April 3rd, 2006
Senator Feingold makes standing on principle and demanding accountability seem so effortless — why can’t more Dems follow his lead? Here’s Senator Feingold on the Conservative Republican Approved Propaganda (CRAP) channel, otherwise known as FauxNews:
WALLACE: "Senator, in a hearing this week, you said that the president’s wiretap program is, and I quote, "one of the greatest attempts to dismantle our system of government in history." And you called John Dean as a witness, who said that this is worse than Watergate. Senator, do you really believe there is any comparison?"
FEINGOLD: "Actually, I do think this is worse. Not in terms of personal misconduct. Our greatest priority in this country is fighting the terrorist elements that attacked us on 9/11. But when the president breaks the law and doesn’t admit that he’s broken the law, and then advances theories about being able to override the law on torture, and having a preemptive doctrine of war, what he’s trying to do is change the nature of our government."
WALLACE: "But wait, wait, wait. That’s not — but Senator, I mean the fact is, President Bush briefed the congressional leaders, both House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, also the leaders of the Intelligence Committee, Republican and Democrat, both House and Senate, more than a dozen times before and during this NSA wiretap program. Isn’t that a big difference?"
FEINGOLD: "Chris, Chris, where I come from here in Wisconsin, if you break the law and you go tell people you’re breaking the law, that doesn’t make it OK. If you’re breaking the law, you’re breaking the law. In this case, the president does not have a legal leg to stand on."
WALLACE: "Let me explore that Watergate comparison a little bit more. Has President Bush created an enemies list? Has he used the federal government to punish his political opponents? Has he authorized break-ins of his political enemies?"
FEINGOLD: "Well, again, Chris, this is not a criticism of the president as some sort of criminal law, day-to-day problem, like President Nixon had. This is really a much bigger deal. As George Will has said, this was the very reason for the revolution that we had in this country, is that we did not want a monarchical president…
So this is actually, even though in terms of the president’s personal conduct not as serious, much more dangerous to our system of government, to our republic, and frankly, Chris, it weakens us in the fight against terrorism, to have a president who’s thumbing his nose at the laws of this country."
Check out the video over at Crooks & Liars. Democrats, pay attention, this is how it’s done! Great job Senator Feingold.
Update: You can see the full interview here, courtesy of Veredictum.
April 3rd, 2006
What some in the establishment media and the conservative cesspool, including talk radio, FauxNews and the blogsphere, said about Jill Carroll since she was released by her kidnappers after an 82 day captivity is simply hateful, reprehensible and nothing less than detestable — here’s just one example of what their reaction has been like.
Over the past couple of days some in the progressive blogsphere have wade in astonishment as the Right goes on about defaming Jill Carroll, the survivor of what must’ve been a traumatic experience:
First I’d like to call out a big fuck you to all the bloggers and wingut radio blowhards who assumed that since Jill Carroll isn’t a screeching, GOP operative harpy like Laura Ingraham that she is sympathetic to terrorists. She had the guts to get out there and try to report from the belly of the beast and got kidnapped and terrorized while doing it. And these pathetic little chickenhawks had the unmitigated gall to attack her — apparently because she managed to survive and because she was a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor. — Hullabaloo.
On the same topic, Joe at The Moderate Voice is being way too moderate in calling the Jill Carroll affair a black eye to blogging. No, Joe, this is a black eye to the crazy, racist, right wing, hating blogosphere. Don’t lump all of us in together on that one. Yes, we’re partisan, yes we’re on occasion shrill. We’re not liars. We’re not racist. And we won’t be dragged down into the mud pit occupied by the likes of Little Green Footballs and Free Republic just because we occupy the same cyberspace. — mcjoan, DailyKos.com.
Look, I know I don’t have to go into a lengthy sermon about the bravery of the journalists – men and women – who risk their necks to try to get us a true picture of what’s going on in Iraq, or any other war zone for that matter. It goes without saying that Jill Carroll and everyone else over there is extremely courageous and should be commended for what they’re doing. I’m also not going to try to psychoanalyze what would drive someone to want to go over there and do it in the first place.
I’ll just say that I don’t have the balls to do anything remotely that dangerous – and neither does Howard Kurtz. For journalists to not give this woman some room to breathe while she gets her bearings after spending 82 days as a hostage is simply unconscionable.
[...]
Here’s the bottom-line: Whatever you think of Jill Carroll, Howard Kurtz owes the woman a big time public apology. And the Post really ought to stop the guy before he opines again. — Eric J. Weiner, HuffingtonPost.com.
April 3rd, 2006
I don’t know how to feel about this… on the one hand here’s a highly decorated, knowledgeable and respected Marine general telling us what many of us that opposed Bush’s war of choice against Iraq knew from the get go, essentially: the Bush Administration lied the country into a strategic blunder in the Persian Gulf. But that’s not what am ambivalent about; instead, what I don’t quite get is, why didn’t the good general come forward before the start of the war? Of course, while I don’t know the exact answer to that question, I can guess at the myriad of reasons as to why general Zinni did not speak out before the start of the war — the conservative noise machine that vilified Bush Administration critics and, too, the Bush Administration itself, which was not shy about going after its critics. Just look at exhibit A: army general Shinseki, whom had the temerity to suggest that a US invasion force would require hundreds of thousands more troops than what the Bush Administration was saying it would need to control post-invasion Iraq. After general Shinseki publicly stated that the invasion force would need to be much larger than what the Bush White House was telling the American people, Bush’s conservative henchmen went after the general:
Hardly any of this the reached public domain until last month when Gen Shinseki told a congressional committee that he thought an occupying force in the hundreds of thousands would be required to police postwar Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld publicly repudiated him, saying he was "far off the mark".
In semi-private, the Pentagon’s civilian leadership was far more scathing. A "senior administration official" told the Village Voice newspaper that Gen Shinseki’s remark was "bullshit from a Clintonite enamoured of using the army for peacekeeping and not winning wars".
Then the general said it again. "It could be as high as several hundred thousand," he told another committee. "We all hope it is something less." Most of the media were too distracted by the build-up to war to notice. Serious analysts, however, were staggered by the insubordination.
This appears to have been round two of another, more immediately relevant, dispute about how many troops are needed to win this war. In this case, the military prevailed over the original civilian notion that fewer than 100,000 could do it. As even more soldiers rush to the Gulf to bring the number closer to 300,000, the original Rumsfeld plan looks in hindsight to be what the army said at the time: a recipe for possible catastrophe.
The full reality on the ground may not become known until Saddam Hussein has fallen, but no one can now seriously believe – as many top Pentagon civilians appear to have done a week ago – that the main problem for an occupying force will be what to do with all the floral gifts.
I’m sure that with the above as backdrop, general Zinni was reluctant to speak out against the march towards war; however, now we see that general Shinseki was prescient in his estimate and has not been fully vindicated; while the Bush White House and its supporters have been proven to be utter fools.
It’s no wonder how now general Zinni can demand Rumsfeld resignation without hesitation — I would go a step further, the entire Bush Administration should resign. Every. Single. Last. One. Of. The. Fools!
April 2nd, 2006
No wonder I loathe — yes, loathe! — these asses… all conservative and reactionary pansies that mistake their bravado for actual courage.
Here you have these middle aged, soft bellied men in the comfort of their air conditioned radio studio in some American metropolis — thousands of miles away from any danger — casting the first stone against journalist Jill Carroll, after she was released from her 82 day captivity by terrorists in Iraq. Here you have a young woman that spent the last 82 days believing that every day would be her last, fully aware of the fate that many other kidnap victims met — from a quick bullet to the head, to decapitation. However, according to these three poor examples of manhood and Americanism, she was not traumatized enough nor did she damn her kidnappers enough to meet their satisfaction. So, of course, as conservatives do, they resorted to destroying her character and questioning her patriotism, and allegiance. These bastards never took even one second to empathize with Jill, a woman that saw her companion and translator be murdered at the start of her ordeal and, too, a woman that must have wondered whether she would live to see her family again. Am truly pissed that these motherfuckers even think that it’s okay to say all that they said about a person that’s just spent 82 days being held by murderers and thugs:
There was a shocking segment earlier today on the popular radio/television show “Imus In The Morning.” Watch this exchange between Executive Producer Bernard McGuirk and Don Imus’ sidekick Charles McCord.
[...]
Some lowlights:
MCGUIRK: She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone.
IMUS: Oh, no. No, no, no, no.
MCCORD: Just because she always appears in traditional Arab garb and wearing a burka.
MCGUIRK: Yeah, what’s with the head gear? Take it off. Let’s see.
…
MCCORD: Exactly. She cooked with them, lived with them.
IMUS: This is not helping.
MCGUIRK: She may be carrying Habib’s baby at this point.
…
IMUS: She could. It’s not like she was representing the insurgents or the terrorists or those people.
MCCORD: Well, there’s no evidence directly of that –
IMUS: Oh, gosh, you better shut up!
…
MCGUIRK: She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something.
[...]
Some lowlights:
MCGUIRK: She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone.
IMUS: Oh, no. No, no, no, no.
MCCORD: Just because she always appears in traditional Arab garb and wearing a burka.
MCGUIRK: Yeah, what’s with the head gear? Take it off. Let’s see.
…
MCCORD: Exactly. She cooked with them, lived with them.
IMUS: This is not helping.
MCGUIRK: She may be carrying Habib’s baby at this point.
…
IMUS: She could. It’s not like she was representing the insurgents or the terrorists or those people.
MCCORD: Well, there’s no evidence directly of that –
IMUS: Oh, gosh, you better shut up!
…
MCGUIRK: She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something.
Thanks to ThinkProgress.org for bringing these asses to our attention — you can read the full transcripts and view the video clips from ThinkProgress.org here and here.
Now, a day after obtaining her freedom, Jill has released a personal statement that more accurately describes her experience — now, will these asses have big enough balls to apologize… will these poor excuses for men be, in fact, men and own up to their mistakes, or will they cower like the pampered soft bellied limp dicks that they are?
Here’s Jill in her own voice:
I’m so happy to be free and am looking forward to spending a lot of time with my family. I want to express my deep appreciation to all the people who worked so long and hard for my release. I am humbled by the sympathy and support expressed by so many people during my kidnapping.
In the past few days, the U.S. military and officials have been extremely generous, and I am grateful for their help. Throughout this ordeal, many U.S. agencies have committed themselves to bringing me safely home.
[...]
So many people around the world spoke out on my behalf.
Thank you, all of you.
During my last night of captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and I wanted to go home alive. So I agreed.
Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Alan Enwiya are criminals, at best. They robbed Alan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends – all those around the world – who have prayed so fervently for my release through a horrific experience. I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.
I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be broadcast or aired on television, and they broke their word. At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn’t threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.
Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: One, that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military and two, that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true.
I want to be judged as a journalist, not as a hostage. I remain as committed as ever to fairness and accuracy – to discovering the truth – and so I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes.
Now, I ask for the time to heal. This has been a taxing 12 weeks for me and for my family. Please allow us some quiet time alone, together.
To Imus and his locker room bitches (I include Imus in this condemnation because he did not speak up when he could have), first, apologize to Jill and to your listeners for distorting the record; and, then, when you have the balls to go to Iraq and bring your radio program from outside the green zone, get kidnapped and are later released 82 days after being adducted, only then will you all deserve and have the legitimacy to stand in the same room as Jill Carroll.
April 1st, 2006
The LA Times brings us a powerful story of US military personnel wounded in Iraq — where there have been an estimated 16,653 wounded and an estimated 2,327 KIA (Killed in Action).
As is typical in the military, the LA Time’s story captures some of the dark humor that service personnel oftentimes rely on as a coping mechanism for all the shit that they must endure:
Worrell glanced down and was surprised to see a Purple Heart resting between his legs. Somehow the medal made him think of his wife, Jayme.
"My wife’s going to be pissed," he told the doctor. "She specifically gave me instructions not to get perforated over here."
At that moment, Jayme Worrell was driving to the couple’s ranch-style home in Fayetteville, N.C. She did not yet know that Vinny, the gangly boy she had dated in high school, the restaurant cook who had joined the Army to give meaning to his life, was about to be cut open inside a tent in the Iraqi desert.
I look forward to the rest of this three part series from the LA Times — you can see some images and a preview of parts 2 and 3 here:
