Unclassified Media Project

Video courtesy of The Unclassified Media Project, via Crooks and Liars.

And don’t forget to visit these other great sites:

• atrios.blogspot.com
• commondreams.org
• crooksandliars.com
• dailykos.com
• firedoglake.com
• glenngreenwald.blogspot.com
• huffingtonpost.com
• mydd.com
• rawstory.com
• tompaine.com
• unclassifiedmedia.blogspot.com

Norman Rockwell: No Leaking

In keeping with the Norman Rockwell theme we’ve seen over the past couple of days around the liberal blogsphere, initiated by Harry Taylor’s Freedom of Speech moment, Dood Abides, over at DailyKos.com, brings us “No Leaking”:

“No Leaking” is inspired by news that…

President Bush authorized White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, according to a federal prosecutor’s account of Libby’s testimony to a grand jury.

The court filing by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time places Bush and Vice President Cheney at the heart of what Libby testified was an exceptional and deliberate leak of material designed to buttress the administration’s claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. The information was contained in the National Intelligence Estimate, one of the most closely held CIA analyses of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war.

Washington Post | Friday, April 7, 2006

You can find more of Dood Abides’ inspired works here.

Harry Taylor: Freedom of Speech

Harry Taylor today fulfilled his civic duty simply by sharing his displeasure with OUR public servant, president Bush. Unfortunately, there are still many Americans that continue to betray their civic responsibilities by merely serving as cheerleaders and enablers to an administration and a party that have repeatedly lied to us, even as they failed hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans in NOLA, and elsewhere; not to mention their utter failure at governing and managing our country — lest we forget that in 2001, when Bush came into office, our country was enjoying record surpluses and, only five short years later, Bush and crew have amassed record deficits.

Harry Taylor stood before our public servant and told him:

I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration.

However, as Harry Taylor was fulfilling his civic duty, other citizens, more docile and less concerned with their own responsibilities to our country, decided to boo a man that so nobly illustrated one of the four essential freedoms beautifully articulated by FDR; and so movingly depicted by Norman Rockwell.

This image was inspired by a simple post I found over at DailyKos.com, which I thought was very compelling. I’m sure that unwittingly, Harry Taylor inspired many, see here and here and here. You can also check out a clip of the exchange here, courtesy of ThinkProgress.com.

Update:

• There’s now a Thank You Harry site here.
• This person decided to track down Harry Taylor to thank him, and they got to chat.
• Harry Taylor appeared on CNN the morning after his "Freedom of Speech" moment.

We’re All Sistah Souljah Now

“We’re all Sistah Souljah now.” This is how back in the 90s then candidate Bill Clinton re-branded himself as a different kind of Democrat — a New Centrist Democrat, critical of the apparent corruption of popular culture and not afraid to speak against it, even at the expense of calculatingly "alienating" a core Democratic voting block, African-Americans (at least that was the calculus):

Many will recall Sistah Souljah, a relatively obscure political rapper who was propelled into national fame by then-candidate Bill Clinton’s condemnation of her in 1992. It was a quick way for Clinton to position himself as a "New Democrat" who was mainstream, moderate, and "just like you and me" in his values (that is, of course, if "you and I" are suburban and middle-class.)

The centrist approach worked for Bill Clinton in ’92, but things were different then (including a three-candidate race).

[...]

In addition, Clinton picked a marginal figure in attacking Sistah Souljah.

This is how RJ Eskow introduces us to his thesis, Running Against the Base – Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats’ High-Risk Strategy:

"We’re all Sistah Souljah now." At least, those committed people who form the base of the Democratic Party might be forgiven for thinking that. The Party’s leading Presidential and Vice-Presidential contenders seem committed to running against the interests and values of their core constituents. It’s a very risky strategy – for them, and for their party.

Unfortunately, it is patently obvious that RJ Eskow has it right. The conventional wisdom in DC, in spite of the utter failure of conservatism as a governing force, is that to win national elections Dems must tack to the Right. This is how one can explain Hillary Clinton’s attempt to criminalize flag burning, and Barack Obama’s thumbing his nose at the activist base of the party by endorsing Joe Liberman, while the grassroots rallies around Ned Lamont (Liberman’s challenger in the primaries). And, of course, there was Senator Obama’s post at DailyKos.com where he, more or less, scolded the vocal base and urged that cooler heads and civility must prevail — now, of course, it’s hard to argue against that… I mean, who would prefer the opposite, right?

As RJ Eskow explains, aside from appearing cynical, opportunistic and unprincipled, treating the Dem base as Sistah Souljahs is risky:

There are number of risks for the party here. One is the fact that Presidential elections are decided far more on the basis of character and trust than are other elections. Like most voters, I’m more comfortable with a politician who sincerely disagrees with me about an issue (even a critical one like Iraq) than I am with one who appears calculating and cynical in the pursuit of my vote.

Another concern is having an energized base. The Democratic base may not perceive a "clear and present danger" in ’08 the way they did in ’04.

Now, in a fair and rational world one could easily respond to being treated like this by one’s representatives by simply saying, Fine, I’ll just take my vote elsewhere — to another party. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party winner-take-all system; thus, given practical realities, all we’ve got are the Dems — for better or for worse. It is because of this that Matt Stoller’s suggestion, which basically calls for progressives/liberals to assert ourselves in the Dem party, must be taken seriously. As Matt suggests, not now, but progressives/liberals must start to challenge the entrenched establishment/centrist interests during the primaries and, too, we must build a competing infrastructure within the party if progressives are to control the Democratic policy apparatus.

Sure, going after Sistah Souljah may have had some short-term pay off for Bill Clinton. However, over time, his system of triangulation, proved to be nothing more than a political Band-Aid; because, as we know, while Bill Clinton governed successfully, his tenure in office did not help nurture the progressive movement/grassroots, which is what would’ve been necessary to build a long-term governing coalition to challenge the then ascending Republican coalition. Rather, Bill Clinton chose to side with the corporatist of the DLC and, too, put all his eggs in the new-economy-workforce basket to be the new base of the Democratic Party.

In 2008 we’ll see just how far to the right some opportunist politicians are willing to go. In the meantime, I hope that we, progressives, take Matt’s suggestion to heart and begin to elbow our way to the table — it’s the only that party insiders will begin to pay any attention to us.

A Conservative Asks About Withdrawal from Iraq

Over at DailyKos.com I engaged in an exchange with a conservative supporter of the Bush Administration, after he requested, Could somebody explain to me the rational[e] behind withdrawing our troops immediately [from Iraq]?"

I first proceeded to address the first point inherent in his question:

I’ve addressed the larger point that your question raises, that is: Was it smart to go into Iraq to begin with? Clearly the answer was and is a resounding no. Any answer to the contrary simply ignores the rational voices that opposed the war at the beginning and, now, an answer to the contrary, ignores reality on the ground. Accordingly, to sum up: only those that were willing to deceive themselves bought the lies coming from the Bush Administration and, today, war supporters choose to remain oblivious to the reality on the ground.

Which then lead me to address the premise he had used to set up his question:

All that said, your premise, that if the US left Iraq that it would lead to civil war and/or to undesirables gaining control of the country, simply ignores the facts. The reality is that, as expert observers have already noted, Iraq is in a low grade civil war already, a war that’s only likely to escalate — remember, experts knew that this would be the likely result after invasion (that’s why Bush I stopped short of going into Baghdad). As for Al Queda getting a stronger foothold in the country, I’d would remind you that your statement, again, ignores immediate history and the post invasion reality that now exists on the ground: Hussein and Al Queda had absolutely no operative relation; but now, after the Bush Administration, with the consent of his supporters, invaded Iraq, Al Queda is indeed in that country now (we and the Iraqi people have all those that supported and continue to support Bush & Co. to thank for that — that, I presume, includes you).

I then concluded with:

So, what do we do now that the Bush Administration, with the aid and comfort of his war supporters, committed the biggest military blunder in American history? (Before continuing, lemme just say that it truly pisses me off that after Bush et al committed this, and other catastrophic mistakes, that we (Liberal and Democrats) some how have the responsibility and onus to offer a solution to the mess that your president created; but, nonetheless, that’s what Liberals do, we offer solutions and make progress.) So, what do we do? We do what Murtha has proposed in his redeployment plan, and I paraphrase: 1. We form a quick reaction team to be deployed "just over the horizon," in case the shit really hits the fan; 2. We give the military REAL & CONCRETE goals that lead towards a timed reduction in troops over a predetermined period of time (of course, since the military would really be in charge over such timed withdrawal, they would determine the pace and how safe it is to conduct such withdrawal; the goal, though, would be active progress towards a reduction in troop presence); 3. We make it absolutely clear that the US will not build permanent bases and that we’re not there indefinitely.

To this I would add that, after redeploying the troops completely out of Iraq, the next presidential administration (given that the current one has already given up on formulating an actual solution (Bush has said that it’ll be up to the next president to decide what to do about Iraq)) will need to come up with an intelligent plan to "win the hearts and minds" of that region and, too, figure out a way to combat the poisonous grip that the religious conservative mind set has on that part of the world (of course, if we’re not careful here at home, we too may find ourselves infected and tainted by the same sort of conservative religiosity — why just look at our own brand of religious clerics and their fanatical supporters).