THIS JUST IN! HE CAN MANAGE THE TREASURY?????

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   'CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN' AKA "BULLS**T YOU CAN SMELL" IS APPARENTLY MAKING TIMOTHY GEITHNER SECRETARY OF TREASURY.   THIS COUNCIL OF/FOR/ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, FORD FOUNDATION, RUN OF THE MILL GEEK THAT NEVER HAD AN IDEA NEO LIBERALS ROBERT RUBIN OR LAWRENCE SUMMERS DIDN'T SIGN OFF ON FIRST HAS A FEW MORE PROBLEMS.   AMONG THOSE PROBLEMS ARE PAYROLL TAXES.  TIMOTHY DOESN'T LIKE TO PAY THEM. HE KNOWS HE HAS TO PAY THEM.  BUT HE DOESN'T LIKE TO AND SO HE DOESN'T.   THE MAN WHO BARACK WANTS TO MAKE SECRETATY OF THE TREASURY REFUSED TO PAY HIS PAYROLL TAXES, REFUSED TO MAKE HIS SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS.    PROFESSIONAL APOLOGIST MAX BAUCUS SAYS THESE "WERE HONEST MISTAKES."  WHEN IT HAPPENS TO A BIG WIG -- WHO SIGNED PAPERS STATING HE WOULD PAY THE TAXES AND THEN DID NOT -- IT'S AN "HONEST MISTAKE."  WHEN IT HAPPENS TO THE LITTLE FOLKS, THE I.R.S. COMES RUNNING AND SHUTS DOWN EVERYTHING.   OR AS TIMOTHY GEITHNER EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS, "I'M SPECIAL.  I'M PRECIOUS."   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Today Fu Yiming and Gao Shan (Xinhua) remind that a 10-year-old boy disguised himself as a floral vendor to launch a suicide bombing in Tarmiya last September and they note that other children "have been recruited and trained to be suicide bombers".  So we will now see the efforts to ban children from public life, right?  And flower vendors!  And we'll see half-way homes set up for any children that fit Iraq's highly limited means of profiling, correct?   Oh wait, that only happens to women.  And let's establish that by turning to two attacks last week.  The first on women's rights and the second on the rights of the press.  Sunday, January 4th when a bomber -- then identified as a woman -- took their own life and that of at least 40 other people in Baghdad.  This was in the midst of a Holy pilgrimage, one that brought people from all over Iraq to the region and from outside of Iraq as well.  By Tuesday, 'security' demanded action and, of course, the action just had to be an attack on women.  From the January 6th snapshot:   In Iraq, the latest attack on women's rights takes place under the guise of security, always under the guise of security.  AFP reports that ALL women are banned "from visiting a Baghdad district which is home to the city's most famous Shi'ite tomb" and why is that?  Because of the Sunday suicide bombing which, you may remember, Sam Dagher and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) maintained Monday was carried out by a man despite statements to the contrary.  So you've got confusion as to the gender of the bomber. But you've also got the fact that no men were banned from shrines and these bombings have been going on for over five years now.  Regardless of whether Sunday's bomber was or was not a woman, there's never been a similar effort to ban just men.  It's only women that get screwed over and always while being told that it's for the 'security' of all.  It's not for security.  It has nothing to do with security and when you grasp that this is a pilgrimage and that the pilgrims come from all over Iraq and outside of Iraq, this is blatantly offensive.  It is yet another effort to curtail the mobility of women and even in the 'logic' being offered, there's no excuse for it.  They have still not established the gender of Sunday's bomber.  Dagher and al-Husaini as well as LAT's Usama Redha and Kimi Yoshino provided statements by Iraqis outraged by the lack of security.  What you have is a band-aid measure that will not fix a damn thing but the government wants to scapegoat someone and, just like their allies in the US, the Iraqi government will gladly scapegoat women.  And Reuters is now reporting: "Initial reports said Sunday's bomber was female, although the government later said he was male."  But who's being barred from worshipping?  Monday, the United Nation's Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, made a point of condemning the attacks on pilgrims and decreeds bombings like Sunday's "appalling and unjustified crimes."  Will de Mistura call out the barring of women from worship or is he only interested in speaking up for the male pilgrims?      Statistically female bombers really are not an issue (August 21st, LAT was reporting that "the number has jumped to 30" for the year 2008 -- still not a huge number) but if Iraq's so alarmed, well maybe they should pay more money?  "Awakening" Council members are also known as Sons of Iraq and they do have Daughters of Iraq but they pay them over 20% than they do men.  If they are saying female bombers are just so earth shattering and such a great threat, maybe they shouldn't have been so sexist and cheap?  Maybe they should paid women doing the exact same work the exact same amount?  And "they" is the US.  The US military set up that pay scale, the US military endorsed and embraced sexism.   The Iraqi government (al-Maliki) knew the Sunday bomber was not a woman.  They knew it before the implemented they attacked women's rights to worship.  There was no 'security' improvement by destroying women's rights.  It did give the appearance of 'movement' at a time when Iraqis were loudly and publicly criticizing the puppet government's inability to protect them.  "Look, we did something!"  Nothing that helped, but they did it.  And where was the press?  Where were they?   Did they call out the attacks on women's rights?  No and they never do.  Few bothered to even report the ban on women.  Those did bother to report it never saw this ban as anything other than 'security' and never questioned why women -- not a large part of bombers in Iraq to begin with and the Sunday bomber was a man --were being targeted.  There were no editorials in the US.  There were no efforts to speak to Iraqi women's rights organizations.  There was no effort to explore.  It was just taken for granted that women are so damn unimportant in the world's eyes that if they're denied their right to freely worship, that's just the way it is.    Contrast that with the attack on the press.  Friday's snapshot included this:  "Kim Gamel (AP) reports that other 'laws' are being pressed. Specifically the puppet government has issued a 14-page conduct code for reporters -- Iraqi and foreign -- that they will need to sign 'in exchange for permission to attend this month's provincial elections, riaisng concerns among media analysts that independent coverage could be undermined'."  The following day, Khalid al-Ansary, Tim Cocks and Katie Nguyen (Reuters) reported: "Media organisations who flout the Communications and Media Commission's mandatory code of conduct could be landed with a fine, have their equipment confiscated or be forced to make a public apology, said a document obtained by Reuters on Saturday. . . . Media organisations could have their licences revoked if they fail to pay any fines, according to the document."  The press amplified the story by covering it, they spoke to Reporters Without Borders for quotes, to journalists for quotes, to journalistic unions for quotes.  And by Sunday?  Crisis averted!  Gamel provided an update: Iraq will no longer require reporters to sign a contract in order to cover the January 31st provincial elections and the 14-page contract is being tossed. In an interesting development not really noted, Kimi Yoshino (Los Angeles Times) quotes Judge Qassim Hasan Abodi stating, "These are not our regulations. All we ask is that the media be neutral, transparent and objective. This is the only thing." Yoshino doesn't identify the body that Hasan's with, just notes it's over elections ("head of Iraq's election commission") -- he is the head of Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission. That is the UN backed body (UNAMI works with them) and the claim being made on Friday -- when the story of the contract and the penalities broke -- was that the IHEC had pushed that. No, they didn't. It was al al-Maliki.   Now examine the above.  The press goes along with the attack on women's rights but comes to life when the rights of the press are attacked.  That goes to how little importance is placed on women's rights and the refusal to grasp that there is no democracy without equality.  As important as a free press is to democracy, so is equality.  Currently, a slaughter is goingo n in Gaza and in some of the critiques of the press -- blistering, as they should be -- a point may be lost.  It's not, "Oh, look at the idiot who can't report!"  What those calling the sorry and distorted coverage of the assault on Gaza are doing is believing in and advocating for the power of a free press.  If the press does not matter, then it wouldn't matter what the press reported.  What those critiquing the current coverage of that crisis are doing is advocating for a free press and acknowleging the power of the press -- and doing so much more than many members of the press ever do.   Above you have two examples of attacks on freedoms.  The first attack, on women's rights, meant nothing to the press and they barely covered it.  So the attack continued and laid the groundwork for future attacks.  In the second case, the press responded and the attack was repealed.  That is the power of the press.   