You want purity, have at it. Seal yourself in an envelope and mail yourself to nowhere. But in the real world, the illegal war is not going to end because every member of Congress starts calling it "illegal." They are going to shape their messages. The bulk of the American people do not grasp that the Iraq War was illegal. (You can thank Panhandle Media for that because they soft-pedal that point.) The bulk of the people against the Iraq War today do not grasp that is illegal. Politicians are NEVER going to make points that are that far ahead of the public's recognition. The people have turned against the war, no question. But the words they use are "wrong." So when an idiot (and that's the only word for her) attempts to rip apart Hillary's call for the troops to come home, she's playing purity police and ignoring reality. But that's another feature. Scahill, if you want people to take your suggestion seriously, you need to take it seriously and thus far you've provided no indication that you do.
The idiot's Cindy Sheehan. That would be the alleged Peace Mom who has never called out Barack Obama but showed up last week for another Bash Hillary article. How dare, Cindy hissed, Hillary say that US troops had done everything asked of them! Well, idiot, the reality is that US troops did do everything asked of them. The reality is that the American public is agreed on that point. 'Peace' Mom wants to tear apart what was a call to end the war.
She showed up with "Political Expediency" (we'd recommend Dissident Voice to read the column; however, we won't link to the column because we don't link to trash). Cindy's attacking/whining about Rob Reiner and Steve Bing in the column and, disclosure, C.I. knows both and Ava knows Bing. Cindy wants the 'politically correct' thing done, not the expedient one.
How's that working out for you, Cindy?
Last time we checked, your campaign had turned into a joke. Last time we checked, you were only discussed in terms of what many saw as your hurt feelings that Iraq Veterans Against the War didn't want you to stage a demonstration the weekend before the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War when Winter Soldier had long ago been announced.
Last time we checked, you were haunting Common Dreams leaving mash notes to Bambi and hisses for Hillary on all those "Saint Barack" pieces Common Dreams reposts (while begging for money, they actually originate no original content). Last time we checked, despite publicly endorsing Cynthia McKinney, you'd written nothing about her in the last months but had rushed to prop up Bambi. Want to talk about "political expediency"? Look in the mirror.
As e-mail after e-mail to all sites noted last week when Cindy Sheehan's latest ditherings went up all over the place online, Barack Obama voted to fund the illegal war repeatedly and did so after Casey Sheehan died and Cindy's column appears either eager to ignore that fact or operating under the principal that only one death mattered. That may seem harsh but it's a common perception in the e-mails we have all received.
So if she just wanted to rage, she should be raging against both. If she wanted to be helpful, the thing to do is not pick apart Hillary's statements but buy a clue and grasp that they are representative of the bulk of Americans wanting to end the illegal war.
Here is the statement by Hillary that so enraged Cindy Sheehan (C.I. noted Clinton's statement in last Monday's "Iraq snapshot" which was reposted at all comunity sites posting that day) that she excerpts it at the top of her attack:
I want to take a moment to note yesterday's heartbreaking news that, five years after the start of this war, there have been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. Tens of thousands of our brave men and women have also suffered serious wounds, both visible and invisible, to their bodies, their minds and their hearts. As president, I intend to honor their extraordinary service and the sacrifices of them and their families by ending this war and bringing them home as quickly and responsibly as possible.
We all believe that every death and every wound was in vain. We're not running for political office and (obviously by this article alone) not trying to win friends. Our job is to be independent. Our job is to hit hard. Our job is to pressure. Our job is to tell our truths. We're not really sure how Cindy defines her job these days but Hillary's statement isn't "objectionable."
We think Sheehan's useless at this point and has made herself so.
She could have been Peace Mom by holding both candidates accountable. But she doesn't do that. She never decries Barack Obama's non-action. In her column, she attacks Hillary for Bill Clinton's use of sanctions and we're no fans of sanctions but are aware that Bambi's 'anti-war' speech in 2002 called for 'containment' which is the continuation of sanctions. Maybe big words confuse Cindy? We're equally aware that Bambi accepted the myth of WMDs and, in that 2002 speech, presents them as factual and existing.
We supported Cindy's right to run for Congress from the eighth district and, unlike Hillary Haters, haven't taken to calling her out for the fact that it's not been her home district. Nor have we made like the Hillary Haters and told Cindy to drop out of the race. But if she wants to run a real campaign, she's going to have to start buying a few clues. We withdrew our endosement of Cindy sometime ago. We did so exactly for the kind of nonsense she offered last week.
Barack Obama was not 'right' about the illegal war. He was wrong about WMDs and we don't support sanctions. But, like Cindy, Barack plays the I-was-right card over and over (see Ava and C.I.'s commentary last week for how that card actually plays out in Congress). We don't care who's right or wrong at this point, we care about ending the illegal war.
The peace movement in the US has largely been a joke, a non-stop joke. Students and veterans have formed new organizations because they existing ones were nothing but vanity clubs and that's the ugly reality no one in the peace movement wants to admit. Ending the illegal war requires bringing in as many Americans as possible and those who once supported the illegal war and now see it as a disaster for whatever reason, aren't hopping on board with a crowd that can't shut up about "I was right all along!" They turn off more people than they ever realize as they assume that bragging is more important than ending the illegal war.
This community has repeatedly defended Cindy Sheehan over the years. When Pig took to an alternative weekly to make fun of her, we called it out. When others trashed her, we called it out. When she angered The Daily Toilet Scrubbers, we called it out. When she decided to run, we not only endorsed her, we made a point to call out the ones offering "Cindy, Don't Run!" columns.
We do not believe, even now, that Cindy is an attention seeker of any kind. We believe she honestly wants to end the illegal war. But we do not support her non-stop slamming of Hillary Clinton at every chance she gets while she (a) ignores Bambi's own War Hawk nature (Cindy met with Hugo Chavez and praised him, why isn't she calling Bambi out on his comments about Hugo Chavez and his desire to send US forces into Venezuela?) and (b) refuses to use any of her column time to promote the candidate she supposedly supports (Cynthia McKinney).
Cindy's had several awakenings along the way and they've all been painful. Last May, her awakening was realizing that many 'peace organizations' only existed to elect Democrats. She left the Democratic Party and was villified for it. She also announced she was leaving the peace movement but then backtracked on that.
The realities are that Camp Casey is not now, as she stated publicly it would be, a haven for those who resist. The reality is that Gold Star Families For Peace, her organization, hasn't posted anything new to their website in over a year. The reality is that Cindy's doing nothing to end the war.
Her columns do promote Hillary Hatred and if she's now supporting Barack Obama, she needs to get honest about it. However, should she do so, she better be prepared for questions because the Democrats largely kicked her to the curb and the left not affiliated with the Democratic Party is fully aware that Bambi has stated that Venezuela and, specifically, Hugo Chavez are two things a Barack Obama presidency will 'address.'
As we've long noted, Barack also promotes war in Africa and, as others seem to forget, the whole point of abandoning Europe and setting up bases in Africa was that the US wants to stage new wars in that region. Bully Boy, attempting to secure land for bases, was rebuffed by African leaders. Do you really think "Son of Kenya" is going to be rebuffed? Do you really think some of the hype about Barack on the part of the same media that sold you the illegal war isn't over the fact that US imperialism can expand?
Hillary trying to get US bases is just another White impearilist to rebuff. (She's made no statements indicating she wants the US to take part in wars in Africa. By contrast, Samantha Power got on board Bambi's Senate work to sell him war on Darfur and he still echoes Power's opinion.) "Son of Kenya" could get those bases. And it's amazing that so many allegedly 'anti-war' types are silent on that fact.
The Iraq War has taken place. It is ongoing. It's laughable to see 'peace' 'leaders' refuse to call out what's set to come in Africa. It's laughable to watch them avoid using the term "AFRICOM."
AFRICOM was supposed to be up and running by now. It is up and running . . . in Germany but the failure to secure land deals for bases has stymied it somewhat.
May 23, 2002, Mike Crawley's article in The Christian Science Monitor opened with the following:
In the search for alternative sources of oil outside the politically volatile Middle East, the US is increasingly turning toward a place not normally seen as a major energy producer: sub-Saharan Africa.
The region's crude oil production surpassed 4 million barrels a day in 2000 – more than Iran, Venezuela, or Mexico. The US currently gets 16 percent of its oil imports from sub-Saharan Africa -- almost as much as from Saudi Arabia. And, according to projections by the National Intelligence Council, that proportion will reach 25 percent by 2015, surpassing the entire Persian Gulf. The vast majority of it will come from a stretch of coastline between Nigeria and Angola called the Gulf of Guinea.
Today, the African Oil Policy Initiative Group, a lobby group with members from the oil industry and various arms of government, will present a white paper in Washington. The document urges Congress and the Bush administration to encourage greater extraction of oil across Africa, and to declare the Gulf of Guinea "an area of vital interest" to the US.
There is some indication that the Bush administration already feels that way. Walter Kansteiner, the assistant secretary of State for Africa said earlier this year: "African oil is of national strategic interest to us, and it will increase and become more important as we go forward."
"African Oil Policy Initiative Group, a lobby group with members from the oil industry and various arms of government" wants Africa declared "'an area of vital interest' to the US" and you're not bothered? "African oil is of national strategic interest to us," declares Assistant Secretery of US State for Africa Walter Kansteiner, and you can't connect the dots?
While US imperialism plays chess, the 'peace' movement plays checkers. You saw the usual idiots like BuzzFlash mourn Samantha Power's downfall. (Davy D did as well on KPFA in an idiotic report that Aileen Alfandary thought was special it was worthy of re-broadcast in the next day's headlines segments -- despite the fact that even the basics, such as Samantha Power's name, were bungled by Davy D. You're really bagging your credibility when you're mourning, on air, the kicked to the curb nature of Power and you can't even get her name correct. "Power," "Samantha Power," not "Powers.")
Samantha Power isn't just a War Hawk, she's one published by The Nation. The Nation's yet to seriously address the planned coming wars in Africa and maybe they're not overly concerned about 'those people.' Samantha Power isn't just a War Hawk, she was one of the key leaders in Our Modern Day Carrie Nations calling for 'action' on Darfur. Their slogan was, for those missed it, "Bring the troops home and send them to Darfur!" And no one in the peace movement can support that unless they've bought into the non-stop lies about Darfur where fighting did occur (and continues at much lower levels) but was not genocide (and, in fact, the 'numbers' cited included deaths that had nothing to do with the 'battle').
Those late to the party can refer to Julie Hollar's "The Humanitarian Tempatation" (Extra!). [You can also see Elaine's "My pacificism isn't a cloak I wear some days and others put on war drag" from 2006.] Illegal wars, unneccessary wars, are sold to a country's people via lies and Our Modern Day Carrie Nations spent $15 million in 2006 alone trying to sell war on Darfur. We pointed it out, we highlighted Stephanie Strom and Lydia Polgreen's "Advocacy Group's Publicity Campaign on Darfur Angers Relief Organizations" (New York Times), where was the peace movement? Then or now?
Largely silent as they remain today. We can get article after article about "the coming war on Iran!" (and have gotten those articles for four years now) but there is a huge silence on Africa. There is a huge silence on the US imperalistic designs for Africa and there is a huge silence on the realities of the "Save Darfur" crazies. Last week saw the American Idiot who moved to Canada because Bully Boy made it into the White House (too useless to fight for her country and Constitution, but happy to pack up her bags and head for the border) demand a viewing boycott of the Olympics over China. Over their attacks on Tibet? No, over Darfur.
She's one more Useless Idiot making up Panhandle Media and one that Americans in this country, battling the abuses of the Bully Boy, really don't need to hear from. You took your cowardly ass to Canada, no Americans needs to your letters-in-exile advice. [War resisters are not cowards. They make decisions not to participate in the illegal war. We applaud them. There is a world of difference between someone ordered to fight an illegal war seeking refugee status in Canada and someone who is miffed that the Bully Boy made it into the White House deciding to 'protest' by moving to Canada.] From the safety of Canada, the Useless Idiot now wants to advise Americans. Why the hell any American should listen to an Exile in Cowardville is beyond us but what we do know is that, as usual, the idiot misses the point.
There's a reason that while Cindy Sheehan and other protesters in 2005 couldn't meet with the Bully Boy that he gladly invited Our Modern Day Carrie Nations into the White House to meet with them. The reason is that their actions, knowingly or unknowingly, serve the goals fo US imperialism.
That's something Cindy Sheehan once decried and often cited Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket but these days refuses to call out the candidate with the best chance of securing military bases in Africa and continuing the goals of US imperialism.
It gives us no pleasure to call out Cindy Sheehan but her actions make it necessary. In fairness to her, outside of Bonnie Faulkner and Keith Harmon Snow, it's not as if most have bothered to even warn you about what's coming, let alone call out Our Modern Day Carrie Nations.
For the record, Davy D, Samantha Power blurbed the US military's counter-insurgency manual. Instead of whining about poor Samantha Power, we should all be grateful that, for now, a War Hawk was brought down. For the record, Davy D, "monster" was the least of Power's remarks. For the record, she told the BBC that Obama would not stick to any pledge about withdrawing US combat troops in 16 months of landing in the White House. For the record, Davy D, she publicly insulted England's prime minister Gordon Brown. All of those things led to her stepping down. But waste everyone's time with another bad report about 'evil' Hillary, one in which you don't even get right the name of the War Hawk you're trying to defend: Samantha Power.
Hillary Clinton's statement in full about the 2004 mark was:
Five years after the start of the war in Iraq, there have now been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. On this solemn day, we remember the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform. We honor the tens of thousands more who have suffered wounds both visible and invisible, wounds that scare bodies and minds, and hearts as well. We honor the sacrifices of their families, a price paid in empty places at the dinner table, in the struggle to raise children alone, in the wrenching reversal of parents burying children.
In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did.
So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'
I recall the great honor of meeting many of our brave men and women who have served our country. In meeting them, I am always struck by how, no matter how great their suffering, no matter how grave their own injuries, they always say the same thing to me: 'Promise that you'll take care of my buddies. They're still over there. Promise you'll keep them safe.' I have looked those men and women in the eye. I have made that promise. And I intend to honor it by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely.
We don't agree that the US was in Iraq for freedom. We are aware that many Americans buy that in one way or another. Some buy that was the aim (it was never the aim) and that the aim went wrong and argue that, therefore, the Iraq War should end.
Hillary was quoted in the snapshot and here's how that came about, pay attention, Cindy, C.I. called around Monday afternoon to find out who was making a statement or had made a statement about the 4,000 mark that was reached on Sunday. The first person called was a friend in Russ Feingold's office who said, "He's not made a statement." Russ Feingold is firmly against the illegal war. But Senator Feingold made no statement on Monday. The 4,000 mark was a milestone and needed to be noted. Many, in press and in politics, chose to sit it out. If Cindy felt Hillary was offering crumbs, she might need to take a look at others who didn't even offer that. That's not a slam at Feingold but, note, he was far from the only politician (for the war or against it) who elected to be silent when the 4,000 mark was reached. (For the record, Ava called a friend at the Hillary campaign to find out if she had issued a statement and then passed the phone to C.I.) The bulk of our members of Congress had said nothing about the milestone.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Crackpot Stephen Zunes expressing Hillary Hatred
Iraq. Forget the Shias and the Sunnis, what's America going to do about the loonies?
See Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, Christians, Palestinians, Assyrians, Yezidis, et al should determine what their country will do, not the US. But what America can do is determine what to do about American loonies.
Take university professor Stephen Zunes, the loon whom Mike awarded Dumb Ass of the Week to and who, as C.I. outlines, more than earned it. Zunes has become a crackpot and you can see how pathetic Panhandle Media truly is as they waive him on through without correction.
Zunes wrote "Hillary Clinton's Iraq Speech at GWU: An Annotated Critique" (Foreign Policy in Focus, March 25, 2008) which itself requires an annotated critique because it's full of half-truths and outright lies. The piece had an 'editor,' Emily Schwartz Greco, who apparently wasn't overly concerned with either truth or the chore of editing. Foreign Policy in Focus bills itself as a "think tank without walls" but, as C.I. pointed out, it reveals itself as a "think tank without thought." Common Dreams, which never misses a chance to attack Hillary Clinton, was so taken with the piece that they didn't think facts mattered either.
In one of his BIGGEST LIES in the scribble, Loony Zuny hops on his soap box to begin a sentence with, "During her one trip to Iraq, in February 2005, . . ."
Her one trip to Iraq?
We haven't laughed so hard since another 'professor,' Patricia J. Williams of The Nation, declared on KPFA to Andrea Lewis that Barack Obama voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution. When a caller rightly pointed out to Columbia's 'professor' Patti that Bambi wasn't in the US Senate in 2002, Patti lost it on air and began snarling.
See that's how our 'great' 'minds' on the left work. They LIE and then they LIE some more. And when they get called on it, they ATTACK. And then they go on to repeat the LIE in other outlets.
Loony Zunes is semi-regular on KPFA so you can be pretty sure he's showed up as an 'expert' on various programs to promote his latest lie that Hillary only visited Iraq once and, chances are, unless it was a call-in segment, no one corrected his LIE. Going to believe Liar Zunes or your own eyes?
Thanksgiving 2003, Hillary Clinton visited Iraq in a heavily covered trip. She distributed toothpaste and toothbrushes to the troops in one of the more heavily reported segments. At the time, the right-wing went into overtime with lies about how the troops hate Hillary and how they refused to meet with her, how they refused to eat with her, how . . . All lies and, here's the thing, Panhandle Media back then could call those lies out. Today, they just want the unqualified Barack Obama installed into the White House, so they ignore not only factual events, but ones they once stressed and corrected.
It's these kind of LIES that has led many to begin arguing it's time to pull Panhandle Media's funding. You're seeing them self-destruct before your own eyes. Pop some popcorn and enjoy the fireworks and implosions because, as they've demonstrated through their actions, truth has never been a priority for them. They've discredited their own reputations (such as they were) to pimp a candidate. Since the candidate was unqualified, they had to LIE and they've demonstrated over and over, that's the only thing they have to offer these days.
See Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, Christians, Palestinians, Assyrians, Yezidis, et al should determine what their country will do, not the US. But what America can do is determine what to do about American loonies.
Take university professor Stephen Zunes, the loon whom Mike awarded Dumb Ass of the Week to and who, as C.I. outlines, more than earned it. Zunes has become a crackpot and you can see how pathetic Panhandle Media truly is as they waive him on through without correction.
Zunes wrote "Hillary Clinton's Iraq Speech at GWU: An Annotated Critique" (Foreign Policy in Focus, March 25, 2008) which itself requires an annotated critique because it's full of half-truths and outright lies. The piece had an 'editor,' Emily Schwartz Greco, who apparently wasn't overly concerned with either truth or the chore of editing. Foreign Policy in Focus bills itself as a "think tank without walls" but, as C.I. pointed out, it reveals itself as a "think tank without thought." Common Dreams, which never misses a chance to attack Hillary Clinton, was so taken with the piece that they didn't think facts mattered either.
In one of his BIGGEST LIES in the scribble, Loony Zuny hops on his soap box to begin a sentence with, "During her one trip to Iraq, in February 2005, . . ."
Her one trip to Iraq?
We haven't laughed so hard since another 'professor,' Patricia J. Williams of The Nation, declared on KPFA to Andrea Lewis that Barack Obama voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution. When a caller rightly pointed out to Columbia's 'professor' Patti that Bambi wasn't in the US Senate in 2002, Patti lost it on air and began snarling.
See that's how our 'great' 'minds' on the left work. They LIE and then they LIE some more. And when they get called on it, they ATTACK. And then they go on to repeat the LIE in other outlets.
Loony Zunes is semi-regular on KPFA so you can be pretty sure he's showed up as an 'expert' on various programs to promote his latest lie that Hillary only visited Iraq once and, chances are, unless it was a call-in segment, no one corrected his LIE. Going to believe Liar Zunes or your own eyes?
Thanksgiving 2003, Hillary Clinton visited Iraq in a heavily covered trip. She distributed toothpaste and toothbrushes to the troops in one of the more heavily reported segments. At the time, the right-wing went into overtime with lies about how the troops hate Hillary and how they refused to meet with her, how they refused to eat with her, how . . . All lies and, here's the thing, Panhandle Media back then could call those lies out. Today, they just want the unqualified Barack Obama installed into the White House, so they ignore not only factual events, but ones they once stressed and corrected.
It's these kind of LIES that has led many to begin arguing it's time to pull Panhandle Media's funding. You're seeing them self-destruct before your own eyes. Pop some popcorn and enjoy the fireworks and implosions because, as they've demonstrated through their actions, truth has never been a priority for them. They've discredited their own reputations (such as they were) to pimp a candidate. Since the candidate was unqualified, they had to LIE and they've demonstrated over and over, that's the only thing they have to offer these days.
Highlights
This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.
"How 'we' lose" -- Betty's latest chapter which is both (a) a classic and (b) a source of tension for some readers. On the latter, Wally and Cedric did not include this Saturday chapter under "Recommended" in their Saturday post and some are offended. It was an oversight and an accident and if you read their Saturday post, you will see "" and that's where Betty's chapter was supposed to go. They will recommend it on Monday. They were waiting Saturday to highlight it and had Mike on the phone asking, "Are you up yet?" (Meaning was their joint-post up yet.) That's due to the fact that Mike posts C.I.'s entries at The Common Ills on Saturday. C.I. does the entries early in the morning, saves to draft, Ava, Kat and C.I. fly home and, after Mike gets back from dropping them off at the airport, he waits for Wally and Cedric who are the last to post on Saturday. With Mike calling them over and over (C.I.'s last post on Saturday includes "The following community sites have updated since Friday morning" which is C.I.'s way of making sure every community site gets at least one link), they get rushed. They thought they were done and e-mailed the posts to their sites only to find out later that day that they forgot Betty. It was an oversight. Yes, this is the second time that happened and when it happened last time, they picked it up on Monday. They will this week as well. Betty says, "I never knew so many people read my site!" :D They do. And they love Betty and her character Betinna. But, honest folks, it was an oversight on Wally and Cedric's part, not intentional.
"Dried Tomatoes with Pasta in the Kitchen" -- Trina's latest and she explains how, around the country, Jeremiah Wright's damning of the United States is not being as easily dismissed as the groupies (in and out of the media) hoped.
"I Hate The War" -- Jim asked us to highlight this prominently. It was the most requested highlight request to Third. But Jim wanted it highlighted so Kat should share her story. C.I. wrote it and for those who don't know, in addition to what goes up at The Common Ills and writing here, C.I. also writes a column for all the community newsletters except the UK Computer Gurus' newsletter. So Thursday, three entries at The Common Ills during the day and one topic declared on hold by Jim (covered in Wednesday's snapshot and the editorial here this week). Then Thursday evening, participating in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin, Ava and C.I. speaking to another group right after (Kat skipped it because she was tired). Coming back to the hotel, writing the column for the gina & krista round-robin and the column for Polly's Brew. And then doing this Thursday night entry for The Common Ills. Kat picks up here. "I always say, if there's a problem, wake me. If we're not in a suite, call me, I'll come over right away. So C.I. calls and asks me to come over and read this. I do and don't see any problem with it. I loved it. I thought it was great. But C.I. really felt like it wasn't up to standard and one of the reasons was that Jim had already placed a hold on one topic and another topic got placed on hold Thursday evening. So two of the biggest topics were off limits and C.I. had covered just about everything else except for a magazine article that will be worked into the snapshots next week. Jim wanted me to tell that story because he agrees placing a hold on things so that Third can grab them can leave people without anything to write."
"Not that into Ms. these days" -- Jim placed a hold on this topic as well. It was Kat's topic and she brought it up in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. Kat had to blog early Saturday morning and "I didn't have anything else to write about it. Jim asked for a hold. Is Jim going to blog for me? No. Okay, then I have to write about what ever comes to mind. And, as Jim will tell you, we've got one more piece to do here and then we're done. And this placed on hold topic won't even come up unless I mention it in our quick piece we're about to do. So if I had held this, it wouldn't have been covered." None of that is said to slam or pick on Jim and, again, Jim wanted it noted and noted prominently.
"Quiz " -- Ruth's blogging about a topic that two members participating in the roundtable brought up. After the roundtable, Ruth called Mike who could grab the topic and blog about it with no fallout. Ruth said she'd grab it. (Fallout from C.I. Mike's like "a puppy" and C.I. holds nothing against him; however, C.I. wouldn't hold anything against any of us. As Ruth noted, there was nothing said about the post but Elaine says her guess is that "you" in critics referred not just to C.I. but to this site.) Bambi stole. Last week Jim included it in an article he wrote for this site ("Theft, C.I.'s not Bambi's speechwriter"). C.I. didn't want the article written and when Jim read his piece to all of us, C.I. asked that the section on a friend with the Bambi campaign confirming/acknowledging be pulled. Jim pulled it because we were all tired and it was going to be a long back and forth. The theft was such an issue that C.I. tried to calm the community on Wednesday by noting it in the snapshot in passing. It flared up in the roundtable for the roundrobin. Ruth grabbed it here. She included what Jim had been told (with Jim's permission.) It figures that the best section of Bambi's lousy speech was ripped off from someone else.
"Jeremiah Wright's words are offensive!" -- Marcia's wonderful post which led Jim requesting (after it was up) that we hold off on this as well. We would do a roundtable. It didn't happen. (We have a quickie roundtable of some sort to do and then the edition is over. It may get noted there.) Betty was going to guest blog for Rebecca and address this topic on Friday but Jim had placed a hold on it. For those wondering about Jim's hold, Rebecca points out that one week -- only one -- we had nothing. Ava and C.I. went off to write their TV commentary. Came back and we ended up inspired by their topic and doing features that basically raided Ava and C.I.'s commentary. Due to that happening, Jim has been in panic mode and afraid that we might hit a wall one week and have nothing. That edition lasted until four p.m. Sunday our time (for those who continued participating -- Mike and Wally plus the core six of Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.) and had started at ten p.m. on Saturday (EST on all times). It was a nightmare. After that, Jim began saying "let's put a hold on" this or that to make sure some topics would be in the ready should we end up hitting a wall again. Kat says, "As Maria McKee sings, 'Only once, only once'." So we do understand Jim's holds (although Elaine points out that for C.I. they pile up more than the rest of us and it's not uncommon for Jim to have placed a hold on six different topics that C.I.'s started covering at The Common Ills). But the other side of the holds is that those of us with other websites end up wondering what to write about. On Wednesday, Mike really wanted to write about Jeremiah Wright and follow up on C.I.'s "Damn or defend" issue but that was claimed already by Jim for this week's editorial (already written and it's the title). So it does have an impact and Dona's imposed a new rule this writing edition which is Jim can hold only five topics per week "and anyone can do like Kat and just ignore him. It's not the end of the world."
"Barack Obama loses a delegate" & "Super! Barack Obama loses a delegate!" -- which is exactly what Elaine and Mike did here. This was going to be a big feature. It's still not written and won't be. C.I. caught it and included it in the snapshot. Mike and Elaine avoided writing about it but they pulled it from the snapshot and led their Friday posts with it and then followed up with a single paragraph of their own. If you missed it, a delegate in Texas for Obama called in to The Diane Rehm Show Friday morning and announced that, due to Jeremiah Wright, he was not going to be a delegate for Obama.
"no, it's not over" -- Ava and C.I. have been very upfront about the fact that they are lobbying super delegates (that they know) for Hillary. Last week, Elaine joined them in that action. There are many big donors doing that. Rebecca wrote about it here and noted one of the actions the "brain trust" was doing (Rebecca's term for big DNC donors supporting Hillary and thinking outside the box). It's the action that had MoveOn in an uproar. Grow up, WalkOn, you useless piece of crap.
"This is how Pretty Boys 'work'" & "THIS JUST IN! BAMBI WORKING FOR HIMSELF!" --
Bambi went to vacation in the Virign Islands and Bully Boy Press and Cedric's Big Mix were there! In this installment, Bambi's getting 'drunk' on Shirley Temples. By the way, there was a joint-post they did with C.I. this week that never went up because Cedric made the mistake of mentioning it to Jim who said, "No, no, no! Ava and C.I. are tackling that in their upcoming book review!" :D Dictating Thursday's snapshot, C.I. mentioned the book review as an aside. It wasn't supposed to make it into the snapshot but the friend taking the dictation misunderstood and it did. Since then, it's a huge topic in e-mails to this site. They may or may not break street date on the review. They aren't writing it yet. They've read the 'book.' Sometime ago, in fact. They're tossing lines back and forth. This week, they ended up with two paragraphs which they've condensed to the two opening lines. It will be something to read.
"A really bad restaurant" -- Kat is on the road with Ava and C.I. speaking out against the war almost every week and it can be very hard to do that all day and then try to find a topic to write about. Kat also says she's the laziest of all of us (we disagree). This post had nothing to do with the illegal war or with politics. We all enjoyed it (especially Trina who asked that we note her enjoyment). Kat wrote about a food establishment she'd visited that night and how disappointing it was.
"Hillary and Ireland" -- Kat flies her Irish-American flag and says back off with your crap about Hillary not doing anything on Ireland. Kat visits her relatives there very often and spent at least five weeks in a row there in 2006 when a sick relative was dying. Don't tell Kat about Ireland, she knows all about it.
"The race continues" -- Elaine is a longtime and big donor to the DNC. She wasn't lobbying on behalf of Hillary. Then CounterPunch published their latest attack and smear job on Hillary. Elaine had enough. She explains in this post. You'll notice that CounterPunch has been delinked by all community sites. Bye-bye, losers. Note, Kat just went to check on the others. She's there, the rest of us are participating by phone. Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava are editing features and proofing them. Ava and C.I. apologize to Rebecca because they included her in the TV commentary and then used spell check. Spell check destroyed the last half of their TV commentary. "Obama" became "Obama.ns.amp" and there were other problems. They can't link to Rebecca but will do so next week. (They just wanted to fix the entry.) But an Isaiah update. Isaiah did a comic for this Sunday morning. C.I.'s been uploading it over and over at Flickr with no luck for one hour and twenty-three minutes and is now trying again. It's called "Struggling for Maturity." It will go up if there's any way at all and C.I. was using this period of time to focus on that and proofing the commentary with Ava. Kat notes, no spell check on any feature due to the problem Ava and C.I. had. No one has time to go through and fix a third of the article if spell check messes up so just live with typos.
"4,000 dead and the war drags on . . .," "u.s. death toll in iraq reaches 4,000," "4,000 US service members dead from an illegal war," "The 4,000 mark," "Recipe for disaster," "4,000 is the US death toll in Iraq," "Wake up, 4,000 are dead," "4,000 dead," "4,000 US service members dead in a never-ending, illegal war," "The 4,000 mark," "THIS JUST IN! 'COOKIES' SAYS RUMSFLED!" and "Still a cakewalk?" -- every community site (including this one) got back online Sunday night to note that the 4,000 mark had been reached. It was important, it was news. Even if others didn't treat it as such.
"Delegates and letting the race continue" -- we all take the issue of the delegates from Florida and Michigan being seated at the DNC convention very seriously (and seated for Hillary in Michigan because Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot by his own choice and seated with more for Hillary in Florida because she won that primary) but Wally especially takes it seriously. He was born in Florida, he was raised in Florida, he lives in Florida and he voted in that primary. Only one show has shown concern about the two states primaries before they took place, when they took place and after they took place. Ruth's writing about Diane Rehm here and Wally notes that there's not an NPR listener in his region of Florida that's not aware Diane Rehm has repeatedly covered this issue while the bulk of the media has repeatedly ignored it. And, of course, LIAR Amy Goodman tried to show up this month and act all concerned after ridiculing Florida's primary in her only 'coverage' of it previously. Amy Goodman, don't go to Florida. It's not just the gators you have to fear there now.
"Why the general smeared Bill Clinton" -- The Bambi campaign decided to smear Bill Clinton. He wasn't their target. Just like they used racism as a club to try to silence everyone, they went after Bill last weekend to try to silence everyone. Thing is, without the support of a lot of closeted Communists in Panhandle Media, Bambi wouldn't have a lot of praise. As Big Media catches onto that and starts asking questions, the Bambi campaign gets real nervous. Repeating, there's nothing wrong with being a Communist. But there is something wrong about being a Communist and trying to pass yourself off as a Democrat. C.I. explains the attack on Bill and how they went after the Big Dog only to attempt to fend off questions from the press. (Bill Clinton did not raise the issue of communism or refer to it. Bambi's spokesperson raised the issue to try to defuse it.) If Bambi doesn't want the support of closeted Communists, he could certainly tell them to shut up. It would probably silence half the web reposting Panhandle Media, but he could do so if he wanted to. Until then, don't blame others for the fact that closeted Communists continue pimping you and are your biggest supporters in Panhandle Media. Update from Kat re: Isaiah's latest comic. C.I. says it's stuck uploading at Flickr at "99% complete" -- where it's gone to every other time and then frozen. C.I.'s going to continue trying. We're posting this and all regrouping for the final piece (other than Jim's note and selecting truest which will probably be -- hold your astonishment -- Joe Scarborough).
"How 'we' lose" -- Betty's latest chapter which is both (a) a classic and (b) a source of tension for some readers. On the latter, Wally and Cedric did not include this Saturday chapter under "Recommended" in their Saturday post and some are offended. It was an oversight and an accident and if you read their Saturday post, you will see "" and that's where Betty's chapter was supposed to go. They will recommend it on Monday. They were waiting Saturday to highlight it and had Mike on the phone asking, "Are you up yet?" (Meaning was their joint-post up yet.) That's due to the fact that Mike posts C.I.'s entries at The Common Ills on Saturday. C.I. does the entries early in the morning, saves to draft, Ava, Kat and C.I. fly home and, after Mike gets back from dropping them off at the airport, he waits for Wally and Cedric who are the last to post on Saturday. With Mike calling them over and over (C.I.'s last post on Saturday includes "The following community sites have updated since Friday morning" which is C.I.'s way of making sure every community site gets at least one link), they get rushed. They thought they were done and e-mailed the posts to their sites only to find out later that day that they forgot Betty. It was an oversight. Yes, this is the second time that happened and when it happened last time, they picked it up on Monday. They will this week as well. Betty says, "I never knew so many people read my site!" :D They do. And they love Betty and her character Betinna. But, honest folks, it was an oversight on Wally and Cedric's part, not intentional.
"Dried Tomatoes with Pasta in the Kitchen" -- Trina's latest and she explains how, around the country, Jeremiah Wright's damning of the United States is not being as easily dismissed as the groupies (in and out of the media) hoped.
