The Daily Jot: 2010-11-28

Saturday, December 04, 2010

THIS JUST IN! HE GAVE THEM SOMETHING!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O MIGHT HAVE HOPED FOR BETTER DAYS BUT HIS TIRED ACT IS ONLY RECEIVING POOR REVIEWS:

* POLITICAL CHAOS AND ECONOMIC WEAKNESS

* UNINSPIRED AND UNINSPIRING PRESIDENT

* A SPINELESS SPIRAL

* SUPPOSEDLY PRO-UNION

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O REPLIED, "I MUST STILL BE REALLY POPULAR IF THEY CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT ME."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

"I will not agree to let this bill go forward." The US Senate Armed Services Committee held another hearing on Don't Ask, Don't Tell today and the big news in the long hearing took place a little after noon when Ranking Member John McCain declared, "I will not agree to let this bill go forward." The sentence really demands an explanation point but McCain wasn't being forceful when he made the statement, he was being whiney. In fact, today he offered one long whine, like an ambulance siren, only higher pitched.

Senator Carl Levin is the Committee Chair and he noted at the start, "The Committee meets this morning to continue receiving testimony on the Department of Defense's report on implementation of a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Yesterday we heard from Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm [Mike] Mullen and the co-chairs of the Deptartment's working group on this issue. Today we hear from the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen James Cartwright, and from the senior military office of each of the services: Army Chief of Staff Gen George Casey, Chief of Naval Operations Adm Gary Roughead, Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen James Amos, Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Norton Schwartz and Commandant of the Coast Guard Adm Robert Papp. The chiefs are tasked to organize, train and equip our military forces. That's an important and challenging task and we are all grateful to the service of each of you to this nation. If we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, as I believe we should, the legislation stipulates that repeal will not take effect unless and until there is a certification by the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that they have adopted the necessary implementatin steps to assure that we maintain our standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention."

In the first round of questioning, Chair Carl Levin established via the witnesses Casey and Amos that the task could be carried out. Amos quoted back Levin from yesterday ("If not now, when?") in his response. When Ranking Member McCain went, he played repeatedly with his ink pen which only drew attention to his power pink tie begging the question: How often do you see a man in a power pink tie who is opposing LGBT rights?

"I don't have a lot of questions," he would say after a mini-sermonette. And it was strange that he didn't have a lot of questions when he stated before that, "It's very obvious to me that there is a lot more scrutiny and work to be involved before passing this legislation." If more hearings are needed -- and he would advocate that throughout the hearing -- one would assume that this was to get answers and answers generally are preceeded by questions. Possibly the bulk of McCain's thinking cap moments Friday ended with the selection of his tie?

While McCain was the most annoying, it was Senator Roger Wicker that appeared to be beamed in from another planet. He used his hearing time to argue against repeal because service members (his opinion) would never support serving with gays and lesbians and, in some sort of book-end argument, insisting that Don't Ask, Don't Tell discharges resulted from gay members coming forward and saying they wanted to discharge because they were gay. So, orbiting the planet earth from who knows what galazy, Wicker believes that gays and lesbians don't want to serve with straight or straight passing people who also don't want to serve with gays and lesbians. It was a circular kind of irrationality. Early on, Wicker stated, "I do have to wonder if the American people watching this are wondering why are we here?" Probably a lot of people wondered why Wicker was here and what planet he was visiting from.

Senator John Thune, who opposes repeal, tried to float the need for another step in the process. He stated that there was a difference between the chiefs appearing before the Committee today giving their advice and them being able to sign off. It wasn't a smart move on Thune's part. The response was universal: They all feel they are listened to by Gates and Mullen and that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is where the decision belongs. Thune also accused the working group from the Defense Department which composed the study of manipulating data by emphasis (particularly page 49). Having failed at both efforts, he then declared readiness was his primary issue -- strange since he asked no questions about his primary issue.

Were it not for McCain's drama, the big story coming out of today's hearing might be Senator Scott Brown announcing he supports repeal. (As Ava guessed yesterday.)

Casey stated in the first round (to McCain) that he supported the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell "eventually." (He repeated "eventually" twice in his answer.) Schwartz stated he did not favor repeal now "but, not in 2011, but 2012 at the earliest, that would be an acceptable approach to me." Yet when Levin asked him what the difference was between 2011 and 2012, Schwartz couldn't name one leaving the impression that he was just throwing up road blocks. Levin had to use the bulk of his second round time correcting distortions made by Jeff Sessions and John Thune about Levin's remarks.

John McCain wanted to give a lecture about "it's tough" -- a long lecture. Rather surprising considering his rude remark where he dubbed Levin's questioning a "lecture." You really see such open bitchery in the Senate but few are as catty as John McCain. After insisting it was tough and bobbing around in his chair for about three minutes, he finally declared, "I will not agree to have this bill go forward and neither will, I believe, that 41 of my colleagues will either because our economy is in the tank -- our economy is in the tank and the American people want that issue addressed."

What a drama queen. This is the same John McCain who turned nervous nellie in 2008 and announced he was suspending his campaign for president and wanted a debate postponed. Now, please note, in the midst of the Civil War -- as well as during WWII -- the country held elections. But McCain thinks only one thing can be done at a time? Maybe he has low energy levels and needs to retire? If he can't handle more than one issue at a time, it may be a sign that the mind is gone.

His snide and bitchy ending was so bitter it will probably even overshadow Jeff Sessions trying to argue his case by insisting "I think I am in accord with the ACLU in that view." It was the sort of once-in-a-lifetime statement. (He was stating that the ACLU knew that the Court would not repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and that he knew it too.) John McCain, scene stealer.

Yesterday the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell review the Pentagon conducted. Ava's covered it at Trina's site with "Senators Scott Brown and Roland Burris (Ava)," Wally's covered it at Rebecca's site with "Senate Armed Services Committee" and Kat's covered it at her own site with "Where I find time to praise Ben Nelson." A better moment that was not included in the above was Senator Evan Bayh noting, "There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong when we ask men and women to lay down their lives for their country and yet they cannot be honest about who they are." One person had more "worst moments" than anyone else: John McCain who marched against equality and attempted to mow down several witnesses, his colleagues on the Committee and the American justice system. On the last one, McCain declared of WikiLeaks and its revelations, "So far all we know is that one Private First Class is responsible for all of this." Is he trying to say PFC Bradley Manning is running WikiLeaks? Or is he trying to say Bradley Manning was the leak to WikiLeaks?

Neither makes any sense because Bradley Manning hasn't had a trial, hasn't entered a plea. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty. It's not a difficult concept but, for some reason, John McCain struggles with it. Today, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange declared, "For the past four years one of our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts, journalists would be nothing. If indeed it is the case, as alleged by the Pentagon, that the young soldier -- Bradley Manning -- is behind some of our recent disclosures, then he is without doubt an unparalleled hero." Assange was taking questions in an online news conference at the Guardian.

Where in the world is WikiLeaks? Currently click here. Ravi Somaiya and Alan Cowell (New York Times) report, "An American provider of Internet domain names withdrew its service to the WikiLeaks Web site after a barrage of attacks by hackers that threatened to destabilize its entire system, according to the provider and WikiLeaks itself on Friday. But within hours, WikiLeaks said it had registered its domain name in Switzerland." The WikiLeaks Twitter feed has remained up:

WIKILEAKS: Free speech has a number: http://88.80.13.160 about 2 hours ago via web
You can also easily support WikiLeaks via http://collateralmurder.com/en/support.html about 5 hours ago via web
WikiLeaks,org domain killed by US everydns.net after claimed mass attacks KEEP US STRONG https://donations.datacell.com/ about 6 hours ago via web
Pilger: The War You Don't See (interview on new film) http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2010/3083583.htm about 7 hours ago via web

Victoria Ward (Telegraph of London) explains, "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said the development was an example of the 'privatisation of state censorship' in the US and is a 'serious problem'. [.. .] WikiLeaks has released a file that it dubbed its 'insurance policy'. The file is encrypted with a code that is so strong it is deemed impossible to break. It is said to be planning to release a key that unlocks the files if anything happens to the site or its founder, Julian Assange." Jane Wakefield (BBC News) adds, "The net appears to be closing in on Wikileaks as more and more companies it relies on distance themselves from it. Shutting down the main .org site will cause problems but it is by no means the end. Its Twitter feed remains defiant, urging fans to log on via its IP address with the tweet 'Free speech has a number: http://88.80.13.160'. In some ways, any attempts to cut off Wikileaks could be a case of too little, too late." Matthew Campbell (Bloomberg News) reports, "It is 'not acceptable' for servers in France to host the site, French Industry Minister Eric Besson said in a letter to the CGIET technology agency. The minister asked for measures to bar WikiLeaks from France, where it is partially hosted by Roubaix, France-based OVH SAS." It's already lost one French host. Deutsche Welle reports, "A second French host, Octopuce, based in Paris, was also a WikiLeaks host for approximately the last six weeks up until this week, when the WikiLeaks site sustained a decent-sized cyberattack of 10 gigabits per second." Who's doing these attacks? The one on the US server should result in Eric Holder assigning an investigative team. Failure to do so will result in more rumors that it is indeed the US government attacking WikiLeaks in an attempt to take it offline for good. Tara Kelly (Time magazine) notes, "It's not known where the cyber attacks are coming from, however, WikiLeaks claimed that intelligence agencies from the U.S. and elsewhere have been targeting its site. The reason? It's spilled thousands of embarrassing U.S. diplomatic cables as well as classified U.S. military documents that has angered the U.S. and other governments." A caller to the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR) today asked about the cyber attacks. James Kitfield responded, "I assure you there are some reporters who are on that story. Whether they will get to the bottom of it, I don't know. It's very hard, as we've seen, in all the hacking done against our systems, it's very easy to hide the fingerprints of who the hackers are. But it wouldn't suprise me at all if this was the US government. I mean we have an offensive cyber war capability. This is obviously seen -- as [demonstrated by] a Justice Dept investigation of him for spying -- obviously seen as a national security threat. And for them to actually try and take down the sites would not -- I have no proof, no evidence -- but it would not surprise me."

The Library of Congress has joined in censorship and so have others as Gawker reports:

U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures -- or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites -- on unclassified networks get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.

The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole: First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that the State Department is warning prospective hires that if they write about Wikileaks on Twitter or Facebook, they might not get that job. And now Gawker has learned that military installations in Iraq are trying to keep soldiers from reading about Wikileaks.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Bahrain and was asked about WikiLeaks today while appearing with Bahrain's Foreign Minister Al Khalifa.

Mohammad Fadhel: Good morning. My name is Mohammad Fadhel from Agence France Presse. My question is to Secretary Clinton. In order to contain the damages which have been caused by all these leaks through WikiLeaks, what are you going to tell your allies, especially those in those parts which touches your allies exactly? Thank you.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Well, of course, we have very clearly stated that this action was illegal and regrettable, that we have close and important relationships that will not be affected, or certainly not damaged, but that the United States will continue to engage in the important diplomatic work that I am doing here, bilaterally, and more broadly tonight. And I think that many people who are experienced in diplomacy, as many of the diplomats here in Bahrain are, know that many of these alleged statements are taken out of context. But most importantly, they do not represent the policy of the United States. The policy of the United States is made in Washington. The President and I are very clear about the direction that the United States is taking in supporting our partners, and that will continue.

The attacks on WikiLeaks are coming from all over. Wednesday, Marcia noted some of the attacks including that Amazon had dropped WikiLeaks after hearing from Senator Joe Lieberman's staff. Marcia announced she's now boycotting Amazon over the censorship. That night Betty debunked the sillies and the crazies. If you've missed it, a number of Hillary supporters in the 2008 Democratic Party primary have created 'theories' that WikiLeaks exists to take Hillary down. They also maintain that Julian Assange "called" for Hillary to resign. (And some news outlets have also printed that false charge.) Betty provided the walkthrough on how you call for a resignation and what actually happened with Assange (Time magazine asked him if Hillary should resign -- at the end of a long interview). Betty then noted how Lambert (Corrente) was attacked by Hillary zealots for insisting there was a standard of behavior that all had meet -- which is what led to hostility aimed at Lambert in the comments of that post. Betty rightly argued (at her own site):

Now I understand the reaction to a degree. Hillary has been wrongly and unfairly blamed and accused for so many things and that was especially true in 2008 when so-called Democrats were hurling mud at her from the gutter of Matt Drudge and beyond. And I understand the need to defend her.
But I don't defend her when she's wrong. If she's broken a treaty or a law, then she's wrong.
Sadly, a lot of us are becoming as knee jerk as the Cult of St. Barack. We need to take a strong look at that. And we need to prove that we were right, Hillary was the best choice in 2008.
She was the best choice because she was smarter, she had more experience, she had a better record and her core supporters were not afraid to say, "Hillary, you're wrong."
Contrast that with the so-so intelligence of Barack, the lack of experience, the sorry record and his core supporters who insist that, as Ava and C.I. like to mock, he pees rainbows.
We're not those people, we're not the Cult of St. Hillary. We know she's not perfect and we know she makes mistakes. We know we have to hold her and every other politician to a standard and we also know that even if she disagreed with us on what we saw as a standard, she would support the holding of her feet to the fire. We know that because she spoke of it time and again, how she wanted to work for us.

This is Julian Assange answering Richard Stengel's (Time magazine) question of whether Hillary should resign as Secretary of State.

JA: I believe ... I don't think it would make much of a difference either way. But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that.

That's not controversial. If you break the laws, you resign. Regardless of whom you are. I personally like Sandy Berger but have noted here that when he copped a plea that should mean he could no longer hold appointed office. He could run for office and if the voters of whatever area wanted to trust him, that was one thing. But having agreed that he violated the law and a trust, he shouldn't be appointed to any government position. Again, I like Sandy. But right is right. I like Hillary as well. But if she broke laws -- that includes treaties the US is a signatory to -- then she would need to resign. If. The documents released thus far do not prove that she did. (Which is something Wally and Cedric were tackling this week.) Even Julian Assange says "if it can be shown". But the myth that he's calling for her resignation has led all the loons to come out charging. Some, see Marcia's take down of Riverdaughter last night, are so stupid that they (a) accept the lie that something's been proven regarding Hillary and (b) then insist that it doesn't matter as they minimize what the documents show. (The cable shows law breaking -- that's reality, know the law -- it does not show Hillary authorized it. "Of course, we don't know asked by whom," Diane Rehm pointed out on the second hour of today's The Diane Rehm Show. Watch this weekend and you may see a walkback by several outlets as they try to address the CIA involvement and need to figure out how -- since they don't want to run corrections, though they should -- they twist the story around.)

Let's stay with realities. Reality: I'm not attracted to mincing men so I avoid Robert Gibbs when possible. But the White House plus-size spokesmodel came up yesterday afternoon when we were speaking with a group of students. WikiLeaks has stolen government documents! It's true because Tubby Gibbs said so! Eric Holder hasn't said that. Robert Gibbs is a professional liar -- that job requires one. Robert Gibbs declared that there was "an ongoing criminal investigation about the stealing of and the dissemination of sensitive and classified information." WikiLeaks didn't steal anything. They have copies of government documents. Gibbs is a fat-ass liar. Or, in fairness, he may just be that ignorant. This issue has been dealt with repeatedly in this country. Let's use the Pentagon Papers. Copies were passed on to the press. Not the original. To have been in possession of the original would have put the press in possession of government property. WikiLeaks did not steal information and they are not in possession of stolen government documents. Bradley Manning -- who has not been found guilty of anything -- is charged with leaking material -- even he is not charged with theft.

Thursday, December 02, 2010

THIS JUST IN! HE MAY CHANGE HIS MIND!

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

THE VELVET GLOVES HAVE COME OFF. PRINCESS BRAT'S WALKER, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, DECLARED THAT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS BROKEN CAMPAIGN PROMISES.

BLOOMBERG LAUGHED OF BARRY O, "NOW HE'S PISSED OFF THE SUPPORTERS AND THE OPPONENTS. YOU GO FOR IT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO STAND UP FOR THE MOSQUE FRIDAY NIGHT, YOU DON'T WALK AWAY FROM IT SATURDAY MORNING."

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O SNAPPED, "JUST BECAUSE MICHAEL BLOOMFIELD IS FROM CHICAGO DOESN'T MEAN I KNOW HIM. I WAS NEVER A FAN OF ELECTRIC FLAG OR THE BUTTEFIELD BLUES BAND. IF YOU ASK ME, THIS MICHAEL BLOOMFIELD NEEDS TO MIND HIS OWN DAMN BUSINESS. BUT IT'S FRIDAY, ASK ME AGAIN ON SATURDAY, I MAY CHANGE MY MIND."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

"I don't want to lie but you won't let me tell the truth." This morning, Senator Ben Nelson framed the issue of serving in the military while gay under Don't Ask, Don't Tell as harmful to core values. The Senate Armed Services Comittee was hearing from a number of witnesses. Chair Carl Levin explained at the top, "The committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the Dept of Defense's comprehensive review of the issues associated with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The Committee was reviewing the year-long study -- a study that prevented any action from being taken for a year -- and taking testiomony from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Adm Mike Mullen the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, DoD's Jeh Johnson (Pentagon attorney) and Gen Carter Ham.

There are a number of 'conventional wisdoms' the press has run with for two weeks now which are incorrect. For example, claims that the vote make up is the same in the Senate as it was before the mid-term elections? Wrong. Joe Lieberman's been telling the press that there are over 60 votes and Carl Levin's been saying he's not sure if he has 60 votes. Last time, no Republicans would get behind the Defense Authorization -- Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been folded into the Defense Authorization. Some might have, some were close to doing so. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled some procedural nonsense and Republicans closed ranks. Senator John McCain is currently making noises about filibustering. If he does, Democrats are in a weaker position because the Senate has changed.

Senator Roland Burris. The Barack Political Machine trashed him and treated him so rudely that it's one for the history books. Roland Burris was one of the Senate's strongest voices in support of overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Burris wasn't good enough for the Barack Obama Political Machine which just knew that another questionable banker who played hoops with Barack (Alexi Giannoulias) could win a US Senate seat. He couldn't. He didn't. Republican Mark Kirk won the seat. And the Barack Obama political machine so demonized Roland Burris -- and they were so sure Barack's pet would win the race -- that they demanded Burris step down as soon as a new senator was elected. (Burris wasn't elected, he was appointed by the state's then-governor -- appointed to fill out the remainder of Barack's term.)

Mark Kirk was not pushed on this issue in the campaign. His position -- and he's now sworn in and a member of the Senate -- is that he's listening to the arguments (and has read the review) while he considers what action to take. We can guess what he'll do (a freshman senator most likely does what the party wants) but we don't know. We do know what Roland Burris would have done. If McCain should filibuster, Senator Burris vote would have been very helpful.

Let's deal with another issue. We are, where the past Iraq snapshots said we'd be (go back and look). We are not where HRC or the liars and apologists said we'd be. That we're here now is not due to any psychic ability on my part, it's due to being realistic, paying attention and refusing to engage in hero worship. As we have noted since 2009, this repeal was not a serious effort. In the lame duck session, there's now the impression of a scramble which may or may not be sincere. ("Put us back in charge in 2012 and we'll repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell!" might be the Democratic cry of the next election cycle.) Since those who 'know so much' turned out to be so wrong, let's try one more time to talk about what's being proposed because that's very different from what's been hyped and lied about repeatedly.

If the Defense Authorization passes with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in it, that doesn't mean 'Open service! Yea! Equality!' What the administration is doing is turning the issue over to the military. That's a huge problem and a huge cop out. What's being done is not Congress attempting to pass a law to end discrimination. They would just be knocking Don't Ask, Don't Tell off the books. That would return us to where we were before. No, that's not enough. Where we were before was nervous military brass in the 1970s seeing LGBT advances -- including within the military -- and the nervous brass becoming more strident to the point that they had a policy against gays serving. That's what led to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Bill Clinton wanted gays and lesbians to be able to serve openly. He promised that in his 1992 presidential campaign. He was elected and faced huge obstacles -- Colin Powell, Sam Nunn, Republicans in Congress, etc. Most of all he faced a press in the midst of a sexual panic -- filled with leering stories, filled with sexist and homophobic 'reports.' And open service, equality, was not going to happen. The most that could be put forward was Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It was supposed to guarantee that no more sexual witch hunts would be launched by the military. That didn't happen.

All Barack's done -- besides drag his feet -- is advocate (weakly and meekly) for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be taken off the books. That returns us to where we were before Bill Clinton was president. And without a real measure of equality from Congress or a Supreme Court verdict, there's really nothing to cheer.

The refusal to grasp that has led to a lot of wasted time and a lot of confusion. Why did Barack fight the courts repeatedly when they ruled repeatedly in favor of equality in the services? Because that's not what he and his cronies pushed for. They only pushed for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There's a world of difference between Congress passing laws that support equality and Congress shirking their responsibilities by tossing aside a law and saying, "It's up to the military to set the policy."

Patrick Murphy had good intentions and worked very hard but he never knew what he was doing. We called him out only when necessary -- such as when he was stating that Ted Kennedy was going to be leading on the issue in the Senate. Patrick Murphy wasn't lying. He was told that was what was going to happen. But by that time, as we noted in real time, Ted wasn't even showing up for his duties and, as we pointed out, Ted was dying. A real effort would have required pairing Patrick Murphy with someone who could steer him through the legislative waters. That wasn't done. He deserves applause for forcing the issue. It's a real shame that House leadership -- including Nancy Pelosi -- knew all along that what was being pushed wasn't enough.

If Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal dies in the lame duck session (as some fear it may), the next move is not propose the same measure. The next move would be to allow the Court to decide or to put forward a law outlawing discrimination. Just taking Don't Ask, Don't Tell off the books really isn't enough. And if you're one of the people who only realized -- after the mid-terms -- that maybe, just maybe, you got hyped and lied to, make up for it by being prepared for the next effort. If a new effort is needed, it needs to be launched on the grounds of equality. No more "Our military is stretched so let some gay guys serve!" That might have seemed brave to some, but it was insulting and we called it out. You fight for equality.

That is an American concept and one that doesn't require a speaking tour. (Those late to the party, Dems couldn't do anything until they launched a speaking tour! That was a cop out as well and as more and more people called that s**t out, you may have noticed, the speaking tour was no more.) Every American understands what equality means. And by starting from a strong stance (equality) as opposed to a begging, whining stance (Patrick Murphy's position and that of, yes, Servicemembers United). You argue for equality and you get equality on the books. Otherwise, LGBT rights become like family planning discussions -- dependent upon a president who supports them because otherwise a global gag order gets imposed. You either put equality on the books (and the Court can put it on the book as well by properly interpreting already existing laws) or what should be rights become whims allowed or denied depending upon who sits in the Oval Office.

The big question as present is whether McCain will filibuster? If today's performance is any indication, the answer is: Yes, if he has to. The witnesses had just finished their opening statements when Levin was noting how many tasks they had today and how many senators wanted to ask questions, so he proposed a round of five minute questions. Immediately, John McCain began insisting, "I object! I object." He said that wasn't enough time. And McCain's been around long enough to know that after every senator had their first round of questions -- and were visible for the cameras -- many would leave (and most did -- later on Scott Brown would get to go well over a time limit -- and without objection from McCain who was present -- due to the fact that so few Committee members were still present for the hearing). Chair Levin slowly went over the basics and added that Gates had to leave early. Even after that, McCain was the personifcation of obstruction.

Ranking Member John McCain: My only response, Mr. Chairman, is that this is obviously a transcendentally important issue and to allow our members five minutes with the Secretary of Defense is simply not adequate to have us have the much needed information that the Secretary of Defense can provide. So all I can do is say you're not giving the members suffiicient time to ask questions which is maybe not the intent but certainly not the effect So maybe we could in the lame duck seession that we're in have another hearing as soon as possible so that all members to get the information that they need to make a very important decision.

At which point, Gates offered to attempt some "rearranging" of his schedule and stay until noon. Even that was not pleasing to McCain. And yet, when he got to his first round of questioning, he found time to grandstand and lecture on WikiLeaks which has nothing to do with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

As a general rule, Republican Committee Members focused on could it be implemented with an implied should it be? Democrats either played for the camera (Claire McCaskill used her time not to help the LGBT issue but to help herself and give herself footage to push I'm-bi-partisan! mainly by praising Gates and noting she might have had a knee-jerk reaction against him if she'd been in the Senate when he was nominated and blah, blah, blah but Gates calls them as he sees them blah blah and Gates was able to serve two presidents and two parties and still call them the way he saw them. Uh, Claire, no member of a presidential cabinet serves a party. You might want to check your Constitution. As though it was not achievable. After she'd finished her lengthy testament to the greatness of self (Claire needs the stock footage, voters are angry and she's up for re-election in 2012), Claire was pretty much done with the Committee. Democrats either played for the camera (like Claire) or they emphasized some portion of the report. Senator Kay Hagan was a noteable exception.

McCain was openly hostile to Robert Gates -- as he has been since this issue was first raised by the Committee last February. He asked Gates about the fact that combat members of the services were more likely to have objections to serving with openly gay service members. Gates noted that this group was younger and this led to a lecture from McCain, "We send these young people into combat we think they're mature enough to make a decsion on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness, Mr. Secretary." Uh, actually, John McCain, they don't get to decide who they want to serve with. They go where they're assigned.

And the refusal to tackle this issue in terms of equality was a huge mistake. Senator Kay Hagan did tackle it from that standpoint. She has before. Generally speaking, hearings on this issue in the 11th Congress, on this Committee, have found her and ex-Senator Roland Burris stressing this aspect. McCain wants to cast it -- as did Senator Saxby Chambliss -- as some sort of 'extra rights for gays'. Though the public overwhelming supports allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, when charged discussions take place, polls can change. And when Democrats forget to use the building blocks of democracy -- for example, making your argument from the foundation of equality -- they repeatedly find themselves suddenly standing on shifting sand.

"It's just wrong!" independent Senator Joe Lieberman said of the discrimination going on currently. Democrats could have used a lot more people speaking like Lieberman. They had Hagan who made a point to ask about the integration of the troops -- racial integration -- under President Harry Truman. After Hagan, the strongest Democrat on the Committee -- in terms of statements made during the hearing -- was Ben Nelson who wanted to talk about the ethics of asking people to serve and asking them to hide who they are. This is the argument that goes to equality and democracy. It's a winning argument. Getting lost in the report -- lost in the weeds -- wins nothing.

THIS JUST IN! ANTIWAR.COM JOINS MOVEON!

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

IN AN EXCLUSIVE SCOOP -- MUST CREDIT BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THESE REPORTERS HAVE LEARNED OF A NEW MERGER OF RIGHT AND LEFT AS THE LIBERTARIAN ANTIWAR.COM HAS JOINED THE CENTER-TO-A-TAD-LEFT MOVEON.ORG (FORMERLY WALKON.ORG).

IN THE FIRST PIECE PUBLISHED UNDER THE NEW PARTNERSHIP -- MUST CREDIT BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX AND NOT WONKETTE! OR GAWKER! --
JASON DITZ DEMONSTRATES HOW THE TUTALAGE OF ELI PARISER HAS AND WILL EFFECT ANTIWAR.COM IN THE FUTURE AS HE CALLS FOR HILLARY CLINTON'S HEAD OVER WIKILEAKS WHILE OFFERING EXCUSES FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, APOLOGIZES FOR HIM, WHINES ABOUT WHAT A DELICATE AND DIFFICULT POSITION POOR LITTLE BARRY O HAS BEEN PUT IN.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, JASON DITZ EXPLAINED, "HATING HILLARY IS SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO US -- AND TO MOVEON -- THAN IT IS TO HAVE ANY STANDARDS. WE GLADLY FLIRT WITH -- NEE ENCOURAGE! -- CHARGES OF HYPOCRISY JUST SO WE CAN TELEGRAPH THAT WOMEN HATRED IS IN DA HOUSE AND ON THE TABLE!"

WHEN FORMER PRESIDENT HARRY TRUMAN WAS RAISED BY THESE REPORTERS, DITZ SEEMED CONFUSED, INSISTING HARRY WASN'T A WOMAN AND HILLARY WASN'T A HARRY. SO WE DID LIKE ALL OF OUR LAZY PRESS BRETHEREN AND QUOTED CRAPAPEDIA:

"The buck stops here" is a phrase that was popularized by U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who kept a sign with that phrase on his desk in the Oval Office. (Footage from Jimmy Carter's "Address to the Nation on Energy" shows the sign still on the desk during Carter's administration.) The phrase refers to the fact that the President has to make the decisions and accept the ultimate responsibility for those decisions. Truman received the sign as a gift from a prison warden, who was also an avid poker player. The ship's motto of the U.S. Naval Aircraft Carrier, USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), is also "The Buck Stops Here."^{[3]

"OH YES," EXCLAIMED DITZ. "BUCK STOPPAGE. WELL, UM, ER, HAVE YOU SEEN THESE NUT CRACKERS WE'RE SELLING FOR CHRISTMAS? WE REALY AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT COMING OFF AS SEXIST OR RUNNING OFF WOMEN OR MEN WHO MIGHT NOTICE THAT WE TARGET A WOMAN FOR THE ACTIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATION LED BY A MAN. HEY, IT'S NOT LIKE WE NEED MONEY, RIGHT? NOW THAT WE'VE PARTNERED UP WITH MOVEON.ORG, GEORGE SOROS WILL SHOW UP TO WRITE US ONE OF THOSE REALLY BIG CHECKS ANY SECOND!"}

^"FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Iran? Today Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) filed a major report on issues involving the Iraq-Iran border. Assertions are presented as fact and it appears all assertions are coming from the US military plus a few key local Iraqi sources. The report can be read many ways but the best is probably as a reflection of American military anxiety and possibly the roll-out for extending the US military presence in Iraq as appears apparent in this sentence: "Top Iraqi commanders have said that their lack of a regionally competitive air force and the country's fledgling border guard force will leave them highly vulnerable to external threats after U.S. forces pull out completely at the end of 2011." Iran isn't just a concern for the US. The Guardian publishes a US embassy cable from April 9, 2009 in which diplomatic staff notify the State Dept in DC about Saudi Arabia's concerns:

Iran

----

10. (S) The Secretary said the U.S. is looking to see if Iran can be engaged in any productive manner and noted that Special Advisor Ross would travel to the region soon for consultations. AbZ told the Secretary that UAE feels threatened by Iran today, even though Iran does not yet have a nuclear capability. AbZ asserted that the UAE is even more worried about Iranian intentions than is Israel. AbZ encouraged the U.S. to consider a GCC plus 3 and P5 plus 1 joint meeting.

----------------

Iraqi GCC plus 3

----------------

11. (S) The Secretary expressed interest in the Iraqi invitations for a GCC plus 3 meeting in Baghdad, at a date to be determined. She noted the value of the GCC plus 3 mechanism not only for furthering Arab engagement with the Iraqi government during a time of transition, but as a way to send a message to Iran that Iraq has broad support in the Arab world.

--------------------

Afghanistan/Pakistan

--------------------

12. (S) The Secretary told AbZ that the U.S. needs help to stem the flow of funds from the Gulf to the Taliban. She noted that one area of potential action is reviving training related to bulk cash smuggling.

13. (S) Thanking the UAE for hosting the Friends of Pakistan preparatory meeting, the Secretary said she hopes AbZ would attend the April donors conference in Tokyo. AbZ confirmed that he plans to attend and said that the UAE will make a "strong" pledge, but no decision has been made on an exact dollar figure.

14. (S) AbZ express concern over Saudi Arabia's decision not to make a pledge at the Tokyo conference. AbZ said that the Saudis have never liked the Pakistan Peoples Party, and support Nawaz Sharif. In addition, AbZ posited that Saudi Arabia suspects that Zardari is Shia, thus creating Saudi concern of a Shia triangle in the region between Iran, the Maliki government in Iraq, and Pakistan under Zardari. Feltman noted a pattern of Saudi behavior of withholding financial assistance - not supporting March 14 in Lebanon, not sending funds to the PA, and not planning a pledge for Pakistan. Otaiba added that Saudi Arabia also failed make a commitment at the G20 meeting.

WikiLeaks major release has often dominated the news cycle this week. For an overview of the latest release by WikiLeaks, we'll note this from Sunday's 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.

Iraq and Iran are the topic of many cables released by WikiLeaks. Ryan Grim (Huffington Post) notes a July 31, 2008 cable addresses Egyptian concerns:

Iraq: Don't Pull Out Too Soon
------------------------------

¶4. (C) Turning to Iraq, Senator Kerry asked Mubarak if he had
changed his opinion of Prime Minister Al Maliki after Iraq's
successful stabilization efforts in Basra and Sadr City.
Mubarak said he "I am not critical. He came to Cairo. I gave
him my phone number but he hasn't called us." He noted that
Egypt offered to host and train Iraqi forces, but that the
offer had not been acted upon by the Iraqis. He said the
U.S. "cannot withdraw until you strengthen the armed forces
and police. Until then you have to stay."

-------------------
Beware The Iranians
-------------------

¶5. (C) Mubarak's top concern for the stability of Iraq and
the region is Iran. He believes that "as a result of the
invasion of Iraq, Iran is spreading everywhere." He urged the
U.S. to be wary of what Iran says. "They are big, fat liars
and justify their lies because they believe it is for a
higher purpose." He said he believes this opinion is shared
by other leaders in the region. Nonetheless, he opined that
no Arab state will join the U.S. in a defense relationship
vis-a-vis Iran out of fear of "sabotage and Iranian
terrorism." He said Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is
"well-known but I cannot say it publicly. It would create a
dangerous situation." Mubarak said that sanctions are the
best hope for containing Iran, but Arab states won't dare to
endorse them.

It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out re: John Kerry. Drop back to a March 2004 statement he made that some saw as controversial and that the Bush administration criticized him for. How close is he to foreign leaders? That was the question in 2004 when he began boasting. AFP emphasizes a WikiLeaks release in which Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarack, insists that the US should "allow a dictator to take over" Iraq. Which may explain US support for Nouri al-Maliki.

Heather Langan (Bloomberg News) reports on another cable detailing a briefing between US Adm Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the head of Egypt's spy program Omar Suleiman: "Suleiman added that the Egyptian intelligence service had begun "recruiting agents in Iraq and Syria," according to the cable. He also said the U.S. shouldn't limit its focus on Iran to one issue at a time, such as the Islamic republic's nuclear program."

Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) offers this take on the US government's pushback against WikiLeaks:

No, the real eye-opener is the reactionary impulse of people in power to repress those who disseminate information.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the dislcosure "not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community."

Rep. Peter King echoed her comments, saying, "This is worse even than a physical attack on Americans, it's worse than a military attack."

All right, just wait a second here. Pearl Harbor was an attack on America. 9/11 was an attack on America. The Wikileaks document drop was not an attack on America. Our nuclear weapons are not on heightened alert (at least I sure hope they're not). The Pentagon isn't calling up more troops. No one was killed; no one was injured.

Nevertheless, Sen. Joe Lieberman said the Wikileaks staff had "blood on their hands."

Lieberman, Clinton, and King are trying to convict Wikileaks with guilt by hyperbole.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates actually went against the grain yesterday at the Pentagon when asked about WikiLeaks. His lengthy response included the following:

But let me say -- let me address the latter part of your question. This is obviouslyl a massive dump of information. First of all, I would say unlike the Pentagon Papers, one of the things that is important, I think, in all of these releases, whether it's Afghanistan, Iraq or the releases this week, is the lack of any signficant difference between what the U.S. government says publicly and what these things show privately, whereas the Pentagon Papers showed that many in the government were not only lying to the Ameircan people, they were lying to themselves.

But let me -- let me just offer some perspective as somebody who's been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a siever, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: "How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel."

When we went to real congressional oversight of intelligence in the mid-70s, there was a broad view that no other foreign intelligence service would ever share information with us again if we were going to share it all with the Congress. Those fears all proved unfounded.

Now I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly signficantly overwrought. The fact is, government deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

Click here to read in full. I think we represented it well in the excerpt above. Kevin Paule (Student Life) points out, "The empire is unsustainable, as the record deficits under the Bush and Obama administrations clearly show. Our greatest threat lies not in a cave thousands of miles away, but rather in the flaws of our foreign policy over the past century. The role of America as the world's policeman has involved our country in nations on every inhabited continent. Rather than respect the sovereignty of foreign countries and provide defense here at home, the United States has adopted an aggressive stance that creates more enemies than it defeats. A simple history of U.S. policy in the Middle East reveals the insanity." Meanwhile Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) takes it to the issue of the personal, "One thing I personally appreciate about the WikiLeaks mega-dump is that it provides me with plenty to write about for the next few years, at least. There is so much material here that one could hardly hope to cover it all, and pick up all the little gems that are just waiting to be discovered by the avid researcher. For some time to come I'll be mining this rich lode -- rich with meaning, and heavy with lessons for critics of the interventionist foreign policy consensus. "

Turning to violence, AKI reports that Iraqi Christian Fady Walid Jibrai was at his Mosul grocery store when assailants killed him yesterday. Xinhua adds that his brother was wounded in the shooting and also details other violence yesterday while last night a Mosul military checkpoint was attacked and 1 Iraqi soldier died and another was left injured, when police arrived on the scene of the assault a bomb went off injuring a police officer, and a Mosul car bombing injured three Iraqi soldiers. Reuters reports that a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured the Dibbis police chief today and an Anbar Province roadside bombing claimed the lives of two bodyguards for Lt Col Mohammed Abdul-Majeed. Alsumaira TV reports a Baghdad sticky bombing injured "an employee at Iraq's Health Ministry".

We'll cover the issue of Iraqi refugees tomorrow but breaking news is that a "brawl" took place at Australia's detention center for immigrants on Christmas Island -- where last month an Iraqi refugee apparently took his own life rather than return to Iraq -- and Australia's ABC News reports that the country's Immigration Dept states they are investigating. Following the apparent suicide, immigrants protested in common areas, some went on hunger strikes and some sewed their mouths shut.

In the US, people are gearing up for a protest that will take place later this month. Chris Hedges (Information Clearing House) notes:

On Dec. 16 I will join Daniel Ellsberg, Medea Benjamin, Ray McGovern and several military veteran activists outside the White House to protest the futile and endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of us will, after our rally in Lafayette Park, attempt to chain ourselves to the fence outside the White House. It is a pretty good bet we will all spend a night in jail. Hope, from now on, will look like this.

Hope is not trusting in the ultimate goodness of Barack Obama, who, like Herod of old, sold out his people. It is not having a positive attitude or pretending that happy thoughts and false optimism will make the world better. Hope is not about chanting packaged campaign slogans or trusting in the better nature of the Democratic Party. Hope does not mean that our protests will suddenly awaken the dead consciences, the atrophied souls, of the plutocrats running Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil or the government.

Hope does not mean we will halt the firing in Afghanistan of the next Hellfire missile, whose explosive blast sucks the oxygen out of the air and leaves the dead, including children, scattered like limp rag dolls on the ground. Hope does not mean we will reform Wall Street swindlers and speculators, or halt the pillaging of our economy as we print $600 billion in new money with the desperation of all collapsing states. Hope does not mean that the nation's ministers and rabbis, who know the words of the great Hebrew prophets, will leave their houses of worship to practice the religious beliefs they preach. Most clerics like fine, abstract words about justice and full collection plates, but know little of real hope.

Hope knows that unless we physically defy government control we are complicit in the violence of the state. All who resist keep hope alive. All who succumb to fear, despair and apathy become enemies of hope. They become, in their passivity, agents of injustice. If the enemies of hope are finally victorious, the poison of violence will become not only the language of power but the language of opposition. And those who resist with nonviolence are in times like these the thin line of defense between a civil society and its disintegration.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

THIS JUST IN! HIS 'ARTISTIC' PICTORIAL!

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

WITH HIS POLLS PLUMMETING, HIS CELEBRITY FADING, EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DROPPED TROU AND POSED NUDE FOR A LITTLE MORE ATTENTION AND A FEW MORE MINUTES IN THE LIMELIGHT BUT WHO KNEW VENEZUELA'S HUGO CHAVEZ WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SEE THE PICTORIAL?

"THE EMPIRE IS NAKED," EXCLAIMED THE PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA.

AMERICAN EYES WILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE SPREAD WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE, IN A NOD TO ANOTHER FADED STARLET AND FORMER 10, LASCIVIOUS PHOTOS OF BARRY O AND WHITE HOUSE PET BO.

APPARENTLY THE DOD BOOK CLUB HAS FINISHED WITH OPERATION DARK HEART AND IS NOW BUYING UP COPIES OF BARRY O'S SPREAD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with Roger Hodge, author of The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism which he discusses on the latest Law and Disorder Radio (aired on WBAI yesterday and on various stations throughout the week) with hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael Ratner and Michael S. Smith. For an excerpt of the discussion, refer to yesterday's snapshot. In his book, Hodge writes:

President Obama has made permanent the enormous increase in military spending since 2001. His budget projections through 2017 allocate $4.8 trillion for the Defense Department, compared with $4.6 trillion spent by Bush over eight years. Given the escalation in Afghanistan, however, it is likely that Obama will spend more than $5 trillion on the military -- more, in inflation-adjusted terms, than has been spent during any eight-year period since 1946. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq has been euphemistically "drawn down" -- as of May 2010 there were 92,000 -- but all evidence suggests that we will never fully withdraw. In 2010, American military contractors were still building permanent bases all over that shattered country, and even if every single American soldier were to be withdrawan (a condition no competent observer ever expects to see), an army of unaccountable mercenaries employed by the United States is still by any substantive definition an American occuption force. In December, when Obama nnounced his surge in Afghanistan, the Congressional Research Service reported that the 30,000 new troops would be accompanied by up to 56,000 additional private contractors. As of May 2010, according to the official Pentagon figures, there were 112,092 private military contractors in Afghanistan and 95,461 in Iraq, with 42,782 in other U.S. Central Command locations, for a total of 250,335. The official total is very likely to be a significant undercount, of course, and it does not include the contractors employed by other agencies, such as the State Department and USAID, nor does it include those working for the CIA.

No, no comptent observer ever expects to see that but then when has -- as he's known among his students -- Professor Bitch ever been compentent? The over-praised blogger deleted a post he put up yesterday -- if he'd like to deny it we have screen snaps -- which resulted in people pointing out that academics should stick to reality and not tea leaf reading. Poor Professor Bitch, he'd almost lived down the tender smack down on Iraq that Steve Rendell inflicted upon him a few years back when he was making an appearance on CounterSpin. Thanks, Professor Bitch, for showing your true colors yet again. Screen snaps will run in the gina & krista round-robin and we'll be handing them out at speaking engagements all week as well. It takes a lot of whores to keep propping up Barack, in fact it takes an entire brothel.

Which is why Hodge's book is so important. Tariq Ali has a new book out (disclosure, I've known Tariq for years) entitled The Obama Syndrome: Surrender At Home, War Abroad. It's an excellent book. But Hodge manages to easily top Tariq for one reason.

Look Who's Blurbing. While both books offer excellent text, Hodge's book is a keepsake For Those Of Us Who Never Drank The Kool-Aid for the dust jacket alone. It's there you'll find key members of the Cult of St. Barack. Look, there's Socialist Barbara Ehrenreich.

You may know Babs from her constant attacks on women (such as at the FAIR gala last decade where the 'feminist' thing to do was for her to deliver a speech trashing Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda). You may not know her political affiliation because, like so many too juvenile to cop to being a Communist or Socialist, she flocked to "Progressives" for Obama. Why not "liberals"? You need to study up on your New Left and Cold War history -- Socialists and Communists do not identify as liberals. There was Babsie injecting herself into the Democratic Party primary, writing psychotic pieces about Hillary's 'secret' religion -- while Babsie hid in a political closet -- and doing everything a media whore could. As Bob Somerby noted in real time, "There ought to be a special circle in hell for hustlers like Barbara Ehrenreich." You may also know Babsie from her big-boned daughter Rosa Brooks who now works in the administration (Los Angeles Times readers are just glad she's gone) where she is most infamous for advocating that the US government institute licensing for journalists thereby controlling who could and who could not report. As Babsie and her brood have long demonstrated, totalitarianism knows no political boundaries.

On the back of Hodge's book, Babsie pants: "This is what I've been waiting for -- a profound and hard-hitting critique of the Obama administration from the left!" Golly, Babs, couldn't you pen one yourself? Oh, of course not. Whores aren't known for courage, now are they. She continues, "The Mendacity of Hope should help wake up all those Obama voters who've been napping while the wars escalate, the recession deepens, and the environment goes straight to hell."

Who's been napping, Babs? Those of who didn't enlist in the Cult of St. Barack didn't pack up our bags after the 2008 election. Closet Communist Leslie Cagan did and, when packing up her own bags, she packed up the bags of the organization she RUINED United for Peace & Justice. Napping? Babs, you've written six columns in two years -- going by your own website -- and for one who proclaimed Barack to be The One, you've been strangely silent on him ever since, now haven't you, tired whore?

Oh, look. Another whore, Naomi Klein, blurbs, "Ready to wake up from the Obama dream yet? If so, this thrilling scathing and relentlessly truthful cri de coeur is your strong cup of coffee. Hodge skewers the sloppy intellectual cluture that willed this political chimera into being, while expertly unmasking the corporate machine that is the real Barack Obama. Drink up." You first, Naomi, and why don't you choke on it?

For those who don't know, Naomi swore she was staying out of the 2008 election -- and, as a Canadian-American citizen, she had every reason to. She really doesn't want to raise the issue of dual citizenship, does she? If you think the immigration discussion is ugly in this country (and it is) wait until people get a load of the fact that Naomi may be voting in US elections . . . after her father fled the US (I applaud him for it) to avoid serving in Vietnam. You can hear the rumble of grandstanding on the part of GOP senators starting up, can't you? "She has American citizenship and her father deserted!" Yeah, Naomi, you really need to learn to stay out of US elections.

But of course she couldn't. And it went far beyond what she thought was her 'careful' and 'undetectable' slanting on the Real News Network in 2007 and 2008. Naomi decided to do a book tour. Naomi decided to do stand-up on her book tour. The Chicago September 2008 appearance? So much sexism has never been unleashed by one woman -- not even by Phyllis Schlafly. Stay on the sidelines? No. Despite preaching in 2004 that the peace movement (Naomi prefers "anti-war movement" so that she can reject her father -- having already rejected her feminist mother) should never be hijacked by elections, there was Naomi making a fat ass out of herself. There was Canada's very own Tiffany-era mallrat telling 'jokes' that would make Hugh Hefner blush. Was it worth it, Naomi? Really?

There are two Naomis. Many confuse them. Used to be Naomi Klein was the thin one -- that changed about two years ago. Not because Naomi Wolf began to lose weight but because Naomi Klein's been seriously packing on pounds. Naomi Wolf. Everyone's favorite pill-popping columnist. Naomi explained the 'feminist' thing to do was to spit on Hillary and support Barack. She did that during the primaries. She did that by cloaking herself as the victim. It was a cute little act and the only time the term "cute" has been applied to Naomi in years. She continued that bulls**t throughout the lead up to the election as well as after -- breaking only when donning her sexually enhancing burqa. She was on CNN in January 2009 proclaiming -- as Ms. magazine had -- that Barack was what a feminist looked liked.

On the back of Hodges' book, Naomi Wolf blurbs, "Roger Hodge has written a desperately needed expose of how Barack Obama is not the messiah of liberalism but its deisgnated gravedigger -- he is one of the all too few voices on the progressive side who dares to tell the truth about the corporate masters this administration actually serves, and the dire effects of that allegiance upon what is left of our Republic. This is a blazing indictment of corporate collusion and a bracing injection of hard truths."

I'm counting nine columns you've written for the Huffington Post, Naomi, since Barack was sworn in. While I see your attempts to distract and defocus for the administration by obsessing over the Tea Party -- a party that your last bestseller (and I do mean "last") owes a debt too but we don't talk about that, do we? -- I see nothing calling out the administration. Where is it, Naomi? Or did you pop a pill and think you wrote it when you didn't?

Babsie's always been nuts, Naomi Klein's been a non-stop disappointment to her parents, but Naomi Wolf? No one went nuttier than Naomi Wolf. Appearing in public -- often with a dirty face and hair unkempt -- she spent most of 2007 and 2008 insisting her tax returns were stolen by the government. (Because the government didn't have them already?) She would tell anyone who listened that she was being spied on, her mail opened, her calls listened into. She could hear the "clicks"! Was she on a party line? Today's surveillance doesn't provide clicks when tapping. (Echos do, however, occur.) She went completely bonkers. An Alan J. Pakula character transposed into a Stephen Spielberg film. It was not a pretty sight.

And the reason we open with this is to make very damn clear: IT'S NOT THAT EASY.

Having whored and lied for Barack Obama, you're not just going to sneak back in to the party. No. The three above are not Democrats (Naomi Wolf once was but she denounced that around the time she denounced Judaism). In their political affiliations, they damn well know they have to practive confessions in their own political cells. They need to make a point to do the same in the political discourse at large. Meaning, you better get honest about your whoring or you better expect that you will go the way of Faith Popcorn and so many other pundits whom the public rejected. You whored, you lied, you attacked.

Those of us who gave a damn about the Iraq War -- the one that is still going on, the one that Naomi Klein can't seem to find today despite the fact that it is her claim to fame -- refused to play the game, refused to whore. We're not letting you back in unless and until you confess. You were handed the reigns of the movement -- look at Leslie Cagan -- and what did you do? You destroyed the movement. (UPFJ posted a yea-war-is-over message the day after the 2008 elections and closed shop.) To let you slink back in now without confessing to your crimes would be a betrayal of the movement.

So your pimp Barack got a little rough with you, slapped you around and now you want to sneak back over to our side? It's not that easy. And what's up here online is nothing compared to what we have taken to college audiences for two years now. They know you, across the land, as the whores you are. Outside of the tiny circle-jerk that passes for Panhandle Media, you are whores, you are known whores. And as others in the beggar media realize that, you won't be booked. Or they'll risk being fired on air as well. This isn't a vanity issue, this isn't hurt feelings. This is you have blood on your hands.

You whored and Iraqi s died. You whored and the war went on. You have blood on your hands and you will confess or you will continue to be known as the whores you are. Naomi Klein asks if people are "Ready to wake up from the Obama dream yet?" Naomi, what were you doing in DC the day of the inauguration? Oh, that's right, you were fundraising. And partying. We know you were attacking others. You gave that idiotic interview to Matthew Rothschild, remember? Castigating 'radicals' who refused to belive that Barack was the savior. Do you expect The Progressive to 'disappear' your words, Naomi? Your attacks on the left critics of Barack Obama are well known and public record. Now you want to show up on a dusk jacket pretending you were there all along? They really raise those Canadian mallrats dumb, I guess.

The Cult of St. Barack got their commemorative plates in January 2009. It took a little while for the truth tellers of the left to get our own commemorative keepsake: The dusk jacket of Roger Hodge's new book. Suitable for framing. At your local bookstore and available online. And let's note this from yesterday's Law and Disorder Radio .

Heidi Boghosian: Roger, you actually sort of sum up it up in talking about health care by saying: "The health bill is of a piece with Obama's general approach to governance which is to make loud, dramatic claims about his purportedly reformist agenda -- claims that both his supporters and his enemies almost always take at a face value -- while working behind the scenes to make sure that no major stakeholder in his coalition of corporate backers will suffer significant losses." And that could sum up most of what he's done.

Michael Smith: Yeah, that was an outstanding passage in the book, I thought

Roger Hodge: Thank you. Thank you. And we see it again and again. We see it with detentions --

Heidi Boghosian: Guantanamo.

Roger Hodge: Guantanamo. We see it with --

Michael Ratner: State secrets.

Roger Hodge: -- Afghanistan. We see it with Iraq. Supposedly the war in Iraq is over. People take that at face value. 'Oh, he ended the war in Iraq.' Well he didn't.

Michael Ratner: He just said he did.

The Daily Jot

Saturday, December 04, 2010

THIS JUST IN! HE GAVE THEM SOMETHING!

Thursday, December 02, 2010

THIS JUST IN! HE MAY CHANGE HIS MIND!

THIS JUST IN! ANTIWAR.COM JOINS MOVEON!

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

THIS JUST IN! HIS 'ARTISTIC' PICTORIAL!

About Me

Links

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot