Saturday, August 18, 2012

THIS JUST IN! HE'S OBSESSED WITH RYAN!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS OBSESSED WITH PAUL RYANHE JUST CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT HIM.  IT'S RARE FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE TO SPEND TIME TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER TICKET'S V.P. CANDIDATE.

TOP FIVE REASONS BARRY O IS OBSESSED WITH PAUL RYAN

5) BARRY O'S SAGGY MOOBS (MAN BOOBS) MAKE HIM JEALOUS OF THE MORE FIT PAUL RYAN.

4)  BARRY O USED TO BE THE NEW GIRL BACK IN 2007.  NOW NOT ONLY DOES HE HAVE TO COMPETE WITH ZOOEY DESCHANEL FOR THAT TITLE, HE'S ALSO GOT A PRESS THAT FINDS PAUL RYAN INTERESTING.

3) BARRY O'S CAMPAIGN TESTED THIS LINE AND IT DID NOT WIN VOTERS, "PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING ON ABOUT PAUL RYAN'S PECS.  WELL THE TRUTH IS PAUL RYAN DID NOT BUILD HIS PECS!  YOU BUILT THEM.  I BUILT THEM.  AND WE SHOULD ALL GET TO SEE, TOUCH AND TASTE THEM UP CLOSE.  I, MYSELF, WOULD PREFER TO SUCK THE LEFT NIPPLE."

2)  BARRY O CAN'T STAND THAT PAUL RYAN IS ACTUALLY THINNER.  HE'S BEEN MARCHING AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE TOPLESS GRABBING HIS MOOBS AND SQUEEZING 2 INCHES OF FAT FROM EACH ONE WHILE WAILING THAT HE SHOULD TAKE A KNIFE AND CUT THEM OFF.

AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON BARRY O IS OBSESSED WITH PAUL RYAN . . .


TOLD WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY, "I WANT TO BE TAKEN BY PAUL RYAN, FISCAL STYLE, ON TOP OF THE OMB 2013 BUDGET!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Yesterday in Oakland some veterans were attacked in public.  The attack took place at Barack Obama's Oakland campaign office and it was Barack's staff that attacked the veterans.  One female volunteer had the intelligence to see how badly attacking anyone -- let alone veterans -- looked and she demanded that all campaign workers follow her to the back.  Prior to that, some staff (I'm sure that's paid staff and volunteers) did attack veterans, pushed them, shoved them, attempted to grab their camera and who knows what else.  And they scream and yell, "Get out of here! Get out of here!"    It was an ugly look at what happens when reality walks in the door and the devoted can't take it so they attack.  Everyone but the woman who called everyone to the back should be removed from the campaign.  That behavior was outragous.  The campaign should issue an apology for the assault on veterans.  You can see the tape US News & World Reports has posted.  It's not pretty. When the police use tactics like that, we are appalled.  There is no excuse for campaign staff (paid or volunteer) to behave that way.
 
 
Those inside the office included Iraq Veterans Against the War's Joshua Shephard and Scott Olsen -- both of whom were also participants of Occupy Oakland. Scott, is of course, the veteran whose encounter with Oakland police resulted in a fractured skull (among other injuries) and the world was outraged.  If the camera hadn't been there yesterday, how far would it have gone?  Supposedly chairs were also wielded against the veterans?  That's not in the video (the camera operator is knocked to the floor at one point and who knows what happened during that period).  When Olson was attacked in 2011, it prompted a review by the Oakland police into their policies.  Something similar needs to happen to Barack's Oakland office and Barack needs to issue a public apology to veterans.  (Will he? I doubt it.  He's always the first to scream at others for a supposed insult but the last to offer an apology.  That was the pattern as candidate in 2007 and 2008 and it's remained the pattern -- as we saw most recently with regards to Poland.)
 
Veterans are not props.  Politicians love to use veterans to shore up their own shoddy credentials. Those who have been happy to utilize (use) them for their campaigns should have the maturity to apologize publicly when an incident like what took place in Oakland goes down.
 
Joshua Shepherd: We're calling for a full pardon of Bradley Manning as well as an apology for Obama's statement that declared Bradley Manning was guilty before he faced any judicial proceedings.  You know the military judicial system is not quite as fair as the civilian but it is, you know there are certain measures and a minimum level of justice and due process that is required.  And the Obama administration has presided over this obliteration of that system and much to Bradley's deteriment.
 
 
Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3, 2012, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.  Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.  His court-martial was to take place next month but has been pushed back to February.
 
 
 
The San Jose Mercury News has a photo essay of the protest (photos by Ray Chavez)Kristin J. Bender (Oakland Tribune) reports there were sixty protesters outside and seven inside and that the protest "ended peacefully late Thursday, with a handful of arrests."  World Can't Wait posts KTVU's reportBay City News covers it hereCedric's "Now if we can just replicate the Oakland spirit" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! OAKLAND'S GOT SPINE!" noted the protest this morning.
 

 
Outside the headquarters a woman explained, "American troops are being killed all over Asia and the Middle East.  American troops suicide rate is higher right now than combat deaths.  There's a reason for that."
 
 
Yesterday the Pentagon announced, "The Army released suicide data today for the month of July.  During July, among active-duty soldiers, there were 26 potential suicides:  one has been confirmed as suicide and 25 remain under investigation.  For June, the Army reported 11 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers; since the release of that report, one case has been added for a total of 12 cases:  two have been confirmed as suicides and 10 remain under investigation.  For 2012, there have been 116 potential active-duty suicides:  66 have been confirmed as suicides and 50 remain under investigation.  Active-duty suicide number for 2011:  165 confirmed as suicides and no cases under investigation.  During July, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were 12 potential suicides (nine Army National Guard and three Army Reserve):  one has been confirmed as suicide and 11 remain under investigation.  For June, among that same group, the Army reported 12 potential suicides (nine Army National Guard and three Army Reserve):  seven have been confirmed as suicides and five remain under investigation.  The Army previously reported 10 Army National Guard and two Army Reserve cases for June."
 
Leon Panetta is the Secretary of Defense.  July 25th, he appeared before the House Veterans Affairs Committee. From that day's snapshot:
 

US House Rep Mike Michaud:  Quick question, and I want to read from a Veterans Service Organization letter that they actually sent to Senator [Jim] Webb just last week.  And just part of it says, "The only branch of the military to show a marked improvement decreasing the number of persons taking their own life is the United States Marines.  They should also be praised for their active leadership from the very top in addressing the problem and implementing the solutions.  The remaining services have yet to be motivated to  take any substanative action. "  Secretary Panetta, I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan several times and I've looked the generals in the eye and I've asked them what are they doing personally to help the stigmatized TBI, PTSD?  And the second question is: Do they need any help?  I get the same answer over there as I do over here in DC: 'Everything's okay.  We've got all the resources we need.  We don't need any help.'  But the interesting thing is someone much lesser ranked came up to me, after I asked the general that question, outside and said, "We need a lot more help."  And he suggested  that I talk to the clergy to find out what they are seeing happening.  And I did that trip and every trip since then.  And I'm finding that our service members are not getting the help that they need.  And my question, particularly after looking at this letter that was sent to Senator Webb, it appears the Marines are doing a good job so why is it so different between the Marines, the Army and other branches?  And can you address that?