Today Alissa J. Rubin and Sam Dagher (New York Times) report the latest attack on women's rights in Iraq: Somehow, no one can figure out how, the rights of women to be represented with 25% of the seats in the January 31st elections just fell by the wayside.  No one can figure out.  It just, in all the talks and discussions, somehow, no one can figure it out, it just dropped right out.  Oops.  The reporters explain, "Early versions of the law, which governs the election of Iraq's 18 provincial councils, included a firm guarantee that women would have at least 25 percent of the seats -- the same percentage mandated by the Constitution for the numbers of women in Parliament.  In the male-dominated Arab culture, the framers of the Constitution and the Americans who were involved in drafting it thought that the quota was necessary to ensure that women would be represented. But the provincial election law was changed several times, and the quota language was gone by the time it went to the Presidency Council, whose approval is needed for it to become official. It went back to the Parliament with several unrelated changes and was published in early October. The lack of a strong guarantee for women's council seats has begun to gain widespread attention only in the last few days."  And good for Rubin and Dagher but find that topic at any other outlet.  Find one example in the US of the press using their power to amplify.  You can't.  As this snapshot is dictated, no news outlet except for the New York Times is covering it.  The Houston Chronicle does make it a sidebar online to a Los Angeles Times article that, frankly, says nothing.  The LAT article is all over the place (and doesn't mention women at all) but apparently that passes for 'universal' and attacks on women -- unlike attacks on men or attacks on the press -- is some sort of esoteric topic that's just not worthy of coverage.   What might life be like for Iraqi women today if the press had treated the repeated attacks on their rights as worthy of reporting?  Maybe we wouldn't have today's 'In some small areas in Iraq, women can drive again!' stories.  Because if these attacks on women were called out and not treated as 'oh, that's the culture,' women never would have lost their right to drive in Iraq or been pushed into wearing garb they didn't wish to.  If the thugs the US put in charge of Iraq had known that they would be held up for the ridicule they deserved by the press over these attacks on women's rights, you damn well better believe that they would have cut it out, they would have stopped their attacks on women if only to avoid risking their puppet masters cutting off funding.  Instead we got this b.s. nonsense  that these were 'cultural' responses.  No, they weren't.  Iraq was a highly advanced country.  It was not Afghanistan.  The point Ava and I were making in February 2007, when we reviewed a bad TV show (Jericho), still applies and women reading better grasp that.  No one's going to give you a damn thing but they will gladly rob your rights.  And that's not just in Iraq or Afghanistan.  We've seen it in this country.  Susan Faludi did a wonderful job documenting the backlash during the Reagan era (and, hello, we're back in another Reagan era and Ms. magazine has made clear it will be just as pathetic now as it was then -- for those who missed how pathetic it was during the first Reagan era, you can refer to Faludi's Backlash for how Ms. actively underminded women's rights and standing).  But that was nothing compared to an earlier backlash in this country.  No, not the backlash after WWII when Rosie the Riveter was forced out of work (and that is covered in Faludi's book), the backlash that began with the Great Depression, the one no one ever wants to talk about.  Choose any industry, and you'll find women high in the chain.  That would end quickly.  Let's talk film a second.  Women were directors.  Women were studio heads.  Women were screenwriters.  Women were producers.  Come the depression, it's all over now, baby blue.   It's amazing that Naomi Klein has yet to call out Barack's conservative economic statements and programs because the Shock Doctrine does not refer just to violence that allows an economic programs to be pushed through.  It also includes economic violence that allows economic programs to be pushed through.   (Naomi's book, while wonderful, merely popularizes theories that have been in place for many, many decades.  The reading the book has been given is a very safe one and one that tells domestic readers in the US, "These are things that happen over there!"  That is not the case and that is not the case only when it comes to a 9-11 or Pearl Harbor.)  Barack's economic plan has rightly been called out for ignoring women.  But by whom?  Which male identified 'progressives' have bothered to say a damn word, which male identified 'progressive outlets' have bothered to raise an objection?  None.  The Nation hasn't done a thing.  The Progressive hasn't done a thing.  Because women can always be thrown overboard.  It's not just in Iraq and women need to start grasping that.  The failure to do so is why each geneartion of the women's liberation movement has to reinvent the wheel.    What's taken place in Iraq is the backlash in flip-card fashion.  It's happened very quickly.  Just last year, it was 'okay' to talk about institutionalizing widows.  Prisons pretending to be halfway-houses were okay because, when you lose you husband, what better way to grieve than removed from your home, you friends and your family and locked away?  That truly was presented as the 'answer' to female suicide bombers.  Round up the widows and lock 'em away.  Repeating, female suicide bombers do not make up the bulk of the bombers in Iraq.  They are not the majority, they are a statistically insiginificant number.  And they may be inflated as many later reports have proven when female bombers turn out not to be.  (And often the excuse is given that someone must have been dressed as a woman!  No, just as likely is that, not having any clues, a scapegoat is needed and what looms as the ultimate threat since the beginning of time to some men: Women.)  But because a small number existed, it was time to propose locking them away.    Last week the desire to pathologize these women was noted:   The female suicide bombers result in alarmist headlines (here for US News & World Reports) because, "Oh goodness!  It's a woman!"  As if Pirate Jenny was an obscure character from a never heard of play?  As if Pirate Jenny doesn't have her roots in any revolution (including the American revolution).  But, "Oh no, it's a woman!"  So when a female bomber executes a bombing, it's a big deal to the press.  When a man does, it's a single sentence and there's no hand wringing or pondering WHY?????   It's obvious why and the one's pretending otherwise are the same ones pretending that something good can yet come from this illegal war.  And it's pretty obvious that there is HUGE sexism involved in the coverage.  This summer Time offered up "The Mind of a Female Suicide Bomber."  I'm sorry, are female bombers unheard of in illegal wars and occupations?  They become the norm.  And pretending otherwise is not only historically ignorant and sexist, it's damaging to anyone's grasp of what is actually taking place on the ground in Iraq.  They're attempting to make it some sort of pathological sickness in the minds of some woman when this is a natural response to a people occupied, under attack and prevented from self-governance.  There's nothing pathological about it.  Historically, it is a common response.  Mythologically, even more so.  Will Time next offer us "The Mind of Areto"?  Was there any difference in Areto attempting to avenge the murder of Hippolyte and Iraqi women today attempting to avenge the murders of their famillies?  Aztec mythology includes many similar examples, such as La Llorona who acts to avenge the murders of her children.  It's really disgusting that we rush to pathologize a normal response on the part of women that has been historically charted and culturally taught.  The sickness is not inside the women in Iraq who decide to wear a bomb, the sickness is the illegal war and continued occupation and you have to historically and culturally ignorant or else a liar who hopes others are historically and culturally ignorant to push these women's responses off as something unheard of and completely unexpected.   Today we are told that young boys are becoming suicide bombers.  We do not get, "WHY!!!! WHY!!!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!" coverage.  We do not get talk that they should be put away for 'security.'  Naomi Klein rightly noted Iraq was the experimental lab where all the US kooks could test their theories.  She failed to note that those theories included the attacks on women and on women's rights.  A huge failure, a huge omission and until women start writing as if their rights are as important as men's, don't expect very many men to ever make that case.      RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Other Items" "The attacks on Iraqi women's rights continutes" "norman finkelstein on the continued slaughter" "Phyllis Bennis plays America for a chump" "Phoebe Snow's live album Live is out" "Hillary" "Delay the digital switch" "Phoebe Snow" "Random musings and Phoebe Snow" "Barack dines with his buddies" "THIS JUST IN! DINNER WITH FELLOW SLIME!"

THIS JUST IN! DINNER WITH FELLOW SLIME!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   BRENDA RUSSELL WANTED TO HAVE DINNER WITH GERSHWIN, BARACK OBAMA SET HIS SIGHTS MUCH, MUCH LOWER.   BARACKA JOINED SUCH NON-LUMINARIES AS DAVY BABY TEETHED BROOKS, WILLIAM NEOCON IS GOING TO GET YOU KRISTOL, AND GEORGE WILL.    JUST GEORGE WILL?   TOO BLAND FOR A NICKNAME.   MS. MAGAZINE COVER GIRL BARACKA ENTERTAINED THE FELLOWS WITH A FAN DANCE WHILE SINGING "I'M JUST A GIRL WHO CAN'T SAY NO" FROM THE MUSICAL OKLAHOMA.   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Moving over to medical care.  Yesterday's snapshot noted, "The CBS Evening News reported (link has text and video) on PTSD December 26th and noted, 'There were 115 military suicides last year, and 93 through just August of this year'."  Suicide among the military is in the news today.  Starting with Marines and dropping back a bit to when Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reported on the 2004 Marine suicide rate (reported Feb. 25, 2005) noting it had increased by 29%, that 31 Marines had taken their own lives and 83 more had tried to do so.  Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) reports there are 41 "possible or confirmed [Marine] suicides" for 2008.  As Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) points out, none of the 2008 numbers are final yet.  Zoroya tells Army combat soldier and Iraq War veteran Josh Barber's story of taking his own life because the "smell of death" couldn't be escaped and grieved over his PTSD and the military's being unable/unwilling to treat it.  Zoroya explains, "Marines and combat veterans who have killed themselves in recent years, at a time when the Pentagon has stretched deployments for combat troops to meet President Bush's security plans in Iraq. The Marine Corps reported 41 actual or suspected suicides in 2008, a 20% increase over 33 in 2007. In 2007, the Army counted 115 suicides, the most since tracking began in 1980. By October 2008, that record had been surpassed with 117 soldier suicides. Final numbers for 2008 have not been released. Suicides among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans doubled from 52 in 2004 to 110 in 2006, the latest statistics available, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)."  This comes as the Defense Dept and the Dept of Veterans Affairs is in the midst of their multi-day Department of Defense/Veterans Affairs Annual Suicide Prevention Conference in San Antonio (through the 15th).  Michael Tolzmann (Defense Media Activity) notes that Dr. Loree K. Sutton (Army Brig Gen) explained that "toxic leadership" creates stigmas "that can kill" such as when "[a]n Army staff sergeant who had lost Soldiers in the war zone was called a coward, a wimp and a wuss form a leader when he mentioned he might need psychological help."   Meanwhile Iraq War veteran Nathan Ryan Smith is AWOL in the US.  Scott Michael (ABC News) reports he is "charged with kidnapping, rape, arson and tampering with evidence."  Michael quotes a rape victim stating he allegedly told her, "I have killed several people in Iraq.  I'm crazy in the head, and if I get caught by police I will come looking for you and kill you."  Ian Demsky (Tacoma's News Tribune) reported last week that court records describe the police involvement beginning as follows:   Police responding to a missing persons report Jan. 1 found the woman they were looking for. Her body bore the signs of torture. Rope burns on her arms were "deep and distinct." She had scratches on her back and sharp red lines running across her chest. There was blood inside her coat and on her pants.  The officers took her to Tacoma General Hospital.  She told police she had been walking to the store when she noticed a silver pickup truck with a canopy pull into the parking lot behind her. A man got out and shouted for her to come to him. He then grabbed her and choked her unconscious. She said she woke up in a strange room. She was naked and her arms and legs were bound with plastic zip-ties. She tried to free herself, but a male voice told her, "If you fight, you'll die."    Her abductor held a butcher knife to her face and promised she'd go home if she cooperated. He picked her up by the ties and carried her to another room. She told police she saw Army patches in a windowsill.    She said she was dropped onto a bed, gagged, sexually abused and raped. She told police she was tortured with a device hooked up to a battery.   When the man was done, he let her get dressed. She said he told her he'd kill her and her family if she told anyone.     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "3 US servicemembers announced dead since Sunday" "Biden visits Iraq, 'anti-war' movement comes undone" "the slaughter never ends" "Isaiah, Bloomberg, Larry Jones" "Talking post" "Roland Burris, Senator" "Is the nightmare over?" "Amazon.com calls Melanie a "No talent"" "Isaiah, World Can't Wait, Third" "THIS JUST IN! BULLS**T YOU CAN SMELL!" "Barack's Bulls**t You Can Smell" "Singer Phoebe Snow Discusses Living Life After Daughter's Death"

THIS JUST IN! BULLS**T YOU CAN SMELL!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   AS USUAL, EACH DAY BRINGS ANOTHER CAVE FROM PRESIDENTIAL-ELECT BARACK OBAMA.    GUANTANAMO, HE DECLARED THROUGHOUT HIS CAMPAIGN FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION, WOULD BE CLOSED UNDER A PRESIDENT BARACK.   REALITY?   NO.   HE HAS A 'PLAN' THAT WILL CLOSE IT DOWN IN APPROXIMATELY 12 MONTHS.  BUT THE PRISONERS WILL NOT BE RELEASED.  HE WANTS TO CREATE A NEW COURT SYSTEM TO HOLD THE PRISONERS.  WHY A NEW COURT SYSTEM?  BECAUSE THE 'EVIDENCE' AGAINST THEM WON'T HOLD UP IN A COURT OF LAW.  IN OTHER WORDS, BY THE U.S. LAW, THEY CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY.  INSTEAD OF RELEASING THEM, BARACK WANTS TO CREATE A NEW COURT SYSTEM.    FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE ON THE HOME VERSION, THAT WOULD BE GUANTANAMO II.   NO THAT'S NOTHING YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.  IT IS BULLS**T YOU CAN SMELL.     FROM THE TCI WIRE:     "Clearly putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on a aircraft carrier was a mistake," said the Bully Boy of the United States at the White House today in what he billed as "the ultimate exit interview."   That was a mistake, when he was asked to identify them, he threw that out.  The Iraq War itself?  "And when the history of Iraq is written," declared the ahistorical Bully Boy, "historians will analyze, for example, the decision on the surge.  The situation was -- looked like it was going fine and then violence for a period of time began to throw -- throw the progress of Iraq into doubt.  And rather than accepting the status quo and saying, oh, it's not worth it or the politics make it difficult or, you know, the party may end up being -- you know, not doing well in the elections because of the violence in Iraq, I decided to do something about it -- and sent 30,000 troops in as opposed to withdrawing.  And so that part of history is certain, and the situation did change."  What's certain is that he continues to misrepresent what was taking place (including Moqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire/truce) at that time.    "Mission Accomplished," he wanted the world to know was a mistake.  Abu Ghraib, by contrast, was "a huge disappointment during the presidency."  Not a mistake, not a crime, just "a huge disappointment during the presidency."  He found also label the lack of WMDs in Iraq "a significant disappointment."  In fact, let's note that passage of his remarks -- and the question had been about mistakes: "There have been disappointments.  Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency.  Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment.  I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way."   Let's not.  Abu Ghraib isn't a disappointment, it is a WAR CRIME.  And the criminals were never punished because they went straight up the chain of command.  As for WMD -- what's one supposed to think about his statements today?  Presumably, he means that since he lied about WMD ahead of the illegal war, he's "disappointed" that none were found and that's due to the "rationale" for the illegal war.  But some will rightly point out that the construct of his response indicates he wishes WMD had been in Iraq.  In which case, that would have meant what for the US service members sent there?  Or is that more thinking than Bully Boy is capable of?   By the same token, he should have been forced to walk out his mistake a little further.  He said, "Clearly putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake.  