"I Hate The War" -- Jim asked us to highlight this prominently. It was the most requested highlight request to Third. But Jim wanted it highlighted so Kat should share her story. C.I. wrote it and for those who don't know, in addition to what goes up at The Common Ills and writing here, C.I. also writes a column for all the community newsletters except the UK Computer Gurus' newsletter. So Thursday, three entries at The Common Ills during the day and one topic declared on hold by Jim (covered in Wednesday's snapshot and the editorial here this week). Then Thursday evening, participating in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin, Ava and C.I. speaking to another group right after (Kat skipped it because she was tired). Coming back to the hotel, writing the column for the gina & krista round-robin and the column for Polly's Brew. And then doing this Thursday night entry for The Common Ills. Kat picks up here. "I always say, if there's a problem, wake me. If we're not in a suite, call me, I'll come over right away. So C.I. calls and asks me to come over and read this. I do and don't see any problem with it. I loved it. I thought it was great. But C.I. really felt like it wasn't up to standard and one of the reasons was that Jim had already placed a hold on one topic and another topic got placed on hold Thursday evening. So two of the biggest topics were off limits and C.I. had covered just about everything else except for a magazine article that will be worked into the snapshots next week. Jim wanted me to tell that story because he agrees placing a hold on things so that Third can grab them can leave people without anything to write."
"Not that into Ms. these days" -- Jim placed a hold on this topic as well. It was Kat's topic and she brought it up in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. Kat had to blog early Saturday morning and "I didn't have anything else to write about it. Jim asked for a hold. Is Jim going to blog for me? No. Okay, then I have to write about what ever comes to mind. And, as Jim will tell you, we've got one more piece to do here and then we're done. And this placed on hold topic won't even come up unless I mention it in our quick piece we're about to do. So if I had held this, it wouldn't have been covered." None of that is said to slam or pick on Jim and, again, Jim wanted it noted and noted prominently.
"Quiz " -- Ruth's blogging about a topic that two members participating in the roundtable brought up. After the roundtable, Ruth called Mike who could grab the topic and blog about it with no fallout. Ruth said she'd grab it. (Fallout from C.I. Mike's like "a puppy" and C.I. holds nothing against him; however, C.I. wouldn't hold anything against any of us. As Ruth noted, there was nothing said about the post but Elaine says her guess is that "you" in critics referred not just to C.I. but to this site.) Bambi stole. Last week Jim included it in an article he wrote for this site ("Theft, C.I.'s not Bambi's speechwriter"). C.I. didn't want the article written and when Jim read his piece to all of us, C.I. asked that the section on a friend with the Bambi campaign confirming/acknowledging be pulled. Jim pulled it because we were all tired and it was going to be a long back and forth. The theft was such an issue that C.I. tried to calm the community on Wednesday by noting it in the snapshot in passing. It flared up in the roundtable for the roundrobin. Ruth grabbed it here. She included what Jim had been told (with Jim's permission.) It figures that the best section of Bambi's lousy speech was ripped off from someone else.
"Jeremiah Wright's words are offensive!" -- Marcia's wonderful post which led Jim requesting (after it was up) that we hold off on this as well. We would do a roundtable. It didn't happen. (We have a quickie roundtable of some sort to do and then the edition is over. It may get noted there.) Betty was going to guest blog for Rebecca and address this topic on Friday but Jim had placed a hold on it. For those wondering about Jim's hold, Rebecca points out that one week -- only one -- we had nothing. Ava and C.I. went off to write their TV commentary. Came back and we ended up inspired by their topic and doing features that basically raided Ava and C.I.'s commentary. Due to that happening, Jim has been in panic mode and afraid that we might hit a wall one week and have nothing. That edition lasted until four p.m. Sunday our time (for those who continued participating -- Mike and Wally plus the core six of Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.) and had started at ten p.m. on Saturday (EST on all times). It was a nightmare. After that, Jim began saying "let's put a hold on" this or that to make sure some topics would be in the ready should we end up hitting a wall again. Kat says, "As Maria McKee sings, 'Only once, only once'." So we do understand Jim's holds (although Elaine points out that for C.I. they pile up more than the rest of us and it's not uncommon for Jim to have placed a hold on six different topics that C.I.'s started covering at The Common Ills). But the other side of the holds is that those of us with other websites end up wondering what to write about. On Wednesday, Mike really wanted to write about Jeremiah Wright and follow up on C.I.'s "Damn or defend" issue but that was claimed already by Jim for this week's editorial (already written and it's the title). So it does have an impact and Dona's imposed a new rule this writing edition which is Jim can hold only five topics per week "and anyone can do like Kat and just ignore him. It's not the end of the world."
"Barack Obama loses a delegate" & "Super! Barack Obama loses a delegate!" -- which is exactly what Elaine and Mike did here. This was going to be a big feature. It's still not written and won't be. C.I. caught it and included it in the snapshot. Mike and Elaine avoided writing about it but they pulled it from the snapshot and led their Friday posts with it and then followed up with a single paragraph of their own. If you missed it, a delegate in Texas for Obama called in to The Diane Rehm Show Friday morning and announced that, due to Jeremiah Wright, he was not going to be a delegate for Obama.
"no, it's not over" -- Ava and C.I. have been very upfront about the fact that they are lobbying super delegates (that they know) for Hillary. Last week, Elaine joined them in that action. There are many big donors doing that. Rebecca wrote about it here and noted one of the actions the "brain trust" was doing (Rebecca's term for big DNC donors supporting Hillary and thinking outside the box). It's the action that had MoveOn in an uproar. Grow up, WalkOn, you useless piece of crap.
"This is how Pretty Boys 'work'" & "THIS JUST IN! BAMBI WORKING FOR HIMSELF!" --
Bambi went to vacation in the Virign Islands and Bully Boy Press and Cedric's Big Mix were there! In this installment, Bambi's getting 'drunk' on Shirley Temples. By the way, there was a joint-post they did with C.I. this week that never went up because Cedric made the mistake of mentioning it to Jim who said, "No, no, no! Ava and C.I. are tackling that in their upcoming book review!" :D Dictating Thursday's snapshot, C.I. mentioned the book review as an aside. It wasn't supposed to make it into the snapshot but the friend taking the dictation misunderstood and it did. Since then, it's a huge topic in e-mails to this site. They may or may not break street date on the review. They aren't writing it yet. They've read the 'book.' Sometime ago, in fact. They're tossing lines back and forth. This week, they ended up with two paragraphs which they've condensed to the two opening lines. It will be something to read.
"A really bad restaurant" -- Kat is on the road with Ava and C.I. speaking out against the war almost every week and it can be very hard to do that all day and then try to find a topic to write about. Kat also says she's the laziest of all of us (we disagree). This post had nothing to do with the illegal war or with politics. We all enjoyed it (especially Trina who asked that we note her enjoyment). Kat wrote about a food establishment she'd visited that night and how disappointing it was.
"Hillary and Ireland" -- Kat flies her Irish-American flag and says back off with your crap about Hillary not doing anything on Ireland. Kat visits her relatives there very often and spent at least five weeks in a row there in 2006 when a sick relative was dying. Don't tell Kat about Ireland, she knows all about it.
"The race continues" -- Elaine is a longtime and big donor to the DNC. She wasn't lobbying on behalf of Hillary. Then CounterPunch published their latest attack and smear job on Hillary. Elaine had enough. She explains in this post. You'll notice that CounterPunch has been delinked by all community sites. Bye-bye, losers. Note, Kat just went to check on the others. She's there, the rest of us are participating by phone. Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava are editing features and proofing them. Ava and C.I. apologize to Rebecca because they included her in the TV commentary and then used spell check. Spell check destroyed the last half of their TV commentary. "Obama" became "Obama.ns.amp" and there were other problems. They can't link to Rebecca but will do so next week. (They just wanted to fix the entry.) But an Isaiah update. Isaiah did a comic for this Sunday morning. C.I.'s been uploading it over and over at Flickr with no luck for one hour and twenty-three minutes and is now trying again. It's called "Struggling for Maturity." It will go up if there's any way at all and C.I. was using this period of time to focus on that and proofing the commentary with Ava. Kat notes, no spell check on any feature due to the problem Ava and C.I. had. No one has time to go through and fix a third of the article if spell check messes up so just live with typos.
"4,000 dead and the war drags on . . .," "u.s. death toll in iraq reaches 4,000," "4,000 US service members dead from an illegal war," "The 4,000 mark," "Recipe for disaster," "4,000 is the US death toll in Iraq," "Wake up, 4,000 are dead," "4,000 dead," "4,000 US service members dead in a never-ending, illegal war," "The 4,000 mark," "THIS JUST IN! 'COOKIES' SAYS RUMSFLED!" and "Still a cakewalk?" -- every community site (including this one) got back online Sunday night to note that the 4,000 mark had been reached. It was important, it was news. Even if others didn't treat it as such.
"Delegates and letting the race continue" -- we all take the issue of the delegates from Florida and Michigan being seated at the DNC convention very seriously (and seated for Hillary in Michigan because Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot by his own choice and seated with more for Hillary in Florida because she won that primary) but Wally especially takes it seriously. He was born in Florida, he was raised in Florida, he lives in Florida and he voted in that primary. Only one show has shown concern about the two states primaries before they took place, when they took place and after they took place. Ruth's writing about Diane Rehm here and Wally notes that there's not an NPR listener in his region of Florida that's not aware Diane Rehm has repeatedly covered this issue while the bulk of the media has repeatedly ignored it. And, of course, LIAR Amy Goodman tried to show up this month and act all concerned after ridiculing Florida's primary in her only 'coverage' of it previously. Amy Goodman, don't go to Florida. It's not just the gators you have to fear there now.
"Why the general smeared Bill Clinton" -- The Bambi campaign decided to smear Bill Clinton. He wasn't their target. Just like they used racism as a club to try to silence everyone, they went after Bill last weekend to try to silence everyone. Thing is, without the support of a lot of closeted Communists in Panhandle Media, Bambi wouldn't have a lot of praise. As Big Media catches onto that and starts asking questions, the Bambi campaign gets real nervous. Repeating, there's nothing wrong with being a Communist. But there is something wrong about being a Communist and trying to pass yourself off as a Democrat. C.I. explains the attack on Bill and how they went after the Big Dog only to attempt to fend off questions from the press. (Bill Clinton did not raise the issue of communism or refer to it. Bambi's spokesperson raised the issue to try to defuse it.) If Bambi doesn't want the support of closeted Communists, he could certainly tell them to shut up. It would probably silence half the web reposting Panhandle Media, but he could do so if he wanted to. Until then, don't blame others for the fact that closeted Communists continue pimping you and are your biggest supporters in Panhandle Media. Update from Kat re: Isaiah's latest comic. C.I. says it's stuck uploading at Flickr at "99% complete" -- where it's gone to every other time and then frozen. C.I.'s going to continue trying. We're posting this and all regrouping for the final piece (other than Jim's note and selecting truest which will probably be -- hold your astonishment -- Joe Scarborough).
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The 4,000 mark
The US military announced 4 more deaths of US service members tonight. Doing so brought the total number of US service members killed in Iraq while serving in the illegal war to 4,000.
Nearly every week brings news of one or more service members killed in the illegal war and, on a day when people pay attention, it's noted for a second, maybe two.
On many days, it's not noted at all.
That's how the number gets to 4,000.
That's how the number will now suprass 4,000.
At some point, Americans need to ask themselves what number they're fine with? What's the magic number that causes you to say "Enough!"
Until the majority of the country moves from "the Iraq War needs to end," to "End the Iraq War!" the number will continue climb.
Nearly 2 million Iraqis have died during the illegal war.
Nearly 30,000 US service members have been wounded.
The new talking point from the corporatist 'peace' movement is, "Imagine what the money could have been spent on!"
It figures that the Panhandle crowd would have zoomed in on money.
But imagine what the 4,000 dead would have done? They would have come home.
They're not coming home now.
Is it going to take another 4,000 for Americans to demand the illegal war ends now?
As long as you're kind-of, sort-of opposed to the illegal war, as long as you're okay with giving your money to a Panhandle Media that refuses to cover an ongoing, illegal war as something that matters, you're getting what you deserve.
Find your respect, demand the Iraq War ends now.
Nearly every week brings news of one or more service members killed in the illegal war and, on a day when people pay attention, it's noted for a second, maybe two.
On many days, it's not noted at all.
That's how the number gets to 4,000.
That's how the number will now suprass 4,000.
At some point, Americans need to ask themselves what number they're fine with? What's the magic number that causes you to say "Enough!"
Until the majority of the country moves from "the Iraq War needs to end," to "End the Iraq War!" the number will continue climb.
Nearly 2 million Iraqis have died during the illegal war.
Nearly 30,000 US service members have been wounded.
The new talking point from the corporatist 'peace' movement is, "Imagine what the money could have been spent on!"
It figures that the Panhandle crowd would have zoomed in on money.
But imagine what the 4,000 dead would have done? They would have come home.
They're not coming home now.
Is it going to take another 4,000 for Americans to demand the illegal war ends now?
As long as you're kind-of, sort-of opposed to the illegal war, as long as you're okay with giving your money to a Panhandle Media that refuses to cover an ongoing, illegal war as something that matters, you're getting what you deserve.
Find your respect, demand the Iraq War ends now.
Truest statement of the week
When it comes to making sense on Iran, Hillary Clinton wins hands down over Barack Obama, John McCain and George Bush.
In his zeal to describe the mess created by the war in Iraq, Obama falls into the trap of lumping Iran in with our "enemies." McCain is even more offensive, borrowing from the president's always-change-the-justification playbook to argue that the Iraq war is ultimately about Iran. And President Bush is more confused than ever, fretting about emboldening Iran if we leave Iraq, but oblivious to how invading and occupying Iraq may have had the same effect.
[. . .]
We throw the word "enemy" around way too much these days. Is that what Obama thinks Iran is? The same country he has pledged to negotiate with?
In his five-year anniversary speech about Iraq yesterday, Obama said Iran "poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel." It is time to present Iran "with a clear choice," Obama said, to abandon its nuclear program, its support for terrorism and its threats to Israel.
"Make no mistake," Obama bellowed about Iran, "if and when we ever have to use military force against any country, we must exert the power of American diplomacy first."
Gee, I'm no Republican and have no confidence in the Bush administration. But that sounds like current White House policy.
-- William M. Arkin, The Washington Post, March 20, 2008.
In his zeal to describe the mess created by the war in Iraq, Obama falls into the trap of lumping Iran in with our "enemies." McCain is even more offensive, borrowing from the president's always-change-the-justification playbook to argue that the Iraq war is ultimately about Iran. And President Bush is more confused than ever, fretting about emboldening Iran if we leave Iraq, but oblivious to how invading and occupying Iraq may have had the same effect.
[. . .]
We throw the word "enemy" around way too much these days. Is that what Obama thinks Iran is? The same country he has pledged to negotiate with?
In his five-year anniversary speech about Iraq yesterday, Obama said Iran "poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel." It is time to present Iran "with a clear choice," Obama said, to abandon its nuclear program, its support for terrorism and its threats to Israel.
"Make no mistake," Obama bellowed about Iran, "if and when we ever have to use military force against any country, we must exert the power of American diplomacy first."
Gee, I'm no Republican and have no confidence in the Bush administration. But that sounds like current White House policy.
-- William M. Arkin, The Washington Post, March 20, 2008.
A note to our readers
Hey --
Sunday and we're finishing now. Finally.
Here's who worked on the edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
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,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
And Dallas. We thank them all as well as Liang and especially Ava and C.I. but, to steal from them, we'll get to it.
Truest statement of the week -- Iran. The war that still hasn't taken place. But there was Common Dreams, at the end of last week, running another piece on that possibility. Strange isn't it, that The Washington Post can note what our alleged 'independent' media can't? This was hands down truest and the least discussion and debate we've ever had while selecting one.
Editorial: NO judgement -- "Hey, I'm Bambi Obama. I'm super smart! And I know right from wrong." He knew Wright, if not right and he didn't know enough to cut off contact with a man who damns the country.
TV: Broadcasting False Narratives -- Ava and C.I. turn in another masterpiece. Here's the story. We were all sick of one person (see roundtable) and that person's attempt to get around this site, while complaining about an article at this site, by e-mailing people who participated last week to whine, gripe, and insist. Including insisting upon knowing which IVAW members had complained about the really bad panel. It really had us angry and we weren't sure we wanted to do an edition. Ava and C.I. were all for that. A Saturday night off at last! But then we kept talking and talking and they said, "Okay, everybody take three hours, take four hours, go to sleep. We'll regroup after that and in the meantime, we'll write our TV piece." As I (Jim) have noted before, when we're lagging is usually when I'll read Ava and C.I.'s latest outloud to everyone. It always inspires us and give us the extra oomph we need to finish an all night session. This time, it inspired us when we came back from our long naps. Ava and C.I. note that if you read something in this that says it will be addressed in another feature and it wasn't, remind us. We are all very tired. We may have forgotten a feature. (And there are two we weren't pleased with so they just went into the print edition.) They really did not plan to comment on public affairs. They thought they were doing entertainment. But the reality is that they were griping to friends all week and when it was time to write this piece, they realized that the was the story of last week. Not just the spin of Bambi's 'brilliant speech' but the complaints they were hearing. They include it all, friends in the press, friends in Congress. It's an indepth piece and a lengthy one that, when I finished reading it, had Dona saying, "I think we all know we'll be doing short pieces for the rest of the edition." They worked their butts off writing it and they typed it up, did the links and even spell checked while we were sleeping. (Ava notes spell check conked out two-thirds in so live with any typos.) Next week, the plan is to return to entertainment programming. (But you know I won't complain if they don't.)
There's only one fighter in the Democratic race -- This had to be a long piece because it was pulling together two needed topics (planned as two pieces) when we were too tired to tackle writing two articles. This was the last thing we wrote. We think it holds up despite how tired we all were. There's a comment in here that held up the edition. We do not call for any candidate to drop out of a race ever. This statement appears in the article as a parenthetical, usually a clue that it's intended humorously, "Such as Barack doing what's good for the country -- the one he's okay with being damned, apparently -- and the party and dropping out." That is not a call for Barack to drop out. Obviously, he's never done for what's good for the United States or the Democratic Party.