Secretary Leon Panetta: You know -- Obviously, there's no silver bullet here.  I wish there were to try to deal with suicide prevention.  We-we have a new suicide prevention office that's trying to look at programs  to try to address this terrible epedemic. I  mean, we are looking.  If you look at just the numbers, recent total are you've got about 104  confirmed and 102 pending investigation in 2012.  The total of this is high, almost 206.  That's nearly one a day.  That is an epedemic.  Something is wrong.  Part of this is people are inhibited because they don't want to get the care that they probably need. So that's part of the problem, trying to get the help that's necessary.  Two, to give them access to the kind of care that they need.  But three -- and, again, I stress this because I see this in a number of other areas, dealing with good discipline and good order and, uh, trying to make sure that our troops are responding to the challenges -- it is the leadership in the field.  It's the platoon commander.  It's the platoon sergeant.  It's the company commander. It's the company sergeant.  The ability to look at their people, to see these problems.  To get ahead of it and to be able to ensure that when you spot the problems, you're moving that individual to the kind of-of assistance that they need in order to prevent it.  The Marines stay in close touch with their people.  That's probably one of the reasons that the Marines are doing a good job.  But what we're stressing in the other services is to try to develop that-that training of the command.  So that they two are able to respond to these kinds of challenges. 

US House Rep Mac Thornberry also raised the issue of suicides, noting Time magazine's recent cover story (July 23rd issue), Mark Thompson &; Nancy Gibbs' "One A Day: Every day, one U.S. soldier commits suicide.  Why the military can't defeat its most insidious enemy."  He raised the issue of "33% of all military suicides have never deployed overseas at all and 43% had deployed once."  Panetta confirmed that statistic from the article was accurate.  Panetta argued that suicide is on the rise "in the larger society" and that this is reflected within the military. 
 
 
Today Rebecca Ruiz (NBC News) emphasizes this point on the latest suspected suicides, "Bruce Shahbaz, a medical analyst on the Army's Suicide Prevention Task Force, told Time that experts did notice the deaths of non-commissioned officers outnumbered those of junior enlisted members for the first time since 2001."   Mark Thompson (Time magazine) adds, "The Army has been fighting suicides when they were occurring at the rate of nearly one a day -- in fact, that was the cover line on a Time story last month into the vexing problem of soldiers killing themselves after a decade of war. But July's 38 likely suicides spread over the month's 31 days works out to almost 1.25 suicides a day."   For service members in need, there is Military One Source which does include a crisis hotline 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255).   There is also online counseling.
 
But Military One Source doesn't always work for service members as yesterday's report by David Martin (CBS Evening News) noted utilizing a talk Rebecca Morrsion gave in June at the annual DoD and VA suicide conference in which she spoke of her husband Capt Ian Morrison taking his own life, how he went to two different clinics but received no help and how he then dialed Military One Source, "He was on hold with Military One Source for over an hour before he hung up."  Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) quotes mental health social worker and the wife of a Marine who took his own life seven years ago Kim Ruocco stating, "The military really is trying hard.  But we need more money, more resources, and we need to make mental health care a higher priority.  There are still too many gaps in care and too long of waits for soldiers seeking care."
 
Justin Moyer (Washington Post) reports on a University of Utah study entitled "Reasons for Suicide Attempts in a Clinical Sample of Active Duty Soldiers."  The paper argues, "Explicit skills training in alternative behaviors that serve an emotion regulation function (e.g. mindfulness, relaxation, cognitive restructuring) could replace the use of suicidal behaviors for this same purpose."  Katie Drummond (Forbes) notes, " Analysts suspect that as troops draw-down from combat zones overseas, more veteran soldiers -- many of whom have been deploying consistently since the dawn of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- are struggling to reintegrate into civilian life."
 
Jamie Crawford (CNN) quotes the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen Lloyd Austin,  "Suicide is the toughest enemy I have faced in my 37 years in the Army. And it's an enemy that's killing not just Soldiers, but tens of thousands of Americans every year.  That said, I do believe suicide is preventable. To combat it effectively will require sophisticated solutions aimed at helping individuals to build resiliency and strengthen their life coping skills."


Friday, August 17, 2012

THIS JUST IN! OAKLAND'S GOT SPINE!

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

OH FOR THE DAY WHEN CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O MOVES OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.  THE MASS WORSHIP OF THE CORPORATIST WAR HAWK IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO KILL ANY ENTHUSIASM FOR HIS REPUBLICAN-LITE DOMESTIC MEASURES AND FOREIGN POLICY KILL-KILL-KILL POSTURE.

IN CHICAGO, THEY'VE PUT UP A PLAQUE NOTING WHERE BARACK AND MICHELLE FIRST KISSED.  NEXT UP,  A GOLD SEAL FOR WHERE THE TWO FIRST DRY HUMPED.


IN OAKLAND WHERE THEY ARE A LITTLE SMARTER, SEVEN PEOPLE PROTESTED INSIDE BARRY O'S CAMPAIGN OFFICE.


WHY?  AS ONE PERSON POINTED OUT EARLIER THIS WEEK OF BRADLEY MANNING, POSSIBLE WHISTLE BLOWER HELD FOR OVER 800 DAYS:

Bradley can't be blamed on Bush.  The leak takes place when Barack's in the White House.  The arrest takes place when Barack's in the White House.  The imprisonment takes place when Barack's in the White House.  The person prosecuting Bradley -- hell, he's already pronounced Brad guilty -- is Barack Obama. 
 
You can be as stupid and ridiculous as Chase Madar.  You can sound as stupid as he does -- and he does sound stupid since his speaking voice sounds like that of the late Phil Hartman voicing Troy McClure (The Simpsons).  But unless you want to bed down and wallow in stupidity, lose the red herrings.  It's got nothing to do with the draft.  It has to do with people like Chase Madar who can't call out Barack.  Grown adults who are too willing to lie to themselves.  If it weren't for Barack, Brad would be free right now.  Barack has that power.  He won't use it.
 
There's one reason and only one reason that Bradley's behind bars right now: Barack Obama.

THE 7 PROTESTERS INCLUDING PEOPLE WEARING IRAQ VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR  T-SHIRTS:

The protesters said in a statement that they are demanding that President Obama apologize for statements they said he made regarding Manning's guilt, that the president ensures soldiers are free from pre-trial punishment, alleging that Manning was held in long periods of isolation, and that Manning be pardoned.





FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 
 
We're dropping back to November 28, 2010 for a moment from the KPFA Evening News:

Anthony Fest: The whistle blower website WikiLeaks released another trove of confidential documents today. Last month WikiLeaks released thousands of Pentagon documents most associated with the US occupation of Iraq. In contrast, the documents made public today include thousands of diplomatic cables -- communications between the State Dept and Washington and US consulates all around the world. The documents cover both the George W. Bush and the Barack Obama administrations. WikiLeaks gave an advance look at the documents to several media organizations including the New York Times and the British newspaper the Guardian. Those publications now have articles on their websites analyzing the documents. WikiLeaks says it will post the documents on its own website in the coming days although it has said its site was the target of a cyber attack today. The documents release is certain to provoke tension between the US and its allies. For example, some of the cables say that Saudi donors are the largest financiers of terror groups. Other cables detail the cover-up of US military activities. One of them records a meeting last January between US Gen David Petreaus and the president of Yemen about air attacks against rebels in Yemen. The president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, tells Petraeus, "We'll continue to say they are our bombs and not yours." According to the Guardian, the documents reveal that some Arab leaders had privately urged an air attack against Iran and that US officials had been instructed to spy on the United Nations' leadership. Among the other disclosures are deep fears in Washington and London about the security of Paksitan's nuclear weapons. Another document asserts massive corruption at high levels of the Afghanistan government saying the Afghan vice president traveled to the United Arab Emirates carrying $52 million in cash. Still other documents disparage the British military in Afghanistan.
 
 
In 2010, WikiLeaks was still doing major releases.  In fact, that was probably the high water mark for WikiLeaks.  Already,  Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks had released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Still in 2010,  June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. And that was part of the change.  At that point, the head of WikiLeaks and the face of WikiLeaks to the media and the world, Julian Assange, was stating that they didn't know who the leaker was (that leaked the material to them).  Ever since, Julian Assange has lived on the defensive.
 
 
Today he's in the news cycle because Ecuador is offering him asylum. 
 
If the last four years have taught those of us on the left anything, it should have taught us that there is no excuse or justification to whore for one person, that we either stand up for what we believe in and do so truthfully or we're liars in the eyes of the whole country.
 
I like Michael Ratner but his Julian Assange commentary has been less than honest for some time.  Today Assange was the topic of a segment on the lousy show Democracy Now! and Michael Ratner fell to the program's low level.
 
Ecuador has granted asylum to Julian Assange which is pretty much conditional
 upon his getting out of England or else hoping to live in the Ecuador Embassy in the UK.  Michael Ratner wants to assert that Ecuador is "doing what was legally required here."  That is incorrect.  That is a falsehood.  As someone who has repeatedly advocated for Canada to grant asylum to US war resisters, I have never argued that Canada had to do so or that they were legally required to.  Because they weren't.  No country is required to grant someone asylum.  That is why cases for asylum are argued.
 
There are enough lies out there with regards to the Julian Assange case.  More do not need to be put out there. It is also dishonest for Michael to assert claims to legal rights of asylum when stating that the UK needs to back off.  Julian Assange was released on bail.  He is in violation of British law currently. 
 
You can assert that B means we follow the law while ignore the earlier event (A).  But when you assert that, you look like you are eithter uninformed or dishonest to anyone who knows the actual details.  In addition, you make others look foolish for believing you.  Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is an intelligent and caring person.  And she believed she could trust that 'trusted voices' were telling the truth.  She has outraged several who have e-mailed this site about her comments regarding the accusations against Julian Assange in Sweden.  Her pithy claim that they wouldn't even be crimes in the US is embarrassing.  It appears that the Grand Idiot Naomi Wolf has influenced Wilder's take (either through reading or hearing Wolf or hearing others repeat Wofl's arguments).  Here's a tip for every woman in the US, when it comes to rape don't trust Naomi.  This is the woman who stayed silent following a gang rape -- excuse me, that's wrong.  This is a woman who stayed silent in terms of going to the authorities but who laughed with the rapists the night after a gang rape -- laughed about the victim, laughed about the victim's shoe left behind in the frat house as she escaped following her gang rape.  Why did Naomi laugh?  She didn't want to be called a lesbian.
 
Nothing could hurt the cock-driven (cock-starved?) Naomi Wolf more than to be called a lesbian.  Why didn't she call the authorities?  On that she's remained silent.  But when a professor apparently made a pass at her in the midst of a private evening (he denied it, she said it happened), she wanted the whole world to know about it, over a decade later.  (Did it happen? I have no idea.  But after you've mocked a victim of gang rape with her rapists and then been stupid enough to share that story, don't expect sympathy from me.)  Ava and I have repeatedly warned against that nutcase over the years (in terms of the nutcase and Assange, see "TV: Saboteurs"). 
 
The harm she's done on the Assange case will not go away.  That's why you don't lie.  Someone's going to believe you're on 'our side.'  When it comes to rape, however, 'our side' gets a hell of a lot smaller and any woman capable of self-honesty will admit that.  When it comes to the environment, the left is one big happy family, hugging trees and replanting forests.  When it comes to issues of violence against women, the left willing to call it out is about a quarter of what it was for the environment.
 
Michael at least says "my view" at one of his most ludicrous moments.  But he's an attorney and he should know better so the "my view" is nonsense.  He asserts that Julian "has a right to leave that embassy, get on a plane and go to Ecuador.  Will the British ever honor that . . ."? 
 
The British  right to arrest him -- he is a fugitive -- trumps the right of Ecuador.  They are on British soil.  It is not complicated and Michael knows that.  As does Julian Assange which is why Assange isn't strolling through London to an airport right now.
 
The dishonesty is so disappointing because we don't need more of it on the left.  If you want to make a case for Julian Assange going to Ecuador, you should be able to do so without resorting to falsehoods.  When Michael Ratner, an intelligent and usually thoughtful person, presents the sloppy throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks faux legal argument that he has, anyone paying attention is going to wonder: "If Michael Ratner can't make a plausible legal case, does that mean that there's not one?"
 
In fairness to Michael, he's not speaking as a legal analyst and shouldn't have been presented as such.  He's working for Assange.  A real public affairs program that operated under journalistic standards would have presented him with another guest who took a different opinion.  And the back-and-forth of such an exchange probably would have greatly sharpened Michael's own argument.
 
He makes assertions on aslyum that are puzzling at best.  He asserts that "once you've been given asylum, it's not like you can be then picked up by a country and sent into the hands of your persecutor.  Whether it's in the car, whether it's on the streets, wherever you are, it's illegal to do so."  There's no UK case law that backs that up.  If there's an international law that states that, I'm unfamiliar with it -- I am unfamiliar with it and many countries are also unfamiliar with it because this standard he's applying has not been the standard.  If you are wanted for murder and you claim you're a political target and Spain agrees to give you asylum, unless you are in Spain, the authorities have the right and will attempt to arrest you.  This is not a new development. 
 
Michael Ratner is incorrect when he says it's the law.  Asylum isn't a floating space in the midst of a game of tag-you're-it.  You're granted asylum at an embassy or in that host country.  By Michael's logic, Julian can remain in London, he can travel all over and, if anyone tries to arrest him, he just says, "Uh-uh, I've got asylum from Ecuador."  That's not how it works.
 
Michael asserts that, "It's illegal for them to stop Julian Assange trying to get to Ecuador."  In what world?  Does he not know any of the asylum cases during the lead up to WWII?  I cannot believe anyone would make such a claim.
 
We deserve better than that from Michael Ratner or from anyone.  What was broadcast today was a bunch of cheery, beat off material.  I believe the left has self-pleasured enough for the last four years.  Let's try reality and honesty instead.
 
We can discuss this again tomorrow but for now I am tired of people lying to make their political cases, I am tired of all the whoring.  I realize it's ingrained in some, certainly a number were more than willing to repeat as gospel whatever the party line was out of the mouth of Joseph Stalin.  It needs to stop.  Kimberly Wilder is a smart and caring person.  She's repeated a false claim because the left media whored.  They refused to tell the truth.  That needs to stop right now.  On the left we need to be smarter and more factual.  We're not helping anyone by dumbing ourselves down.  (And Bob Somerby tries to make that argument every day at The Daily Howler.  I wonder how many of us even listen?)
 
In addition, Michael sounded like the best little Joe Stalin groupie as he attacked the US and the UK and Sweden while praising Ecuador (CCR has also issued an embarrassing press release, Talk Radio News reports on it here).  Ecuador, despite their whoring, is not Mecca.  Click here for Human Rights Watch and here for Amnesty International.  Or go to Huffington Post to read about Ecuador's "Lesbian Torture Clinics."  (To be clear, the US can be criticized and I do so every day here.  That's not the issue.  The issue is presenting Ecuador as some wonderful savior when indigenous people, gays and lesbians and many, many more would beg to differ with your portrayal of their country.)
 
The left needs to grow the hell up, all of us.  And that includes losing the need to paint anyone who thinks as we do (or appears to) as marvelous, wonderful and 100% pure.  There is a growing number of people (possibly a small number but it's out there, we encounter them when we speak to college audiences especially) who feel Assange distracts from political prisoner Bradley Manning (I agree) and that Assange should turn himself in already because with his talk show and his this and his that he's become a joke (it's his decision to turn himself in or not, I have no opinon on that).  I would like that to be the end of it this week on Assange and hope that Monday, when the latest Law and Disorder Radio, rolls around -- which is hosted by  Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and, yes,  Michael Ratner -- that Michael will have sharpened his argument regarding to Julian Assange and we can open the snapshot with his explaining to us why the amnesty must take place.  He can, for example, present the same claims as the ethical (or "moral" -- but I refrain from the use of that term whenever possible) choice.  That's fine.  But don't claim something's the law when it's not.  We can't afford to be any more ill-informed or mis-informed in this country.  And we can't afford to lose someone as smart as Michael Ratner to the easy-bake punditry that has afflicted so many on the left.
 
 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq slammed by violence"
"Push continues in Australia for an Iraq War inquir..."
"12 men, 3 women"
"Silversun Pickups: Ass bitches"
"Calling him on it"
"you can judge by the cover"
"Floyd calls out Parry"
"Abby goes"
"Portlandia"
"Mitt has a plan?"
"Alphas"
"The dead and the brain dead"
"He can't stop attacking"
"THIS JUST IN! THE PREDATOR BITCH!"

Thursday, August 16, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE PREDATOR BITCH!

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S CAMPAIGN JUST GETS NASTIER AND NASTIER.

NOT CONTENT COMING OFF A NON-STOP BITCH BY ATTACKING MITT ROMNEY AND PAUL RYAN,  YESTERDAY SAW AMERICA'S PREDATOR BITCH GO AFTER HIS OWN MOTHER-IN-LAW.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE MODEL JAY CARNEY DECLARED, "BARRY O HATES EVERYONE!  HE HATES YOU! HE HATES ME!  HE'S FUELED BY HATE!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:



It's war, war, war all the time thanks to no real change in the Oval Office in years.  As Syria remains targeted, international law expert Francis A. Boyle weighed in today:
 
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Boyle said today: "Without authorization by the United Nations Security Council and express authorization from the U.S. Congress pursuant to the terms of the War Powers Resolution, for President Obama to establish any type of so-called 'no-fly zone' over Syria would be illegal, unconstitutional, and impeachable."  While serving as the Lawyer for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993, Boyle procured the NATO no-fly zone over Bosnia.  He is the author of The Bosnian People Charge Genocide (Aletheia Press: 1966).
 
 
Staying on the topic of Syria,  on yesterday's Flashpoints Radio on KPFA (here for KPFA archive -- after 14 days, the show will only be archived at Flashpoints site), guest host Kevin Pina spoke with a Syrian correspondent.  His name was something like Al'a Ibrahim.  (Something like? I'm not sure of the spelling.)  We'll do an excerpt.
 
Kevin Pina: My last question is you've probably heard in Damascus the increasing rhetoric by the Obama adminstration, Secretary [of State] Hillary Clinton certainly raising the stakes, saying openly that they are preparing for a post government, a government post-Assad dictatorship -- as they're describing it.  Has there been any reaction in Damascua?  Have people heard of it, these pronouncements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
 
Syrian Correspondent in Damascus: Well though it's very useful to call on the statements of the American Secretary of State Clinton and American President Barack Obama, I don't know how much we can count on them.  Let's keep in mind, President Obama said last year, in June,  that the days of President [Bashir] al-Assad were numbered.  Yet, a year later, he's still in power.  He still controls the army.  He still controls the country and everything seems to be at his hands right now.  So as important as these statemens may be as an indication of where the American politics are going and what they will do, I wouldn't count on this?  I think one way or anorther we're seeing the events in Syria.  They're saying they've been preparing for the post-Assad era and they should worry about all the free army.  The Free Army is obviously linked to al Qaeda, is obviously linked to jihadists.  Everyone knows that.  You have people coming from all over the world to fight the Syrian government, a secular government.  [. . .] Who will they attack later on?  I've been speaking today with one of my sources inside the Free Syrian Army and he told me something very interesting.  There's a rift growing right now between the Free Army and these and when we talk about the when we talk about the Free Army, we're talking about mainy that includes some deserting soldiers, some people who are against the government, some people who have issues with authority one way or the other. 
 
And the other side?  The Islamic Movement, the Red Brigade and the front for al Qaeda.  The correspondent noted that in addition to the growing rift, he has also observed this second side burying weapons.  Why?  They're convinced that President Bashar al-Assad will be driven out of the country and that when that happens, that's when they will need weapons to take over the country. 
 
That's who the US government has gotten into bed with.  And it does matter who you get in bed with.  The US government previously hopped into bed with Jasim Mohammed Hassin Ramadon.  The Iraqi should have sent off alarm signals and would have in any thinking person's head.  "Turncoat" is the only word for him.  He repeatedly turned over Iraqis, snitched on them, to the US military.  Some might applaud that but I think even those who applaud would pause when they learned that among those who snitched and saw taken away was his own father.  Matt Stafford (KOAA) told the tale of the snitch and as Iraq War veteran Delman Fletcher says in that report, "13 years old; who would turn in their father?"  Exactly.
 
The snitch is making headlines again.  The 22-year-old* is now accused of a violent assault.  [*22?  In the KOAA story already linked to, he is said to be 19.  That was last October.  All outlets today are reporting he is 22.]  AP explains the turncoat "is one of five Iraqis accused of rape-related chartes after a woman suffered serious injuries during a [. . .] assault in Colorado Springs."  Andy Koen (KOAA) reports that the police say "a significant of blood" was all over the crime scene and quotes police Lt Howard Black stating, "I would tell you that this is one of the most horrific [. . .] assault crimes I've seen in my career as a police officer."  [What's missing?  "Sexual."  We say over and over -- rightly -- that rape is not about sex.  So why are we calling these crimes "sexual assaults"? I don't know.  I've heard it questioned by others but only registered as a result of our noting various assaults here.  From this point forward, we're not including "sexual" before assaults in these cases.]  The other four suspects arrested are Ali Mohammed Hasan Al Juboori, Sarmad Fadhi Mohammed, Yasir Jabbar Jasim and Mustafa Sataar Al Feraji.  And, yes, they all are suspects at this point, even Jasim Mohammed Hassin Ramadon.  But when you snitch on your father, when you snitch on your own father and get him turned over to foreign forces in your country, no one's going to rush to give you too much benefit of the doubt.  All five men are Iraqis.
 
Jasim Moahmmed Hassin Ramadon has been charged with assault and with being an accessory.  Charges are pending against the others. CBS Denver adds that, "Police say she [the victim] sufered significant internal injuries consistent with blunt force trauma and serious bodily injuries that they say they rarely see.  Because the men are Iraqis with permanent resident status, the Colorado Springs Police Department says they may be deported if they are convicted."  On this story, the US press would do well to stop referring to Ramadon as a "hero."  In Iraq, he's not considered a hero.  You don't turn your own father over to foreign, occupying forces and get to be called a 'hero.'  If he is found guilty, his attorney will most likely (he has a public defender at present) argue against returning him to Iraq by insisting that Ramadon's collaboration with the US military means he is at risk of being killed if he returns to Iraq.  Should that argument take place, the American news consumer will grasp it a lot quicker if this 'hero' nonsense was dropped. 
 
The news cycle started today with Australia as Ninesmn reported former Minister of Defense Robert Hill (2001 to 2006) was insisting that Australia didn't need an inquiry into the Iraq War with him declaring, "There's a lot of big challenges out there in the world today, including challenges of peace and security."  And that could have been the end of it.  Certainly after the miserable inquiry into the death of Jake Kovko, no one can expect much in the way of honesty from the Australian government on the topic of Iraq.  But then other voices began weighing in.  Radio Australia notes, "Former defence secretary Paul Barratt has told Australia Network's Newsline it is apparent now that in the lead-up to the war there was a great deal of manipulation of intelligence within the US system." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports:
 
 
Demands for an inquiry are led by former Liberal prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, former defence secretary, Paul Barratt, and former chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Peter Gration.
In a foreword to the publication "Why did we go to war in Iraq? A call for an Australian inquiry", which says Australia was exposed to the accusation of waging an illegal war, Fraser writes that an inquiry would not rake over old coals but rather "develop a better understanding of how warfare decisions are reached and to strengthen the governmental structures against precipitous or ill-considered actions in future."
The call for an inquiry is also supported by a statement signed by 30 leading academics in politics and law, retired senior diplomats and experts in the field of war and conflict.
 
 
Ramesh Thakur (National Times) has come up with eight reasons why an inquiy is needed.  Here are the first three reasons:
 
There are several reasons why an inquiry would be timely, if not overdue. First, 2013 will mark the 10th anniversary of the launch of the Iraq War. A decade on is a good time to reflect back on the reasons, circumstances and decision-making procedures by which a country went to any war.
Second, there is by now widespread, although not unanimous, international agreement that the Iraq War was morally wrong, illegal, unjustified and had many seriously damaging consequences for Western interests. The primary justification for going to war was to destroy an alleged active program of building weapons of mass destruction. This has been proven false. In 2008 former secretary of state Madeleine Albright said that the invasion of Iraq was ''the greatest disaster in American foreign policy'', worse even than Vietnam in its unintended consequences. We need to study the long-term consequences of the war for Australia's security interests.
Third, prime minister John Howard committed Australia to war by citing the ANZUS Treaty. Yet the Iraq War may itself have been in violation of Australia's international obligations under ANZUS. Its Article 1 obligates all members to settle any international disputes ''by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations''. Australia must reconcile its ANZUS and UN obligations.

 
Will Australia get an inquiry?  It would put it ahead of the US which still hasn't had a real one.  Also true is that John Howard, prime minister at the start of the Iraq War, doesn't feel like he's ever gotten the credit he deserves.  His envy of all the press attention on War Criminals Bush and Blair could have him itching to appear before ain inquiry board.
 
 
Kristina Wong (Washington Times) reports, "The Pentagon's top officer [Gen Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] will travel to Iraq at the end the month to check on progress in a country that has been beset by sectarian violence and political turmoil since the United States withdrew most of its troops in December."
 
And in Iraq, multiple acts of violence.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a Baquba car bombing claimed 3 lives and left nine more people injured while in Muqdadiya a car bombing was quickly followed by a second bombing resulting in 7 deaths and twenty-seven people injured. al-Shorfa adds that Iyad Hussein Ahmed ("lead judicial investigator in Mosul) was shot dead in Mosul. All Iraq News reports a police officer was shot dead in Mosul and a woman and her daughter were left wounded due to an attack on the checkpoint by unknown assailants.  AP reports 2 Yazidis were shot dead in Qahataniya (the two were brothers).  AFP notes a Dohuk sticky bombing which left two people injured.  In addition, Alsumaria notes the PKK has announced they killed 2 Turkish soldiers near the Iraq border. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 13 people reported dead yesterday in Iraq and another seventeen reported injured.  Also today, Ahlul Bayt News Agency reports another mass arrest, this time 7 were arrested in Anbar Province.
 
 

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's spying on political rivals garners more at..."
"The conflict between Baghdad and Erbil"
"One more time on Peace, Love & Misunderstanding"
"Guess who got her own Wikipedia entry?"
"I can say I'm wrong, why can't Naomi?"
"things to read, things to avoid"
"Go to Amazon and stream Fonda's new film!!!"
"Bill Nelson"
"The sick pastor"
"Disappointed in Joe"
"Hey, WSWS, why so damn chicken?"
"2 Dumb Whores: Carl Davidson - Bill Fletcher Jr."
"THIS JUST IN! MOUSER GETS CALLED OUT"
"Mouser and Glory Hog"

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

THIS JUST IN! MOUSER GETS CALLED OUT!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS FACING A TOUGH NEW AD FROM SPECIAL-OPS.  IN THE AD, NAVY SEAL BEN SMITH ADDRESSES THE CAMERA AND BARRY O'S CLAIMS:

Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not.



IN REPLY TO THE AD, THE WHITE HOUSE SNIFFED THAT NONE OF THEM WERE QUALIFIED TO HAVE AN OPINION.

POOR BARRY O, SUCH AN IMPOTENT LITTLE MAN, SO EAGER TO PLAY DRESS UP AND CLAIM CREDIT FOR THINGS HE DIDN'T DO.  

THE AD'S NOT OFFERING ANYTHING THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN SAID.  MAY 5, 2011,  ISAIAH'S THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Mouser and Glory Hog" ATTEMPTED TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

mouser and glory hog


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Douglas A. Ollivant is with the New America Foundation and he's written an important paper on Iraq entitled "Renewed Violence in Iraq: Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 15" and there is so much in it worth pondering, many sections worth applauding, some I disagree with but can understand the argument he's making but I also believe in the facts.  The section that I think needs the most attention is this:
 
 
 
Be a proponent of the electoral process. The United States will continue to work primarily with Maliki not because he is "the U.S. guy," but because he is the duly elected prime minister of a parliamentary democracy. If Maliki loses a no-confidence vote and another government forms, the United States should be equally supportive of the new prime minster. Above all, the United States should make clear that it would find any suspension of, or irregularity within, the next parliamentary elections in 2014 severely problematic. Achieving another round of elections in 2014 (and provincial elections in 2013) will likely better establish the political strength of all the factions and increasingly mature the political system.
 
 
I agree 100% with that.  However, that's not what's taken place.  The US has worked overtime to ensure that a no-confidence vote not take place.  I know for a fact that they attempted to pressure KRG President Massoud Barzani to back away from the proposal and he refused to do so.  (Good for him.) Others were more pliable.  In addition, there was the idiotic poll by the National Democratic Institute.  The poll was a joke to the US Senate.  But the New York Times ran with it, didn't they?  And wasn't it great that this poll found Nouri to be immensely popular throughout the entire country?
 
When politicians are evaluating whether or not to go against Nouri and vote him out of office, just by luck, sheer coincidence, the US has a poll testifying to Nouri's immense popularity.
 
The poll was a joke, the results not to be taken seriously.  It was propaganda pure and simple and the New York Times has never had a problem with knowingly violating the Smith-Mundt Act.
 
 
As intended, the fake poll shook up a few.  And of course there are the stories in the Iraqi press about Nouri blackmailing political rivals to get them to stop the no-confidence vote (see August 8th's "Iraq's sex tape rumors").  Whether they're true or false, they exist and they linked Nouri to the US with reports that the CIA was supplying Nouri with video to blackmail his rivals with.  True or false, this suggests a level of US backing which can further secure Nouri's standing.
 
The US should stop rescuing Nouri.  That's probably not going to happen.  Samantha Power has insisted Nouri is the key to stability in Iraq and others in the administration believe that idiot. Nouri should have gone.  Samantha Power is a bad journalist and that's all she is.  Any study of history would tell you the best thing for Iraq and the US would be for the US-installed (2006) Nouri to be gone in 2010.  Hopefully and ideally, it would have provided Iraq with a fresh start.  Were that not actually the case, it still would have given the illusion of a fresh start. 
 
Instead Iraqis were left to publicly wonder -- and did -- why they went to the trouble of voting when nothing changed.  The only difference in the government was Osama al-Nujaifi became Speaker of Parliament.  A real change could have allowed democracy to take hold.  The illusion of change could have given the people hope.
 
Instead the White House ignored the fact that Iraqiya came in first, ignored the Constitution which gave the illusion that the Iraqi people had some say in who governed them and backed Nouri in his tantrum for a second term.  The White House then brokered the Erbil Agreement which gave Nouri his second term.
 
It was insanity.  No one who knows history would ever advise you to continue with a leader who was installed during an occupation. 
 
The US interfering to save Nouri most recently has rendered Iraqi President Jalal Talabani largely impotent.  From yesterday's snapshot:
 
 Alsumaria reports that Kurdistan Alliance MP Barham Saleh is in Baghdad today to look at the National Alliance's proposed reforms.  This is what used to be known as the Reform Commission.  It's nothing but the National Alliance and there's no great effort to spin it any longer as more and more politician -- in the National Alliance and out of it -- have made clear it's not what Nouri made it out to be.  Raman Brosk (AKnews) adds that Barham Salih was also set to meet with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. 
 
What an important meeting.  And how surprising that someone so close to Jalal and someone who is a member of Jalal's political party (PUK) would be the one chosen to undertake such an important meeting.  All Iraq News reports today that Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman has declared that Saleh isn't on an official visit, it's a personal one.  For a brief moment, it appeared Jalal would have an easy road back.  He betrayed Moqtada al-Sadr, Massoud Barzani, Ayad Allawi and others (supposedly including Ammar al-Hakim according to the journal Moqtada published online) when he refused to follow the process to call for a no-confidence vote.  Jalal refused to make that call and instead allowed people who admitted they signed the call to pull their names from the petition. In addition, he disallowed signatures.  And then came the fallout and fat boy Jalal hot footed it out of the country -- even though the Kurdish political parties (including his own) were saying that no leaders should leave Iraq at that time do to the political crisis.
 
Jalal had to leave, for West Germany, it was insisted because he had to have immediate surgery.  And what was this life threatening procedure Jalal had done?  Elective knee surgery.  And that only turned him into a bigger joke.  That's when he began issuing threats of stepping down as president.  Poor Jalal, he barely had the time to issue those daily bulletins from his sick bed.
 
Saleh isn't on official business.  That was made clear today and, in making that clear, it was made clear that the damage Jalal inflicted upon himself and his party has yet to go away.  Meanwhile, there are rumors that KRG President Massoud Barzani is in Baghdad. Are they true?  No one knows right now.  But he most likely did not arrive on Sunday and then turn around and go back Monday only to return today.  Though he is not in the picture the KRG has posted, they state he chaired the meeting of his Council of Ministers Monday evening -- and that the meeting took place in Erbil.
 
 All Iraq News notes State of Law MP Salman al-Moussawi released a statement declaring that the relationship between Baghdad and the Presidency of the Kurdistan Region would calm and tensions would decrease in the coming days.  You have to wonder about Jalal still waiting to make his grand entrance.  Nouri's publicly attacking the KRG which does not play well with residents of those three provinces.  Jalal is from the KRG.  He may be president of Iraq but he's a Kurd and he's becoming a Kurd without a home, forget homeland.  Not since he pissed off Kurds with his March 2009 pronouncement of "The ideal of a united Kurdistan is just a dream written in poetry" has Jalal been in such a weak position.  And the White House put him in that position by, Barack Obama put him in that position, by pressuring him to back off from the no-confidence vote.  (In fairness to Barack, as Jalal has demonstrated repeatedly over the years, it does not take a great deal to make Jalal buckle.)
 
While Jalal's weakened, eyes turn to Iraqiya and specifically to Saleh al-Mutlaq who is either a very cunning Iago to Nouri's Othello or he's someone who has sold out Iraiqya.  The jury is still out on that but were Ayad Allawi to give up leadership of Iraqiya right now, the political slate would break into warring factions because Saleh can't hold it together.  (Were Allawi harmed in an assassination attempt or killed, the members of Iraqiya would rally and actually grow stronger.  Nouri should remember that when plotting revenge on his enemies.)  The other prominent members of Iraqiya are Osama al-Nujaifi whom Nouri wishes he could get rid of but he can't and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.
 


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Mass arrests and the Free Iraq Army announces its..."
"The oil, the heat, the lack of electricity"
"Peace, Love and Misunderstanding"
"Curiosity's discovery"
"The campaigns"
"mars"
"What products will go up because of the drought?"
"Helen Gurley Brown"
"Terry Gross is anti-choice"
"Peace, Love and Misunderstanding"
"TV"
"The latest attack on Occupy"
"They can't relate"
"THIS JUST IN! THE WEIRD COUPLE!"

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE WEIRD COUPLE!

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O AND HIS SPOUSE SHE-HULK NEVER LOOK LESS NORMAL THEN WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO PLAY REGULAR FOLKS.

SHE-HULK AND GWEN STEFANI CO-HOSTED A FUNDRAISER SUNDAY AND SINCE SHE-HULK IS NOT A SINGER, ONLOOKERS WERE LEFT TO DRAW OTHER COMPARISONS.  A STAGGERING NICOLE RICHIE TOLD THESE REPORTERS BEFORE FALLING TO THE GROUND, "I GUESS THEY'RE SAYING SHE-HULK'S A BEARD TODAY.  YOU KNOW LIKE HOW WE ALL KNOW GWEN'S HUSBAND SUCKS COCK BUT WE PRETEND LIKE WE DON'T?  LIKE WE ALL DON'T KNOW GAVIN HAD A HOT AND HEAVY AFFAIR WITH CROSS DRESSER MARILYN BEFORE HE MARRIED GWEN?  LIKE BOY GEORGE HAS SPENT EVERY YEAR OF GWEN'S MARRIAGE GIGGLING TO THE PRESS ABOUT HOW GAVIN IS GAY?  SO I GUESS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE LADIES RELATE ON THAT AND BARRY O IS GAY TOO.  IF HE'S BLOWING GUYS AS WELL THAT WOULD EXPLAIN ALL THOSE DEEP LINES AROUND HIS MOUTH."

MEANWHILE BARRY O WENT TO IOWA WHERE HE WAS PHOTOGRAPHED WITH TOM VILSACK AND DECLARED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE SPENDING MILLIONS HELPING FARMERS BY BUYING MEAT.  AND THE PROBLEM?

WHEN YOU SAY "MEAT" TO MOST AMERICANS, WHAT COMES TO MIND?

THAT'S RIGHT: BEEF.

BARRY O HAS A 'MEAT' PROGRAM THAT EXCLUDES BEEF.  ONLY THE MR. SPOCK OF POLITICS COULD BE SO DETACHED THAT HE WOULDN'T CATCH THAT.  MAYBE BARRY O CAN HANG OUT WITH GAVIN ROSSDALE WHO CAN TEACH HIM ALL ABOUT MEAT.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Moving over to the US where Bradley Manning's court-martial is scheduled to begin September 21st.  Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.  Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.
 
Bradley has been locked away for "805 days as of last week," as noted on this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) .  Their guest this week was attorney and author Chase Madar.  Excerpt.
 
Michael Smith:  Chase, start with Manning joining the military and bring us up to date to the point where he got arrested.
 
Chase Madar:  Okay, so Bradley Manning enlisted in the US Army in October 2007.  He's deployed to Iraq after all kinds of training in Army intelligence in October 2009.  He allegedly begins leaking things in early 2010 and he is arrested in late May 2010, over two years ago now.  He was held in solitary confinement, in very strict, punative isolation at Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia from July 29, 2010 'till April 2011 -- almost nine months  in pre-trial isolation.  And that was against the medical advice of the brig's psychiatrist.  And that was against the advice of an independent psychiatrist who was called in to examine Manning.  He was transferred -- in large part, due to international pressure -- to Fort Leavenworth where he's in the medium-security population of that military brig in April 2011 and he's been held there for over a year.  His court-martial will probably not start until January.  So we're looking at two-and-a-half years of pre-trial confinement. That's very problematic.  The first nine months of that was in a very harsh, punative and very gratuitous solitary confinement.  I think solitary confinement is gratuitous just about all the time but in this case it was especially nasty. 
 
Michael Smith: The material that Bradley Manning leaked has been characterized as just bombshell material.  Can you go over just some of that material with us so our audience gets an idea of the significance of the information that came to light because of Bradley Manning?
 
Chase Madar:  You could divide up the WikiLeaks leaks allegedly supplied by Bradley Manning in about three categories.  First, you have the Iraq material.  And I think the most viral and most sensational document from that is the Collateral Murder so-called video -- the gun site video shot from the gun site of an Apache warship about a mile and a half up in the sky over the Baghdad suburb of New Baghdad, from July 2007.  And you can see through that gunsite video, these Apache helicopters opening fire on a crowd of mostley civilians [. . . I am editing out an assertion he makes as fact that cannot be proven as fact, it's not in the video].  And that is just a very stark and very shocking look at what this war has been like for many people. No one would say that that's the whole story but that's a large part of the story and it's important that we all see that. There are also thousands of war logs -- these are SIGACT reports, very raw reports from the field in Iraq, filed by soldiers, about individual incidents.  And you get this great moasic portrait of a war going terribly in Iraq.  You have a similar set of documents for the Afghan War -- the Afghan War Logs -- which are full of tales of night raids gone wrong, of checkpoints gone wrong and civilians getting killed, of small bases getting built and then abandoned.  It's also a composite portrait of a war that is weirdly aimless, unsure of any real mission and not going very well at all.
 
 
Michael Smith:  When you describe what Bradley Manning leaked -- first with respect to Iraq and then Afghanistan -- it was reminiscent to my mind of what Daniel Ellsberg did with the Pentagon Papers.  Had you thought of those comparisons?
 
Chase Madar:  Absolutely and a comparsion to Daniel Ellsberg's famous mega-leak, the Pentagon Papers is a very instructive way to look at Bradley Manning's alleged leaks -- both in the content and in their reception.  You see a great deal of difference in how they've been received because Ellsberg is now seen as a national treasure, the State Dept circulates a video worldwide, a documentary about Ellsberg and what a hero he is.  But there is not that kind of warm feeling even among most Democratic Party oriented party intellectuals and media for Bradley Manning.  And even many of the same people who supported Dan Ellsberg back in the day, say Norman Dorsen, a former ACLU stalwart, are eager to condemn Bradley Manning. I think there's a real generation gap there.  I think it has to do with also the fact that these wars don't have the same sense of urgency despite their near total failure for our intellectual class -- in a large part because there isn't a draft anymore and with our all volunteer army, our intellectual class, whether in the media, the law schools, the non-profits, just doesn't have much skin in the game and therefore although they welcomed Ellsberg's leaks, Manning they are quite happy to marginalize  and just dismiss as a malcontent and a wierdo and a saboteur when he is really nothing of the kind.
 
Heidi Boghosian: Many of us were disappointed because Obama came into office pledging to do more to protect whistle blowers and yet his administration has gone after more whistle blowers than any other.  Why do you think that disconnect?
 
Chase Madar:  Well it's-it's a huge disappointment, what you're saying, that Obama did campaign as the whistle blower's best friend and he has prosecuted more than twice, no, twice as many as all previous administrations combined using the Espionage Act of 1917 which was never intended as an official secrets act to begin with but there you have it.  Why is he doing this? What does he have to gain.  Here's one theory that I find very persuasive [. . .]
 
Heaven help us all.
 
 
It makes no difference if Barack prosecutes more because it helps him get off sexually or because it he thinks it'll make it rain.  It doesn't matter why.  It matters that he does it.
 
Quit making excuses for him.
 
 
By its very nature, the intellecutal class wasn't in threat of being drafted during Vietnam. If you were an intellectual, you were studying or teaching in academia.  Therefore, you weren't at risk of being drafted -- look at Dick Cheney's college deferments.  The poor were the ones at risk of being drafted.  They could try for marriage and child deferments.  But the reality is that during that time period if you were going to Yale you weren't getting drafted unless you wanted to.  It just didn't happen.  There is the mythical story -- and it's told, not surprisingly, by a lot of White men -- about the draft and how it would save us from wars.  That's b.s.  The draft did not end the war in Korea, it did not end the one in Vietnam. 
 
And this lie needs to stop.
 
Heidi gave him a chance to get to the truth with her question but he didn't want to take it. What's the difference between Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning.  If you set aside that Bradley was active duty and serving while Daniel was working in the civilian world, the only real difference boils down to the White House occupant.  Daniel was up against the low class and ridiculed Richard Nixon.  (I loathe Richard Nixon, I'm not excusing him in this.)  Whereas Bradley's up against the media crush Barack Obama. 
 
I love Barbra but she's not an intellectual or of the intellectual class.  I don't say that to imply that she's stupid.  She's a very smart woman and far smarter than the bulk of the intellectuals.  But Barbra won't do a damn thing for Bradley.  She fund raised for Daniel.  She answered phones for Daniel.  She sang requests over the phone for Daniel.  She won't do a damn thing for Bradley Manning.
 
Why is that? 
 
Because Barbra won't ever do anything that might look bad for a Democratic Party president. And I'm not mocking her for it.  That's who she is and who she always was.  Cut her and DNC pours out of her veins.  She could support Daniel because of the fact that Richard Nixon was a Republican.
 
People like Barbra don't bother me.  It's the ones to the left of Barbra that do.  The ones who insist -- when a Republican's in office -- that they'd call out anyone who does what ___ [whatever Republican]  does.  And then a Democrat gets in office and these same people won't even say "Boo!"
 
Bradley can't be blamed on Bush.  The leak takes place when Barack's in the White House.  The arrest takes place when Barack's in the White House.  The imprisonment takes place when Barack's in the White House.  The person prosecuting Bradley -- hell, he's already pronounced Brad guilty -- is Barack Obama. 
 
You can be as stupid and ridiculous as Chase Madar.  You can sound as stupid as he does -- and he does sound stupid since his speaking voice sounds like that of the late Phil Hartman voicing Troy McClure (The Simpsons).  But unless you want to bed down and wallow in stupidity, lose the red herrings.  It's got nothing to do with the draft.  It has to do with people like Chase Madar who can't call out Barack.  Grown adults who are too willing to lie to themselves.  If it weren't for Barack, Brad would be free right now.  Barack has that power.  He won't use it.
 
There's one reason and only one reason that Bradley's behind bars right now: Barack Obama.
 
Turning to the US presidential election, there's some news today.  We'll note this from US House Rep Carolyn Maloney's office:
 
 
New York -- Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) applauded the announcement by the Commission on Presidential Debates that Candy Crowley, the widely respected political journalist and anchor of "State of the Union" on the Cable News Network (CNN), to serve as the moderator of the presidential debate taking place in Hempstead, New York on October 16, 2012. Crowley is the first woman reporter to moderate a presidential debate since Carole Simpson of ABC News in 1992. Today's announcement followed a movement to urge the Commission to select a female moderator, which included an on-line petition drive organized by high school students in New Jersey and a joint letter from several Members of Congress to the Commission that was initiated by Congresswoman Maloney.
"Candy Crowley is an eminently qualified veteran reporter and interviewer, and I am thrilled that the Commission on Presidential Debates has selected her as a moderator. I think it's entirely appropriate that she'll be moderating the debate taking place in New York State, the birthplace of the movement for equality for American women," said Congresswoman Maloney, a former Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues.
"I was proud to champion the grass-roots effort to refocus the spotlight on the glaring lack of female moderators in the last four elections, which was launched this year by three young women from Montclair, New Jersey  -- Emma Axelrod, Sammi Siegel, and Elena Tsemberis. Their grass roots efforts show how democracy can work if everyone uses their voice and their vote to make things better. Their drive and determination bring to mind the famous saying attributed to Margaret Mead: 'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world,'" said Representative Maloney.
In their joint letter to the Commission, U.S. Representatives Maloney, Barbara Lee (D-CA), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) wrote "to urge to the Commission on Presidential Debates to select at least one woman as moderator for the Presidential debates this year," and that "it defies reason to believe that there has been no woman with the gravitas to moderate a Presidential debate in the last twenty years."
 
 
Four women make up two presidential tickets this year:   Jill Stein has the Green Party's presidential nomination and her running mate is Cheri Honkala and  Roseanne Barr has the nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party and her running mate is Cindy Sheehan. Also on the presidential news front, over the weekend Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made an announcement, as Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The New VP Candidate" notes, he picked US House Rep Paul Ryan to be his running mate.
 

RECOMMENDED: