actually did entertain thoughts that I would have to write something like that. So it wasn't a passing fancy, it was rather elaborate. It wasn't reality-based but, yeah, I was hoping that somehow the war would end.
Ruth: I can understand that. I'll focus on the actual remarks in terms of what the word assembly said to me. "Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." How pompous can you be? I loved C.I. comparing it to the famous passage in Lewis Carroll's The Walrus and The Carpenter. That comparison works because that is a story geared for children and Barack gave a speech that was like he was speaking down to the country. I detected a lot of Bully Boy George W. in the speech. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." That is just an annoying sentence to hear, just the word choice and the order. It grates on the ears. "Let me say this as plainly as I can". I believe that the statement which follows should make clear whether the words were plain. It was a bad speech and that section was like in a film where the leads have no chemistry so they have to keep telling the audience, "I am falling in love with you. I think we're in love. We are so happy." These are things you should be able to tell on your own. Trina:
Trina: Well, I didn't have the elaborate fantasy that Cedric did; however, there were times, brief periods of what-if in the lead up to today. Periods where I thought, "Maybe he'll surprise us." And, like Cedric, it had to do with my just wanting the illegal war to be over. It wasn't based on reality. It was more a desire to see the Iraq War ended. From the start, it was obvious nothing had changed. What worried me the most, at the end of the speech, was I couldn't tell if he believes most Americans are idiots or if he just doesn't care. The only reason that matters is because it might help for some level of understanding. But the 'plan' was a broken promise, it does nothing but continue the illegal war and it's not what 'anti-war' voters voting for him thought they were getting.
Cedric: Trina, you say a few minutes you'd have this fantasy. I was about three sentences in when I realized no fantasies were coming true. For you, when did the realization hit?
Trina: I watched it on TV and so for me the cue was the visual. He was doing that weird, snobby thing with his head. When I saw that posing, I knew nothing was going to change.
Rebecca: Jim had a question or comment -- probably for C.I. -- and I'm sliding to Jim while I try to figure out who else needs to speak. Elaine has a cold and I promised her she didn't have to worry so her one comment will be it unless she decides otherwise and she's shaking her head "no" so that's it from her. Jim?
Jim: The one area you, C.I., graded him well on was the refugees. I was wondering about that.
C.I.: Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, made a fool and ass of herself at the United Nations yesterday speaking on that subject. Barack spoke better on that section. That wasn't me saying, "Great speech, Barack."
Jim: I know that. I'm just wanting to get this on the record because someone's going to e-mail.
C.I.: I did not think that was a great speech. The section highlighted was highlighted in contrast to Susan Rice's remarks which were supposed to be reflective of the White House and were not.
Rebecca: Okay. Betty, I'm looking at Ava and C.I.'s first pages and not seeing much by you. So how about you grade Barack and I'm sorry if someone else got left out.
Betty: I agree with C.I. on the refugee thing. And just to explain that, Susan Rice -- Condi II -- was calling for Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq. It is not safe for them to return. It wasn't just stupid -- her remarks -- they were dangerous statements. So, yes, I would say it's good to know that Barack's not trying to shove all the refugees back in Iraq the way Rice was. I agree with Ruth that it was poor word choices and poor assembly for the entire speech. He really reminded me of George W. Bush. He showed up to break a promise and tried to con us. Typical of the last eight years.
Rebecca: Okay and that's going to be it. Thank you to everyone who participated. All who read, whatever your own thoughts on today's 'plan' are, please make a point to discuss it with at least one person and help get Iraq in the focus.
Jim: Jumping in quick. Rush transcript. Typos are for your reading enjoyment.
Rebecca: Thank you! I forgot that. And at all sites but The Common Ills, today's Iraq snapshot will immediately follow.