SATURDAY IN OHIO, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O PLAYED THE FEAR CARD BECAUSE WITH HIS RECORD IT'S ALL HE'S GOT.
"THIS IS NOT JUST ANOTHER ELECTION," HE HUFFED, BEING SURE HIS MAN-BOOBS HEAVED, "THIS IS A MAKE OR BREAK MOMENT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS."
BARRY O DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE POOR, WORKING CLASS OR MIDDLE CLASS FOR THREE YEARS. NOW HE NEEDS THEIR VOTES AND CANDY ASS PLAYS THE FEAR CARD.
WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR BUT 4 MORE YEARS OF BARRY O.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting in the US with news of the latest faux left move. The Coalition to Protest at the DNC talked a good game and got some support. We didn't support it because they were so obviously fake. But they fooled a number of people. Today the organization posted a statement which begins: "It is with great enthusiasm that we announce that the Coalition to Protest at the DNC is changing its name to the Coalition to March on Wall Street South -- Building People's Power during the DNC. This decision was made unanimously by the steering committee of the coalition, made up of representatives from more than 60 organizations."
Michael Cooper (New York Times) reports on the name change and includes this:
"It shows a real lack of integrity, I think, to let Democrats off the hook," said Cindy Sheehan, the well-known antiwar protester whose son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, adding that the name change was making her rethink her plans to attend protests in Charolotte. "They are as much the party of war as the Republicans, the party of Wall Street."
Cooper also quotes "veteran antiwar activist" John Penley who wrote "What a sellout!" online. Penely also wrote:
Listen my OWS friends if you are going to support the Democratic Party and vote for Obama for president and encourage people not to protest at the DNC in Charlotte and only protest the Republicans in Tampa well lets leave as friends I still love ya but please defriend me so I can make room for those who have not joined team Obama or the GD Republicans.
What Penely fears is exactly what took place in 2008. Here's a few things that would-be sell outs on the left should consider in the future.
1) A Democrat who can't speak up for what's right during the campaign out of fear that he or she will lose the race is not one that normally ever speaks up after the race is won. Because there's always another race and when there's not -- say you've two-termed it out of the White House -- there's still so much corporate dollars to be made.
Right now in Arizona, there's a ridiculous woman running for public office. She's a War Hawk and a number of left voters (we were in the state on Monday and Tuesday) are kidding themselves that, because when Bully Boy Bush was in office, when she gets into office, she'll suddenly become Dennis Kucinich. She won't. She was in peace groups in 2003. If she wanted to be a part of that, she still would be. She left those to cheer on War Hawk Barack and that's where she's at now. She's not playing voters for fools and pretending to be something she's not but a number of voters are willingly playing the fool as they rush to convince themselves that she's really a secret peace vote.
2) If you can't hold someone's feet to the fire right now at this moment, chances are you never will. In 2007 and 2008, Tom Hayden, Laura Flanders and others made repeated claims that they would hold Barack's feet to the fire but not yet, you understand, he had to win the primary first. But, buster, once he did, step back because they were going to hold his feet to the fire.
It never happened. And as they look back, I would hope Tom and Laura both now realize that they were wrong to stay silent when Barack utilized homophobia in 2007 to solidify the primary vote in South Carolina. (If you missed this in real time, refer to Kevin Alexander Gray and Marshall Derks' "Obama's Big Gay and Black Problem.") If a candidate who wants your vote, who needs your vote, is someone you're not comfortable pressing on issues that matter today, that's someone's feet you'll never hold to the fire.
3) Refusing to make demands and hold accountable someone running for public office leads not to a stronger spine (for you or your candidate of choice) but to more craven actions. Doubt that? From 2008's "Editorial: Raw emotions (Ava and C.I.):"
Now maybe everyone's decided to take Katha Pollitt's stated oath which she revealed when she felt 'forced' to call out Tom Hayden's latest sexism last April: "I want to do my bit for Obama, so I vowed I would give up attacking Obama-supporting progressives for the duration of the presidential campaign." Guess what, Katha, we don't do our "bit for" feminism by staying silent. That was in April that she broke (and announced) her vow -- one she's gone back to. So, basically, at the start of the year, Pollitt's admitting, she decided to let sexist attacks from Barack's campaign and his supporters slide until after the election. Wow.