Roundtable -- This is where we address how one Drama Queen can you spoil something for you. Equally true is we do not take well to threats, intimidation, sneaky-ness, et al. Try it on us and we'll show you we're not going to listen because you are not our boss and if you do not like what we write, you can go elsewhere. No one has the right to tell anyone (a) to rewrite something and (b) what to include.
Liang's comments to Barack Obama -- Liang had e-mailed C.I. last week after Bambi's 'Pretty Speech' to note how offensive it was to her as an Aisan-American that the media was treating it as the last word on race. This was supposed to go up today at The Common Ills but C.I. e-mailed Liang while all of us were sleeping (except Ava and C.I.) to ask if it could go up here instead (because we weren't in the mood to write our usual edition). Liang kindly agreed and we're happy to include this. Thank you, Liang. Longterm community member.
Hillary spoke about Iraq, Panhandle Media blacked it out -- On the fifth anniversary of the illegal war, a candidate for president gave a major speech outlining her plan for Iraq. And Panhandle Media ignored it. They were too busy promoting Barack Obama's Tuesday speech that he had yet to give. That was news, to Amy Goodman and Aileen Alfandary, that Barack Obama would be giving a speech later Tuesday. But Hillary's speech given on Iraq wasn't. Let's speak slowly for the idiots of Panhandle Media, a speech delivered may or may not be news. A speech not given is not news, it's barely "coming attractions." Try to learn the difference. It was cute the way Aileen mixed up Reuters and AP for her 'report' and, in both cases, was sure to ignore that in the same wire stories, the bulk was Hillary's Iraq speech. The only thing more embarrassing than that may be the presidential candidate who used the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War to speak to America about . . . Venezuela. As C.I. asked in Friday's snapshot, "What country are you running for president of?"
Mr. Pretty Speeches offers a 'history' lesson -- We love faux history. Elmer Gantry (Ava and C.I.'s comparison for Bambi) really fits here as Bambi raided the Bible to jazz up his speech. He raided others as well. We'll get to it.
Theft, C.I.'s not Bambi's speechwriter -- And here we are. When last week's roundtable went up Sunday morning, a lot of e-mails came in on C.I.'s comments. C.I. only speaks once and it's at the end of the roundtable. But that's what stood out the most to everyone. But before we could get to those e-mails, we had to read the ones that came in on Tuesday (the first time any of us checked the e-mails was late Tuesday). C.I.'s comments were so good that Bambi worked them in. That was 'cute,' as C.I. would say. That's not the first time it's happened (and why Marcia noted two or three roundtables back that C.I. didn't need to play "in fairness" with Bambi). By the end of the week, 82 regular readers had written in to note the theft. (Some wondering, since C.I. has friends on the Bambi campaign, if there was any 'arrangement' worked out as allegedly took place with Patrick Deval? No, there wasn't.) In addition 14 e-mails came in from Bambi supporters who stated we must have something nice to say about Bambi since he is echoing C.I.
Something nice to say about Bambi? He steals from the best.
Highlights -- Mike, Marcia, Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Elaine and Wally wrote this and picked out the highlights except where otherwise noted. We thank them for this.
So that's it, that's the edition. We almost took the night off. On that, Ava and C.I., as noted in highlights, plan to go back at some point in the week and note Mike's post in their TV review. They are too tired to do so now. They are too tired and sick of looking at computer screens. To write these editions, we stay up all night. We've done that all along, the core six. All of us, except Ava and C.I., have taken at least one weekend off. Point, for Drama Queen, we don't have time to rewrite any article to please you. If we wanted to, which we don't, we don't have the time. You seem remarkably able to operate a keyboard and e-mail various people who are not signing this note to lobby them against us in your e-mails. We would assume you could use the same keyboard to write whatever article you want. But it probably would carry more weight coming from someone other than you. Which is why you think you can get us to change our opinions and rewrite on your command, to your command. It doesn't work that way.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Added: And "The 4,000 mark"-- tonight the number of US service members killed in Iraq reached 4,000. All community sites posted on this mark. It is important.
Sunday and we're finishing now. Finally.
Here's who worked on the edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
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,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
And Dallas. We thank them all as well as Liang and especially Ava and C.I. but, to steal from them, we'll get to it.
Truest statement of the week -- Iran. The war that still hasn't taken place. But there was Common Dreams, at the end of last week, running another piece on that possibility. Strange isn't it, that The Washington Post can note what our alleged 'independent' media can't? This was hands down truest and the least discussion and debate we've ever had while selecting one.
Editorial: NO judgement -- "Hey, I'm Bambi Obama. I'm super smart! And I know right from wrong." He knew Wright, if not right and he didn't know enough to cut off contact with a man who damns the country.
TV: Broadcasting False Narratives -- Ava and C.I. turn in another masterpiece. Here's the story. We were all sick of one person (see roundtable) and that person's attempt to get around this site, while complaining about an article at this site, by e-mailing people who participated last week to whine, gripe, and insist. Including insisting upon knowing which IVAW members had complained about the really bad panel. It really had us angry and we weren't sure we wanted to do an edition. Ava and C.I. were all for that. A Saturday night off at last! But then we kept talking and talking and they said, "Okay, everybody take three hours, take four hours, go to sleep. We'll regroup after that and in the meantime, we'll write our TV piece." As I (Jim) have noted before, when we're lagging is usually when I'll read Ava and C.I.'s latest outloud to everyone. It always inspires us and give us the extra oomph we need to finish an all night session. This time, it inspired us when we came back from our long naps. Ava and C.I. note that if you read something in this that says it will be addressed in another feature and it wasn't, remind us. We are all very tired. We may have forgotten a feature. (And there are two we weren't pleased with so they just went into the print edition.) They really did not plan to comment on public affairs. They thought they were doing entertainment. But the reality is that they were griping to friends all week and when it was time to write this piece, they realized that the was the story of last week. Not just the spin of Bambi's 'brilliant speech' but the complaints they were hearing. They include it all, friends in the press, friends in Congress. It's an indepth piece and a lengthy one that, when I finished reading it, had Dona saying, "I think we all know we'll be doing short pieces for the rest of the edition." They worked their butts off writing it and they typed it up, did the links and even spell checked while we were sleeping. (Ava notes spell check conked out two-thirds in so live with any typos.) Next week, the plan is to return to entertainment programming. (But you know I won't complain if they don't.)
There's only one fighter in the Democratic race -- This had to be a long piece because it was pulling together two needed topics (planned as two pieces) when we were too tired to tackle writing two articles. This was the last thing we wrote. We think it holds up despite how tired we all were. There's a comment in here that held up the edition. We do not call for any candidate to drop out of a race ever. This statement appears in the article as a parenthetical, usually a clue that it's intended humorously, "Such as Barack doing what's good for the country -- the one he's okay with being damned, apparently -- and the party and dropping out." That is not a call for Barack to drop out. Obviously, he's never done for what's good for the United States or the Democratic Party.
Roundtable -- This is where we address how one Drama Queen can you spoil something for you. Equally true is we do not take well to threats, intimidation, sneaky-ness, et al. Try it on us and we'll show you we're not going to listen because you are not our boss and if you do not like what we write, you can go elsewhere. No one has the right to tell anyone (a) to rewrite something and (b) what to include.
Liang's comments to Barack Obama -- Liang had e-mailed C.I. last week after Bambi's 'Pretty Speech' to note how offensive it was to her as an Aisan-American that the media was treating it as the last word on race. This was supposed to go up today at The Common Ills but C.I. e-mailed Liang while all of us were sleeping (except Ava and C.I.) to ask if it could go up here instead (because we weren't in the mood to write our usual edition). Liang kindly agreed and we're happy to include this. Thank you, Liang. Longterm community member.
Hillary spoke about Iraq, Panhandle Media blacked it out -- On the fifth anniversary of the illegal war, a candidate for president gave a major speech outlining her plan for Iraq. And Panhandle Media ignored it. They were too busy promoting Barack Obama's Tuesday speech that he had yet to give. That was news, to Amy Goodman and Aileen Alfandary, that Barack Obama would be giving a speech later Tuesday. But Hillary's speech given on Iraq wasn't. Let's speak slowly for the idiots of Panhandle Media, a speech delivered may or may not be news. A speech not given is not news, it's barely "coming attractions." Try to learn the difference. It was cute the way Aileen mixed up Reuters and AP for her 'report' and, in both cases, was sure to ignore that in the same wire stories, the bulk was Hillary's Iraq speech. The only thing more embarrassing than that may be the presidential candidate who used the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War to speak to America about . . . Venezuela. As C.I. asked in Friday's snapshot, "What country are you running for president of?"
Mr. Pretty Speeches offers a 'history' lesson -- We love faux history. Elmer Gantry (Ava and C.I.'s comparison for Bambi) really fits here as Bambi raided the Bible to jazz up his speech. He raided others as well. We'll get to it.
Theft, C.I.'s not Bambi's speechwriter -- And here we are. When last week's roundtable went up Sunday morning, a lot of e-mails came in on C.I.'s comments. C.I. only speaks once and it's at the end of the roundtable. But that's what stood out the most to everyone. But before we could get to those e-mails, we had to read the ones that came in on Tuesday (the first time any of us checked the e-mails was late Tuesday). C.I.'s comments were so good that Bambi worked them in. That was 'cute,' as C.I. would say. That's not the first time it's happened (and why Marcia noted two or three roundtables back that C.I. didn't need to play "in fairness" with Bambi). By the end of the week, 82 regular readers had written in to note the theft. (Some wondering, since C.I. has friends on the Bambi campaign, if there was any 'arrangement' worked out as allegedly took place with Patrick Deval? No, there wasn't.) In addition 14 e-mails came in from Bambi supporters who stated we must have something nice to say about Bambi since he is echoing C.I.
Something nice to say about Bambi? He steals from the best.
Highlights -- Mike, Marcia, Kat, Betty, Rebecca, Cedric, Elaine and Wally wrote this and picked out the highlights except where otherwise noted. We thank them for this.
So that's it, that's the edition. We almost took the night off. On that, Ava and C.I., as noted in highlights, plan to go back at some point in the week and note Mike's post in their TV review. They are too tired to do so now. They are too tired and sick of looking at computer screens. To write these editions, we stay up all night. We've done that all along, the core six. All of us, except Ava and C.I., have taken at least one weekend off. Point, for Drama Queen, we don't have time to rewrite any article to please you. If we wanted to, which we don't, we don't have the time. You seem remarkably able to operate a keyboard and e-mail various people who are not signing this note to lobby them against us in your e-mails. We would assume you could use the same keyboard to write whatever article you want. But it probably would carry more weight coming from someone other than you. Which is why you think you can get us to change our opinions and rewrite on your command, to your command. It doesn't work that way.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Added: And "The 4,000 mark"-- tonight the number of US service members killed in Iraq reached 4,000. All community sites posted on this mark. It is important.
Editorial: NO judgement
"___ damn America."
That's what Jeremiah Wright stated from the pulpit of his church in a sermon. It's a church Senator Barack Obama, the man who wants to be president, went to for twenty years. Wright is his close friend. Wright has been close friend for over 20 years. Obama has gone to that church for over twenty years. He has given money to that church for over twenty years. He has praised Wright for over twenty years. He has called him "family" and a "mentor."
"____ damn America."
That's what Jeremiah Wright said at the front of the church, apparently speaking to the congregation and the Lord Jesus Christ.
"___ damn America," he cried, presumably using his 'power' to summon God's damnation down onto the United States.
It's offended a lot of Americans. Needless to say, Bambi made sure to avoid in his much touted speech last Tuesday.
Presumably doing damage control, he offered up 4,863 words in a long, meandering speech but somehow never addressed what has offended so many Americans -- his endorsement of and long relationship with a man who would damn the country.
Barack Obama wants to be president. He wants to be president so badly he gave a speech that would allegedly address Wright's offensive remarks.
Instead Bambi stood up and droned on about race.
He stated that race talk goes on everywhere and tossed out "the barbershop."
Jeremiah Wright was not at a barbershop when he damned the entire country.
Barack felt the need to quote William Faulkner and cite scripture.
He had time for that and time to note a child. He had time for everything except what has outraged so many Americans: That someone who wants to be president thinks the perfect mentor is a person who damns the United States of America.
Barack wanted to avoid that issue and the press went along, focusing on what he responded to and not what he avoided.
For someone who allegedly wants to break with the past (wants to disown it), he wanted to go there and offer up slavery and Jim Crow. Neither of which existed when Wright was damning the United States.
The speech was a distraction.
Last Tuesday, many Americans were willing to listen in the hopes that he would address it, that he would apologize for it and that he would admit it was a horrible mistake for someone running for the presidency of the United States to embrace anyone who publicly damns the country, let alone anyone who does so from the pulpit, anyone who does so in their role of a servant of God, calling on God to "damn America."
It is not a faux pas. It is not a minor offense.
It is big. It is huge.
And as Americans listened and listened to Barack drone on for nearly 5,000 words, it was never addressed. That has been noticed by the public.
You can't run for the presidency and run with someone who's damning the entire country. Not just the government of the United States, mind you. That would be bad enough for someone who wanted to be the head of the executive branch. But someone who wants to damn the government, the land and the people.
Barack spoke of a wave of air (we believe it was gas) that came over the church when he first visited and seems to think that excuses all comments by Wright. No, it does not. And if that church can't make clear to their preacher that damning the country is unacceptable, that would indicate they either agree it with the sentiment or are too pathetic to call it out.
Barack didn't call it out. Not while Wright was his pastor and not on Tuesday when it was the only issue Americans wanted addressed and it was the issue he refused to address directly.
While we're not for anyone being forced to say a pledge to a flag that they don't want to, we're also not for anyone running for president who either agrees the country should be damned or is too pathetic to speak out against anyone who does damn the country.
Barack loves to brag about his 2002 judgement. (It's a lie, see Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary this issue.) Where was the judgement in his 20-plus-year embrace of a man who damns the country?
Some Bambi defenders (including one idiot posting a comment to The San Francisco Chronicle) want to confuse the issue and lump it in with Wright's remarks that the US invited the 9-11 attacks through their behaviors. Those stooges want to say, "Well the right-wing did it right after 9/11!" Yes, two did and the White House condemned them for it immediately. Not a year later, not a week later. Even the Bully Boy grasped that their statements were offensive.
But even the lunatic Pat Robertson didn't declare, "___ damn America." Even that nut-job didn't call on the Lord to damn the country. Wright did.
Repeating, when The 700 Club thought the perfect thing to do was to blame Americans for 9-11, the White House loudly called it out. Barack Obama showed no such judgement.
That's what Jeremiah Wright stated from the pulpit of his church in a sermon. It's a church Senator Barack Obama, the man who wants to be president, went to for twenty years. Wright is his close friend. Wright has been close friend for over 20 years. Obama has gone to that church for over twenty years. He has given money to that church for over twenty years. He has praised Wright for over twenty years. He has called him "family" and a "mentor."
"____ damn America."
That's what Jeremiah Wright said at the front of the church, apparently speaking to the congregation and the Lord Jesus Christ.
"___ damn America," he cried, presumably using his 'power' to summon God's damnation down onto the United States.
It's offended a lot of Americans. Needless to say, Bambi made sure to avoid in his much touted speech last Tuesday.
Presumably doing damage control, he offered up 4,863 words in a long, meandering speech but somehow never addressed what has offended so many Americans -- his endorsement of and long relationship with a man who would damn the country.
Barack Obama wants to be president. He wants to be president so badly he gave a speech that would allegedly address Wright's offensive remarks.
Instead Bambi stood up and droned on about race.
He stated that race talk goes on everywhere and tossed out "the barbershop."
Jeremiah Wright was not at a barbershop when he damned the entire country.
Barack felt the need to quote William Faulkner and cite scripture.
He had time for that and time to note a child. He had time for everything except what has outraged so many Americans: That someone who wants to be president thinks the perfect mentor is a person who damns the United States of America.
Barack wanted to avoid that issue and the press went along, focusing on what he responded to and not what he avoided.
For someone who allegedly wants to break with the past (wants to disown it), he wanted to go there and offer up slavery and Jim Crow. Neither of which existed when Wright was damning the United States.
The speech was a distraction.
Last Tuesday, many Americans were willing to listen in the hopes that he would address it, that he would apologize for it and that he would admit it was a horrible mistake for someone running for the presidency of the United States to embrace anyone who publicly damns the country, let alone anyone who does so from the pulpit, anyone who does so in their role of a servant of God, calling on God to "damn America."
It is not a faux pas. It is not a minor offense.
It is big. It is huge.
And as Americans listened and listened to Barack drone on for nearly 5,000 words, it was never addressed. That has been noticed by the public.
You can't run for the presidency and run with someone who's damning the entire country. Not just the government of the United States, mind you. That would be bad enough for someone who wanted to be the head of the executive branch. But someone who wants to damn the government, the land and the people.
Barack spoke of a wave of air (we believe it was gas) that came over the church when he first visited and seems to think that excuses all comments by Wright. No, it does not. And if that church can't make clear to their preacher that damning the country is unacceptable, that would indicate they either agree it with the sentiment or are too pathetic to call it out.
Barack didn't call it out. Not while Wright was his pastor and not on Tuesday when it was the only issue Americans wanted addressed and it was the issue he refused to address directly.
While we're not for anyone being forced to say a pledge to a flag that they don't want to, we're also not for anyone running for president who either agrees the country should be damned or is too pathetic to speak out against anyone who does damn the country.
Barack loves to brag about his 2002 judgement. (It's a lie, see Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary this issue.) Where was the judgement in his 20-plus-year embrace of a man who damns the country?
Some Bambi defenders (including one idiot posting a comment to The San Francisco Chronicle) want to confuse the issue and lump it in with Wright's remarks that the US invited the 9-11 attacks through their behaviors. Those stooges want to say, "Well the right-wing did it right after 9/11!" Yes, two did and the White House condemned them for it immediately. Not a year later, not a week later. Even the Bully Boy grasped that their statements were offensive.
But even the lunatic Pat Robertson didn't declare, "___ damn America." Even that nut-job didn't call on the Lord to damn the country. Wright did.
Repeating, when The 700 Club thought the perfect thing to do was to blame Americans for 9-11, the White House loudly called it out. Barack Obama showed no such judgement.
TV: Broadcasting False Narratives
TV's big narrative last week was that the country gets to talk about race. You saw it on chat and chew after chat and chew. If TV was finally going to address race, it would probably require noting who has prevented race from being honestly addressed for several decades. It would probably require noting that Barbra Walters can host a 'documentary' exploring the 'after life' but race is off-limits. Most of all, it would require noting that race in the United States does not boil down to just Black & White.
But you're never going to get an honest exploration from the media that lives on, thrives on, the stereotypes and the silences. Last week was no different. The usual set-up was a sea of White faces with one token African-American guest invited on. We'll get to the faces of all present soon enough but it's worth noting that the set-up was no different, nor the direction, on one of the few major TV shows that an African-American actually hosts: Washington Week. Wall St. Journal's David Wessel stepped gingerly to the question he posed to Gwen Ifill, noting first that her father was a man of the cloth and then tossing a question at her leading her to note that she would now be the guide for all White people.
That really is what happened repeatedly, over and over last week. The other tokens in White Gas Baggery Land usually jumped right in to offer their opinions so credit to Gwen (who we've certainly slammed before) for at least noting how bizarre this 'role' was. In fairness to those who never bothered, they were invited guests and not the hosts of the show.
We have a real hard time believing that, come Sunday, Gwen's going to any church espousing hatred. And, honestly, we have a real time believing the gas bags on parade last week -- White and African-American -- spend much time in church. Not calling them non-believers but noting that if they aren't guests for the Sunday Chat & Chews, they're front and center before their TVs watching to see the pearl of wisdoms offered up.
Equally true that gas baggery is its own subset of the species and not one infamous for being in touch with Americans. It's not supposed to be, as Noam Chomsky has long noted, it's about the manufacturing of consent. [The New Press has issued The Essential Chomsky in paperback, edited by Anthony Arnove and with a list price of $19.95.]
And you saw that on Tuesday, before Barack Obama gave his speech -- following and 'responding' to the week prior when ABC's Good Morning America's broadcast of clips from Jeremiah Wright's sermons in which he declared that AIDS was created by scientists to destroy the Black race and beseeched the Lord to damn the United States.
Bambi hadn't even delivered a word yet already you were being told it was a "major speech" and that it was on "race." It wasn't just Corporate Media trying to manufacture consent, it was the dregs of Panhandle Media as well as anyone who watched Tuesday's Democracy Now! or listened to KPFA where both Amy Goodman and Aileen Alfandary ignored a Monday speech Hillary Clinton delivered on Iraq -- didn't even mention it -- to drool over Bambi's upcoming speech.
Even a casual news consumer should have been asking why a speech delivered on Iraq (during the fifth anniversary of the start of the illegal war) was being ignored while a speech not yet delivered was being pimped?
Bambi delivered the speech. He did not address the damning of the United States, he did not address the junk-science (at best) conspiracy theory that AIDS was a plot. He spoke about race. Wright had offered, in sermon after sermon, a critique of race relations (if race is reduced solely to Black and White) and Bambi focused on that -- likening his White grandmother and Geraldine Ferraro to Jeremiah Wright. Wright is the man who brought non-believer Bambi to God, he is the man who was his pastor for twenty years, he is the man who inspired him, the man whose words inspired the title of one of Bambi's book, the man who presided over Bambi's wedding, the man who "blessed" the Obama mansion, the man who served on Bambi's campaign for president.
Geraldine Ferraro noted that Barack Obama was getting better press coverage than any female candidate would of any race and her comments echoed the critique that Peter Hart had done for FAIR's Extra! a year before. Ferraro's remarks echoed Bambi's own remarks (as quoted by Hart in the article and as noted here). Ferraro, a passionate for her country Italian-American, did not damn the United States, nor did she offer up junk science. Nor did she offer up anything as embarrassing as Obama defender John Kerry who declared last week, sounding a great deal like men on the left and 'left' that Rebecca wrote about on Thursday, "Because he's African American. Because he's a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression in through the years in our own country." In that statement, Kerry explains (unwittingly) why Obama's maternal grandmother has been buried.
First off, we assumed his maternal grandmother was dead. We were shocked to learn she was alive and thought it was further testament to the way the press has played this election cycle. We've seen a second or third wife of Barack Obama's paternal grandfather on CNN (repeatedly) vouching for Obama whom she met once in the 90s. It's not just the fact that the woman only met him three decades after he was born that had us raising eyebrows, it's that she's not the wife who gave birth to Obama's father. We're not sure whether it is five or six multiple wives that his paternal grandfather had. We do know it was multiple marriages, not marry-divorce-marry. In Obama's paternal family, men were expected to have more than one wife which is why his own father was already married before he came to the US and reportedly married Obama's mother. His father would continue the multiple wives tradition. So it was always an eyebrow raiser to see Wife Number Two or Three of the multiple wives offered up as "grandmother" by CNN. (We noted polygamy last here.)
Obama's maternal grandmother is alive. And being smeared in his Tuesday speech as a racist in a story at odds with what he wrote in his overpraised book. Later in the week, Obama was claiming his maternal grandmother wasn't racist just a "typical White person." It was the wrong thing to say but not due to the fallout from Whites offended at being called racists. It was the wrong thing to say because it raises reality.
See you were never going to get a serious conversation about race via Obama. Not from one of his long-winded, meandering speeches and not from the press that has covered him. If Obama believes his maternal grandmother is a "typical White person," the obvious follow-up question is, "What are you?"
And that's the thing the press tries real hard to avoid talking about. John Kerry lies so well that some believe him. Barack Obama is hardly a "typical Black person" because he's not Black, he's bi-racial. Hiding his maternal grandmother away is done to push the lies that were manufactured for his run.
Chief among them are that he grew up poor in the United States. He loves to tell that lie. When he finally lived in the United States, it was after telling his mother he didn't want to live with her anymore (his father abandoned him when he was two-years-old). Not wanting to live with his mother, he was raised by his maternal grandparents in Hawaii. Not only were they White, they were well off. The hidden grandmother was a banking wiz and a woman who broke glass ceilings. You don't hear about that but you hear Barack repeatedly excuse his attendance at a posh prep-school in Hawaii with the assertion that he was on a scholarship. That's mean to continue the lie that he lived in poverty. He didn't. Those scholarships weren't going out to the most needy. It was the typical White scratch White back maneuver. But he plays it off like there was some sort of inner-city battle (in Hawaii?) for a scholarship to this posh prep-school.
Again, his maternal grand parents were well off and he pretends otherwise.
Though he traveled all the way to Africa in the 90s to meet the relatives he never knew, he didn't get around to making it to Kansas (the birthplace of his late mother and where his maternal grandparents hailed from) until it was time for Kansas to hold a primary. That's really puzzling (unless you factor in his hostility towards women). He wanted to know about himself and he travels hours and hours to Africa but can't catch a flight to Kansas? Were he really attempting to connect with his Kansas roots, as opposed to show boating for votes, you would assume he wouldn't just visit his maternal grandparents old home, he would make the journey with his maternal grandmother.
But those humble beginnings (decades before Barack was born) do not reconcile with what happened in Hawaii. His maternal grandfather went to Hawaii to make his fortune, Hawaii having long been a target of US imperialism and having just been made a US state.
You really can't tell the story of Barack Obama's family life and play him as a victim (though John Kerry tries real hard). You can't talk about Barack Obama and race honestly because he is bi-racial, not Black (and certainly not African-American). That was on display in wire reports as well (the ones Aileen Alfandary reads from) where it was declared that his father was from Kenya and his mother was White.
Not everyone in Africa is Black. But if you're going to state, as AP did, that his father is from Kenya, then you state his mother is from the United States (or you go for the "K"s and state, "His father was from Kenya, his mother from Kansas . . ."). You can't have an honest discussion about race with Obama.
You can get lies from the media, you can get reductions but you will never, for instance, hear from the native people of Hawaii about what they thought of Whites like Barack's grandfather 'claim jumping' for a 'gold rush' at their expense.
That is a story of a racism. That is a story of imperialism. And it's so much easier to just pretend that Barack is Black and that he grew up in Philly and not Hawaii. It's so much easier to pretend that the posh prep-school student knows all about racism and suffered. As Dave Lindorff infamously (and wrongly) declared, "I think it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that a black candidate at this level is fundamentally different from all white candidates who have come before or who are now competing. the more so a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya)." He risked jail by doing drugs?
The New York Times has largely taken a pin to that balloon Bambi created to paint himself as 'authentic' in his college years so what we're left with is that he smoked pot in his posh prep-school in Hawaii. As did many others attending that prep-school. It was the seventies and students smoking pot was hardly unheard of. (See That 70s Show.) But Dave Lindorff has to get worked up and turn it into a sign of suffering, a sign of bravery. He's one more attempting to manufacture consent which was all you saw last week.
The press, already eager pimping the 'greatest speech of our times' before it was delivered, wasn't about to point out that it whimpered, that Barack looked and sounded tired or that the country (including the press) had been taken in by Elmer Gantry.
The primary issue was the damning of the United States and it had nothing to do with the race. It was such an issue that all the usual Bambi groupies who rail against 'conspiracy' talk on AIDS (hello, Richard Kim, hello, Alexander Cockburn) avoided the junk-science that Wright was tossing out as fact to his congregation.
Damning the United States of America. It was avoided, it was not discussed. Michele Norris, making a rare appearance on NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday (noted by Cedric and Wally), would declare that Wright's comments "resonate with a large number of African-Americans." Oh really? A large number of African-Americans think the US should be damned? No, Michele Norris was playing the same game the rest of the press did, the same game Bambi did, try to turn it into a race issue, try to act as if people were appalled because Wright offered a social critique (including calling the the US the "KKK"). Avoid the issue of damning, avoid the issue of patriotism.
On Friday, Bill Moyers Journal explored Body of War, a new documentary, with the filmmakers Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue. The documentary's focus is Tomas Young and Bill Moyers explained of Young, "After the attacks on 9/11 he enlisted in the army because he wanted to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan. He was sent to Iraq, instead. And five days after arriving there, he was shot in the chest and severely wounded. He was 24 years old at the time and will spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair."
Why did he sign up? Patriotism. Why has his brother Nathan served in Iraq after Tomas was wounded? Patriotism. Though some of the 'intelligentsia' may scoff, patriotism does exist and it's not an 'unnatural response.' Had Iraq Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier been televised last week on any of the major channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, CW, MSNBC, CNN or Fox 'News'), America could have been exposed to multiple veterans explaining that they signed up for patriotism. They might have heard Garrett Reppenhagen explaining in the last panel on Sunday:
The men and women that I served with, many of them, that was their career, that was their job and they took an honor in that and they didn't want to give that up. They might not have wanted to go to Iraq or Afghanistan over and over again, but they did take pride in the fact that they were soldiers and they didn't want to lose that. Many of them have wives and husbands and kids that they're trying to support and they thought that the military would be a good way to do that, a good career and a good job to do that. They didn't ask to be sent to Iraq and to an illegal occupation of another country and basically oppress a people who don't want us there. They just wanted to be used in a just way when all peaceful solutions have been exhausted. That's when they thought they'd be sent in harm's way.
They would have heard Reppenhagen issue a call to join in a struggle to make America a better place: "And they can join this movement and there's a lot of pride and loyalty in joining our army and our corps, and fight for a cause that they believe in, to fight for a cause that will change America for the better and stop these occupations." That's not "America hating" as the loons on the right like to dismiss it, that's about patriotism. With all he's been through and all he's seen, Garrett Reppenhagen still believes in making this country better. He's still fighting to make it better. The word for that is patriotism.
Women's eNews' Dominque Soguel spoke recently with US service members Chrissy DeCaprio, Luz Gonzalez, Carolyn Schapper and Emily Stroia about what they wanted to see in the next president of the United States and the chief answer was "vision, experience and patriotism."
But patriotism was the word the press worked overtime to avoid all last week as they churned out the "great speech!" reports, columns and broadcasts followed by the usual "what he meant to say was . . ." and basically scratched their heads over the fact that a size able number of Americans were not impressed with the speech.
Why would they be?
Wright offered up a perverse Juliet speech on the baloney, "Barack, Barack, decry thy country, refute its name." That was what ABC viewers saw -- though Panhandle Media quickly reduced it to Fox "News" -- when they saw Wright standing before the church and damning the United States in his position as the head of the church.
The media, Panhandle or Corporate, never intended to address race and that was a given before they first started airing their gas baggery. But they rushed to prop up their candidate of choice and, to do so, they had to ignore the damning of the United States.
When you look at Panhandle Media's own silence, you begin to realize that they missed the chance to demolish the stereotype that they were anti-American because, whether it was The Nation or some other outlet, they willfully avoided the issue. It's a very big issue. Wright and Obama have a long-term (20 years) relationship. Barack wants to be president of the United States and he makes Wright his mentor, goes to the church, gives to the church and thereby gives his consent to the damning of the United States.
Trying to make Wright his Juliet, Barack took to referring him to as a family (he'd previously likened him to a "crazy uncle"). Jeremiah Wright was not Barack's family. Jeremiah Wright was his pastor and his friend and when his pastor and his friend damned the United States, Barack had no problem with it. That's how some Americans see it and that's why Tuesday's speech, the big statement, should have addressed it. It didn't. Bambi is in free-fall now and will continue to be because this thing is toxic and viral.
Some gas bags took to saying that you can't take a few lines out of context. There is no context for a person of the cloth using their power to damn the United States and a presidential candidate being okay with that. It's end of story. There's no need to rush off and buy more crap that Wright's burned to disc and sift through the man's sermons. That is so blantantly offensive to so many Americans -- of all races -- that it's really the end.
Gas bags on program after program ignored it and preferred to speak of what "Black" Barack said about race -- largely that Whites like Ferraro and his grandmother were racist and Wright was his family. That's what Barack wanted them to focus on, that's why he made it the thrust of his speech. But Americans are not easily directed as some in the press like to believe. On this Sunday, it will be discussed in many church parking lots across the country and all the hype the press churned out pre- and post-speech really won't matter. Last Tuesday, Barack should have made clear that he found it offensive that the United States was damned. He should have stated that over and over and admitted that it was a mistake for him not to break with the church, that it was a mistake for him to give his money to the church, that it was a mistake to put Wright on his campaign (where he remains because, as Larry Johnson pointed out, that photo the Obama campaign floated on Friday had to come from Wright).
That's all Americans really cared about, an explanation and an apology from a man running to be president of the United States for electing to embrace a man (for 20 years and counting) someone who damns the United States of America.
A lot of people miss the point of the media's flag pin lapels and think it was just an attempt at show boating post-9-11. While that was certainly part of it for some people, it's equally true that journalists are supposed to (by the nature of their profession) be objective. The flag pins became popular because it was thought they wore them and it puts to rest -- throughout their on air report or commentary -- that they were proud of their country and let what they were saying be absorbed. It was hoped, by many, to be short-hand. It wasn't a cheap tactic, the way so many insisted. We think it was the wrong tactic but we do grasp that everyone utilizing the pins wasn't attempting to be disingenious. But patriotism really isn't a topic for the media because it as odds with objectivity. They stumble over it badly so frequently not because they don't care about the country they are part of but because there is a natural road block that demands objectivity or the appearance of it.
We're not insisting that those in Corporate Media aren't patriotic. We know that many of them are. But this is a topic they naturally shy from. That was true long before the right-wing echo chamber came along to insist (wrongly) that holding leadership accountable was unpatriotic. So we do understand that some missing the boat last week did so due to the nature of the topic (and we would have understood that even if we hadn't heard that repeatedly from friends in real media). The thing we heard most often last week was that if the polling demonstrated it was a problem, the press would tackle the subject.
At present, to tackle the subject would look like they were injecting it because Barack had ("cleverly" said one reporter at one of the top three dailies) ignored the subject and the Clinton campaign hadn't really "pounced" on the issue. A friend at NBC, on Friday, confirmed that he too saw all that followed the speech as "shallow" talk on the part of all Corporte Media and asked what we were seeing on the road speaking out against Iraq?
What we're seeing is real offense to Wright's damning of America and a greater offense at Barack Obama that he thinks he can continue to embrace Wright and continue to ignore what happened.
The Obama campaign knows that as well which is why they avoided the issue and tried to shift the ground by focusing the speech instead upon race. The hope is that the damning of America, if ignored, will die down. Which only demonstrates how out of touch the campaign is.
But the narratives have been out of touch all along and the press can't be let off the hook for that. Barack Obama is a first-term US Senator and there are two other credits that usually get trumpeted. The first is "He was president of Harvard Law Review!" That's really not much for a man of forty-something years, is it?
And it's really not anything that excites the average American though it bowls over the elitests in Panhandle Media. The second thing is a 2002 speech, before he was in the US Senate or running for it, where he accepted the spin the White House was presenting (he was not right as the narrative tries to maintain) but argued for containment which, for the record, would mean a continuation of sanctions -- the same sanctions that Hillary Bashers hold her responsible for. The same sanctions that they tell you killed millions of Iraqis. So his pretty words were pretty pathetic even in 2002.
But he accepted the White House's argument. Here is what he said, after declaring he wasn't opposed to war in and of itself:
Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
"Contained" is sanctions -- the same ones that Jeremy Scahill decries today and did at Winter Soldier. There were no chemical or biological weapons. There has never been any proof that Saddam pursued nuclear capacity. But those were White House talking points and Mr. "I Was Right!" was as wrong as so many others.
He also wasn't in the US Senate and has noted, to the press, repeatedly before 2007, that he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate.
Speaking with Moyers on Friday, Phil Donahue took you back to that time period, "Certainly the White House scheduled this vote to precede the the November 2002 election. You know? How is it you've got Congress people facing reelection in three weeks. Now, how do you vote on the war? And how does that influ-- remember, we're an angry nation. This is October 2002 — the election being November. How are you gonna vote no on the pressure, especially when you remember how angry we were. I mean, it was very difficult to say no or dissent in this country at that time."
It was a year after 9-11 and, from the safety of the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama didn't have to decide, from the safety of the legislature, he didn't have to think about the country or the people of a state he was representing because he wasn't voting on the issue. In 2007, suddenly he was all ready to attack and, in fact, attacked John Edwards in a debate. For reality, here's Elizabeth Edwards explaining to Ruth Conniff (The Progressive) what the 2002 resolution was:
And the resolution, if you remember, was forcing Bush to go to the U.N. first. Of course, we expected him to actually listen to the U.N., which didn't happen. The resolution was actually a slowing technique, so he [John Edwards] felt like maybe it wasn't ideal but I think he made a very difficult and good faith decision.
It's amazing to hear the defense of Wright's remarks coming from the same group that wants to reduce a resolution down to the title. 9-11 was a year prior. The United States was attacked (even if Wright wants to blame the United States, the reality is that citizens and the government are not the same thing -- it's a distinction some on the left will make with regards to the state of Israel but seem loathe to make with regards to the United States). An election was weeks away, the media had helped the White House whip up hysteria (starting in 2001 with Chris Hedges' front page article for The New York Times falsely linking Iraq to al Qaeda). It was a difficult decision to make. What if the White House was right? Barack Obama bought into the White House lies but argued for the continuation of sanctions in his public speech. No wonder he repeatedly stated that he didn't know how he would have voted. It's a bit hard to vote against the 2002 resolution when you're convinced the White House is telling the truth about WMDs.
For those in Congress who voted for it, some, like John Edwards, weighed everything including the fact that United Nations approval was necessary before a war could begin. (For those who are really slow, that's why, after the resolution passed overwhelmingly in both houses, the Bully Boy did not launch the Iraq War immediately -- the resolution did not authorize that.) They took the resolution at its word as well as Condi Rice (and others) offering assurances that the United Nations would have to sign off on any war.
That did not happen. What happened was the UN weapons inspectors had to flee Iraq (and you saw it on your TV) because Bully Boy made the decision to invade Iraq without UN approval.
We wish Moyers would have pursued that topic with Donahue because it's an important conversation to have. Donahue spoke of never wanting to see this happen again and that's a comment that was voiced very often when public opinion turned against Vietnam. (Donahue was opposed to the Iraq War before it started.) But the reality is that for thirty years, Americans remembered a lesson from that earlier illegal war but all it took was 9-11 to give Bully Boy the pass to start another large-scale illegal war. As Donahue briefly noted, there were huge passions at the time. They were fueled by the White House and the media, yes, but they were also present in many Americans. 9-11 was a tragedy. It was preventable, but it was a tragedy. It was not treated as a tragedy. There was no day of mourning declared. Instead Americans were urged to get back to work (not that they had ever stopped) and that allowed the tragedy to be avoided, emotions to be suppressed. The only acceptable emotions were anger and rage and don't kid that they didn't fuel and benefit the White House.
Don't kid that a year after 9-11, the mood was high and that people like Max Cleland would lose their Senate seats in the 2002 elections for being falsely linked to terrorism. Don't kid that when Republican Senators, such as Olympia Snowe, were publicly hesitant, ads weren't run against them as they faced re-election.
Did the members of Congress who voted for the resolution do the easy or the hard thing? Only they know. Only they know what they were weighing and what they gave more weight to. One who voted for the resolution and was facing re-election told us two weeks ago that you had to remember the time "and what Bush was already pushing through Congress." For him, it came down to vote for it, let the UN decide, save his seat and try to work inside Congress to prevent the Bully Boy from destroying the country more. That's a valid concern and he, rightly, noted it was one we never gave any weight to in our criticism of him (to his face) over the last few years. The Iraq War did start. It was being floated at the time but it was hardly the only thing on the White House agenda. And other members of Congress, noting that a UN resolution was said to be required before the Iraq War could start, may have also felt there were other battles to pick because inspections would work.
They were wrong. But they were weighing other things and we will note that. And we wish Donahue and Moyers had explored the time period more. Mainly because 2002 no longer matters.
Those aren't words anyone likes to hear, but it is the truth. All the dead, Iraqis and foreign fighters, are not coming back. Those who lost loved ones, like Judy Kovco whose son Jake was the first Australian to die in Iraq during this illegal war, have lost them and they know it better than anyone. The dead are not coming back tomorrow or the day after. They are gone. These are real losses.
Iraq is like an open wound from a gun shot at this point. The bleeding continues, Iraqis and foreign fighters, and 2002 really isn't the issue in 2008. That's hard to grasp for some on the left as evidenced by last week's nonsense that 'addressed' an ongoing, illegal war by dropping back to 2002 or 2003. The year is 2008. The dead are dead, the wounded are wounded, the money wasted is gone. None of that is coming back.
And it's really offensive that someone thinks one of the three things he has to offer in his run for president is that he was "right" about the Iraq War in 2002. (He wasn't, he bought into the myth of WMDs. He was in favor of sanctions.) The 2008 election will not undue the selling of the illegal war. The 2008 election could help end the ongoing war. The only ones who are going to end the illegal war are the American people. But when one of the candidates (Barack Obama) has a foreign policy advisor (Samantha Power and she was still was his chief advisor -- bragging constantly about how he text-ed her cell phone repeatedly) going on the BBC and declaring that his campaign pledge to withdraw combat troops (and only combat troops) within 16 months of becoming president isn't a pledge, isn't binding, and that he'll actually decide what he'll do after he enters the White House, red flags should be flying.
When Power, Sarah Sewall and so many other of his advisors are promoters of counter-insurgency (attack civilians) strategies in Iraq, that's a red flag. When he talks of adding more mercenaries in Iraq, if he becomes president, that's a red flag.
But because of a 2002 speech (in which he accepted the same lies of WMDs that so many others did), he's supposed to get a pass. He's supposed to also get a pass on his Senate voting record (note how that brief record isn't anything he's running on). Until the summer of 2007, he repeatedly voted to fund the illegal war.
As Elizabeth Edwards noted to Ruth Conniff:
And honestly, the other candidates? Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding. John, the first time funding came up, he was already suspicious. What he said was we've got two issues, one is information and the other is not trusting your President. And he gave plenty of speeches at the time saying, "I'm not voting for the $87 billion because he has no plan." You've got to do that for the men and women who are there: You've got to have a plan. And he didn't vote for the $87 billion, and never voted for any dedicated funding. So you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way. But John stood up when he was in the Senate for exactly the thing he's asking these people to stand up for now. . . .
In a holier-than-thou way? Exactly. Again, the Iraq War is an open gun shot wound that continues bleeding. What you did or didn't do in 2002 really doesn't matter today if you're in the Senate and/or running for president and aren't attempting to end the illegal war.
Past words are not going to stop the bleeding, only what you do today will.
Obama's campaigned on distraction. He's offered a pledge to pull combat troops and it's one that doesn't end the war (even if it were binding, which Power revealed it wasn't) and talk of replacing troops pulled with mercenaries. That's not an anti-war candidate. He hasn't been called on it anymore than he's been called on for endorsing Jeremiah Wright's damning of the United States. When he does get called, they like to distract, to get the press talking about something else.
You saw that at the end of last week when Bambi gave his pretty speech (yes, we are aware he appeared inspired by the words of one us in last week's roundtable as so many e-mails have pointed out) and talked about the need to rise above and then, on Friday, peddled to the press photos of Jeremiah Wright at a White House breakfast -- one of many members of the clergy attending -- when Bill Clinton was in office. The speech wanted to say, "Wright is my family and let's all forget about it." On Friday, the campaign did what it always does, run from the high ground it claims it wants in order to dive into the gutter.
Speaking with members of Congress last week and hearing them bring up Obama (not favorably), we were bothered and reminded of a long running storyline on the sitcom Friends. Ross and Rachel had an argument, Ross slept with another women, Rachel called him a cheater and he maintained it wasn't cheating because Rachel had said they should take "a break." As Barack falsely amplifies his "I was right!" words regarding his lame speech in 2002, the reaction of members of Congress is a lot like Rachel and would suggest that, far from being a uniter, his (wrongly) insisting that he was "right" is as much an impedient to ending the illegal war as Ross' continuing to insist "We were on a break!" was to his relationship with Rachel. Those in control of the US Congress, regardless of party, largely voted for the 2002 resolution and we're really not in the mood for four years of Obama playing Ross from the White House and (falsely) insisting, "I was right!" That's not going to end the illegal war (though ending it isn't really a goal of Obama's anyway).
It would alienate Congress, it would harden positions. But that's really all the bulk of Panhandle Media offered in their Iraq commentaries last week, wasn't it? An ongoing illegal war and all they could do was go back to "I was right!" All those years ago.
Last week, if you consumed the chat & chews you saw very little about Iraq despite it being the fifth anniversary of the start of the illegal war. Bill Moyers Journal was a noteable exception. Let's state clearly that Bill Moyers (and Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue) provided a look at what is going on today as opposed to rushing for sensation (which was the bulk of the tiny write ups and post-broadcasts of Winter Soldier went for). They deserve strong credit for that.
But last week others elected to ignore the Iraq War and instead focus on what they claimed was the race narrative. It was embarrassing, it was superficial, it was a lot of lies. Watching, you may have wondered when the issue of gender was ever going to be examined?
It's been a race where Jesse Jackson Jr. could and did take to the airwaves to lie and stated that Hillary cried in New Hampshire over her appearance. She didn't cry, her eyes teared up and they teared up over not her appearance but over the destruction of women's rights in this country. Jackson didn't get called out for that anymore than Obama supporter Tony McPeak gets called out for (The Los Angeles Times) stating that his candidate choice, unlike Hillary, "doesn’t go on television and have crying fits." Last week, a CBS News poll found:
Voters are slightly more likely to say that a woman candidate faces more obstacles than a black candidate when it comes to presidential politics even as they see racism as a more serious problem for the nation overall, according to a new CBS News poll. Thirty nine percent of registered voters said a woman running for president faces more obstacles while 33 percent said a black candidate does.
And yet that topic isn't considered worthy of exploration. Interesting considering what was offered on 'race' during Washington Week Friday. "If we elect Obama, then we can be done with race" was one choice bit (quickly and superficially questioned but presented none the less). A "speech that sounded like a sermon" (meant as praise). "How did Joe Six-Pack react? It's not clear that they reacted to it the way we did." No, that's not clear but it was clear that women would be overlooked -- unless they could be slammed.
The New York Times' Linda Greenhouse, who covers the Supreme Court and was on to talk about that, asked a very basic question. Could Hillary win the Democratic Party nomination? There was no honest answer given. The honest answer is that neither she nor Barack Obama seem able to win the nomination before the convention because it's been a pretty much evenly split race. The super delegates will decide at the convention. The show really needed an older reporter on last week to explain a misconception regarding super delegates. Many outlets run counts with "pledged super delegates" and the reality is that -- like Obama with Iraq -- there is no pledge. Right now, some super delegates are saying they will support Barack Obama. Anyone who's witnessed a Democratic convention floor battle for votes knows full well that such a pledge is meaningless until it's time to vote. Super delegates can change their minds on the floor of the convention. (Some are going to -- as a result of learning that they were astro-turfed some announced supporters of Obama have stated they will be voting for Clinton at the convention, as we've noted before.) In the delegates awarded in caucuses and primaries, neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama appears to be able to hit the magic threshold that would give the nomination to them.
But you didn't get that answer. What you got instead was Alexis Simendinger of National Journal declaring that Hillary could stay in until the convention and come off "more petulant and petty." You might need to read back over that, Simendinger stated that one candidate in a tie appears "petualant and petty" for continuing the race. (This topic will be addressed further in this edition.) We'll assume that's supposed to pass for the discussion of gender by Washington Week.
Last week, you saw two examples of the sexism prevalent in the United States if you paid attention.
You saw Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell decide to note the anniversary of Iraq by looking back (like so many others) and he compiled a list of five worthy of applause. No woman made the five although a comic and a singer-songwriter did. The fifth spot was "McClatchy Newspapers bloggers" and that is men and women. Mitchell went on to note that the women had received an award for their journalism and then to offer quotes as he did in all other four spots on his list. But with the other four spots, he let the people 'awarded' speak (in the case of Neil Young, he quoted Young lyrics). Instead of letting the McClatchy bloggers (an important voice) speak for themselves, he chose to quote two White men. In the only time that his column celebrating 'important voices' could have offered words from women, he silenced them -- while claiming their words were important.
Then, on Friday, you may have caught Jeff Cohen's tired act on CounterSpin. Cohen, as with a bad column he wrote, was listing how all the major corporate newspapers ignored Winter Soldier (except The Washington Post). He is not mistaken. But if he's going to list those who ignored Winter Soldier, he would need to include the big websites (especially for magazines) of Panhandle Media and he might start with The Progressive which didn't think Winter Soldier was worth noting when it was going on (they have since published an article written before Winter Soldier) but did think that the Amway convention of the faux left (Take Back America) last week deserved "LIVE" blogging. Winter Soldier was not a political party event. It was veterans offering truths and realities. But the supposedly independent Progressive, overseen by non-Democrat Matthew Rothschild, wasn't interested in promoting it. Let a motley crew of rejects from the Democratic Party stage their own partisan convention and Rothschild's all on board with live blogging of that. Cohen has a lot of nerve lecturing big media while staying silent on the many silences from Panhandle Media.
In his dopey column, he overlooked KPFA -- he also lied and claimed he caught the hearings on WBAI out of NYC which only aired them on Friday (it was more important to play old, dusty records on Saturday). In his dumb column, he credited Pacifica Radio stations for their coverage. The reality was that Pacifica Radio stations didn't cover it. We have no idea what the DC station did because no one takes it seriously. (What should be the crown jewel for Pacifica Radio is instead a never ending embarrassment of one music program after another.) But KPFT in Houston, like WBAI, didn't air the hearings on Saturday choosing instead to offer "classic rock" and other nonsense. Los Angeles' KPFK broadcast the hearings and KPFA broadcast them. The hearings originated at KPFA and were anchored by the station's Aimee Allison and Aaron Glantz. (KPFA covers California's Bay Area and, living there, we frequently forget to note that. Our apologies.) Days after his dopey column celebrating alleged 'independent media,' he's on CounterSpin and listing this person and that person. Who does he forget? Aimee Allison and Aaron Glatnz.
Forgetting Allison is especially shocking when he was jawing her ear off on-air Tuesday. But that's how it goes. He can be pleased as punch to appear on KPFA and be interviewed by Allison but when he goes elsewhere, he feels no obligation to note that the woman co-anchored the live coverage.
Years from now, someone stumbling upon a recording of that broadcast, hearing Cohen, would be under the impression that, while Corporate Media ignored Winter Soldier, Panhandle Media went full out. That is not reality. And when a critic can't offer reality, he's really not much use to anyone. When a critic's listing off people to praise and overlooking Allision -- who not only co-anchored the hearings but interviewed him about the hearings last Tuesday -- he's got additional problems. (He mentioned one woman, a personal friend of his for many years and that was an obligated shout-out to a friend who did very little.)
Listening to his dopey comments, especially years from now, people might get the wrong impression that while Corporate Media ignored it, not only did 'independent' media cover it, it was available to all. Such was his supreme denial and/or idiocy that he honestly believes every American has a satellite dish or access to the internet to stream on. If you didn't have a satellite and if you couldn't stream (or if streaming wouldn't work for you due to hearing difficulties -- ) then you were left out in the cold. Along with economic realities preventing many from catching the hearings it's equally true that AP recently reported of US veterans:
U.S. soldiers and Marines caught in roadside bombings and firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home in epidemic numbers with permanent hearing loss and ringing in their ears, prompting the military to redouble its efforts to protect the troops from noise. Hearing damage is the No. 1 disability in the fight against terror, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and some experts say the true toll could take decades to become clear.
With the exception of Bill Moyers, last week saw a lot of 'news' and 'public affairs' programming offer up a lot of lies, a lot of narratives that pretended to be about something they weren't. In some cases they 'explored' an ongoing illegal war by dropping back to the start of the war. In other cases, they pretended to 'explore' race. Realities of the ongoing illegal war, like actual realities of race, gender and the sorry state of the media weren't explored. We felt we were seeing and hearing the "new-told lies" (Hair!).
We really don't think that's going to end the illegal war but, outside of Moyers' show, we didn't catch a single program that seemed honestly concerned with the Iraq War.
----------------------
If you are able to enjoy streaming and missed Winter Soldier you can stream online at Iraq Veterans Against the War, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz were the anchors for Pacifica's live coverage. We found Democracy Now!'s coverage disappointing to put it mildly. But you can check there for transcripts. Monday's broadcast had to share time with the My Lai massacre from forty years ago. Winter Soldier was the focus on Tuesday and Wednesday and Goody went for whatever struck as the most sensationalistic bits -- if it bleeds, it ledes. By Thursday it was on to China and the Fed and on Friday it was all but forgotten except for Goodman to claim she provided four hours of Winter Soldier.
Added: Mike's "Hillary talks Iraq Panhandle Media plays dumb" last week also pointed out Panhandle Media ignored Hillary's speech. Our apologies for not remembering and including it in the above. We did ask that it be noted in highlights and noted we'd add a note here.
But you're never going to get an honest exploration from the media that lives on, thrives on, the stereotypes and the silences. Last week was no different. The usual set-up was a sea of White faces with one token African-American guest invited on. We'll get to the faces of all present soon enough but it's worth noting that the set-up was no different, nor the direction, on one of the few major TV shows that an African-American actually hosts: Washington Week. Wall St. Journal's David Wessel stepped gingerly to the question he posed to Gwen Ifill, noting first that her father was a man of the cloth and then tossing a question at her leading her to note that she would now be the guide for all White people.
That really is what happened repeatedly, over and over last week. The other tokens in White Gas Baggery Land usually jumped right in to offer their opinions so credit to Gwen (who we've certainly slammed before) for at least noting how bizarre this 'role' was. In fairness to those who never bothered, they were invited guests and not the hosts of the show.
We have a real hard time believing that, come Sunday, Gwen's going to any church espousing hatred. And, honestly, we have a real time believing the gas bags on parade last week -- White and African-American -- spend much time in church. Not calling them non-believers but noting that if they aren't guests for the Sunday Chat & Chews, they're front and center before their TVs watching to see the pearl of wisdoms offered up.
Equally true that gas baggery is its own subset of the species and not one infamous for being in touch with Americans. It's not supposed to be, as Noam Chomsky has long noted, it's about the manufacturing of consent. [The New Press has issued The Essential Chomsky in paperback, edited by Anthony Arnove and with a list price of $19.95.]
And you saw that on Tuesday, before Barack Obama gave his speech -- following and 'responding' to the week prior when ABC's Good Morning America's broadcast of clips from Jeremiah Wright's sermons in which he declared that AIDS was created by scientists to destroy the Black race and beseeched the Lord to damn the United States.
Bambi hadn't even delivered a word yet already you were being told it was a "major speech" and that it was on "race." It wasn't just Corporate Media trying to manufacture consent, it was the dregs of Panhandle Media as well as anyone who watched Tuesday's Democracy Now! or listened to KPFA where both Amy Goodman and Aileen Alfandary ignored a Monday speech Hillary Clinton delivered on Iraq -- didn't even mention it -- to drool over Bambi's upcoming speech.
Even a casual news consumer should have been asking why a speech delivered on Iraq (during the fifth anniversary of the start of the illegal war) was being ignored while a speech not yet delivered was being pimped?
Bambi delivered the speech. He did not address the damning of the United States, he did not address the junk-science (at best) conspiracy theory that AIDS was a plot. He spoke about race. Wright had offered, in sermon after sermon, a critique of race relations (if race is reduced solely to Black and White) and Bambi focused on that -- likening his White grandmother and Geraldine Ferraro to Jeremiah Wright. Wright is the man who brought non-believer Bambi to God, he is the man who was his pastor for twenty years, he is the man who inspired him, the man whose words inspired the title of one of Bambi's book, the man who presided over Bambi's wedding, the man who "blessed" the Obama mansion, the man who served on Bambi's campaign for president.
Geraldine Ferraro noted that Barack Obama was getting better press coverage than any female candidate would of any race and her comments echoed the critique that Peter Hart had done for FAIR's Extra! a year before. Ferraro's remarks echoed Bambi's own remarks (as quoted by Hart in the article and as noted here). Ferraro, a passionate for her country Italian-American, did not damn the United States, nor did she offer up junk science. Nor did she offer up anything as embarrassing as Obama defender John Kerry who declared last week, sounding a great deal like men on the left and 'left' that Rebecca wrote about on Thursday, "Because he's African American. Because he's a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression in through the years in our own country." In that statement, Kerry explains (unwittingly) why Obama's maternal grandmother has been buried.
First off, we assumed his maternal grandmother was dead. We were shocked to learn she was alive and thought it was further testament to the way the press has played this election cycle. We've seen a second or third wife of Barack Obama's paternal grandfather on CNN (repeatedly) vouching for Obama whom she met once in the 90s. It's not just the fact that the woman only met him three decades after he was born that had us raising eyebrows, it's that she's not the wife who gave birth to Obama's father. We're not sure whether it is five or six multiple wives that his paternal grandfather had. We do know it was multiple marriages, not marry-divorce-marry. In Obama's paternal family, men were expected to have more than one wife which is why his own father was already married before he came to the US and reportedly married Obama's mother. His father would continue the multiple wives tradition. So it was always an eyebrow raiser to see Wife Number Two or Three of the multiple wives offered up as "grandmother" by CNN. (We noted polygamy last here.)
Obama's maternal grandmother is alive. And being smeared in his Tuesday speech as a racist in a story at odds with what he wrote in his overpraised book. Later in the week, Obama was claiming his maternal grandmother wasn't racist just a "typical White person." It was the wrong thing to say but not due to the fallout from Whites offended at being called racists. It was the wrong thing to say because it raises reality.
See you were never going to get a serious conversation about race via Obama. Not from one of his long-winded, meandering speeches and not from the press that has covered him. If Obama believes his maternal grandmother is a "typical White person," the obvious follow-up question is, "What are you?"
And that's the thing the press tries real hard to avoid talking about. John Kerry lies so well that some believe him. Barack Obama is hardly a "typical Black person" because he's not Black, he's bi-racial. Hiding his maternal grandmother away is done to push the lies that were manufactured for his run.
Chief among them are that he grew up poor in the United States. He loves to tell that lie. When he finally lived in the United States, it was after telling his mother he didn't want to live with her anymore (his father abandoned him when he was two-years-old). Not wanting to live with his mother, he was raised by his maternal grandparents in Hawaii. Not only were they White, they were well off. The hidden grandmother was a banking wiz and a woman who broke glass ceilings. You don't hear about that but you hear Barack repeatedly excuse his attendance at a posh prep-school in Hawaii with the assertion that he was on a scholarship. That's mean to continue the lie that he lived in poverty. He didn't. Those scholarships weren't going out to the most needy. It was the typical White scratch White back maneuver. But he plays it off like there was some sort of inner-city battle (in Hawaii?) for a scholarship to this posh prep-school.
Again, his maternal grand parents were well off and he pretends otherwise.
Though he traveled all the way to Africa in the 90s to meet the relatives he never knew, he didn't get around to making it to Kansas (the birthplace of his late mother and where his maternal grandparents hailed from) until it was time for Kansas to hold a primary. That's really puzzling (unless you factor in his hostility towards women). He wanted to know about himself and he travels hours and hours to Africa but can't catch a flight to Kansas? Were he really attempting to connect with his Kansas roots, as opposed to show boating for votes, you would assume he wouldn't just visit his maternal grandparents old home, he would make the journey with his maternal grandmother.
But those humble beginnings (decades before Barack was born) do not reconcile with what happened in Hawaii. His maternal grandfather went to Hawaii to make his fortune, Hawaii having long been a target of US imperialism and having just been made a US state.
You really can't tell the story of Barack Obama's family life and play him as a victim (though John Kerry tries real hard). You can't talk about Barack Obama and race honestly because he is bi-racial, not Black (and certainly not African-American). That was on display in wire reports as well (the ones Aileen Alfandary reads from) where it was declared that his father was from Kenya and his mother was White.
Not everyone in Africa is Black. But if you're going to state, as AP did, that his father is from Kenya, then you state his mother is from the United States (or you go for the "K"s and state, "His father was from Kenya, his mother from Kansas . . ."). You can't have an honest discussion about race with Obama.
You can get lies from the media, you can get reductions but you will never, for instance, hear from the native people of Hawaii about what they thought of Whites like Barack's grandfather 'claim jumping' for a 'gold rush' at their expense.
That is a story of a racism. That is a story of imperialism. And it's so much easier to just pretend that Barack is Black and that he grew up in Philly and not Hawaii. It's so much easier to pretend that the posh prep-school student knows all about racism and suffered. As Dave Lindorff infamously (and wrongly) declared, "I think it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that a black candidate at this level is fundamentally different from all white candidates who have come before or who are now competing. the more so a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya)." He risked jail by doing drugs?
The New York Times has largely taken a pin to that balloon Bambi created to paint himself as 'authentic' in his college years so what we're left with is that he smoked pot in his posh prep-school in Hawaii. As did many others attending that prep-school. It was the seventies and students smoking pot was hardly unheard of. (See That 70s Show.) But Dave Lindorff has to get worked up and turn it into a sign of suffering, a sign of bravery. He's one more attempting to manufacture consent which was all you saw last week.
The press, already eager pimping the 'greatest speech of our times' before it was delivered, wasn't about to point out that it whimpered, that Barack looked and sounded tired or that the country (including the press) had been taken in by Elmer Gantry.
The primary issue was the damning of the United States and it had nothing to do with the race. It was such an issue that all the usual Bambi groupies who rail against 'conspiracy' talk on AIDS (hello, Richard Kim, hello, Alexander Cockburn) avoided the junk-science that Wright was tossing out as fact to his congregation.
Damning the United States of America. It was avoided, it was not discussed. Michele Norris, making a rare appearance on NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday (noted by Cedric and Wally), would declare that Wright's comments "resonate with a large number of African-Americans." Oh really? A large number of African-Americans think the US should be damned? No, Michele Norris was playing the same game the rest of the press did, the same game Bambi did, try to turn it into a race issue, try to act as if people were appalled because Wright offered a social critique (including calling the the US the "KKK"). Avoid the issue of damning, avoid the issue of patriotism.
On Friday, Bill Moyers Journal explored Body of War, a new documentary, with the filmmakers Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue. The documentary's focus is Tomas Young and Bill Moyers explained of Young, "After the attacks on 9/11 he enlisted in the army because he wanted to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan. He was sent to Iraq, instead. And five days after arriving there, he was shot in the chest and severely wounded. He was 24 years old at the time and will spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair."
Why did he sign up? Patriotism. Why has his brother Nathan served in Iraq after Tomas was wounded? Patriotism. Though some of the 'intelligentsia' may scoff, patriotism does exist and it's not an 'unnatural response.' Had Iraq Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier been televised last week on any of the major channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, CW, MSNBC, CNN or Fox 'News'), America could have been exposed to multiple veterans explaining that they signed up for patriotism. They might have heard Garrett Reppenhagen explaining in the last panel on Sunday:
The men and women that I served with, many of them, that was their career, that was their job and they took an honor in that and they didn't want to give that up. They might not have wanted to go to Iraq or Afghanistan over and over again, but they did take pride in the fact that they were soldiers and they didn't want to lose that. Many of them have wives and husbands and kids that they're trying to support and they thought that the military would be a good way to do that, a good career and a good job to do that. They didn't ask to be sent to Iraq and to an illegal occupation of another country and basically oppress a people who don't want us there. They just wanted to be used in a just way when all peaceful solutions have been exhausted. That's when they thought they'd be sent in harm's way.
They would have heard Reppenhagen issue a call to join in a struggle to make America a better place: "And they can join this movement and there's a lot of pride and loyalty in joining our army and our corps, and fight for a cause that they believe in, to fight for a cause that will change America for the better and stop these occupations." That's not "America hating" as the loons on the right like to dismiss it, that's about patriotism. With all he's been through and all he's seen, Garrett Reppenhagen still believes in making this country better. He's still fighting to make it better. The word for that is patriotism.
Women's eNews' Dominque Soguel spoke recently with US service members Chrissy DeCaprio, Luz Gonzalez, Carolyn Schapper and Emily Stroia about what they wanted to see in the next president of the United States and the chief answer was "vision, experience and patriotism."
But patriotism was the word the press worked overtime to avoid all last week as they churned out the "great speech!" reports, columns and broadcasts followed by the usual "what he meant to say was . . ." and basically scratched their heads over the fact that a size able number of Americans were not impressed with the speech.
Why would they be?
Wright offered up a perverse Juliet speech on the baloney, "Barack, Barack, decry thy country, refute its name." That was what ABC viewers saw -- though Panhandle Media quickly reduced it to Fox "News" -- when they saw Wright standing before the church and damning the United States in his position as the head of the church.
The media, Panhandle or Corporate, never intended to address race and that was a given before they first started airing their gas baggery. But they rushed to prop up their candidate of choice and, to do so, they had to ignore the damning of the United States.
When you look at Panhandle Media's own silence, you begin to realize that they missed the chance to demolish the stereotype that they were anti-American because, whether it was The Nation or some other outlet, they willfully avoided the issue. It's a very big issue. Wright and Obama have a long-term (20 years) relationship. Barack wants to be president of the United States and he makes Wright his mentor, goes to the church, gives to the church and thereby gives his consent to the damning of the United States.
Trying to make Wright his Juliet, Barack took to referring him to as a family (he'd previously likened him to a "crazy uncle"). Jeremiah Wright was not Barack's family. Jeremiah Wright was his pastor and his friend and when his pastor and his friend damned the United States, Barack had no problem with it. That's how some Americans see it and that's why Tuesday's speech, the big statement, should have addressed it. It didn't. Bambi is in free-fall now and will continue to be because this thing is toxic and viral.
Some gas bags took to saying that you can't take a few lines out of context. There is no context for a person of the cloth using their power to damn the United States and a presidential candidate being okay with that. It's end of story. There's no need to rush off and buy more crap that Wright's burned to disc and sift through the man's sermons. That is so blantantly offensive to so many Americans -- of all races -- that it's really the end.
Gas bags on program after program ignored it and preferred to speak of what "Black" Barack said about race -- largely that Whites like Ferraro and his grandmother were racist and Wright was his family. That's what Barack wanted them to focus on, that's why he made it the thrust of his speech. But Americans are not easily directed as some in the press like to believe. On this Sunday, it will be discussed in many church parking lots across the country and all the hype the press churned out pre- and post-speech really won't matter. Last Tuesday, Barack should have made clear that he found it offensive that the United States was damned. He should have stated that over and over and admitted that it was a mistake for him not to break with the church, that it was a mistake for him to give his money to the church, that it was a mistake to put Wright on his campaign (where he remains because, as Larry Johnson pointed out, that photo the Obama campaign floated on Friday had to come from Wright).
That's all Americans really cared about, an explanation and an apology from a man running to be president of the United States for electing to embrace a man (for 20 years and counting) someone who damns the United States of America.
A lot of people miss the point of the media's flag pin lapels and think it was just an attempt at show boating post-9-11. While that was certainly part of it for some people, it's equally true that journalists are supposed to (by the nature of their profession) be objective. The flag pins became popular because it was thought they wore them and it puts to rest -- throughout their on air report or commentary -- that they were proud of their country and let what they were saying be absorbed. It was hoped, by many, to be short-hand. It wasn't a cheap tactic, the way so many insisted. We think it was the wrong tactic but we do grasp that everyone utilizing the pins wasn't attempting to be disingenious. But patriotism really isn't a topic for the media because it as odds with objectivity. They stumble over it badly so frequently not because they don't care about the country they are part of but because there is a natural road block that demands objectivity or the appearance of it.
We're not insisting that those in Corporate Media aren't patriotic. We know that many of them are. But this is a topic they naturally shy from. That was true long before the right-wing echo chamber came along to insist (wrongly) that holding leadership accountable was unpatriotic. So we do understand that some missing the boat last week did so due to the nature of the topic (and we would have understood that even if we hadn't heard that repeatedly from friends in real media). The thing we heard most often last week was that if the polling demonstrated it was a problem, the press would tackle the subject.
At present, to tackle the subject would look like they were injecting it because Barack had ("cleverly" said one reporter at one of the top three dailies) ignored the subject and the Clinton campaign hadn't really "pounced" on the issue. A friend at NBC, on Friday, confirmed that he too saw all that followed the speech as "shallow" talk on the part of all Corporte Media and asked what we were seeing on the road speaking out against Iraq?
What we're seeing is real offense to Wright's damning of America and a greater offense at Barack Obama that he thinks he can continue to embrace Wright and continue to ignore what happened.
The Obama campaign knows that as well which is why they avoided the issue and tried to shift the ground by focusing the speech instead upon race. The hope is that the damning of America, if ignored, will die down. Which only demonstrates how out of touch the campaign is.
But the narratives have been out of touch all along and the press can't be let off the hook for that. Barack Obama is a first-term US Senator and there are two other credits that usually get trumpeted. The first is "He was president of Harvard Law Review!" That's really not much for a man of forty-something years, is it?
And it's really not anything that excites the average American though it bowls over the elitests in Panhandle Media. The second thing is a 2002 speech, before he was in the US Senate or running for it, where he accepted the spin the White House was presenting (he was not right as the narrative tries to maintain) but argued for containment which, for the record, would mean a continuation of sanctions -- the same sanctions that Hillary Bashers hold her responsible for. The same sanctions that they tell you killed millions of Iraqis. So his pretty words were pretty pathetic even in 2002.
But he accepted the White House's argument. Here is what he said, after declaring he wasn't opposed to war in and of itself:
Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
"Contained" is sanctions -- the same ones that Jeremy Scahill decries today and did at Winter Soldier. There were no chemical or biological weapons. There has never been any proof that Saddam pursued nuclear capacity. But those were White House talking points and Mr. "I Was Right!" was as wrong as so many others.
He also wasn't in the US Senate and has noted, to the press, repeatedly before 2007, that he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate.
Speaking with Moyers on Friday, Phil Donahue took you back to that time period, "Certainly the White House scheduled this vote to precede the the November 2002 election. You know? How is it you've got Congress people facing reelection in three weeks. Now, how do you vote on the war? And how does that influ-- remember, we're an angry nation. This is October 2002 — the election being November. How are you gonna vote no on the pressure, especially when you remember how angry we were. I mean, it was very difficult to say no or dissent in this country at that time."
It was a year after 9-11 and, from the safety of the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama didn't have to decide, from the safety of the legislature, he didn't have to think about the country or the people of a state he was representing because he wasn't voting on the issue. In 2007, suddenly he was all ready to attack and, in fact, attacked John Edwards in a debate. For reality, here's Elizabeth Edwards explaining to Ruth Conniff (The Progressive) what the 2002 resolution was:
And the resolution, if you remember, was forcing Bush to go to the U.N. first. Of course, we expected him to actually listen to the U.N., which didn't happen. The resolution was actually a slowing technique, so he [John Edwards] felt like maybe it wasn't ideal but I think he made a very difficult and good faith decision.
It's amazing to hear the defense of Wright's remarks coming from the same group that wants to reduce a resolution down to the title. 9-11 was a year prior. The United States was attacked (even if Wright wants to blame the United States, the reality is that citizens and the government are not the same thing -- it's a distinction some on the left will make with regards to the state of Israel but seem loathe to make with regards to the United States). An election was weeks away, the media had helped the White House whip up hysteria (starting in 2001 with Chris Hedges' front page article for The New York Times falsely linking Iraq to al Qaeda). It was a difficult decision to make. What if the White House was right? Barack Obama bought into the White House lies but argued for the continuation of sanctions in his public speech. No wonder he repeatedly stated that he didn't know how he would have voted. It's a bit hard to vote against the 2002 resolution when you're convinced the White House is telling the truth about WMDs.
For those in Congress who voted for it, some, like John Edwards, weighed everything including the fact that United Nations approval was necessary before a war could begin. (For those who are really slow, that's why, after the resolution passed overwhelmingly in both houses, the Bully Boy did not launch the Iraq War immediately -- the resolution did not authorize that.) They took the resolution at its word as well as Condi Rice (and others) offering assurances that the United Nations would have to sign off on any war.
That did not happen. What happened was the UN weapons inspectors had to flee Iraq (and you saw it on your TV) because Bully Boy made the decision to invade Iraq without UN approval.
We wish Moyers would have pursued that topic with Donahue because it's an important conversation to have. Donahue spoke of never wanting to see this happen again and that's a comment that was voiced very often when public opinion turned against Vietnam. (Donahue was opposed to the Iraq War before it started.) But the reality is that for thirty years, Americans remembered a lesson from that earlier illegal war but all it took was 9-11 to give Bully Boy the pass to start another large-scale illegal war. As Donahue briefly noted, there were huge passions at the time. They were fueled by the White House and the media, yes, but they were also present in many Americans. 9-11 was a tragedy. It was preventable, but it was a tragedy. It was not treated as a tragedy. There was no day of mourning declared. Instead Americans were urged to get back to work (not that they had ever stopped) and that allowed the tragedy to be avoided, emotions to be suppressed. The only acceptable emotions were anger and rage and don't kid that they didn't fuel and benefit the White House.
Don't kid that a year after 9-11, the mood was high and that people like Max Cleland would lose their Senate seats in the 2002 elections for being falsely linked to terrorism. Don't kid that when Republican Senators, such as Olympia Snowe, were publicly hesitant, ads weren't run against them as they faced re-election.
Did the members of Congress who voted for the resolution do the easy or the hard thing? Only they know. Only they know what they were weighing and what they gave more weight to. One who voted for the resolution and was facing re-election told us two weeks ago that you had to remember the time "and what Bush was already pushing through Congress." For him, it came down to vote for it, let the UN decide, save his seat and try to work inside Congress to prevent the Bully Boy from destroying the country more. That's a valid concern and he, rightly, noted it was one we never gave any weight to in our criticism of him (to his face) over the last few years. The Iraq War did start. It was being floated at the time but it was hardly the only thing on the White House agenda. And other members of Congress, noting that a UN resolution was said to be required before the Iraq War could start, may have also felt there were other battles to pick because inspections would work.
They were wrong. But they were weighing other things and we will note that. And we wish Donahue and Moyers had explored the time period more. Mainly because 2002 no longer matters.
Those aren't words anyone likes to hear, but it is the truth. All the dead, Iraqis and foreign fighters, are not coming back. Those who lost loved ones, like Judy Kovco whose son Jake was the first Australian to die in Iraq during this illegal war, have lost them and they know it better than anyone. The dead are not coming back tomorrow or the day after. They are gone. These are real losses.
Iraq is like an open wound from a gun shot at this point. The bleeding continues, Iraqis and foreign fighters, and 2002 really isn't the issue in 2008. That's hard to grasp for some on the left as evidenced by last week's nonsense that 'addressed' an ongoing, illegal war by dropping back to 2002 or 2003. The year is 2008. The dead are dead, the wounded are wounded, the money wasted is gone. None of that is coming back.
And it's really offensive that someone thinks one of the three things he has to offer in his run for president is that he was "right" about the Iraq War in 2002. (He wasn't, he bought into the myth of WMDs. He was in favor of sanctions.) The 2008 election will not undue the selling of the illegal war. The 2008 election could help end the ongoing war. The only ones who are going to end the illegal war are the American people. But when one of the candidates (Barack Obama) has a foreign policy advisor (Samantha Power and she was still was his chief advisor -- bragging constantly about how he text-ed her cell phone repeatedly) going on the BBC and declaring that his campaign pledge to withdraw combat troops (and only combat troops) within 16 months of becoming president isn't a pledge, isn't binding, and that he'll actually decide what he'll do after he enters the White House, red flags should be flying.
When Power, Sarah Sewall and so many other of his advisors are promoters of counter-insurgency (attack civilians) strategies in Iraq, that's a red flag. When he talks of adding more mercenaries in Iraq, if he becomes president, that's a red flag.
But because of a 2002 speech (in which he accepted the same lies of WMDs that so many others did), he's supposed to get a pass. He's supposed to also get a pass on his Senate voting record (note how that brief record isn't anything he's running on). Until the summer of 2007, he repeatedly voted to fund the illegal war.
As Elizabeth Edwards noted to Ruth Conniff:
And honestly, the other candidates? Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding. John, the first time funding came up, he was already suspicious. What he said was we've got two issues, one is information and the other is not trusting your President. And he gave plenty of speeches at the time saying, "I'm not voting for the $87 billion because he has no plan." You've got to do that for the men and women who are there: You've got to have a plan. And he didn't vote for the $87 billion, and never voted for any dedicated funding. So you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way. But John stood up when he was in the Senate for exactly the thing he's asking these people to stand up for now. . . .
In a holier-than-thou way? Exactly. Again, the Iraq War is an open gun shot wound that continues bleeding. What you did or didn't do in 2002 really doesn't matter today if you're in the Senate and/or running for president and aren't attempting to end the illegal war.
Past words are not going to stop the bleeding, only what you do today will.
Obama's campaigned on distraction. He's offered a pledge to pull combat troops and it's one that doesn't end the war (even if it were binding, which Power revealed it wasn't) and talk of replacing troops pulled with mercenaries. That's not an anti-war candidate. He hasn't been called on it anymore than he's been called on for endorsing Jeremiah Wright's damning of the United States. When he does get called, they like to distract, to get the press talking about something else.
You saw that at the end of last week when Bambi gave his pretty speech (yes, we are aware he appeared inspired by the words of one us in last week's roundtable as so many e-mails have pointed out) and talked about the need to rise above and then, on Friday, peddled to the press photos of Jeremiah Wright at a White House breakfast -- one of many members of the clergy attending -- when Bill Clinton was in office. The speech wanted to say, "Wright is my family and let's all forget about it." On Friday, the campaign did what it always does, run from the high ground it claims it wants in order to dive into the gutter.
Speaking with members of Congress last week and hearing them bring up Obama (not favorably), we were bothered and reminded of a long running storyline on the sitcom Friends. Ross and Rachel had an argument, Ross slept with another women, Rachel called him a cheater and he maintained it wasn't cheating because Rachel had said they should take "a break." As Barack falsely amplifies his "I was right!" words regarding his lame speech in 2002, the reaction of members of Congress is a lot like Rachel and would suggest that, far from being a uniter, his (wrongly) insisting that he was "right" is as much an impedient to ending the illegal war as Ross' continuing to insist "We were on a break!" was to his relationship with Rachel. Those in control of the US Congress, regardless of party, largely voted for the 2002 resolution and we're really not in the mood for four years of Obama playing Ross from the White House and (falsely) insisting, "I was right!" That's not going to end the illegal war (though ending it isn't really a goal of Obama's anyway).
It would alienate Congress, it would harden positions. But that's really all the bulk of Panhandle Media offered in their Iraq commentaries last week, wasn't it? An ongoing illegal war and all they could do was go back to "I was right!" All those years ago.
Last week, if you consumed the chat & chews you saw very little about Iraq despite it being the fifth anniversary of the start of the illegal war. Bill Moyers Journal was a noteable exception. Let's state clearly that Bill Moyers (and Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue) provided a look at what is going on today as opposed to rushing for sensation (which was the bulk of the tiny write ups and post-broadcasts of Winter Soldier went for). They deserve strong credit for that.
But last week others elected to ignore the Iraq War and instead focus on what they claimed was the race narrative. It was embarrassing, it was superficial, it was a lot of lies. Watching, you may have wondered when the issue of gender was ever going to be examined?
It's been a race where Jesse Jackson Jr. could and did take to the airwaves to lie and stated that Hillary cried in New Hampshire over her appearance. She didn't cry, her eyes teared up and they teared up over not her appearance but over the destruction of women's rights in this country. Jackson didn't get called out for that anymore than Obama supporter Tony McPeak gets called out for (The Los Angeles Times) stating that his candidate choice, unlike Hillary, "doesn’t go on television and have crying fits." Last week, a CBS News poll found:
Voters are slightly more likely to say that a woman candidate faces more obstacles than a black candidate when it comes to presidential politics even as they see racism as a more serious problem for the nation overall, according to a new CBS News poll. Thirty nine percent of registered voters said a woman running for president faces more obstacles while 33 percent said a black candidate does.
And yet that topic isn't considered worthy of exploration. Interesting considering what was offered on 'race' during Washington Week Friday. "If we elect Obama, then we can be done with race" was one choice bit (quickly and superficially questioned but presented none the less). A "speech that sounded like a sermon" (meant as praise). "How did Joe Six-Pack react? It's not clear that they reacted to it the way we did." No, that's not clear but it was clear that women would be overlooked -- unless they could be slammed.
The New York Times' Linda Greenhouse, who covers the Supreme Court and was on to talk about that, asked a very basic question. Could Hillary win the Democratic Party nomination? There was no honest answer given. The honest answer is that neither she nor Barack Obama seem able to win the nomination before the convention because it's been a pretty much evenly split race. The super delegates will decide at the convention. The show really needed an older reporter on last week to explain a misconception regarding super delegates. Many outlets run counts with "pledged super delegates" and the reality is that -- like Obama with Iraq -- there is no pledge. Right now, some super delegates are saying they will support Barack Obama. Anyone who's witnessed a Democratic convention floor battle for votes knows full well that such a pledge is meaningless until it's time to vote. Super delegates can change their minds on the floor of the convention. (Some are going to -- as a result of learning that they were astro-turfed some announced supporters of Obama have stated they will be voting for Clinton at the convention, as we've noted before.) In the delegates awarded in caucuses and primaries, neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama appears to be able to hit the magic threshold that would give the nomination to them.
But you didn't get that answer. What you got instead was Alexis Simendinger of National Journal declaring that Hillary could stay in until the convention and come off "more petulant and petty." You might need to read back over that, Simendinger stated that one candidate in a tie appears "petualant and petty" for continuing the race. (This topic will be addressed further in this edition.) We'll assume that's supposed to pass for the discussion of gender by Washington Week.
Last week, you saw two examples of the sexism prevalent in the United States if you paid attention.
You saw Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell decide to note the anniversary of Iraq by looking back (like so many others) and he compiled a list of five worthy of applause. No woman made the five although a comic and a singer-songwriter did. The fifth spot was "McClatchy Newspapers bloggers" and that is men and women. Mitchell went on to note that the women had received an award for their journalism and then to offer quotes as he did in all other four spots on his list. But with the other four spots, he let the people 'awarded' speak (in the case of Neil Young, he quoted Young lyrics). Instead of letting the McClatchy bloggers (an important voice) speak for themselves, he chose to quote two White men. In the only time that his column celebrating 'important voices' could have offered words from women, he silenced them -- while claiming their words were important.
Then, on Friday, you may have caught Jeff Cohen's tired act on CounterSpin. Cohen, as with a bad column he wrote, was listing how all the major corporate newspapers ignored Winter Soldier (except The Washington Post). He is not mistaken. But if he's going to list those who ignored Winter Soldier, he would need to include the big websites (especially for magazines) of Panhandle Media and he might start with The Progressive which didn't think Winter Soldier was worth noting when it was going on (they have since published an article written before Winter Soldier) but did think that the Amway convention of the faux left (Take Back America) last week deserved "LIVE" blogging. Winter Soldier was not a political party event. It was veterans offering truths and realities. But the supposedly independent Progressive, overseen by non-Democrat Matthew Rothschild, wasn't interested in promoting it. Let a motley crew of rejects from the Democratic Party stage their own partisan convention and Rothschild's all on board with live blogging of that. Cohen has a lot of nerve lecturing big media while staying silent on the many silences from Panhandle Media.
In his dopey column, he overlooked KPFA -- he also lied and claimed he caught the hearings on WBAI out of NYC which only aired them on Friday (it was more important to play old, dusty records on Saturday). In his dumb column, he credited Pacifica Radio stations for their coverage. The reality was that Pacifica Radio stations didn't cover it. We have no idea what the DC station did because no one takes it seriously. (What should be the crown jewel for Pacifica Radio is instead a never ending embarrassment of one music program after another.) But KPFT in Houston, like WBAI, didn't air the hearings on Saturday choosing instead to offer "classic rock" and other nonsense. Los Angeles' KPFK broadcast the hearings and KPFA broadcast them. The hearings originated at KPFA and were anchored by the station's Aimee Allison and Aaron Glantz. (KPFA covers California's Bay Area and, living there, we frequently forget to note that. Our apologies.) Days after his dopey column celebrating alleged 'independent media,' he's on CounterSpin and listing this person and that person. Who does he forget? Aimee Allison and Aaron Glatnz.
Forgetting Allison is especially shocking when he was jawing her ear off on-air Tuesday. But that's how it goes. He can be pleased as punch to appear on KPFA and be interviewed by Allison but when he goes elsewhere, he feels no obligation to note that the woman co-anchored the live coverage.
Years from now, someone stumbling upon a recording of that broadcast, hearing Cohen, would be under the impression that, while Corporate Media ignored Winter Soldier, Panhandle Media went full out. That is not reality. And when a critic can't offer reality, he's really not much use to anyone. When a critic's listing off people to praise and overlooking Allision -- who not only co-anchored the hearings but interviewed him about the hearings last Tuesday -- he's got additional problems. (He mentioned one woman, a personal friend of his for many years and that was an obligated shout-out to a friend who did very little.)
Listening to his dopey comments, especially years from now, people might get the wrong impression that while Corporate Media ignored it, not only did 'independent' media cover it, it was available to all. Such was his supreme denial and/or idiocy that he honestly believes every American has a satellite dish or access to the internet to stream on. If you didn't have a satellite and if you couldn't stream (or if streaming wouldn't work for you due to hearing difficulties -- ) then you were left out in the cold. Along with economic realities preventing many from catching the hearings it's equally true that AP recently reported of US veterans:
U.S. soldiers and Marines caught in roadside bombings and firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home in epidemic numbers with permanent hearing loss and ringing in their ears, prompting the military to redouble its efforts to protect the troops from noise. Hearing damage is the No. 1 disability in the fight against terror, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and some experts say the true toll could take decades to become clear.
With the exception of Bill Moyers, last week saw a lot of 'news' and 'public affairs' programming offer up a lot of lies, a lot of narratives that pretended to be about something they weren't. In some cases they 'explored' an ongoing illegal war by dropping back to the start of the war. In other cases, they pretended to 'explore' race. Realities of the ongoing illegal war, like actual realities of race, gender and the sorry state of the media weren't explored. We felt we were seeing and hearing the "new-told lies" (Hair!).
We really don't think that's going to end the illegal war but, outside of Moyers' show, we didn't catch a single program that seemed honestly concerned with the Iraq War.
----------------------
If you are able to enjoy streaming and missed Winter Soldier you can stream online at Iraq Veterans Against the War, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz were the anchors for Pacifica's live coverage. We found Democracy Now!'s coverage disappointing to put it mildly. But you can check there for transcripts. Monday's broadcast had to share time with the My Lai massacre from forty years ago. Winter Soldier was the focus on Tuesday and Wednesday and Goody went for whatever struck as the most sensationalistic bits -- if it bleeds, it ledes. By Thursday it was on to China and the Fed and on Friday it was all but forgotten except for Goodman to claim she provided four hours of Winter Soldier.
Added: Mike's "Hillary talks Iraq Panhandle Media plays dumb" last week also pointed out Panhandle Media ignored Hillary's speech. Our apologies for not remembering and including it in the above. We did ask that it be noted in highlights and noted we'd add a note here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
