The Daily Jot: 2013-01-06

Saturday, January 12, 2013

THIS JUST IN! BARRY WANTS CHUCK!

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

PRINCESS BARRY O'S SAUSAGE FEST CONTINUES AND GETS SOME MEDIA ATTENTION.

WHEN REACHED FOR COMMENT, PRINCESS BARRY O DELIVERED A RAP TO THESE REPORTERS:

I LIKE BIG CHUCKS AND I CANNOT LIE
YOU OTHER BITCHES CAN'T DENY
THAT WHEN A GUY WALKS IN PACKING
PAPER OR PLASTIC CROTCH SACKING
YOU GET SPRUNG, WANNA PULL OUT YOUR TOUGH
'CAUSE YOU NOTICE THAT CHUCK WAS STUFFED

PRINCESS BARRY STOPPED HIS RAP TO ASK, "YOU GET THAT WHEN I SAY 'CHUCK' I MEAN DICK, RIGHT?"

HE THEN WENT BACK TO RAPPING:

SO FELLAS! FELLAS!
HAS YOUR BOYFRIEND GOT THE CHUCK?
HELL YEAH!
TELL HIM TO SHAKE IT!
SHAKE IT!
SHAKE THAT HEALTHY CHUCK!
BABY GOT CHUCK!

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today's primary focus, however, was on an escape. The Iraq Times reports there has been a Taji prison break with 12 prisoners fleeing -- some of whom are said to have been sentenced to death. AP states the inmates escaped through cell windows. Al Bawaba adds, "While sources agree that all of the inmates who broke out of jail on Friday are Iraqi, the number is disputed. An interior ministry official put the number at 12 while a military source claimed there were 16 escapees." An unnamed military officer tells AFP, "They escaped from Taji prison after they got hold of the guards' weapons. It could be there was cooperation from the guards."

Protests continued in Iraq today. AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted:

1h Prashant Rao ‏@prashantrao

.@AFP pictures from today's #Iraq demos in Baghdad, Ramadi, Kirkuk and Najaf: http://bit.ly/ZBLn30

Expand

Nouri used the extra-Constitutional Tigris Operation Command to suppress movement in Kirkuk, Alsumaria reports, and the military force prevented people from entering. They cut off roads in an attempt to stop those marching in Hawija as well. Demonstration organizer Banyan Obeidi tells the network that the Tigris Operation Command was not present to provide protection but to prevent the demonstrators and to block them." In Nineveh Province, Alsumaria reports the people turned out following morning prayers and that they renewed their call for the innocent prisoners and detainees to be released and for those officials who have raped and tortured women in Iraqi prisons to be prosecuted. Nineveh Province is where Nouri has sent the military in an attempt to stop the protests. But the governor of the province, Atheel al-Nujaifi (also spelled Ethel al-Nujaifi) has refused to allow the protests to be stopped and declared this week, "I am not an employee of Nouri al-Maliki. I am servant to the people of Nineveh." al-Nujaifi is the brother of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. He is also in conflict with Nouri who, in 2011, began demanding that al-Nujaifi step down as governor. Currently, al-Nujaifi is demanding that Nouri hand over a soldier to the province, the soldier raped a young girl. Nouri's refused to honor the arrest warrant. al-Nuajifi is also demanding a serious investigation into Monday's protest when Nouri's military ignored al-Nujaifi and the Provincial Council's orders that the square in downtown Mosul be opened to the protesters, the military ignored it and moved in injuring at least four protesters in the process.

Al Jazeera's Omar al-Saleh filed a video report from Baghdad. Excerpt.

Omar al-Saleh: It's the third consecutive week of protests and the numbers are increasing. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets across Sunni provinces including parts of Baghdad. But despite the heavy security presence and attempts by the army to prevent people from reaching mosques, many showed up for Friday prayers. At Umm al-Qura mosque, politicians and clerics called on protesters to carry on.

Rafiaa al-Issawi: I warn the army against being a tool to curb protesters. I call on you to carry on until your demands are met.

Omar al-Saleh: In Ramadi, the birth place of the protests, tens of thousands continued their sit-in. They warned Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of using force against them. In Samarra and Mosul, thousands more demanded an end to what they describe as a marginalization of Sunnis. They also want the abolishment of an anti-terrorism law which they say targets them. And the release of Sunni prisoners. The government's stance is that all demands should be dealt with according to the Iraqi Consittution. It blames foreign countries of supporting the protesters to ignite a sectarian strife.

Alsumaria reports that cleric and leader of the Islamic Supreme Council delivered a sermon today calling for dialogue among all the parties and refusing to lay the blame on protesters. Also weigh in? Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani whose message today, delivered by Sheikh Abdel Mahdi al-Karbalai during morning prayers, was a call for unity and responsibility. Alsumaria reports he stated that the political blocs are responsible for the current problems and that the politicians and the security services must exercise restraint and utilize wisdom. He warned against attacking the protesters. All Iraq News notes that he spoke of the need for government institutions to be independent and to preserve the independence so that no one official could exploit the powers of the government for personal gain. Cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr also weighed in today. Kitabat notes that Moqtada explained the popular protests in Mosul, Salahuddin and Anbar are not against government but against policies and that it is the right of the Iraqi to speak their beliefs. He noted that there had been some early mistakes (referring to some slogans and banners in early protests -- they generally expressed the not uncommon belief in Iraq that things were better before the US invasion) but that these are cries to rally the nation. He stated that Nouri is the one throwing out obstacles. Alsumaria reports Minister Rafia al-Issawi and Sunni Endowment president Ahmed Abdul-Ghafoor Samarrai showed their support by attending a demonstration in Baghdad following morning prayers. All Iraq News reports Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq issued a statement today declaring that force should not be used against the protesters. Others went further. For example, Kitabat reports Sunni Sheikh Abdul Malik Saadi stated that it is the resposibility of Iraq's rulers to hear the protesters' demands, that it is the right of citizens to exercise their rights, and that the security forces are to provide security and their role is not to target the protesters but to protect them. The Iraqi people are partners in the country, the Sheikh noted, citizens, military, they are partners. He called on the protesters to be strong and patient, not to take up arms and he called on the military to protect the protesters.

Of course, there are two groups of protesters in Iraq currently. First you have the vast group of thousands of legitimate protesters asking for a better Iraq and then you have the tiny bands of Nouri's goons who sometimes make it into the 'hundreds.' Both were out today.

The tiny faux group registered the most in Najaf. Let's call them the Pat Boones. A sign of how small they are? All Iraq News notes "dozens." But then few want to be an ass kisser. Visit any high school and ask for a show of hands if you doubt it. The Pat Boones are demanding that things stay the same and that mass arrests continue. Aswat al-Iraq adds that they are calling "for boycotting Turkish and Qatari companies. They found support from State of Law MP Ali Mirza who called for his "government to deny work for Turkish and Qatari companies, as well as reviewing diplomatic relations in order to cut off relations with them." Press TV notes a small turn out in Basra as well.

By contrast, Kitabat notes "tens of thousands" of real protesters turned out forllowing Friday prayers. Alsumaria notes thousands marched in Salahuddin Province to show their support with the Anbar Province protesters who are demonstrating and continue their sit-in. The outlet notes that local officials, religious scholars and tribal leaders are part of the demonstrations and that the demands include the release of the innocent prisoners and detainees, the prosecution of those who have tortured or raped Iraqi women in the Iraqi prisons and detention centers, and for the government to change its current course. Salam Faraj and Jafia Abduljabbar (AFP) report that protests took place in Ramadi, Samarra, Mosul, Tikrit, Adhamiyah and Ghazaliyah and "Protesters also blocked off the highway linking Iraq to Syria and Jordan for a 20th day in western Anbar province, while in the northern city of Kirkuk, hundreds of protesters waved banners and raised flags". Patrick Markey and Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) observe, "Three weeks of mass protests reflect deep discontent among Sunnis who say Maliki's Shi'ite-led government has marginalised their minority community, increasing worries Iraq may slide back into the sectarian violence of its recent past." The World Tribune notes, "The protesters blocked a highway to Jordan and Syria, which halted trade and passengers to and from Iraq."

In one of the more surprising moments of unity today, the KDP and PUK declared their support for the protesters. The Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan are the two big political parties -- political rivals -- in the KRG. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (currently receiving medical treatment in Germany) is the leader of the PUK while Massoud Barzani is the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq) and the leader of the KDP. Alsumaria reports the two parties came together today to make a joint declaration of support for the protesters and to insist that the course the country is on is wrong and unacceptable.

The Iraq Times reports that Ayad Allawi, leader of Iraqiya (political slate that came in first in the 2010 parliamentary elections) held a press conference today to talk about the crisis that has led to demonstrations throughout Iraq. He noted that Iraqiya and he himself had been sounding alarms for some time about what was taking place. He noted the policies (being implemented by Nouri) were dividing the country and he called for unity to protect Iraq. Iraqiya won in 2010 as part of Iraq's rejection of sectarianism. This trend could be seen in the 2009 provincial elections as well.

This embrace of a national identity could have been fostered, could have been encouraged. The US government refused to do that. There was more concern in the Obama White House that Nouri al-Maliki get a second term than that the voters in Iraq be listened to, that the Constitution be honored or that democracy be assisted. The White House backed Nouri who threw a tantrum which lasted over eight months as he refused to allow the Iraqi government to move forward. While he dug his feet in refusing to allow a new prime minister to be named, Barack had the US government spend their time in Iraq trying to force the various political actors to accept a second term for Nouri. Since he didn't win the election, the Constitution couldn't allow this. So the White House came up with the Erbil Agreement to get around the voters and the Constitution. The Erbil Agreement was a legal contract that the White House assured political leaders was binding and that it would have the US government's full support. In the contract, political leaders agree to allow Nouri to have a second term as prime minister. In exchange, Nouri agrees to allow various things to happen such as he agrees to implement Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution -- a census and referendum will be held in Kirkuk to determine who has claim to the disputed area.

The things he agrees to in this contract are largely things he was already supposed to do. Article 140, for example, is the Constitution and he was supposed to have implemented that no later than the end of 2007 -- it's written into the Constitution, that date. From 2006 to 2010, Nouri had every opportunity to implement Article 140. He refused to do so.

Friday, January 11, 2013

THIS JUST IN! BARRY PARTY ON THE FLOOR!

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

IN THE MIDST OF TWO WARS AND THE COUNTRY IN AN ECONOMIC MELTDOWN IN 2009, PRINCESS BARACK SPENT $57 MILLION ON OFFICIAL INAUGURAL EVENTS AND PARTIES. THIS YEAR, HE'S HITTING PEOPLE UP FOR MILLION DOLLAR CONTRIBUTIONS AND, AS HE TOLD THESE REPORTERS LAST NIGHT, "AIN'T NO BAN ON SOFT MONEY IN THIS HOUSE! WOO-HOO! GIRL'S GOTTA' PARTY!"

GIRL MAY INDEED WANT TO PARTY BUT ALREADY MISHAPS ARE PILING UP FASTER THAN EMPTY BOOZE BOTTLES IN SNOOKIE'S TRASH CAN. TWO DAYS AGO HE WAS PRAISING LOUIE GIGLIO IN PUBLIC, INSISTING THE MAN HE PICKED TO DELIVER THE BENEDICTION "REPRESENTS THE IDEALS OF JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND OPPORTUNITY THAT HE PURSUES." GIGLIO HAS SINCE BEEN EXPOSED AS A RAGING HOMOPHOBE.

BUT PRINCESS BARRY IS TRYING NOT TO LET THAT CRAMP HIS STYLE. AS HE TOLD THESE REPORTERS WHO TRACKED HIM TO CLUB TUSH LAST NIGHT, "MARY BE TRIPPING. GIRL FRIEND GOT TO LEARN TO KEEP IT ON THE DOWN LOW! OH, IT'S MY JAM!"

WITH THAT, PRINCESS BARRY AND A SMALL BATTALION OF SECRET SERVICE AGENTS HIT THE FLOOR TO BUST A MOVE TO ONE DIRECTION'S "KISS YOU."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Emily Swanson (Huffington Post) reports on a Huffington Post - YouGov poll which found 52% of those surveyed think the Iraq War was a mistake (31% say it wasn't) and 55% say it wasn't worth fighting (27% say it was) -- the poll has a plus or minus 3.7% margin of error. Those aren't good numbers. If you doubt that, visit the Podesta Brothel that is Think Progress and you'll see them covering the poll -- sort of. The best figure (still disappointing) is the 55%. So they work that in but ignore the 52%. It's very dishonest of them to grab the 55% and not note the 52%. Neither figure is a good one but the 52% is more important.

It's more important not just because it's the lower number but also because of the questions asked. 52% of those surveyed say the Iraq War was a mistake. That number should be much higher. I'm not speaking of my personal opinion yet. I'm speaking of attitudes in surveys. Respondents, in the history of modern polling, are more apt to say a war or conflict was a mistake than they are to say it wasn't worth fighting. Why?

Mistake goes to government. Fighting goes to the service members. People are more comfortable calling out decisions by the government than calling out rank-in-file members of the military and when you get to the issue of "fighting" and it's value or worth, for many Americans, you are evaluating what the military on the ground did or did not do.

Maybe the public has changed or maybe the wording was different or maybe they just got a non-representative sample. I would love for that to be true because the numbers themselves are disturbing.

The Iraq War is not over. Analyzing the deaths, the number injured and the incidents of violence for 2012, Iraq Body Count concluded, "In sum the latest evidence suggests that the country remains in a state of low-level war little changed since early 2009, with a 'background' level of everyday armed violence punctuated by occasional larger-scale attacks designed to kill many people at once." So let's bust that little myth first. Second, US troops did not all leave. Some 15,000 moved over into Kuwait (and at least 13,000 of them remain). They were stationed there because of Kuwait's proximity to Iraq -- so that they could be quickly ordered back in. 'Trainers,' Marines guarding the US Embassy staff, Special-Ops, etc. did not leave and remain in Iraq. In fact, the number of US Special-Ops in Iraq increased in the second half of 2012. September 26th, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.

Or as William Rivers Pitt (Truthout) put it last month, "if you think we're not still at war in Iraq, I can introduce you to some military families who are still posting love-you-be-safe letters to that particular delivery code." So that should explode myth two.

The Huffington Post - YouGov poll? I'd love for it to be wrong but it's backed up by another poll, one on Bully Boy Bush who has increased his approval rating by 12% just by leaving office. We covered that on January 2nd and noted:

There are a ton of reasons to continue focusing on Iraq here in the US. But if people only care about themselves then maybe now some on the left who've argued it doesn't matter (including two friends with The Nation magazine) will wake up? We've gone over what could happen repeatedly in the last years. We did so at length August 20, 2010 in "The war continues (and watch for the revisionary tactics."

If you're old enough, you saw it with Vietnam. That illegal war ended with the government called out for its actions. And some people -- a lot in fact -- just moved on. The weakest of the left moved on because it wasn't 'polite' to talk about it or it wasn't 'nice' or 'can't we all just get along' and other nonsense. Others talked about things because they didn't care about Vietnam, the Vietnamese or the US service members. And, after all, they had a peanut farmer from Georgia to elect, right? And bit by bit, year by year, all these lies about Vietnam took root. The press turned the people against it! The US could have won if the military's hands hadn't been tied! All this nonsense that, back when the public was paying attention in the early to mid-seventies, would have been rejected outright by the majority of Americans.

Jane Fonda explains in the amazing documentary Sir! No Sir!, "You know, people say, 'Well you keep going back, why are you going back to Vietnam?' We keep going back to Vietnam because, I'll tell you what, the other side does. They're always going back. And they have to go back -- the Hawks, you know, the patriarchs. They have to go back because, and they have to revise the going back, because they can't allow us to know what the back there really was."

And if you silence yourself while your opponent digs in on the topic, a large number of Americans -- including people too young to remember what actually happened -- here nothing but the revisionary arguments. Jane's correct, the right-wing always went back to Vietnam. They're at fork in the road probably because, do they continue to emphasize Vietnam as much as they have, or do they move on to Iraq. Victor Davis Hanson's ready to move on to Iraq. He's not the only one on the right.

And on the left we have silence.

And that is why revisionary tactics work. It's not because revisions are stronger than facts. It's because one side gives up. And the left -- check The Progressive, The Nation, etc.* -- has long ago given up on even pretending to care about Iraq -- about the Iraq War, about the Iraqis, about the US service members. [*But not In These Times -- they've continued to feature Iraq about every six months. Give them credit for that.]

We're seeing again what happens in silence. When we're silent on the left, when we silence ourselves, we lose and we lose big.

I'm going to toss out some poll numbers to illustrate how bad the results of The Huffington Post - YouGov poll is. The easiest way to find these numbers is to refer to Polling Report and scroll down.

In December, 2011, as most US troops were being taken out of Iraq (what the Pentagon rightly called a drawdown, not a "withdrawal"), there was a CNN - ORC Poll which asked, "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

The results? 66% opposed. 31% favored. From 66% opposed in December 2011, the against-the-war opinion has dropped to 52%?

That's not good news. That's why the Podesta Bordello ran from that figure. We can't run from it. Running from the topic of Iraq has led us to this point where at least 10% opposition to the Iraq War has vanished. (At least 10%? I'm factoring in the potential margin of error.)

On the left, we're silent. Very few of us acknowledge Iraq today. If we do, it's a sentence or two. Or we're using the Iraq War to praise some politician. We're not talking about the realities, we're not covering the birth defects, we're not interested in the continued struggle, the abuse of LGBTs, the rape and torture of women in Iraqi prisons, go down the list.

On the left, we convince ourselves that we have something better and more important to do. That's not happening on the right. On the right, they're covering the continued tragedy that is the Iraq War. They're covering the results of it. They're talking about. They're addressing it.

This is what happens one side is silent. This is not new. This is not novel. Here, we have discussed this concept since at least 2005. We warned about it while the US military was involved in 'combat operations.' We warned about it when Barack, echoing Bush's 'major combat has ended' b.s., declared that combat operations were over. We've warned about it. That's not because I'm a genius.

That's because this is what happens and it happens over and over. Know the patterns. They do repeat unless you break them. That's not just therapy, that's history.

I was standing here shaking my head in silence until the friend I'm dictating this too just asked, "Are you still there?"

Which is a question with a number of answers. Yes, we are still here (the community, visitors and me). And this is exactly why we are still here. You cannot talk away from this topic without repercussions. And we're seeing that right now.

While I was being silent, however, I was thinking of how many years it took to rewrite Vietnam, how many movies (The Deer Hunter, Sylvester Stallone's awful films, and so many, many more), how many books, how many columns, on and on. It is a cottage industry, the revisionary history of Vietnam. People have made big money there.

By contrast, they haven't had to work that hard on Iraq. They certainly haven't put in the same amount of time that their cohorts did on Vietnam.

According to The Huffington Post - YouGov poll, only 52% think the Iraq War was a mistake. In ten years, that's going to be nothing. In ten years, if the silence from those of us on the left continues, those numbers will be reversed with 52% (or more) arguing the Iraq War wasn't a mistake and basing that on the fact that the left doesn't care enough to object to and refute the lies, doesn't care enough to cover the damage.

Every day the sun rises. If every day, a large group of people make it their life's work to insist that the sun doesn't rise every day and no one bothers to refute it, despite the fact that sun rises every day, you will find public opinion registering the belief that it doesn't. It may be a very small number, but you will find it in the polling. If the one group continues to insist for years that the sun doesn't rise every day, and the other side continues to greet that claim with silence, you will see that small number rise in consecutive polls.

That's not because people are stupid or because people are dumb. Most people are very busy with their lives, children, job, school, just surviving, whatever. And if they try to follow what's going on in the limited amount time that they can devote to 'current events' and political 'discussions' but all they hear is one side, it doesn't matter what that one side says, a number of people will accept it as truth.

That will happen because it is repeated over and over. Joseph Goebbels was a Nazi which means he was an idiot. People praise him or cite him for his assertion: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Let's just deal with the first sentence. (And I'm talking about what an idiot Goebbels is here. I'm not comparing War Hawks on Iraq to Goebbels. I don't generally make Nazi comparisons as a rule.) "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Goebbels didn't do the work required.

It's not telling a lie or spin that helps it succeed. It's this taking place in a vaccuum with other opinions absent. Not because of fear. There is no fear today in the United States that if you call the Iraq War a mistake you will end up harmed or punished or shunned or whatever. There's no liability, there's no loss or potential loss at present.

The lie succeeds not just because it's being repeated and not because the government suppressing truth but because those of us who know the Iraq War was wrong are silencing ourselves.

That example of the rising sun? People have limited time. It's not just that they hear, via the media, the claim that the sun doesn't rise every day. It's also that they're media trained. Meaning, in the US we expect that truth is presented as fact. Truth requires nothing but to be said. Media training in the US tells us that 'controversial' or 'disputed' issues require balance. So when the only one speaking is from one side, to the average American media consumer, that person must be speaking the truth because no one's there objecting. Surely, if this person claiming that the sun didn't rise every day was wrong or even just potentially wrong, there would be another voice and it would point out that the person was wrong.

Media training in the US, and we're all trained in it regardless of rejection, embrace or indifference, allows revisionary history to take root when one side falls into silence.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

THIS JUST IN! CABINET PLANS!

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

PRINCESS BARRY O GREETED NEWS THAT SECRETARY OF HILDA SOLIS WAS RESIGNING WITH GLEE. "I SKIPPED, I JUMPED AND I EVEN WET MYSELF A LITTLE," HE GIGGLED TO THESE REPORTERS.

AND PLANS FOR THE FUTURE NOMINEE?

"WELL, OF COURSE, IT WILL BE A MAN," THE PRINCESS IN CHIEF DISHED. "YOU KNOW ME, I'M ALL ABOUT THE SAUSAGE. I WANT A CABINET FULL OF MEN. AT MY BECK AND CALL. I FEEL JUST LIKE CATHERINE THE GREAT! ONLY WITHOUT THE HORSEY. SERIOUSLY, I WANT TO BUILD A BETTER CABINET THIS TIME. I'M GOING TO SEE IF THAT CUTE LITTLE TY PENNINGTON CAN GIVE ME A HAND. I GOT ME A BAD CASE OF CONTRACTOR BUTT CRACK FEVER!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

As protests continue in Iraq, a new development emerges. Al Arabiya explains, "The Iraqi ministry of defense has closed the country's border crossing near Jordan on Wednesday at 6 a.m. (local time) without stated official reasons, an Al Arabiya correspondent reported. The Teraibeel border crossing near Jordan, an important commercial thoroughfare, is located in the Sunni stronghold Anbar province. Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets on a daily basis in the area against Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his government, accused of marginalizing Sunnis." Petra notes that the road wasn't the only thing closed, Port Trebil on the border Jordan shares with Iraq was shut down by the Iraq Ministry of Defense and that Anba Province's Vice Chair, Saadoun al-Shaalan, declared that the protesters did not disrupt the port or the international highway, that the provided services to those traveling on the road and he decries the closing of the port. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) quotes protest organizer Saeed Hmaim stating, "The closure . . . serves only on purpose, and that is to damage the image of the protesters and depict them as troublemakers who want to make the lives of Iraqis more difficult. We will stand firm on our demands, and we will not be shaken by this irresponsible act." UPI continues that thread, "Hikmat Suleiman, a Sunni council leader in Anbar province, said the border closure was to put pressure on protesters. Local leaders expressed similar sentiments, saying the central government was waging an economic war on the anti-Maliki movement, reports al-Arabiya." Emirates News Agency adds that Jordan issued a statement which including that "Jordan is maintaining contact with Iraq through security and diplomatic channels to follow up on the issue." Reuters explains, "The protests have become a major test for Maliki, a Shi'ite nationalist whom many Sunni leaders accuse of marginalising their minority sect, shoring up his own authority and pushing the OPEC country closer to Shi'ite non-Arab power Iran." Alsumaria adds that Anbar Province council officials told them they will sue the federal government over the closing of the Port of Trebil ("without justification") .

Iraq came up in yesterday's US State Dept press briefing with regards to protest.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Some Iraqi officials are blaming the U.S. for supporting the demonstrations in Iraq against the government. Do you have any reaction?

MS. NULAND: We've talked about this a couple of times last week. We are not taking a side in any of these internal difficulties inside Iraq. We want to see the Iraqi stakeholders sitting down, talking, meeting, discussing, finding constitutional solutions to the various grievances on all of these issues. Our role has simply been to try to encourage the various stakeholders to talk to each other.

There was no mention of Iraq today. And Nuland still hasn't called out the violence on Monday against protesters in Mosul -- at least four were injured -- today Al Mada's Mohammad Sabah reports that 70 MPs have signed off on an investigation into how the protests in Nineveh Province ended in violence. Considering that Nuland's the one who raised the issue of violence -- when she falsely smeared the protesters -- you might think that now that it's been used against the protesters, Nuland would be right up front calling it out. But nothing. She's got nothing to say on the topic? How telling.

Like Nuland's insanity, Nouri's crazy knows no bounds. Press TV quotes him without question stating, "If rallies go on without permission, or carry banners that compromise national security or private work, security should prevent them. " The protests are not illegal, they are not unconstitutional. The judiciary and the Parliament already rejected those claims by Nouri. As for a baner being able to "compromise national security," there's you clue right there that the US government better get its act together real damn quick and stop supporting Nouri. He is Little Saddam and every days he grows into a bigger and bigger despot.

A banner can be a threat to national security? That sounds like something Pinochet would do. When that despot came to power, the Guardian notes there were "four hundred US CIA experts [to] assist Pinochet." Thanks to Ted Koppel's report for Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC) in December of 2011, we do know that the CIA has maintained an office and presence in Iraq.

MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?

AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.

As to whether Nouri gets 400 (like Pinochet did) or more CIA agents hasn't been divulged at present.

As more and more walk away from Nouri, Salar Raza (Rudaw) offers his take on the status between the Kurds and Sunnis currently:

Their growing opposition to Iraq's Shiite-led government has pushed the country's Kurds and Sunni Arabs closer together, but problems between the two still persist, MPs from both sides say.

For the past several weeks Iraq's Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has been besieged on two fronts, first by the autonomous Kurdistan Region's anger over Baghdad's efforts to take over security in disputed northern territories, and lately by Sunni-led protests over alleged discrimination against provinces where they are the majority.

"The Sunni Arab protests in Iraq have unified the Sunni and Kurdish position, but the two sides have not come close enough to solving problems between themselves," said Bakir Hama Sidiq, an MP from the Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU).

"It is just events that have brought us and the Sunni Arabs together, nothing more," he added.

He said that while the two sides are in agreement in their opposition to Maliki, a signed alliance between them would have to be "based on belief in the rights of the Kurds, not only on mutual interests." He said he did not believe that the Sunni Arab Iraqiya coalition was ready to accept Kurdish rights, including those over the energy-rich disputed territories.

When talking about the relations between the Kurds and Iraqiya, one thing to note is that Iraq's president, who is Kurdish, is seeking medical help out of the country. Saturday, AP noted that the office of Iraq President Jalal Talabani has finally issued a statement identifying the incident that led to Talabani's hospitalization: a stroke. The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently. Al Mada reports today that Fuad Masum of the Kurdistan Alliance states he visited with Jalal yesterday and that he is "steadily improving" that Jalal was able to shake hands, that he listened and spoke -- and spoke to those in the room in Kurdish, Arabic and English.

Today Ayad Allawi, leader of Iraqiya visited Erbil in the Kurdistan Regional Government (semi-autonomous region in nothern Iraq). While Allawi is a Shi'ite, Iraqiya is a mixed slate with a large Sunni presence. Alsumaria reports Allawi was in Erbil to meet with KRG President Massoud Barzani and that the two agreed on a path to solving one of the country's current crises. As that relationship sorts itself out, Nouri is more and more isolated. From yesterday's snapshot:

Patrick Markey, Aseel Kami, Raheem Salman and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) report that "Iraqi Sunni Muslim and Kurdish ministers boycotted a cabinet sessions on Tuesday to show support for protests that threaten Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's fragile cross-sectarian government, lawmakers and a government source said." Karafillis Giannoulis (New Europe) adds, "A senior government source confirmed that the ministers had missed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Cabinet Session because the ministers did not see a governmental action to implement protesters' demands."

AFP quoted Iraqiya's Jaber al-Jaberi who stated, "They made a decision to boycott the session today. They don't see a response from the government to the demands of the protesters . . . or to accepting power-sharing." Today al-Jaberi tells Reuters that the signatures are being gathered to compell Nouri to appear before Parliament for questioning and he's quoted stating, "The first step is questioning him and we presented a request today. The next stage will be a vote of no confidence if we can get enough votes."

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Jalal said to be better, Nouri's government a fail..."
"Nouri said to be having an affair with prisoner"
"Doomsday and Zombie Planet"
"No real ending"
"Social Security"
"stampeding dolphins, whales breathing through hole in the ice, ..."
"Pandemic"
"Social disease"
"If it happens . . ."
"BAFTA"
"Suicide"
"Can they take your blood without your permission?"
"Tap tap?"
"THIS JUST IN! HE KEEPS TAPPING

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

THIS JUST IN! HE KEEPS TAPPING!

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

RUMOR HAS IT PRINCESS BARRY IS GOING TO TAP JACK LEW TO BE THE NEW SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

BUT HE JUST GOT DONE TAPPING CHUCK HAGEL.

SINCE MAY OF 2008, PICTURED BELOW WITH JOHN EDWARDS, PRINCESS BARRY HAS SEEMED CONFUSED THAT KEEPING IT ON THE DOWN LOW MEANS KEEPING IT . . . WELL DOWN AND LOW.

THE WORLD SHUDDERS TO THINK HOW HE WILL ILLUSTRATE ROLLING IN THE DEEP.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The plan in my head for this snapshot was we would start with women and end with women. Start with Iraqi women, end with American women. In between we'd do our usual sight seeing tour. That changed. That changed because we have to start with an idiot. And, the modern pattern in America demonstrates, when we're talking about big idiots in the US -- it's usally a man. Now maybe that's because they're more apt -- even now -- to be elevated to status for gender -- clearly, they did not get their on their minds.

Case in point, Esquire's chief idiot Charles P. Pierce. Pierce drips against his y-fronts as he moans for Chuck Hagel, the homophobic, rape-doesn't-result-in-pregnancy, War Hawk that US President Barack Obama has nominated to be the next Secretary of the Defense. (For those who didn't get their trading cards of Obama's Cabinet: Lots of Men and a Few Token Women, if confirmed by the Senate, Hagel would replace Leon Panetta.)

"I am going to do something I've never done before," Charles P. Pierce opens today -- sending a good portion of the public fleeing. It's okay, he's keeping his clothes on. He wants to quote Chuck in full in 2002 before Chuck voted for the Iraq War. But, hold on, before we get that, we need to stop for a cheesy Esquire profile. One Pierce did in 2007. I'm sorry, does Pierce honestly believe that the celebrity profiles Esquire does strikes anyone as journalism? The New York Times Sunday Magazine does journalism -- even in their profiles. Vanity Fair sometimes does journalism in their profiles. Esquire? As if to proove just how cheesy Esquire is, the excerpt Charles provides starts with Tom Hagel vouching for Chuck -- hard hitting journalism at it's finest.

Then it's endless monologue from Chuck. Charles seems to think that this responds to "one of the primary arguments made from the Left against" Chuck because he voted for the Iraq War in 2002.

Charles Pierce needs to retire. Esquire will never improve circulation with the very tired and very old Charles writing for it. Four decades at the magazine? He's never been Hunter S. Thompson. He's just someone who knows he can't get work elsewhere.

Part of the reason for that is because he's so very stupid.

We tried explaining this with the idiots who promoted Barack (falsely) as anti-war. In 2007 and 2008, as people pointed to that bad, small speech from 2002, we pointed to Barack's record when he got to the Senate. He voted exactly as Hillary did. In the primaries, he wanted special credit for being against the war (no, he really wasn't, it was a fairy tale, Bill Clinton was right) and claimed this proved sharper judgment than his contemporaries like Hillary and John Edwards and Joe Biden.

But here's the problem with that. If a five-year-old child burns their hand on the stove, you comfort the child, you treat the burn. But if the child's smart enough to know that touching the flames on the stove will burn your hand and that child burns his or her hand, you're dealing with a different issue, you're dealing with a child who knew better but chose to ignore the knowledge.

If Barack believed the words he offered in 2002 and then goes to the Senate and votes for the war over and over and over, that's worse than stupid Hillary, John and Joe who apparently were too dumb to grasp what would happen. (In fairness to Hillary and Joe, they didn't claim they voted for one thing only for it to turn out to be something else. John did and Elizabeth Edwards did for him in an interview with Ruth Conniff for The Progressive.)

So if Hagel stood and listed all these things that could go wrong before he voted? He looks even more empty, more craven and more like a War Hawk. If he could picture many awful things that ended up coming true, he has no defense for voting the war. He knew better.

To go to children again. If you are 8-years-old and playing frisbee in the front yard with your older and wiser brother Chuck and a window gets broken by the frisbee, your parents are going to let you slide. You're the child who wasn't old enough to know better. But Chuck? There's no slide for him. He has to be accountable for playing frisbee by the windows when he was old enough to know better and old enough to know something could get broken.

I hope -- I really, really hope -- that Charles P. Pierce just really wanted to plus his 2007 (bad) feature article on Hagel. I really hope that Pierce isn't so stupid that he thinks providing the over 2100 words Chuck Hagel spoke on the Senate floor about why war with Iraq was wrong doesn't excuse Hagel's vote and, in fact, damns Hagel because he knew better and still voted for the war. Again, hopefully Pierce just wanted to plug his own (universally ignored) 2007 feature. Hopefully, even Pierce isn't stupid enough to think that speech improves Hagel's image.

Let's move from an American idiot to a British one: Derek Keilloh. Keilloh was a doctor who 'treated' Baha Mousa. From the July 13, 2009 snapshot:

Moving over to England, Matthew Weaver (Guardian) notes that Iraqi Baha Mousa's death at the age of 26 while in British custody in September 2003 is the subject of a public inquiry in England which began today and that, "A central issue of the inquiry is why five 'conditioning techniques' -- hooding prisoners, putting them in stress positions, depriving them of sleep, depriving them of food and water, and playing white noise -- were used on Iraq detainees. The techniques, inflicted on IRA suspects, were banned in 1972 by then prime minister, Edward Heath." The Telegraph of London offers that Baha "was beaten to death" while in British custody, "sustaining 93 separate injuires, including fractured ribs and a broken nose." The Telegraph also notes that the inquiry was shown video of Corporal Donald Payne yelling and screaming, "shouting and swearing at the Iraqis as they are force to main painful 'stress position'."

From the December 17th snapshot:

Today, Andrew Johnson (Belfast Telegraph) reports the latest, "A former British Army doctor has been found guilty of attempting to cover up the death of an Iraqi civilian who was fatally beaten by British troops in 2003, and of failing to protect other detainees." Peter Magill (Lancashire Telegraph) notes of the Baha Mousa inquiry, "Another detainee, Ahmed Al Matari, who had also been seen by Dr Keilloh at the detention centre after being kicked in the kidneys and legs, accused him of behaving like a 'criminal' during." Press TV adds, "Britain's Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service will now decide what penalty the British doctor will face." The editorial board of Scotland's Herald weighs in, "Army medics cannot afford to be squeamish but ignoring such brutality amounts to a betrayal of all the servicemen and women who behave decently and within the rules. It also acts as a recruiting sergeant for extremism and destroys at a stroke any goodwill built up with the local population. It is shameful that it has taken so long to uncover the truth. Though maltreatment of detainees may not have been routine, the fact that a number of other such inquiries are still crawling through the system suggests this was more than the work of a 'few bad apples'."

And the punishment? From the December 24th snapshot:

Yesterday, Ashleigh Barbour (Press and Journal) reported Dr. Derek Keilloh had been "struck off the medical register." The Yorkshire Post adds, "The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service announced its decision to ban Dr Keilloh from working as a doctor yesterday after finding him guilty of misconduct." The Herald Scotland explained, "The MPTS recognised Dr Keilloh, now a GP at Mayford House Surgery in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, never harmed Mr Mousa and did everything possible to save his life, in a setting that was 'highly charged, chaotic, tense and stressful'. But they ruled he must have seen the injuries and, especially as a doctor, had a duty to act." Mary Gearin (Australia's ABC) quotes MPTS Chair Brian Alderman telling Keilloh, "The panel determined that erasure is the only appropriate sanction in this case. Given the gravity and nature of the extent and context of your dishonesty, it considers that your misconduct is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration."

BBC News reports today that "about 300 people" are calling for him "to be reinstanted." They say that they know him and are his former patients and he's just wonderful. No, he's not. If he had any kind of character worth praising, he would have issued a statement saying, "Please stop calling for me to be reinstated." He failed to do his job. There are serious ethical issues here. Oh, he did a great job on your boo-boos? Well you're British. He's not accused of enabling the mistreatment of British citizens. It is an insult to the Iraqi people that so few have been punished for the murder of Baha. It was murder. He was an innocent. He is dead now.

Grasp that. Keilloh can do whatever he wants with the rest of his life. That option has been forever denied to Baha. Baha Mousa had a wife, he had children. He was a hotel clerk. He never should have been rounded up. Once rounded up, he shouldn't have been beaten. He was and others were as well. That's due to the fact that Keilloh didn't maintain professional standards, didn't follow basic ethics of medicine.

Baha Mousa is dead. The Telegraph of London has a photo of him with his wife Yasseh and each are holding a child -- their children, their sons Hussein and Hassan. Little boys who no longer have a father. Any suffering Keiloh may experience is not going to trump that. Two little children lost their father. A woman lost her husband. Not by chance, not by accident, but by the actions certain individuals took. Keiloh's professional embarrassment/set-back doesn't begin to compare with the world that was torn from Yasseh Hussein and her two sons. If Keiloh had character, he'd tell the people demanding he be re-instated to leave it alone.

Yasseh Hussein is only one of the many widows produced by the Iraq War. The International Committee of the Red Cross has posted a brief documentary on YouTube about Iraq's widows that the Arte network produced. Here's an excerpt.

ARTE: From above, Baghdad seems to be a city like any other, far removed from the violence of the past nine years. But sometimes the traces of war have a human face. On every street corner, you glimpse black silhouettes. These are the widows of Iraq. In a country haunted by war, no one takes notice of these living ghosts. There are more than a million widows in Iraq with 400,000 in Baghdad alone. Tradition dictates that these widows be taken in by their husband's family. Um Barak and her children live with 24 people in 50 square meters.

UM BAKAR: (gesturing around the small, single room): We use these blankets as a bed. We have a gas stove to keep warm and we eat here.

ARTE: In this time of conflict when people are already struggling to cope, a widow's often a burden on her husband's family. Left to fend for herself, Um Barak raises her children alone in this tiny room.

UM BARAK: Which is bigger, the earth or the sun?

CHILD: The sun.

UM BARAK: Okay. What about the stars? Are they bigger than the sun?

ARTE: What is it like, living here?

UM BARAK: What do you think? We live on top of each other. It's very hard for us. Ask them. They have no freedom. No one here is free -- not my husband's family, not us. We're suffocating.

ARTE: Power cuts and water shortages are a daily reality for Um Barak. Her husband was kidnapped and killed six years ago. Since then, she receives only $300 every two months. It seems there's no chance for a better life with barely enough to give her sons an occassional treat.

[At a market.]

UM BARAK: Do you want a fruit juice?

CHILD: No.

UM BARAK: You sure?

ARTE: Is state aid enough?

UM BARAK: $300 isn't enough for one month. It doesn't matter who you are. $300 wouldn't even be enough for a week even and I have to make it last for two months.

ARTE: In an attempt to find a solution to her problems, Um Barek regularly goes to the education center for widows. Around 30 women get together there every week. Today, this young woman from the center has handed out a questionairre about religious tolerance.

CENTER WORKER: Don't copy. Answer the questions yourself.

ARTE: But their attention soon returns to their daily lives.

WOMAN 1: All of this is the government's fault. The government has no respect for widows. What are we supposed to do with $300 every two months or if we get nothing like this lady here. How much do members of Parliament get? Do they think about what women have to endure in our society when they lose their husbands? These are mothers after all. It is up to you, humanitarian organizations, to find a solution for us widows.

CENTER WORKER: We're not from the government. We're a humanitarian association so you can speak freely.

ARTE: This center is one of the few places where these women can express themselves. It's a much needed outlet in a society where widows are often mistreated by their husband's families.

CENTER WORKER: Couldn't you make meat patties? Snacks? Kibobs? And sell them?

WOMAN 2: You really think I could do that? My husband's family would never allow it.

Such passes for life in Iraq. Iraq rakes in billions each year on oil. Where does the money go? It doesn't go into infrastructure -- potable water and reliable and constant electricity remain elusive dreams -- and it doesn't go into caring for Iraq's widows and orphans. Were it not for Moqtada al-Sadr and Iraqiya, Nouri would have ended the food-ration card system weeks ago as he planned to. Instead, people called out Nouri's decisions. It was noted that in poverty plagued Iraq, taking away the food staples guaranteed to each family by that card would force women and children further into poverty. That didn't trouble Nouri, he was still willing to go ahead with it. Moqtada and Iraqiya not only called out the decision but, with the support of the Iraqi people, were able to shame Nouri into backing off.

If you're not grasping how Nouri is failing the Iraqi people, refer to this graph at Niqash offering the government's annual budget. In 2003, it was only 6.1 billion dollars (US). Today? 118.4 billion dollars. And yet the Iraqi people continue to do without.

"If the truth hurts . . ."
"Fire With Fire"
"Target smart or stupid?"
"a truest?"
"Benghazi and not Benghazi"
"Bradley gets a sentencing credit (if he gets sentenced)"
"Every picture tells what story?"
"The Good Wife"
"Adrian Lamo is a sick f**k"
"Bradley should have walked today"
"It's so Glenn-Glenn"
"THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO SUPPORTS HIM!"

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO SUPPORTS HIM!

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

WHO ELECTED THIS PRINCESS?

SURELY THAT'S THE QUESTION AS PRINCESS BARRY O NOMINATED NOT ONLY THE REPUGNANT CHUCK HAGEL YESTERDAY BUT ALSO DRONE WARRIOR JOHN BRENNAN.

THE ATLANTIC NOTES THAT THE CASE FOR BRENNAN'S NOMINATION IS MADE BY GADFLY AND SOME-TIME AMERICAN GLENN GREENWALD.

REMEMBER, GLENN-GLENN WILL BEAT UP ON A WOMAN FOREVER FOR DIRECTING A MOVIE BUT IF YOU OVERSEE THE PROGRAM TO KILL AMERICANS, THE RIGHT'S 'BRAVE' MISTER FANCY FEAST WILL DROP TO HIS KNEES TO WELCOME YOU.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today US President Barack Obama nominated former Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense. Right-winger Andrew Sullivan is frothing at the mouth in joy. Of course he would, Andrew Sullivan was an Iraq War cheerleader. He believes in rewriting history just like Hagel. So he portrays Hagel as some sort of brave leader. David Corn (Mother Jones) notes reality and does so by dropping back to a 2006 piece he wrote about Hagel where Corn noted:

Of all the senators eyeing the White House in 2008, this Nebraskan [Hagel] was the only one to express deep reservations about the resolution -- while still voting for it. "America -- including the Congress -- and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism," Hagel said in explaining his vote. But he was prescient: "If disarmament in Iraq requires the use of force, we need to consider carefully the implications and consequences of our actions. The future of Iraq after Saddam Hussein is also an open question. Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world. How many of us really know and understand much about Iraq, the country, the history, the people, the role in the Arab world? I approach the issue of post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and stability in the Middle East with more caution, realism and a bit more humility." He added, "Imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice. A democratic effort cannot be maintained without building durable Iraqi political institutions and developing a regional and international commitment to Iraq's reconstruction. No small task."

Hagel was disappointed in the discourse within the Senate: "We should spend more time debating the cost and extent of this commitment, the risks we may face in military engagement with Iraq, the implications of the precedent of United States military action for regime change and the likely character and challenges of a post-Saddam Iraq. We have heard precious little from the President, his team, as well as from this Congress, with a few notable exceptions, about these most difficult and critical questions." And he cautioned humility: "I share the hope of a better world without Saddam Hussein, but we do not really know if our intervention in Iraq will lead to democracy in either Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world." Bottom line: Hagel feared the resolution would lead to a war that would go badly but didn't have the guts to say no to the leader of his party.

That's an honest appraisal of someone who did nothing. If you doubt how little Hagel did grasp that he's also falsely praised for being against Bully Boy Bush's so-called 'surge.' Yet, if you visit Senator Tom Coburn's website, you find this:

Nebraska's senators voted opposite each other, even though both are co-sponsors of the proposed Senate resolution that "disagrees" with Bush's troop buildup.
GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel voted with his party to filibuster his own resolution disapproving of the president's plan, even though he has been the most outspoken Republican in Congress opposing Bush's troop escalation.
At a recent Senate hearing, for example, Hagel wagged his finger and chided senators hesitant about debating the war. "If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes," he said then. Hagel's spokesman, Mike Buttry, said Hagel voted for the filibuster Monday to preserve the minority party's rights.

So Hagel gets a ton of press attention for being against the 'surge' and proposes co-proposes a resolution against the 'surge' to get even more attention but when it's time to vote, he votes against the resolution he co-sponsored -- meaning he got all the press for a popular position among the public but he didn't actually take that position on the record February 7, 2007. It's a cute little con game. Sort of like an insincere 'apology' offered to circumvent valid criticism. Wayne Anderson offers "2013: The Year of the Anti-Gay Non-Apology" (Huffington Post) which includes Hagel's nonsense on the list:

And last but certainly not least, we have President Obama's apparently favored choice for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, offering up one of the most, if not the most, blatantly unbelievable non-apologies when he decided, after 14 years of silence, to finally apologize for his repulsive anti-gay remarks about the first openly gay American ambassador, James Hormel, but only after President Obama started floating his name as a potential Secretary of Defense. And even then Hagel couldn't actually admit that his comments were wrong, saying that he just feels that they were "insensitive."

Hagel apologists like to excuse away the attack on Hormel as oh-so-long-ago. But it's not that simple. Michelangelo Signorile (Huffington Post) explains, "Hagel scored a zero on the Human Rights Campaign's Senate scorecard between 2001 and 2006 (which is not that long ago), voting against pro-gay initiatives and for anti-gay ones, and was on record as opposing allowing gays to serve openly in the military (calling it a 'social experiment'), let alone representing this country as ambassadors."

October 3rd, the Defense Dept announced that three US soldiers had died October 1st in Afghanistan following a suicide bombing. The dead were Wilmington, North Carolina's Sgt Thomas J. Butler IV, Maysville, North Carolina's Sgt Jeremy F. Hardison and Raeford, North Caroline's Sgt Donna R. Johnson. All three were under the age of 30, all three were married. Sgt Donna R. Johnson was an Iraq War veteran having also served in Iraq from 2007 to 2008. Michael Futch (Fayetteville Observer) reported on her October funeral service:

A U.S. flag draped Sgt. Johnson's casket, and a framed photograph of the soldier wearing an Army duty uniform was nearby, along with a table displaying a number of her military medals.

Throughout the service, Sgt. Johnson's spouse, Tracy Joe Dice, sat with her head bowed.

"I can say when God took Donna, he took one of the best," Jessica Rivera, a lifelong friend, said during the service.

Dee Charles, another close friend, called Sgt. Johnson a confidante and someone she trusted.

"Most importantly," Charles said, "she loved all of us."

Like her father, Philas, a great basketball player, Donna Johnson was athletic.

Like her mother, Sandra, a teacher for 35 years, she excelled in the classroom. Donna Johnson had been an honors student.

Donna Johnson's spouse was not treated in the same fashion the other two spouses were because Johnson was in a same-sex marriage. Her spouse was Staff Sgt Tracy Dice. Colin Kelly (Military Times) produced a video of an interview with widow Staff Sgt Racy Die and Donna's mother Sandra. Transcript:

Staff Sgt Tracy Dice: I told her I didn't want her to go. I was honest with her. But I knew that, had I asked her not to go, it probably would have been one of those things that surfaced later on. It seemed like we had finally gotten to the point in our relationship that we had perfected it. It was just going so well. It was going so perfect. You know, whether you're deployed or you're waiting on someone to come home, it's very easy to just bury yourself into a pillow and sleep the day away because it makes things go by so much quicker. So I was home that day. And I thought, "You know, I'm going to sleep in because I don't have to get up and go to work." And I was just going to wait for her to call and -- uh -- after the time -- which was like the latest time that I thought she would be calling, I -- uh -- I got up and I -- I started to panic. Her sister called me back and told me that the military was at her house and that I needed to come there. There Casualty Assistance Officer, CAO, yeah, he's got to work within the confines of the law and stuff like that and he did everything that he possibly could for me. I mean it's a sad statement that three soldiers lost their lives and all three of them were married. But one of the soldier's spouses wasn't treated -- She was treated as if she was single. If someone else had another gay spouse is to through this and they don't have any of that -- if they don't have family support and they are not in the military, it's too easy for them to get shut out and not have any rights whatsoever. The military can't do anything with DOMA [Defense Of Marriage Act] being changed. That's just the bottom line.

Sandra Johnson: They gave their life for their country. They served their country. Man, woman, it doesn't matter. They served their country.

Staff Sgt Tracy Dice: It's a sad state of affairs that America would let one of their soldiers fall and not take care of the soldier's spouse. Regardless of who that spouse is. And that is a sad statement. We gay soldiers have been here the entire time. And we're not going to go away. Everybody just knows about us now.

Tracy Dice is thought to be the first widow from a same-sex marriage since Don't Ask, Don't Tell was lifted. Who's going to implement policies in favor of Dice and others in similar situations? Who's going to advocate for them? They are part of today's military and they serve with honor. Will a homophobe like Chuck Hagel be able to honor their service? It's a valid question. As Mark Thompson (Time magazine) observed last month, "With the end of 'Don't ask, don't tell' and the growing legalization of same-sex marriages come the challenges of adopting military life to new mores." And Hagel can provide leadership on that issue?

Who will they look to

In whose hands will their future lie

Who's going to tell them, "Stand up again.

Why not, why not give it one more try?"

-- "Who Will They Look To" written by Nickolas Ashford and Valerie Simpson, first appears on their classic Street Opera

One of the two biggest issues facing the military right now is the rate of rape and assault in the ranks. Laura Bassett (Huffington Post) notes that Hagel's "past opposition to abortion rights for rape victims in the military does not seem to be a sticking point for progressives." It's cute the way the media ignores left criticism of the choice of Hagel. I thought Daily Kos was supposed to be the home of 21st century progressivism? As FloraLine pointed out at Daily Kos:

He voted six times for banning servicewomen from being able to get an abortion in military medical facilities WITH THEIR OWN MONEY even if they are stationed in countries where abortion is forbidden for civilians (and he succeeded). In twelve years' time. He also thinks pregnancies caused by rape are "irrelevant" when talking about his no-exceptions-anti-choice position because they don't happen a lot - while fully knowing that a servicewoman is twice as likely to be raped by a fellow American than a civilian is, even, and that the majority of abortions in the military are performed because the subject was raped. Hagel's past has had more than serious consequences for hundreds, if not thousands, of valuable people in the military. Many people got fired for returning home to be able to get an abortion, while many others' careers were terminated because (surprise!) literally forcing unwanted pregnancies to continue creates single moms.

Emily Bockrath has started a petition at ForceChange.com entitled "Protect America's Servicewomen: Don't Appoint Anti-Choice Senator to Defense Secretary Position." In September, NOW was calling out US House Rep Todd Akin and insisting that all rape must be taken seriously. They have no comment for the record on Chuck Hagel. That's our 'feminist' media. Martha left a comment at Ms which she copied and pasted to me. We'll see if it makes it up at the site but we'll include it here. Martha's commenting in response to the post "Who needs feminist media? Answers from short-essay contest winner:"

Martha says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

January 7, 2013 at 3:27 pm

I need feminist media. Please let me know when one emerges. Seeing that Ms. is silent as Chuck Hagel is named the Secretary of Defense nominee indicates we can't count on Ms. Too bad for our sisters in the military considering Hagel's record. But don't worry, the junior Senator from New Hampshire just knows everything's going to work out fine and Hagel's a blessing.
Point of fact, he's anti-choice don't tell me that won't impact the way resources are allotted, the way the command responds to rape and so much more.
I long for Ms. to stop being the kid sister of the Democratic Party and start being the voice of feminism.

Every year Martha and Shirley do the community book review, the most recent being "2012 In Books." Meanwhile the whoring never ends as those who should stand up stay silent or go along. There is no strength or honesty in our political 'leaders.' Tune them out and listen to One Direction's "Kiss You" (written by Rami Yacoub, Carl Falk, Savan Kotecha, Shellback, Kristian Lundin, Albin Nedle and Kristoffer Fogelmark) which has more passion, strength and guts then anything you'll find in Congress and might actually help you through the day -- something our Congress no longer cares about doing. If that seems harsh, I'm not expecting them to lead on Barack's other nominee today, John Brennan to be CIA Director. Drone Warrior Brennan should be behind bars. For more on Drone Warrior Brennan, read Howard LaFranchi's piece for the Christian Science Monitor. This is from Jon Swaine (Telegraph of London):

A career spy who served as CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, Mr Brennan was also accused of being complicit in the agency's torture of terror suspects under former president George W. Bush.

Controversy over his involvement in the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" is believed to have prevented Mr Obama from nominating Mr Brennan to lead the CIA after his 2008 election win.

He promised to ensure the work of the CIA "always reflects the liberties, the freedoms, and the values that we all hold dear".

Remember, if you broke the law and/or showed shoddy judgment, you're a perfect Cabinet fit for Barack. One outlet that didn't ignore left objections to both nominations was Free Speech Radio News today which featured a report by Alice Ollstein. We'll note this on Brennan.

Alice Ollstein: Yet many legal rights and human rights experts including the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International are critical of Brennan's involvement in and support for the Bush era torture program, the NSA's wiretapping and ongoing drone strikes overseas. Some of these concerns stymied Brennan's nomination for the same job in Obama's first term. Brennan was the first Obama administration official to speak openly about the targeted drone killing program. Yet he and that agency refused to disclose to Congress or the public who was on the so-called 'kill list' and why as well as the legal justification for signature strikes that target anyone in a certain area with certain characteristics. Because of this, Zeke Johnson with Amnesty International questioned Obama's praise of Brennan's transparency values.

Zeke Johnson: So much is still shrouded in secrecy that the government -- sorry, the public still doesn't have enough information to even fully know what's happening in our names.

"Hagel makes his itchy parts tingle"
"THIS JUST IN! PRINCESS BARRY NEEDS A MAN!"

The Daily Jot

Saturday, January 12, 2013

THIS JUST IN! BARRY WANTS CHUCK!

Friday, January 11, 2013

THIS JUST IN! BARRY PARTY ON THE FLOOR!

Thursday, January 10, 2013

THIS JUST IN! CABINET PLANS!

Wednesday, January 09, 2013

THIS JUST IN! HE KEEPS TAPPING!

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO SUPPORTS HIM!

About Me

Links

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot