Jack & Jill Politics

Hey Miranda,

You did it! hehehehehe

email!

This is picture posted at mrs-o. I think they look so cool! This link has a couple more views of the President and First Lady leaving for Camp David.

http://www.etonline.com/gallery/2009/05/74585/

Good news for renters; no more instant eviction on foreclosures. In the past an apartment building that went into foreclosure could have all the tenants evicted regardless of their payment histories etc
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009...

Whoh! Just found this on Huff Post:
Mike Tyson Daughter Exodus Injured, Accidentally Hanged Herself UPDATED

Lord Jesus! Prayers for a complete recovery.

I saw that, said she is in very critical condition. Prayers for that baby.

Link doesn't match title.

Sorry, I changed it, try again!

Lots of talk about watching movies this week-end....... I just finished watching the Great Debaters (Wylie College), hadn't seen it before. I got all teary eyed. Gotta find a comedy now (lol)!

Attorney: Daniel returns, taken for check-up
By ANTHONY LONETREE, Star Tribune
Last update: May 25, 2009 - 7:40 PM

Video of Danny

http://www.startribune.com/45990387.html?elr=KA...

Damn, does everybody cut a video deal when they get sick?

This wasn't a news story, this was an ad for a media company

been watching A Man Called Hawk...man, that takes me back.

Oh yeah, Avery Brooks. You can get the series on DVD.

Dang, it's 2009. We need more shows of this caliber with fine smart black men.

We had one with The Unit (Dennis Haysbert) but it's been cancelled.

Venus just won the her first round of the French Open.

I did a brief recap of the day here.

Thanks.

On Memorial Day--a liberal's favorite "conservative" movies:

http://natturnersrevenge.blogspot.com/2009/05/m...

What, no Hogan's Heroes?

lol

I love Hogan's Heroes.

Racism knows no bounds, this includes our neighbors up north.

And of course, they ARE NOT RACIST.

I wonder what TruthSeeker thinks about the joke.

Racist PABs. That is all.

Interesting article about Mr Obama and his policy of meeting and talking with Iran, North Korea, etc.. .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Attorney: Boy Who Fled Chemo Returns, Sees Doctor
Daniel Hauser, Mother, Missing Since Last Week
UPDATED: 5:05 pm CDT May 25, 2009

NEW ULM, Minn. -- An attorney says a 13-year-old Minnesota boy who fled the state last week to avoid cancer treatment has returned and is being evaluated by a doctor.

Attorney Tom Hagen, whose law office represents Daniel Hauser's parents, said Daniel was being evaluated at a hospital in the Twin Cities on Monday

Hagen also said the boy's mother, Colleen Hauser, was not in police custody. An arrest warrant had been issued for her after she and Daniel fled last week, but authorities had urged her to return on her own.

Hagen said Calvin Johnson, the lawyer who is representing the parents, authorized Hagen to confirm the boy's return while Johnson was out of town. Hagen said he couldn't share more details.

The sheriff's office planned a news conference Monday evening.

Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

http://www.kcci.com/health/19560197/detail.html

This is a look back at the movie Glory,, about black soldiers who fought in the Civil War:

20 Years of Glory; In Memorial to the Colored Troopers of the Civil War

Thank you. One thing that brings this movie back is remembering the theme music --- there are still moments twenty years later when i hear that amazing melody playing in my mind.

Thanks for this link and reminder. I'm going to watch Glory tonight.

Rikyrah,

You know that picture is so fitting for today and so touching too. Whew lawd, it is an ocean of emotion going on inside that young man. Let the tears fall...

Let Freedom Ring!

Thank You, Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was this picture from election day 2008? Very powerful.

Sure was, Lisa! I concur. It's very powerful!

May 25, 2009

From State Secrets to War to Wiretaps

Two Sides of the Same Coin

By SIBEL EDMONDS

“In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill... we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one.”

-- Plato

During the campaign, amid their state of elation, many disregarded Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama’s past record and took any criticism of these past actions as partisan attacks deserving equally partisan counterattacks. Some continued their reluctant support after candidate Obama became grand finalist and prayed for the best. And a few still continue their rationalizing and defense, with illogical excuses such as ‘He’s been in office for only 20 days, give the man a break!’ and ‘He’s had only 50 days in office, give him a chance!’ and currently, ‘be reasonable - how much can a man do in 120 days?!’ I am going to give this logic, or lack of, a slight spicing of reason, then, turn it around, and present it as: If ‘the man’ can do this much astounding damage, whether to our civil liberties, or to our notion of democracy, or to government integrity, in ‘only’ 120 days, may God help us with the next [(4 X 365) - 120] days.

I know there are those who have been tackling President Obama’s changes on change; they have been challenging his flipping, or rather flopping, on issues central to getting him elected. While some have been covering the changes comprehensively, others have been running right and left like headless chickens in the field - pick one hypocrisy, scream a bit, then move on to the next outrageous flop, the same, and then to the next, basically, looking and treating this entire mosaic one piece at a time.

Despite all the promises Mr. Obama made during his campaign, especially on those issues that were absolutely central to those whose support he garnered, so far the President of Change has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor. Not only that, his administration has made it clear that they intend to continue this trend. Some call it a major betrayal. Can we go so far as to call it a ‘swindling of the voters’?

On the State Secrets Privilege

Yes, I am going to begin with the issue of State Secrets Privilege; because I was the first recipient of this ‘privilege’ during the now gone Administration; because long before it became ‘a popular’ topic among the ‘progressive experts,’ during the time when these same experts avoided writing or speaking about it; when many constitutional attorneys had no idea we even had this "law" - similar to and based on the British ‘Official Secret Act; when many journalists did not dare to question this draconian abuse of Executive Power; I was out there, writing, speaking, making the rounds in Congress, and fighting this ‘privilege’ in the courts. And because in 2004 I stood up in front of the Federal Court building in DC, turned to less than a handful of reporters, and said, ‘This, my case, is setting a precedent, and you are letting this happen by your fear-induced censorship. Now that they have gotten away with this, now that you have let them get away, we’ll be seeing this ‘privilege’ invoked in case after case involving government criminal deeds in need of cover up.’ Unfortunately I was proven right.

So far The Obama administration has invoked the state secrets privilege in three cases in the first 100 days: Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, and Jewel v. NSA.

In defending the NSA illegal wiretapping, the Obama administration maintained that the State Secrets Privilege, the same draconian executive privilege used and abused voraciously by the previous administration, required the dismissal of the case in courts.

Not only has the new administration continued the practice of invoking SSP to shield government wrongdoing, it has expanded its abuses much further. In the Al Haramain case, Obama’s Justice Department has threatened to have the FBI or federal marshals break into a judge's office and remove evidence already turned over in the case, according to the plaintiffs attorney. Even Bush didn't go this far so brazenly. In a well-written disgust provoking piece Jon Eisenberg, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, poses the question: “The president's lawyers continue to block access to information that could expose warrantless wiretapping. Is this change we can believe in?”

This is the same President, the same well-spoken showman, who went on record in 2007, during the campaign shenanigans, and said the following:

“When I am president we won’t work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution.”---Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, 2007

Yes, this is the same President who had frowned upon and criticized the abuses and misuse of the State Secrets Privilege.

On NSA Warrantless Wiretapping

The new Administration has pledged to defend the Telecommunications Industry by giving them immunity against any lawsuit that may involve their participation in the illegal NSA wiretapping program. In 2007, Obama’s office released the following position of then Senator Obama: “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies ... Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.” But then Senator Obama made his 180 degree flip, and voted to end the filibuster. After that, along with other colleagues in Congress, he tried to placate the critics of his move by falsely assuring them that the immunity did not extend to the Bush Administration - the Executive Branch who did break the law. Another flip was yet to come, awaiting his presidency, when Obama’s Justice Department defended its predecessor not only by using the State Secrets Privilege, but taking it even further, by astoundingly granting the Executive Branch an unlimited immunity for any kind of ‘illegal’ government surveillance.

Let me emphasize, the Obama Administration’s action in this regard was not about ‘being trapped’ in situations created and put in place by the previous administration. These were willful acts fully reviewed, decided upon, and then implemented by the new president and his Justice Department.

Accountability on Torture

President Obama’s action and inaction on Torture can be summarized very clearly as follows: First give an absolute pass, under the guise of ‘looking forward not backward,’ to the ultimate culprits who had ordered it. Next, absolve all the implementers, practitioners and related agencies, under the excuse of ‘complying with orders without questioning,’ and then start giving the ‘drafters’ of the memos an out by transferring the decision for action to the states.

After granting the ‘untouchable’ status to all involved in this shameful chapter in our nation’s dangerous downward slide, he now refuses to release the photos, the incriminating evidence, and is doing so by using the exact same justification used repeatedly by his predecessors: ‘Their release would endanger the troops,’ as in ‘the revelation on NSA would endanger our national security’ and ‘stronger whistleblower laws would endanger our intelligence agencies’ and so on and so forth.

Not only that, he goes even further to shove his secrecy promotion down other nations’ courts throat. In the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen and a legal resident in Britain who was held and tortured in Guantanamo from 2004 to 2009, and filed lawsuits in the British courts to have the evidence of his torture released, Mr. Obama’s position has been to threaten the British Government in order to conceal all facts and related evidence. This case involves the brutal torture and so very ‘extraordinary’ rendition practices of the previous administration, the same practices that ‘in words’ were strongly condemned by the President during his candidacy.

Today he and his administration unapologetically maintain the same Bush Administration position on extraordinary rendition, torture, and related secrecy to cover up. Here is Ben Wizner’s, the attorney who argued the case for the ACLU, response “We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course.” Yes indeed, President Obama has chosen to protect and support the course involving torture, rendition and the abuse of secrecy to cover them all up.

The Revival of Bush Era Military Commission

After all the talk and pretty speeches given during his presidential campaign on the ‘failure’ of Bush era military tribunals of Guantanamo inmates, Mr. Obama has decided to revive the same style military commission, albeit with a little cosmetic tweak here and there to re-brand it as his own. Many former supporters of Mr. Obama who’ve been vocal and active on Human Rights fronts have expressed their ‘total shock’ by this move and its pretense of being different and improved, "As a constitutional lawyer, Obama must know that he can put lipstick on this pig - but it will always be a pig," said Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve.

Thankfully the ‘on the record’ statements of Candidate Obama in 2008 on this issue, contradicting his action today, are accessible to all:

“It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Suspect terrorists (emphasis on ‘suspect’) cannot have just trials consistent/in line with our ‘courts and Uniform Code of Military Justice’ via military commissions. It’s almost an oxymoron! And if you add to that the other Obama-approved ingredients such as secrecy, rendition, and evidence obtained under torture, what have we got? Anything resembling our courts and Uniform Code of Military Justice system?

On War and Bodies Piling Up

Here is the first paragraph in a New York Times report on May 15, 2009:

“The number of civilians killed by the American air strikes in Farah Province last week may never be fully known. But villagers, including two girls recovering from burn wounds, described devastation that officials and human rights workers are calling the worst episode of civilian casualties in eight years of war in Afghanistan.”

The report also includes the disagreement over the exact number of ‘Civilian Casualties’ in Afghanistan by our military airstrike:

“Government officials have accepted handwritten lists compiled by the villagers of 147 dead civilians. An independent Afghan human rights group said it had accounts from interviews of 117 dead. American officials say that even 100 is an exaggeration but have yet to issue their own count.”

Does it really matter - the difference between 147 and 117 or just 100 when it comes to children, grandmothers…innocent lives lost in a war with no well-defined objectives or plans? If for some it indeed does matter, then here is a more specific and detailed report:

“A copy of the government's list of the names, ages and father's names of each of the 140 dead was obtained by Reuters earlier this week. It shows that 93 of those killed were children -- the youngest eight days old -- and only 22 were adult males.”

Maybe releasing the photographs of the nameless unrepresented victims of these airstrikes should be as important as those of torture. Because, from what I see, they and their loss of lives have been reduced to some petty number to fight about.

When I was around twelve years old, in Iran, during the Iran-Iraq war, my father, a surgeon in charge of a hospital specializing in burns and reconstructive surgery, decided to take me to the hospital to teach me an unforgettable lesson on war. I think one of the factors that prompted him was my new obsession with classic war movies; you know, ones like ‘the Great Escape.’ Anyhow, he took my hand and we entered a ‘transition ICU Unit.’ In that room, on a standard size hospital bunk bed, laid an infant of eight or nine months of age, or what was remaining of her. Over eighty percent of her body was burned; to a degree that the skin had melted and absorbed the melting clothing on top -impossible to remove without removing the skin with it. Instead of a nose two holes were drilled in the middle of her face with tubes inserted allowing breathing, the upper eyelids were melted and glued to the lower ones, and…I am not going to go further - I believe you get the picture.

This baby was the victim of an air strike, a bombing that killed her entire family and leveled her modest home to the ground. My father pointed at this heartbreaking baby and said, “Sibel, this is war. This is the real face of war. This is the result of war. Do you think anything can justify this? I want to replace the glamorous exciting phony images of those war movies in your head. I want you to remember this for the rest of your life and stand against this kind of destruction…”

And I do. This is why I am offended by those petty numbers when it comes to civilian deaths. This is the reason I believe some may need pictures of these atrocities as much as those of torture to replace those ‘Shock & Awe’ footages fed to them by our MSM.

All this death and destruction is carried out while the administration’s Afghan policy is still murky and confused, and it’s strategy ambiguous. Sure, our so-called ‘New’ Afghan Strategy includes more troops and asks for a much larger budget allocation; nothing new there. It is another war with no time table. It is the continuation of the same abstract ‘War on Terror’ without any definition of what would constitute an ‘accomplished mission.’ One minute there is pondering on possible ‘reconciliation’ with the Taliban, and the next minute seeking to topple it. In fact, to confuse the matter even further, we now hear this distinction between ‘Good Taliban, Bad Taliban, and the Plain Ugly Taliban.’ As stated by Karzai on Meet the Press on May 10, 2009, not all Taliban are equal!!

I can go on listing cases of Mr. Obama’s change on change. Whether it is his reversal on protection for whistleblowers, despite his campaign promise to the contrary, or his expansion of the Un-American title of ‘Czardom,’ where we now have more czars than ever: Border Czar, Energy Czar, Cyber Security Czar…Car Czar…maybe even a Bicycle Czar!. Or…But for now I’ll stick with the major promises that were ‘Central’ to him getting elected, all of which he has flipped on in less than 150 days in office, a track record indeed.

What I want the readers to do is to read the extremely important cases above, step back in time to those un-ending campaign trail days, and answer the following questions:

How would Senator McCain have acted on these same issues if he had been elected? How would Senator Hilary Clinton? Do you believe there would have been any major differences? Weren’t their records almost identical to Senator Obama’s on these issues? If you are like me, and answer ‘same,’ ‘same,’ ‘no,’ and ‘yes,’ then, why do you think we ended up with these exact same candidates, those deemed ‘viable’ and sold to us as such?

With too much at stake, too many unfinished agendas for the course of our nation, and too many skeletons in the closet in need of hiding for self-preservation, the ‘permanent establishment’ made certain that they took no risk by giving the public, via their MSM tentacles, a coin that no matter how many times flipped would come up the same - Heads, Heads.

“Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.” --Marshall Mcluhan

Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her case have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege”; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award.
http://www.counterpunch.org/edmonds05252009.html

Obama has always been a pragmatist and not an idealist and apparently some people thought they were voting for a revolutionary Marxist with latent pacifist tendencies instead of a left-leaning pragmatist. If anyone on the left wanted someone to go into the White House and dismantle it brick by brick then they should have voted for Kucinich. The only difference is now those very same people would be bitching about Pres. McCain and V.P. Palin instead of trying to paint Obama as the ideological clone of Bush/Cheney. I now realize exactly why the left has had a dearth of electoral success and that's because they are unwilling or unable to live in the real world and instead choose to inhabit a rarefied space with no terrorism, no hard choices, no military, and no room for compromise. Methinks if the left is successful in derailing Obama for principle's sake, we will have many more years to ruminate on our collective failure to grow up and confront modern realities. The GOP is incapable of destroying Obama but the so-called left is stepping up in a big way and it will be interesting to see how manyof us fall for it.

Thank you!

Let the doors of the church open.....the sermon has been preached.

AMEN!

co-sign.

Hopee - YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. Bravo. *** Handing you a cookie***

Bravo!!!!! You are 100% on point. We have nut jobs on both sides of the political scale. I measure the President's success on how much he is pissing off the far right and the far left. Based on the reactions lately, I must say he is doing a fantastic job. He should stay the course and keep straight down the middle. That is why he has accomplished more in the under 4 months than past President's have accomplished in 4 years especially when he is working with a handicap of 2 wars, recession, education in the toilet, healthcare etc. He is doing the job he said he would do and I am happy about it. Excellent post Hopee.

Amen!

Co-sign

I measure the President's success on how much he is pissing off the far right and the far left.

Anytime I see a comment here at Jack and Jill that refers to the "far left" I am going to ask the person who posted the remark to tell us exactly what individuals and organizations are being referred to. It is a sad sign of the debilitating influence the Republican Party and the MSM has had on our political thinking over the past thirty years that people who should know better have completely bought into the meme that left-wing critics of establishment politicians such as our president are members of the political "far left".

The reality is that no one who can actually be designated as a member of the "far left" is ever granted any platform whatsoever by the mainstream media to offer any so-called perspectives on American domestic or foreign policy issues. I hesitate to guess what your own political views might be if, for example, you think the heads of the American Civil Liberties Union or the Center for Constitutional Rights are members of the "far left."

I am old enough to remember when the NAACP was considered a "commie front" organization by conservative and right-wing elements. The same charges were directed at Dr. King when he dared to criticize the American War in Vietnam. The notion that Obama is doing a good job because people on the left and the right side of the political spectrum are finding fault with some of his policies indicates that too many people have bought into the latest spin cycle of the MSM. The suspension of the Bill of Rights is a serious matter and deserves more attention than simply conflating together all of Obama's critics.

Anytime I see a comment here at Jack and Jill that refers to the "far left "I am going to ask the person who posted the remark to tell us exactly what individuals and organizations are being referred to."

Answer: Far right or far left refers to anyone who is overly zealous regarding what they believe the President should do in support of their own personal cause vs. what should be done that would provide greater benefits and better/value added solutions for the majority of the American people.

BTW - I lean independent. There are many principles that I love and are reflected in the Democratic Party but there are also some things I see of value in the Republican Party. If someone recommends a good idea that could resolve an issue, I could care less where the idea came from, only that folks work together to evaluate that idea and implement it if feasible. As an aside -- I am the last person anyone could legitimately say "falls for MSM spin".

You see things of value in the Republican Party, Val??!!!

What on earth could those things be?

:-) lolol Truthseeker. Why you have me laughing? lol EVERYONE has something valuable to offer. It took me a while and I have to dig deep these days because their principles don't seem to apply to their own platform these days. lol

The Republican platform is supposed to be based on http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf
I agree with the concept of Oversight (see page 17)
I agree with some of their tax policies (see page 24) Specifically: American families with children are the
hardest hit during any economic downturn.
Republicans will lower their tax burden by
doubling the exemption for dependents.
• New technology should not occasion more
taxation. We will permanently ban internet
access taxes and stop all new cell phone
taxes.
• For the sake of family farms and small businesses,
we will continue our fight against the
federal death tax.
• The Alternative Minimum Tax, a stealth levy
on the middle-class that unduly targets large
families, must be repealed.
and I agree with some of their Energy policies
I agree with some of their education platform (i.e. STEM programs) but I don't agree with school vouchers
I agree with some of their Immigration and National Security policies. There's more but you get the gist.

You didn't ask for this but here is what I don't like:
I don't agree with the propensity to fight like children and politicize every little thing.
I don't agree with them twisting the facts as it relates to the Democratic party. Very petty can't stand that.
I don't agree with ANY of their healthcare policies
I don't agree with their plans to handle medicare/medicaid and social security.
I don't agree with the way most of these republicans that we see everday on the MSM and listen to on the radio embrace bigotry, race baiting and express the desire to be exclusive to anyone "not like them"
I don't like the ease with which they argue just for the sake of arguing even if it is something they agreed with yesterday.
I don't like these "talking points' that circulate daily focused on gossiping about the Democratic Party vs. focused on what they are offering.
I dont like the fact that they find it easy to lie to the public regardless of the fact that they are completely aware that their comments will be proven as lies as soon as the words leave their lips.
I don't like the fact that they simply ignore reality and they are okay with chronically lying "just because"
I dont agree with grown men making the decision to say "NO" because they feel like it
I don't agree with them putting their egos before the people they are supposed to serve
I don't agree with the refusal to participate in discussions with the senate, house, or the president just because they are the minority party and see nothing wrong with pouting, picking up their ball and going home.
I don't like the fact that they are quick to kick folks out of their party or bad mouth people just because they disagree with them on a particular issue
The list of things I don't like is endless and I won't bore you but you get it the idea.

Yeah, they're lying, racist, sexist sacks of shit, and the party that put a black man on the supreme court who had serious allegations of sexual harassment of black women leveled against him...couldn't they find anybody else? ...no one?

raotflmao. well said and all true. hahaha.

blessings Truth. Enjoy your day!

Answer: Far right or far left refers to anyone who is overly zealous regarding what they believe the President should do in support of their own personal cause vs. what should be done that would provide greater benefits and better/value added solutions for the majority of the American people.

By your own definition you should be placed in the zealot box because your support for whatever the president does or proposes is entirely reflexive.

I don't think your defintion is very good or meaningful. Whom decides what is overly zealous?

RobM we disagree at times and it is all good.. . . makes the discussion more interesting. my response to you was a bit direct so I wanted to soften the as*hole statement and provide an apology because you did not deserve it. I should have simply said it is okay that you don't think my definition was good or meaningful. you are entitled to your opinion just like I have the right to my own.

later

well it is a good thing that opinions are like assholes and everyone has the right to have one including you and me.

Yes, and the inability to express and defend one's ideas or thoughts without resorting to name calling goes in tandem with the impulse to smear and degrade those who don't share your political views. Am I wrong to assume that you are entirely comfortable with preventive detention? I wouldn't find it surprising if you were. C'est la vie!

there is nothing to defend because I am right.

No, you are entitled to your opinion about what is right and what is wrong. Common civility, however, suggests that you refrain from hurling the political equivalent of feces at people. Political dialogue is best done when people are expressing informed opinions. Again, what do you know about the America political left that makes it okay for you designate people as belonging to the "far left"?

"Common civility, however, suggests that you refrain from hurling the political equivalent of feces at people."

cute. :-)

And whom decides what is very good or meaningful?

LOL...my guess is the people who are offended by the term "far right" or "far left" believe they should decide....kinda fits their modus operandi anyway, don't you think?

The issue here is not the feelings of those who are being tagged. What is at issue is the judgment and the basis of judgment of those who are doing the tagging.

Every person I know and have known who would describe themselves as being on the "far-left" of the political spectrum has always been quite clear about why they would describe themselves in that way. What is less clear, however, is what do people who actually have no real contact with the American political left mean when they refer to Obama's critics as being part of the far or fringe left.

"What is less clear, however, is what do people who actually have no real contact with the American political left mean when they refer to Obama's critics as being part of the far or fringe left."

wow....that is........surreal....really...wow

lol

wow....that is........surreal....really...wow

Yes, I agree with you. Your position is indeed stereotypical.

Obviously we, i.e., human beings decide what is good or meaningful. The problem here is that Val is making particular claims about where folks shake out on the political spectrum. When asked, however, how that yardstick is being applied the response is that the determination is based solely on a determination of one's zealousness.

This is not a definition and it certainly does not explain why Val and others are referring to folks as being on the "far left." It is a smear tactic. That's all.

"When asked, however, how that yardstick is being applied the response is that the determination is based solely on a determination of one's zealousness."

lies.

I said zealous as it relates to the expectation from the far right and left that the President should address and support their own personal cause at the expense of doing what is necessary, practical and would provide more meaningful solutions to the American people.

You were the one citing McCarthyism, smear tactics, red-baiting, you raised Martin Luther King from the dead, called on Paul Robeson, Canada Lee, Langston Hughes, NAACP, added the term political equivalent of feces, even threw in the American War in Vietnam for good measure and with the supreme skill of a veteran contortionist, attempted to tie it to an attempt to defend the President while demanding for at least the third time that I once again tell you my definition of far right and left. Brilliant.
**handing you the Emmy for most outstanding day time drama**

Again - there is nothing to defend. The President is also right. I care about solutions and making sure those solutions are beneficial to the majority of Americans because you can't please everybody. It is more important to disregard the political "white noise" whether it is coming from the extreme right or left, and just do the things that are in the best interest of the people. There is nothing wrong with questioning policy or raising the alarm if something doesn't look or smell right and you make phone calls to officials to raise your concerns or to get clarification. That is productive and can only serve to strenghten the results (i.e. policy) however, if folks want to argue just for the sake of argument and enjoy getting caught up in the dramatization of every policy issue vs. realistically looking at what is practical, achievable, and would best serve the majority . . . so be it. As for me . . . I am happy my President is just the way he is and I appreciate the job he is doing. Bravo for him.

I said zealous as it relates to the expectation from the far right and left

You are hiding behind indignation and still refusing to address the issue of defining what you mean by "far left." If you were concerned about what you feel as unreasonable criticism being directed at the president that is one thing, but you have defined at least a portion of the president's critics as being part of the "far left" as if that designation alone exempts you from explaining what you mean and why they are part of the "far left".

:-) I rest my case.

Damn...hit dogs sure do holler loud and long don't they Val?

lolol ain't that the truth. :-) and you know I am working hard at being extra extra extra respectful. lol It's all good.

I just found the whole thing hysterical since for some reason, did you notice you were NEVER asked to define "far right"? LMAO - apparently the definition of that is completely understood - but "far left'...oh...well that's just one of your Jedi mind trick phrases huh Val? LOL

lolol you got that???? tee hee hee. I did but I was willing to overlook it. hahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha hysterical:-)

I agree with Val. The reality is that we all expected the Right to hammer Obama on a daily basis but the left (it is up to you whether you want to call them far-left or left-of-center) has been relentless. Everyone has the right to criticize but when you get right down to it, the man has been in office for abour four months and people act like he should have ended poverty, homophobia, racism, emptied out Gitmo, and ended global warming by February 1st. It seems like more than Rush thought he was Barack the Magic Negro.

The reality is that we all expected the Right to hammer Obama on a daily basis but the left (it is up to you whether you want to call them far-left or left-of-center) has been relentless. Everyone has the right to criticize but when you get right down to it, the man has been in office for abour four months and people act like he should have ended poverty, homophobia, racism, emptied out Gitmo, and ended global warming by February 1st. It seems like more than Rush thought he was Barack the Magic Negro.

Your description of the response of people on the left to some of the president's policies and proposals is wildly inaccurate and, worse, beside the point. Again, what individuals and groups do you and Val consider to be members of the "far left" and why? Criticizing the president is an insufficient definition and tends to reflect that one gains their political views primarily from the MSM. In short, what you are doing is "red-baiting" folks.

"the man has been in office for about four months and people act like he should have ended poverty, homophobia, racism, emptied out Gitmo, and ended global warming by February 1st. It seems like more than Rush thought he was Barack the Magic Negro."

Say it again! and I would add the term far left is accurate. You have some who are just as unrealistic in their expectations from President Obama as the right, logic is not a priority and the commentary is similar (or worse) coming from the folks who fit the criteria of the two extremes.

You have some who are just as unrealistic in their expectations from President Obama as the right, logic is not a priority and the commentary is similar (or worse) coming from the folks who fit the criteria of the two extremes.

Their expectations may or may not be realistic but holding unrealistic expectations does not ipso facto make one a card carrying member of the "far-left." What you are doing when you use such terms, especially without defining what you mean, is smearing people. In the parlance of American politics, you are engaging in McCarthyism. That is, red-baiting.

These sort of smear and fear tactics were used continually against Black Americans for decades during the 20th Century. I find it sad that you and others are reviving the same tactics that were used against people like Paul Robeson, Canada Lee, Langston Hughes, Martin Luther King, Jr. etc., as a way to defend Barack Obama. "Le plus ca change le plus ca le meme chose."

if the shoe fits . . . wear it.

Thanks so much for confirming my view that you are simply "red-baiting" and smearing people with charges that you cannot explain or defend.

I used to ask a question of people I encountered (mostly) online who would call Mediamatters "far left". I would simply ask them to cite the policy positions that show Mediamatters to be "far left", as opposed to liberal or just left-of-center. No one could cite those policy positions. I'd like to ask a similar question here- who are these people, and which of their policy positions reveal them to be "far left"? Is opposition to "preventive detentions" a "far left" stance?

Yes, it would be if the president making the proposal to be granted the authority to indefinitely detain people is Barack Obama. Their position might be different if it were George Bush or John McCain.

"I am the last person anyone could legitimately say "falls for MSM spin".

Indeed you are, Val.

Nobody with sense enough to come in out of the rain thought they were voting for a "revolutionary Marxist with latent pacifist tendencies" when they cast their ballots for Obama. Certainly no person who would describe himself as a Marxist suffered any such delusion about where Obama stood on the issues. If you can find any person who actually held such views please provide a name and address. If you cannot, then please refrain from smearing people whose political beliefs diverge in part or in whole from your own.

Responding to Obama's critics in this manner only serves to feed the illusion that people really do not care about substantive issues; they would prefer personality driven politics as a form of entertainment. Smearing those who disagree with positions that Obama has taken also allows you and others to avoid critical and meaningful discussions about the impact of his policies. The left is not out to derail Obama.

Many of us are a little tired of what we see as High Table Liberalism. That is, the assumption that we lack sufficient seriousness or clarity to see the world as it is and not as we wish it to be. This is, of course, utter rot. What Obama is proposing with respect to preventive detention is nothing short of suspending the Bill of Rights. You and others who share your views may wish to call it "power or pragmatic politics" but it amounts to giving the president powers that are inconsistent with a democracy.

In the Spirit of Memorial Day:

May 18, 2009

Caught in a Lie

The U.S. is Using White Phosphorous in Afghanistan

By DAVE LINDORFF

When doctors started reporting that some of the victims of the US bombing of several villages in Farah Province last week—an attack that left between 117 and 147 civilians dead, most of them women and children—were turning up with deep, sharp burns on their body that “looked like” they’d been caused by white phosphorus, the US military was quick to deny responsibility.

US officials—who initially denied that the US had even bombed any civilians in Farah despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including massive craters where houses had once stood—insisted that “no white phosphorus” was used in the attacks on several villages in Farah.

Official military policy on the use of white phosphorus is to only use the high-intensity, self-igniting material as a smoke screen during battles or to illuminate targets, not as a weapon against human beings—even enemy troops.

Now that policy, and the military’s blanket denial that phosphorus was used in Farah, have to be questioned, thanks to a recent report filed from a remote area of Afghanistan by a New York Times reporter.

C.J. Chivers, writing in the May 14 edition of the NY Times, in an article headlined “Korangal Valley Memo: In Bleak Afghan Outpost, Troops Slog On,” wrote of how an embattled US Army unit in the Korangal Valley of Afghanistan, had come under attack following a morning memorial service for one of their members, Pfc. Richard Dewater, who had been killed the day before by a mine.

Chivers wrote:

After the ceremony, the violence resumed. The soldiers detected a Taliban spotter on a ridge, which was pounded by mortars and then white phosphorus rounds from a 155 millimeter howitzer.

What did the insurgents do? When the smoldering subsided, they attacked from exactly the same spot, shelling the outpost with 30-millimeter grenades and putting the soldiers on notice that the last display of firepower had little effect. The Americans escalated. An A-10 aircraft made several gun runs, then dropped a 500-pound bomb.

It is clear from this passage that the military’s use of the phosphorus shells had not been for the officially sanctioned purpose of providing cover. The soldiers had no intention of climbing that hill to attack the spotter on the ridge themselves. They were trying to destroy him with shells and bombs. In fact, the last thing they would have wanted to do was provide the spotter with a smoke cover, which would have helped him escape, and which also would have hidden him from the planes which had been called in to make gun runs at his position. Nor was this a case of illuminating the target. The incident, as Chivers reports, took place in daylight.

Clearly then, this article shows that it is routine for soldiers to call in phosphorus rounds to attack enemy soldiers, which is supposed to be against US military policy for this material. Whoever was manning the howitzer had a stock of the weapons on hand, and was ready to fire them.

The US initially flatly denied using white phosphorus weapons in Iraq, when reports first began to come out, including from US troops themselves, that they had been used extensively against insurgents defending the city of Fallujah against US Marines in November 2004. Under mounting pressure, the Pentagon first admitted that it had used the chemical in Fallujah but only “for illumination.” Later, the Pentagon added that it had used phosphorus as a “screen” to hide troops. But finally, in 2005, the Pentagon was forced to admit that it had also used white phosphorus directly as a weapon against enemy Iraqi troops in the assault on Fallujah, a city of 300,000 that still held many civilians.

The same pattern of denial and eventual admission regarding the use of this controversial and deadly weapon by US forces now seems to be repeating itself in Afghanistan.

It is odd that given the controversy over the use of white phosphorus weapons, which result in terrible wounds and eventual death as phosphorus particles burn their way down through flesh to the bone and sometimes straight onward through a body, leaving a charred channel of destruction, the New York Times’ Chivers—or perhaps his editors back in New York?—ignored any mention of the issue while reporting on the use of the chemical rounds to attack a lone spotter on the ridge.

Given the current controversy over whether the US used white phosphorus shells or bombs in Falah Province only days before, it is hard to understand why the issue wasn’t mentioned in this particular article. Indeed, in the online version of the story, the word phosphorus is set as a hotlink to an article on the controversy over the battlefield use of phosphorus, indicating that at least someone at the Times has integrity and a good news sense.

As for the US government and the Pentagon, it is clear that they know the weapon is a vicious and controversial one, and that besides causing horrific and painful wounds, it is profoundly dangerous for innocent civilians, particularly when used in town or village settings.

It is bad enough that the US is using this weapon. It is even worse that it is forced to lie about it.

Surely if the goal of US policy is to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan’s people, it shouldn’t be using a weapon that causes such terrible and indiscriminate wounds. Then again, maybe winning those hearts and minds isn’t the goal. Maybe, as in the so-called “Pacification Program” applied by US forces in rural South Vietnam, the goal is to terrorize Afghan villagers in Taliban regions into rejecting the Taliban in their midst.

Requests for answers from the press office at the Pentagon, and at military headquarters in Afghanistan regarding US policy on the use of white phosphorus, and on the specific use of the shells mentioned in the New York Times article were ignored.

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). He can be reached at dlindorff@mindspring.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05182009.html

from Wikipedia's entry on White Phosphorus:

"However, white phosphorus has a secondary effect. While much less efficient than ordinary fragmentation effects in causing casualties, white phosphorus burns quite fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire. It also can function as an anti-personnel weapon with the compound capable of causing serious burns or death.[2] The agent is used in bombs, artillery, and mortars, short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. White phosphorus is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP". The slang term "Willy(ie) Pete" or "Willy(ie) Peter", dating from World War I and common at least through the Vietnam War, is still used by infantry servicemen to refer to white phosphorus."

If Obama is allowing this then shame on him.

As I said elsewhere, how wholly Obama is owned will become clear in time.

Craig, how do I leave a comment on your FTD & tennis blogs?

I am watching the French Open.

Do I need a special password?

If you don't have (or create) a blogger account, I believe it allows you to use some other internet account to post. I used to have open/anonymous commenting, but it got out of hand with spam and other nonsense really quickly.

I feel a special excitement when the French Opens begins, in part, because Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are not far behind. Tennis is such a great sport!

Thanks, I'll create an account to post. I love the fashion critiques on
your tennis blog. LOL!