It sent the wrong message.  We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message."  He's referring to his May 2, 2003 padded-crotch strut across the USS Abraham Lincoln below a banner proclaiming, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." If the banner was a mistake, was it a mistake to blame others for it? Was it a mistake all along or just when he got caught out?  When did Bully Boy believe it became a mistake?  John Dickerson (Time magazine), November 1, 2003:   Asked at a news conference whether the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful, the president backed away from it, saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen of the Lincoln to celebrate their homecoming after toppling Saddam's regime.   Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner -- contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.   Mission Accomplished?   Reuters notes at multiple bombings in Baghdad today and that incoming US vice president Joe Biden has landed in Iraq.  We'll come back to that but first let's turn to peace news to wipe away the smell of the Bully Boy.  Military Familes Speak Out plans a February sixth through ninth action in DC entitled "The Change WE Need:"   President Elect Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it started, calling it a "dumb war." But he and his advisors have also said that they plan to spread the return of combat troops from that "dumb war" out over sixteen months and to keep tens of thousands of other troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely. So from February 6-9, MFSO will be traveling to Washington to bring the new President and new Congress the message that it is long past time to bring all our troops home from Iraq. The four days of events will include: A teach-in on Capitol Hill featuring the voices of military families, veterans, and Iraqis, explaining the need for an immediate and complete end to the war in Iraq -- and the human impacts of continuing the occupation. A march from Arlington National Cemetery to the White House. Lobbying members of Congress to end the war in Iraq. Watch for more details in the days to come!   March 21st, A.N.S.W.E.R. will be among those sponsoring the "Bring the Troops Home Now" March on the Pentagon:   Tragically, the criminal occupation of Iraq will not be over even by the sixth anniversary of the start of the war in March 2009. People around the world will be marching together on the sixth anniversary in the strongest possible solidarity with the people of Iraq demanding an end to the occupation of their country.   Marking the sixth anniversary of the criminal invasion of Iraq, on March 21, 2009, thousands will March on the Pentagon to say, "Bring the Troops Home NOW!" We will also demand "End Colonial Occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Everywhere" and "Fund Peoples' Needs Not Militarism and Bank Bailouts." We will insist on an end to the war threats and economic sanctions against Iran. We will say no to the illegal U.S. program of detention and torture.   To endorse the March 21 March on the Pentagon, click here. To sign up to be a Transportation Organizing Center, click here.   While millions of families are losing their homes, jobs and healthcare, the real military budget next year will top one trillion dollars--that's $1,000,000,000,000. If used to meet people's needs, that amount could create 10 million new jobs at $60,000 per year, provide healthcare for everyone who does not have it now, rebuild New Orleans, and repair much of the damage done in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost for the occupation of Iraq alone is $400 million each day, or about $12 billion each month.   The war in Iraq has killed, wounded or displaced nearly one third of Iraq's 26 million people. Thousands of U.S. soldiers have been killed, and hundreds of thousands more have suffered severe physical and psychological wounds. The U.S. leaders who have initiated and conducted this criminal war should be tried and jailed for war crimes.     On the topic of violence, Sunday the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died when an improvised explosive device struck his vehicle in eastern Baghdad at approximately 8 p.m. Jan. 10. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin."  Today the US military announced: "A U.S. Solder died as a result of a non-combat related injury near Samarra, Iraq Jan. 11. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next-of-kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The death brings to 4225 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.   Over 1.5 million Iraqis have died since the start of the illegal war.  Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing and a car bombing at eight this morning that claimed 3 lives and left ten people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing fifteen minutes later that claimed 1 life and left another person wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing forty-five minutes later which claimed 1 life and left three people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing one hour later that wounded four people and, one hour later, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers and left three people wounded.  Al Dulaimy also notes a Mosul sticky bombing targeting al-Hadbaa National List's Faris Sinjari -- they are among the political parties in Mosul competing for seats in the provincial elections scheduled for January 31st.  BBC has video on today's violence.   Moving to Iraqi politics but starting with a US example.  Willam Brockman Bankhead was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives for over four years.  He died unexpectably of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. (For those unfamiliar with Bankhead, he was the father of Tallulah Bankhead.)  The following day, Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House.  The following day.  December 23rd, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out of the Speakership of the Iraqi Parliament.  The week prior he had stated he was resigning.  He attempted to take that back but a large number wanted him gone as Speaker and had wanted him gone for some time with repeated public efforts to oust him.  It is now January 12th and they have still not appointed a new Speaker.  Today Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that the Parliament will address the issue on Saturday and they expect to continue discussing it.  Saturday -- when they do not expect to make a decision -- will be the 17th.  It will be almost one month later.  Repeating, when US House Speaker Bankhead unexepectedly died in office, he was replaced by Speaker Rayburn the next day.  Repeating, al-Mashhadani was wanted out by many (in the summer of 2006, believing whispers, the New York Times reported he would be out of the post shortly).  Despite all the planning to oust him, despite the fact that it was not a surprise, nearly a month later and they have yet to name a replacement.  Sam Dagher (New York Times) reported yesterday, "According to political agreements, his successor must be a Sunni Arab, as part of a codified effort to help Iraq's Sunni minority feel it has a voice in government. But disagreements over the choice led to more walkouts from the main Sunni political coalition, Tawafiq, on Saturday, weakening the bloc before crucial provincial elections scheduled for the end of January and raising the possibility of street protests by outraged Sunnis. The dispute may also keep Parliament from passing any legislation until a speaker is chosen and confirmed."   Kimi Yoshino and Ali Hameed (Los Angeles Times) added, "The defection came just a couple of weeks after five Sunni members from Mashadani's party, the National Dialogue Council, withdrew."   RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "US military announces another death" "No, John Bircher, you are not correct on PTSD" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Princess Brat's Big Plan" "And the war drags on . . ." "Kat's Korner: The really best of Janis Ian" "NDI in Iraq" "Leslie and Tom, the Peace Saboteurs" Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II A note to our readers Editorial: Racists make Burris jump through hoops TV: About that digital switch 1 Book, 5 Minutes Chummyness You Can Believe In Ms. Pathetic, fold tent please The New Ms. magazine! (Parody) How safe is the US Embassy in Baghdad? Barack's fan club poses as journalists ETAN: Blair Poor Choice for NI Director Highlights "Leslie & Tom's Big Adventure (in Loserville)" "THIS JUST IN! TOM AND LESLIE'S INTERESTING ADVENTURES!"

THIS JUST IN! TOM AND LESLIE'S INTERESTING ADVENTURES!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   THESE REPORTERS CAUGHT UP WITH BARACK PARTY GIRL LESLIE CAGAN, LEAD SOCIALITE OF UNITED FOR PATHETIC AND JUVENILE, AS SHE PREPARED FOR A BARACK BALL.   FROM THE GOODWILL DRESSING ROOMS, SHE HOLLERED AT THESE REPORTERS, "GET AWAY!  I WILL NOT ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT I AM A COMMUNIST!  HOW DARE YOU ASK ME THAT!"   WE HADN'T ASKED THE GUILTY BARKING DOG A THING AT THAT POINT.  BUT WE DID HAVE A QUESTION: DID SHE REALLY THINK INFORMING ON OTHERS TO THE F.B.I. DURING VIETNAM WOULDN'T HAUNT HER?   LEAPIN' LIZARDS LESLIE SUDDENLY WANTED TO TALK ALL ABOUT WHAT SHE DESCRIBED AS HER "FLIRTATIONS AND, YES, HEAVY PETTING WITH HARD LINE COMMUNISM" -- HARD LINE? --  AS SHE ATTEMPTED TO AVOID ANSWERING THE QUESTION WE'D ASKED HER.    WE OFFERED UP THREE SPECIFIC DATES WE WERE AWARE OF AND ASKED, "WERE YOU SAVING YOUR OWN ASS?  WERE YOU TRICKED AND UNAWARE YOU WERE SPEAKING TO A F.B.I. AGENT?  OR WERE YOU A PAID AGENT?"   LESLIE DUCKED OUT LEAVING US WITH TOM HAYDEN STANDING OUTSIDE THE DRESSING ROOM IN HIS SOILED BVDS AS HE WAITED TO TRY ON SOME "GROOVY" LOVE BEADS (IT WAS A CANDY NECKLACE, POPS NEEDS GLASSES IN HIS OLD AGE) AND "THREADS" THAT HE WAS "DYING" TO WEAR AT BARACK'S INAUGURAL.   "DON'T BE ASKING ME ABOUT COMMUNISM OR THE F.BI.," TOM JOKED, "BESIDES ARE THEY ACTUALLY THE SAME THING!"   AND SOME SAY TOM'S ONLY FUNNY IN BED.   AND, ACTUALLY, BED WAS WHAT WE WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT.  HE'S WRITTEN HOW MANY 'MEMOIRS' NOW AND WE JUST WONDERED WHEN HE WAS GOING TO GET HONEST ABOUT THE REALLY FREAKY SEX HE WAS PARTAKING IN?  WE DON'T MEAN VANILLA WITH A SPLASH OF GINGER, WE MEAN TOTALLY F**KED UP, OUTRAGE THE WORLD, FREAK SEX?   "A LADY NEVER KISSES AND TELLS," SAID TOM DARTING INTO THE FIRST AVAILABLE DRESSING ROOM.   WHAT LADY?       FROM THE TCI WIRE:   You Just Need a Dilettante To Know Which Way The Wind Blows.  And Tom Hayden is one -- a greying, dottering one, but a dilettante none the less.  At ZNet (link provided so you can visit the scene of his crime), Tommy list a series of wants: "our new president to succeed, restore hope, and launch a new New Deal at home, not to be distracted by a quagmire abroad."  Tom, you are now as officially nutty as Leslie Cagan and both of you should exit stage right immediately.  These are not the voices of peace, these are the hormonally charged teenagers trying to figure out why their panties and briefs get damp when Barack walks by (as outlined in the year in review). Where in Tom's 'noble' laundry list do you see the least bit of concern for Iraqis?  Poor Iraqis, Tom's all out of hope for them.   This is not a voice of peace, it's the sound of a suck-up who's finally spent the bulk of his divorce settlement (we always said, "Give it time, it will happen.").  And Tom's no longer interested in Iraq.  You get that from his praise for Dexter Filkins (the Falluja liar Dexy).  You get that from his 'judgment' (don't bring up his record when it comes to judgments, we'll all be laughing for days and never get a thing accomplished).  His judgment is that Iraq War is, so, like, totally over, you know, and all the way cool kids are sporting Afghanistan these days.  Tom-Tom writes, "The conditions for a massive social movement against the Iraq War are ebbing, for now, unless large-scale fighting suddenly resumes or President Obama unexpectedly caves in to the Pentagon and blatantly breaks his promise to withdraw combat troops in 16 months and all troops by 2011."  Poor Tom-Tom, he always rushed-rushed.  In all areas of life.  And now Tom-Tom ditches Iraq to move over to talking about Afghanistan because he's so very sure it's the next great frontier for the Barack Obama Movement.  Not for the peace movement, mind you.  And what's with 16-months, Tommy?  I certainly haven't forgotten when you took one line of Barack's from that absurd Houston, Texas speech and insisted (in a full column -- fool column?) that Barack needed your votes now (more than ever!) because he'd just offered a new 'plan' -- Withdrawal in 10 months!  Remember that?  "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new committment that parallels recent [gas baggery] in The Nation."  Remember those words?   He's lied for so long and lied so much, he can't even keep it straight anymore.  He's honestly as manic as he was when he was rightly kicked out of the commune.  And that's only more obvious when he decides he wants to 'comfort' readers with his opinion that Iraq will now be "a low-visibility counterinsurgency war like those that ravaged Central America in the 1970s."  And that, apparently, requires no protest and doesn't disturb Tom Hayden.  Poor Iraq War, someone should have told you that Tom-Tom loses interrest in causes as quickly as he does women.    Thanks for playing Tom.  Go form a B-O circle jerk with Leslie Cagan.  The two of you can argue over whether it's better to stare at the seat of Barack's pants or that really tight crotch.  And use the link to laugh.  I haven't laughed so hard since his August piece ("Dreams of Obama") where he used his children as accessories to shore up his faltering image but, somehow, forgot his adopted daughter.  Was no one supposed to notice?  Can we all expect 2009 to bring a Tommy Dearest page turner?  Apparently everyone was too busy dropping their jaws at his slur against bi-racial children in that column to notice how quickly he disappeared family. As quickly as he tries today to disappear Iraq.   The Old Sell-Out can't be counted on but thank goodness we have an 'independent' media, right?  No, we have a Panhandle Media and somehow FAIR forgot to call out the little stunt taking place January 20th -- see Third Sunday for more on that.   Instead we'll drop back to November 28th when Amnesy International issued this warning, "Thousands of Iraqis detained by US forces are at risk of torture or even execution, following the ratification of a security agreement between the US and Iraqi governments.  Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which will take effect on 31 December, around 16,000 prisoners held by the US will be transferred to Iraqi custody.  Those at particular risk . . ."  We'll stop right there.  No need to worry because those prisoners will remain US prisoners.  They are not being transitioned.  Yes, the treaty supposedly guaranteed the handover but no one was foolish enough to fall for the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement, right?  Oh, some did.  Anyway, Peter Graff, Ahmed Rasheed, Khalid al-Ansary and Jon Boyle (Reuters) report, "Some prisoners held indefinitely without charge by US forces in Iraq may not be freed or given trials, even though U.S. forces lost the authority to hold them at the beginning of this year, a U.S. military spokesman said. . .  U.S. forces are holding 15,000 prisoners, most of whom have been detained without charge under the authority of a U.N. Security Council resolution which expired on Dec. 31."   Earlier this week (Tuesday), US House Rep John Conyers, as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the "National Commission on Presidential War Power and Civil Liberties" with Jerry Nadler, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Bill Delahunt and Eddie Bernice Johnson among the co-sponsors.  The bill argues for the establishment of "a Blue Ribbon Commission comprised of experts outsdie government service to investigate the broad range of policies of the Bush adminstration that were undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers."  Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Patrick Leahy, released three documents [PDF format warning]  from the Office of legal Counsel -- one on the White House authority to use force against Iraq, a second on the UN Security Council from November 8, 2002 and a third entitled "Re: 'Protected Persons' in Occupied Iraq" (March 18, 2004) which is the one we're focusing on.   This memo (25 pages plus Appendix) was written by then Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith.  The lie the White House repeated was that Geneva didn't apply to Afghanstian (legally, it should have applied) but Iraq was a war and they were following the Geneva Conventions.  That was a lie.  They were selectively following it.  Goldsmith found, W"e conclude that the following persons, if captured in occupied Iraq, are not 'protected persons' within the meaning of GC article 4: U.S. nationals, nationals of a State not bound by the Convention, nationals of a co-belligerent State, and operatives of the al Qaeda terrorist organization who are not Iraqi nationals or permanent residents of Iraq."  The White House honored Geneva selectively.  They lied to the American people yet again.  Equally disturbing is the legal opinion including pages 22 through 24 where the conditions arguing for the protection of members of a resistance movement are selectively noted by Goldsmith who attempts to impose limitations via revisionary history.  Acknowledging the need for resistance against the Nazis, he does allow Geneve would protect Germans but, by his argument, members of the resistance in Germany or Poland who were French would not be protected.  The Nazis were not limited to Germany and the resistance movement against the Nazis was an European movement -- a fact Goldsmith is either ignorant of or pretends to be.   It's an appalling and shoddy legal opinion.  He distorts or selectively ignores historical facts and when you're dealing with the Holocaust, that is especially offensive. This is a glimpse at just how sick the 'minds' at work in the current White House were.   So along with the approximately 16,000 prisoners the US was holding in Iraq that Amensty International was aware of, there are who knows how many others captured in Iraq and taken elsewhere?  And, no, the expiration of the UN Security Council mandate does not mean that any of them are now turned over to the Iraqi puppet government.   RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "KBR and Halliburton offer up "BLAME THE TROOPS"" "Oh, and that worthless treaty masquerading as a SOFA . . ." "I Hate The War" "Egg Drop Soup in the Kitchen" "Senator Burris and moving" "gaza" "u.n. votes for cease-fire" "Gaza" "The economy" "Michael Winship and my chatter post" "Elvis and Princess Brat Caroline" "Seat Senator Roland Burris!" "Homophobe Tim Kaine" "Senator Burris and The Heiress" "Tim Kaine, World Ultimate Homophobe" "Glen Ford" "Idiot of the week (Zirin) and more" "Pez and Flinstone's vitamins" "Barack slips into a lobbyist more comfortable" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK GETS COZY WITH LOBBYIST!" "The Common Ills" "The Common Ills"

THIS JUST IN! BARACK GETS COZY WITH LOBBYIST!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   DURING THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN, SENATOR SWEET CHEEKS BARACK OBAMA LIKED TO PRETEND NO LOBBYISTS WORKED ON HIS CAMPAING -- OF COURSE THEY DID BUT HE HAD A PRESS TO LIE FOR HIM.   TODAY, HE ANNOUNCED HIS NUMBER 2 AT THE PENTAGON WOULD BE WILLIAM J. LYNN III -- SENIOR VICE PRESIDNET FOR RAYTHEON AND A REGISTERED LOBBYIST UNTIL 6 MONTHS AGO.  IN 2008, HE LOBBYIED FOR MORE FUNDS FOR MISSILES BECAUSE WHEN THINGS GO BOOM -- EVEN IF PEOPLE DIE -- WILLY LYNN GETS A BONER.   IT'S ANOTHER CRUSHING BLOW FOR THE WORKING PRESS WHICH WAS HOPING TO SAIL THROUGH THIS MONTH DRESSING THEIR BARACK PAPER DOLLS.   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Today Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, informed the UN Security Council about the refugee crisis in the world and noted that the total number of refugees falling under the UNHCR is 11 million -- up from 9 million in 2006 -- with the numbers being driven by Somalia and Iraq.  The United Nations notes of his briefing, "In Iraq, UNHCR was working hard to help the Government create appropriate conditions for the voluntary return and sustainable reintegration of refugees and the internally displaced, he said.  Two million Iraqis were hosted mainly by Jordan and Syria, and a similar number remained displaced inside their own country.  UNHCR called on the more prosperous States to offer full support to countries and organizations bearing the brunt of the Iraqi exodus.  To prepare for returns, UNHCR had redeployed its represenatives for Iraq from Amman to Baghdad and established an international presence in Erbil, Mosul and Basra.  Beyond security, sustainable return to Iraq would require effective action in the areas of property restitution or compensation, and full and equitable access to welfare services and public distribution systems."   Yesterday the US Department of Defense announced "the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Staff Sgt. Anthony D. Davis, 29, of Daytona Beach, Fla., died Jan. 6 in Northern Iraq, of wounds suffered when he was shot by enemy forces.  He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia."  Audrey Parente (Daytona Beach News-Journal) has a strong article on Davis's life.  M-NF never announced that death.  The way it works -- when it works -- is that M-NF announces a death has occurred.  Later, after the family has been notified, DoD issues the name of the deceased.  4223 is the current number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.   Repeating, 4223.  Not 4213, as Eric Owles maintains in a New York Times blog post  allegedly written today: "Will it be the Iraq where 4,213 American service members and an estimated 90,000 Iraqis have been killed?"  Christmas Day, the death toll was 4217.  When did Owles write that 'think' piece?  Again, the date on it says today but today's death toll is 4223.  As for 90,000?  If he can't even get the US death toll correct, don't expect miracles when it comes to Iraqis.  Approximately 1.3 million Iraqis have died since the start of the illegal war.  Owles is using the numbers from the laughable Iraq Body Count -- numbers embraced by Bully Boy, in case anyone forgot.  SourceWatch notes of Iraq Body Count, "However, as Medialens notes: 'In reality, IBC is not primarily an Iraq Body Count, it is not even an Iraq Media Body Count, it is an Iraq Western Media Body Count'."  Having tired himself out handling bad numbers, Owles steers readers this post by Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) where Ricks predicts that 2009 will be "tougher" in 2009 than it was in 2008 and that "Obama's war in Iraq may last longer than Bush's".  Ricks also notes, "The recent Status of Forces Agreement also means less than it seems.  For example, U.S. forces are supposed to get out of major bases in the cities later this year.  But there really aren't major big bases in the cities now -- the last time I was in Iraq I was told there is really only one -- and U.S. military advisors will remain in urban outposts along with Iraiq forces.  I suspect the SOFA really is most meaninful for the political help it will give Prime Minister Maliki in getting re-elected at the end of 2009 by taking the American presence off the table as a wedge issue for Iraqis."   A presence kind-of departing Iraq is the Denmark military.  The Copenhagen Post reports that the last six Danish military officers have left: "The UN mandate for the force ran out at the start of the year and the Iraqi authorities have not asked the Danes to remain in the country." But the paper reports, "Between 40 and 50 members of the armed forces remain in Iraq providing security for the embassy, connected with the UN and on a Nato training mission."  As Stevie Nicks once sang, "No one ever leaves, every one stays, close til the fire fades" ("Fireflies," written by Nicks, on Fleetwood Mac Live).  Sidebar: Stevie joins bandmates Mick Fleetwood, John McVie and Lindsey Buckingham for the group's first tour which kicks off March 1st in Pittsburgh (March tour dates are up at Fleetwood Mac's site).   No one ever leaves . . .  Elaine Brower (World Can't Wait) reports what happened to those who protest the illegal war in 2009.  Tuesday when Congress did it's first day of 'business' (Its business, so very rarely ever the people's business),  Activist Response Team staged a March of the Dead which found 70 or so activists in "white masks and wearing all black signifying the souls of those who will be haunting the criminals who are sending bombs to kill Iraqis, Afghanis, Palestinians and members of the military who are the lethal arm of this government's quest for empire" begam marching in the rain through DC, stopping at the Supreme Court before moving onto the Senate Hart Building where they unfurled banners in the atrium as the names of some of the dead were read out loud.  The banners read "THE AUDACITY OF WAR CRIMES," "IRAQ," "AFGHANISTAN" and "PALESTINE" and "Capitol Police, who were present when the march came into the building, quickly responded to remove the words that were so hurtful to those who were guilty of committing these war crimes.  Within seconds, the banners were pulled up, but it gave press and other independent media a chance to photograph it all.  An everlasting message to the murderers who keep spending taxpayer dollars to kill innocent people.  At that point seven people were arrested for unfurling the words of truth, but those on the ground floor of the Hart Buidling remained reading the names of the dead.  The police were gathering in force, and just as a secure perimeter was formed around the masked readers, another banner announcing 'WE WILL NOT BE SILENT' was dropped.  Quickly, three people were carted off by the police, and the banner was cut down."  In all, 17 activsts were arrested including those 'guilty of the crime' of reading the names of the dead outloud.    Though democracy is never 'exportable' possibly the White House had such a difficult time with 'giving' it to Iraq because it wasn't to be found in much of the US?  But they will try again January 31st when provincial elections are scheduled.  Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that yesterday's Holy day was seen as a campaign tool for "Iraq's ruling Shiite Muslim parties" and they conducted a poster war "from Baghdad to the southern city of Karbala" in anticipation of the provincial elections in "14 of the country's 18 provinces." Fadel notes that a number of voters state they will not vote for "their sects or their ethnicity" due to no progress on the ground in terms of basic services. A former school teacher, Widad Hamid, offers another reason, "Unfortunately it seems that when all is told it is Shiite support Shiite."  (Hamid is Sunni.)  Fadel judges the race in "the Shiite south" to be chiefly between Nouri al-Maliki's United Iraqi Alliance-Islamic Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and notes some were not pleased to see the Holy day co-opted by political campaigns.  Basheer Aoun al Anbari states, "Under the past regime God cursed us.  Now God curses us again.  It upsets us that they use our religion.  They did not apply what Imam Hussein symbolizes: justice."  Kimi Youshino (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) observes that the "concrete blast walls make the perfect blank canvas for election posters" and that, "Judge Qasim Hasan Abodi, head of Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission, said several candidates and political parties have been warned about defacing posters -- as well as putting them in  areas off-limits for posters, including government buildings and security checkpoints."  Sam Dagher (New York Times) reports that many, many men celeberated the Holy day in honor of Iman Hussein -- allegedly a holiday for all Shi'ites but al-Maliki refused to allow women to participate.  Allegedly, the fact that suicide bombers are women resulted in them being blocked from the ceremonies.  Of course, many, many more suicide bombers are men and no one blocked them from celebrating.     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "The Pentagon further stigmatizes PTSD" "'Holy' day for some (others excluded, others campaigning)" "Marilyn Monroe" "gaza, bette davis" "Gary Cooper" "Charlie Chaplin" "Clark Gable, Roland Burris" "Ingrid Bergman" "John Wayne" "Audrey Hepburn" "C.I.'s 2008: The Year of Living Hormonally" "Kat's 2008 in music" "THIS JUST IN! SON OF A NEWT GINGRICH!" "Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon's love child"

THIS JUST IN! SON OF A NEWT GINGRICH!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   HE TOLD PEOPLE DURING THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES THAT HE THOUGHT THE REPUBLICANS WERE THE PARTY OF IDEAS AND HE WAXED ON AND ON ABOUT RONALD REAGAN.   SO IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY -- OR AS MICHELLE HAS TAKEN TO CALLING HIM, "DEMONCRAT" -- BARACK OBAMA HAS REVEALED TODAY THAT HE INTENDS TO 'FIX' SOCIAL SECURITY.   'FIX'?   THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SOCIAL SECURITY.  BUT THAT'S BARACK, BUYING INTO RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS SO HE CAN DESTROY THE SAFETY NET.   WHEN REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARACK SAID, "HEY DO THEY STILL MAKE THE PISS-CHRIST?  I WAS THINKING I COULD CUT FUNDING FOR THE ARTS NEXT?"   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Starting with the press.  As Kat noted last night, incoming and outgoing White House occupants love their fake news.  For some strange reason, people are looking the other way.  Carol Marin (Chicago Sun-Times) explained Sunday that she and her colleagues in the press have been "[d]eferential, eager to please, prepared to keep a careful distance" and that at Barack's 'news' conferences, "The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day."  For those who've forgotten, the staged, fake 'news' conference has a direct relationship to the Iraq War.   "This is scripted," joked Bully Boy in the Mrach 6, 2003 press conference (link has text, audio and video) and it was one of the most pathetic performances by the press ever. It was so bad Saturday Night Live parodied it having Rachel Dratch play the dean of White House correspondents Helen Thomas trying to ask real questions and being prevented.  "How can you justify bombing innocent Iraqis for oil" led to Helen being chlorformed and she gets hit with a poisoned dart when she points out, "Mr. President, you have not dealt with the main issue!  You have yet to speak on the fact that half the people in this country do not want this war!"  You can see the dart at NOW on PBS when that bit of the skit was played during David Brancaccio's profile January 16, 2004 of Helen Thomas.  The New York Press offered, "After watching George W. Bush's press conference last Thursday night, I'm more convinced than ever: The entire White House press corps should be herded into a cargo plane, flown to an altitude of 30,000 feet, and pushed out, kicking and screaming, over the North Atlantic. . . . Abandoning the time-honored pretense of spontaneity, Bush chose the order of questioners not by scanning the room and picking out raised hands, but by looking down and reading from a predetermined list.  Reporters, nonetheless, raised their hands in between questions -- as though hoping to suddenly catch the president's attention.  In other words, not only were reporters going out of their way to make sure their softballs were pre-apporved, but they even went so far as to act on Bush's behalf, raising their hands and jockeying in their seats in order to better give the appearance of a spontaneous news conference."   That was an important moment and the PRESS FAILED.  They failed in their jobs, they failed journalism, they failed the country and they failed democracy.  Was it just too difficult of a moment for them?   The press that caves today and play-acts a 'news' conference for Barack before he's even sworn in is telegraphing that they will not stand up for a free press any more than they did during the last eight years.  It is disgusting and it needs to be called.  Barack also needs to be called out for his fraudulent practices.  That is deceitful.  And he's demonstrating that he is just as craven as his predecessor.  The press wants to tie a bow around the Iraq War or -- more likely -- shove it in a Hefty trash bag and leave it out on the street, they want to insist they're done and the war is over.  That is not reality but it will benefit a president who never technically promised to withdraw all US troops (expect Barack to get a lot of "It depends what your definition of 'is' is" jokes in two years) and has no plans to end the illegal war.    Staying with the responsibilities of the press, the US broadcast networks want to end their coverage from Iraq.  Paul J. Gough (Hollywood Reporter) reports that ABC will hand-off day-to-day coverage for the American Broadcasting Company to the BBC, increasing the ties between the two in sharing coverage that began in 1994: "ABC News president David Westin announced the change Wednesday morning in Baghdad in an email to employees obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.  He wrote in the email that Iraq would continue to be an important story for ABC News and 'we will devote all the resources necessary to do the story justice.'  ABC hopes that the expanded partnership will free ABC News' resources from daily stories."  When Brian Stelter (New York Times) reported on the move by ABC, CBS and NBC to pick up shop in Iraq and move their on-air correspondents to Afghanistan and Pakistan, he noted that a deal for BBC to pick up the slack for ABC might be in the offing but that no one was talking about that at the time.  And we'll note this from article: "Joseph Angotti, a former vice president of NBC News, said he could not recall any other time when all three major broadcast networks lacked correspondents in an active war zone that involved United States forces."   From the December 18th snapshot: "The Committee to Protect Journalists released their end-of-year analysis today and 'the deadliest country in the world for the press' is . . .  For the sixth year in a row, the 'honor' goes to Iraq".  Yesterday the International News Safety Institute (INSI) released their numbers and they "counted 109 casualties in 36 countries" -- guess who came in first?  Iraq with 16 deaths counted by INSI and they note, "A total of 252 news personnel, most of them Iraqi, have now died covering that conflict since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003."   Still on the issue of the press, but turning to Iraq's press.  Alive in Baghdad wonders, "Iraq's Free Press?" in this week's report. Nabeel Kamal and Huda Muhammad explain at the start of the report, "Since Baghdad fell in April 2003, all manner of newspapers have become commonplace.  Every opinion or issue has its own newspaper, and many Iraqis are wondering, is this what a free press looks like?"  They then ask Iraqis, "What is the impact of these newspapers since 2003?"   Male Iraqi newspaper vendor on the street: There are good and bad, some were good for people, although most of their topics are taken from the internet or satellite TV, and most of the news is fake, most of the time their talk is irrational.  It's hard to find in any of the daily newspapers something to educate people about elections, or cholera, or anything that helps people.    Iraqi Male #2: There were still four newspapers before the regime's fall, then there were more coming.  I can say the number increased in a terrible way.  It's "chaos."  Chaos with unlimted freedom, and the difference was clear, due to the shortage of media.   One of the most specific critiques   Iraqi Male #3: We need opposition journalism, journalism that shows the truth.  We need journalism to show the suffering of this population.  I don't mean to keep talking about the bad things during the ex-regime, but also now there are many bad things, with any government's fall there are plenty of bad things that come to the surface or facilities that break down, so we need true journalism that can clarify the facts and show the destruction, the corruption that is happening, now we need this journalism to educate a new culture.     Their press fails them and refuses to provide the information they need.  So democracy never took hold in Iraq but the US did manage to export its press system.  Timothy Williams and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) note the upcoming provincial elections scheduled for January 31st, "Provincial councils are roughtly the equivalent of state legislatures in the United States, and the balloting for them is expected to correct underrepresentation in local governments among Sunni Arabs, particularly in areas where there has been heavy insurgent and sectarian violence, including Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala and Nineveh Provinces.  Sunni Arabs largely boycotted the 2005 provincial elections."  Provincial elections were declared a benchmark by the White House.  As 2007 came and went without them, they began pretending otherwise.  In September of 2007, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Largely gone from the president's speech Thursday was his January insistence that the Iraqi government meet 18 benchmarks and sort out its differences on the most divisive issues in Iraq.  In January, the talk was tough: 'America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced,' Bush said then.  'I've made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended.  If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.  Now is the time to act'."  This was the so-called "New Way Forward" and it was quickly abandoned.  Bully Boy will leave the White House this month and will do so before the January 31st elections are held (if they're held -- this is a puppet government that most recently called of New Year's Eve at the last minute -- damaging a local hotel industry that can't afford to absorb any more losses).  The same month Bully Boy was suddenly ignoring the benchmarks (his 18 benchmarks), the US Government Accountability Office was reporting, "The government has not enacted legislation on de-Ba'athification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament."  That's September 2007.  Let's jump a year forward to the September 16, 2008 snapshot for that day's US House Committee on the Budget hearing on Iraq's Budget Surplus and this exchange is between US House Rep Lloyd Doggett and the GAO's Joseph A. Christoff:   Lloyd Dogget: All of us remember, except maybe President Bush, that in January of 2007, he selected the benchmarks, the guidelines by which to measure success, by which to measure victory in Iraq and when we sought an analysis so we would have an objective information instead of just the propaganda from the administration about whether those benchmarks had been met the Congress turned to the Government Accountability Office. And my recollection is that when you came out with your report on August the 30th of last year that you determined that . . . 11 of the 18 benchmarks that President Bush had set were not met. Is that correct?     Joseph Christoff: Based on that prior report correct.     Lloyd Doggett: Yes, sir.  And you found that of the 18 benchmarks the president set himself to measure success in Iraq that only three had been met as of August 30, 2007. Now this year, a year later, you did some evaluation again.  You did not evaluate every single benchmark but you really found that there had been very little progress in the year.  We know that fortunately fewer Americans are being killed there. But in terms of the objective of the Bush policy in Iraq, you had a grand amount of success in that they met one more benchmark than they had the year before, isn't that correct?         Joseph Christoff: Well we didn't go through a benchmark by benchmark analysis but we did provide a report that talked about progess on the security front, the legislative front and the economic front in our June report.      Lloyd Doggett: Right and I believe you found one more benchmark met than the year before.      Joseph Christoff: Again we didn't do a benchmark by benchmark analysis, sir.     Lloyd Doggett: Well if you look at the -- it may not have been called a benchmark analysis -- but you looked at some of the same factors you had the year before.  Just to begin to go through them, on the Constitutional Review Committee, you found that they'd formed the committee but the committee hadn't done anything.  Right?          Joseph Christoff: And that's still true.            Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met that.  On enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification you found that they had enacted the legislation but they hadn't implemented and of it, right?            Joseph Christoff: That's correct.        Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met the second benchmark.  On the question of enacting the hydrocarbon or oil legislation, you concluded that they had not met that again this year, did you not?             Joseph Christoff: Correct, and no progess this year either.           Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions -- that was the fourth benchmark President Bush had -- you found that that was only partially met.  Again they passed a law to allow the provinces to act but it hadn't been implemented.                Joseph Christoff: Well on that one it will be implemented when provinces come together to form regions so that's  an open --                Lloyd Doggett: Right, but we're not there yet.       Joseph Christoff: Well no provinces have voted to form regions other than the KRG originally.             Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation for an Independent High Electoral Commission you found only partially meeting it.  Again, they passed a law but hadn't implemented it.      Joseph Christoff: The commission was established.  The provincial election law -- the date was established for October 1 but the implementing laws have not been enacted.      Lloyd Doggett: Right. And they won't have the elections they've been promising us they'd have for a year in October.      Joseph Christoff: October 1, they will not meet that date.   And even if the provincial elections take place January 31st, they will not be in all the provinces.  Iraq has 18 provinces.   Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported in October, "Iraq's presidency council passed a critical law Wednesday to organize provincial elections that were originally scheduled for Oct. 1 and now are likely to be held sometime early next year. . . . Despite the law's stated deadline of Jan. 31 for elections in 17 of Iraq's 18 provinces, there may be a further postponement, according to the Independent High Electoral Commission."  Not only will the January 31st elections not take place in Kirkuk, they also will not take place in Irbil, Dohuk or Suleimaniyya.  Only 14 of the 18 provinces will be holding elections and, no, that's not meeting the benchmark even after Bully Boy is out of the White House.  Andrea Stone (USA Today -- link has text by Stone and USA Today video by Stone adn Rene Alston) reminds, "And there is the threat of violence. Two candidates have been killed in the northern city of Mosul, including one who was gunned down in a cafe on New Year's Eve. Friday, a suicide bomber killed 23 people at a campaign event south of Baghdad."   RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Provincial elections" "Mercenaries, money and injustice" "Decisions, Roland Burris" "today the israeli military attacked the u.n." "Iraq and tax cheats" "Barack, like Bully Boy, fakes press conferences" "I see a pattern of racism" "They refused to seat Roland Burris" "7 singers (6 songwriters)" "Jeb says no to racist Senate" "THIS JUST IN! SENATE ROUND UP, JEB AND CLANSMAN HARRY!"