See how quickly doing her part went from not calling out a politician to not calling out his supporters? Here's reality: Free speech is meant to be used. It's not a snazzy little Chanel number that you hide in the closet while you wait for just the right occasion to sport it.
4) Though you're an adult, always grasp that there are people just coming of age and there are children watching. Remember that when you want to preach silence and not accountability. And grasp that a large part of the reason Barack is still not held accountable has to do with the behavior you moldeled for others.
Think of the above as guidelines. There will always be exceptions. As Betty noted last night, one of the loudest members of the Cult of St. Barack was able to break free. David Lindorff most recently has compiled a list of the crimes for which Barack should be impeached. Again, those who self-censor to 'help' candidates create the climate in which hypocrisy regins supreme. As Glenn Greenwald notes:
One last point: for the full eight years of the Bush administration, Bush, Cheney and scores of other political and media supporters of their militarism who had not served in the military were routinely derided by Democrats and progressives as "chickenhawks" (an accusation, which, with some caveats and modifications, I supported). What happened to that? Now we have a President whom Bergen hails as "one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades" despite having not served a day in the military, and hordes of non-military-serving Democrats who cheer him as he does so. Similarly, George Bush was mercilessly mocked for declaring himself a "war President," yet here is Bergen -- writing under the headline "Warrior in Chief" -- twice christening the non-serving Obama as our "Warrior President." Did the concept of chickenhawkism, like so many other ostensible political beliefs, cease to exist on January 20, 2009?
Early today, AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted that Tareq al-Hashemi had announced a press conference in Turkey for later in the day. When he faced the reporters, AFP reports, he declared he had "no faith in the Iraqi justice system and fears for his life." Nouri has been calling for al-Hashemi to be tried on charges of terrorism. Nouri al-Maliki's political slate State of Law came in second to al-Hashemi's Iraqiya.
The political crisis was already in effect when December 2011 rolled around. Iraqiya announced a boycott of the council and the Parliament, that's in the December 16th snapshot and again in a December 17th entry. Tareq al-Hashemi is a member of Iraqiya but he's not in the news at that point. Later, we'll learn that Nouri -- just returned from DC where he met with Barack Obama -- has ordered tanks to surround the homes of high ranking members of Iraqiya. Saturday, December 17th, Liz Sly (Washington Post) reported, "In recent days, the homes of top Sunni politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants will be issued for other Sunni leaders." December 18th is when al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq are pulled from a Baghdad flight to the KRG but then allowed to reboard the plane. December 19th is when the arrest warrant is issued for Tareq al-Hashemi by Nouri al-Maliki who claims the vice president is a 'terrorist.' . With the permission and blessing of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani, al-Hashemi remained in the KRG. At the start of April, he left the KRG on a diplomatic tour that took him to Qatar, then Saudi Arabia and finally Turkey where he remains currently.
The Journal of Turkish Weekly quotes him stating today, "I booked a ticket to retun to Irbil last Tuesday after completing my schedule in Turkey, but a colleague called in the last minute and asked me to delay my return for a few days and wait for a more suitable dialogue atmosphere in Iraq." This delay may have something to do with the current push for a national conference in Iraq. What is known is that his trial -- in absentia -- was supposed to start yesterday in Baghdad; however, it was delayed until next Thursday. al-Hashemi believes he can't receive a fair trial in Baghdad. He's right.
This was demonstrated February 16th though the press wanted to play dumb. From that day's snapshot, this is where we take the various details and demonstrate how the press could have reported it:
IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT
After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's
assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary.
BAGHDAD -- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of Iraq was guilty of terrorism. Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day. Mr. al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive a fair trial. Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani.
During the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary. Mr. al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get a fair trial.
Today's events demonstrate that Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial in Iraq. This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today.
A judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt of the charges and to do so before a trial was held.
Not only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has long made.
That is not how the Iraqi courts work, not according to the country's Constitution. Judges are impartial. Judges do not declare guilt outside of a courtroom and no one is guilty in Iraq until convicted in a courtroom. The fact that the judges felt no need to follow the Constitution, the fact that they held a press conference to announce the guilt of someone in a case they knew wouldn't appear on their docket until May goes to the fact that they are not impartial and that Tareq al-Hashemi would not have received a fair trial.
Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri on board with the national conference?"
"Because you may disagree with them doesn't make so..."
"Nouri on board with the national conference?"
"Because you may disagree with them doesn't make so..."