The Other Iraq

Shortly after the drinks arrive and the heat of day begins to fade, our trusty news correspondents issue their two minute summary of the endless violence, death, destruction and pain that is our picture of Iraq today. With a little luck, a native Iraqi stringer and photographer have captured a little violence or bloodshed to spice up the report.

These Green Zone residents have one primary job, provide proof that Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) was right when he claimed from the Senate floor "Mr. President, Your leading us off a cliff."

I don't want to minimize the violence, but I do want to tell you that the news reports on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and FOX are terribly misleading. They are horribly wrong. If you believe what you see and hear each night, you will be forced to agree with Senator Biden.

And that would be tragic.

You see, a short four hour drive from the violence in Bagdad will take you into Iraqi Kurdistan, where there is virtually no violence, where Americans are the heroes and welcome as visitors and as investors and even as crusaders hoping to actually change a country even more for the better.

In Iraqi Kurdistan, building is booming. Children (both boys and girls) are in school. The markets are bustling and free of violence. And, while life there today is good, there is promise it will get better.

Not that there isn't a lot of work to do. Enter Simone Allmen, a feminist activist, film maker, photographer and student of humanity.

Let me emphasize Simone is no friend of the Bush administration and no supporter of the invasion and occupation.

So, it's important that you read her blog, look at her pictures and see her video (some of which is posted on her MySpace website).

By many accounts, Iraqi Kurdistan is the one of the most liberal and liberated countries in the Middle East. Women have many rights and privileges. But even in Iraqi Kurdistan, they suffer under the burden of centuries of customs, religions and war.

The most important thing about Simone's work, is that she is able to o it at all. Her presence in Iraqi Kurdistan is a victory in the war on terror all by itself.

Here is a little of what Simone has to say. I have edited the format of her writing slightly, but never altered a word. The emphasis is mine. You simply must read her blog to get the real flavor of her efforts in Kurdistan.

as a gift to me, i was told that i would be going to the gravesites of where the anfal victims are buried. i got a little huffy saying i came here for women's rights. had a moment with my host and we got past it. 8000 people. nothing like stepping onto land knowing that this is what is underneath your feet. all the families praying, crying, singing. i of course shot beautiful painful footage. i played hide and seek with 2 gorgeous little girls and then was given cookies. i cry at the simplicity and the pain. again, i recognize that i am graced. blessed. and truly alive. the sky is big. the mountains are massive. the villages are small but many. there are shocks of color everywhere. i saw so many mountain dogs today. they look like lions. things here have changed. life is moving forward. america is loved and my picture is in many cell phones. i am not ready to leave. i am not sure if i am ready to commit. i was asked to give my opinion about the conference. there were looks that said, well, you'll come back and help build the shelter, won't you? wow. i knew this right? i mean i didn't come here thinking anything less did i?

i have been awake for hours needing to sleep. my body clock is a complete mess. the trip from kurdistan back to los angeles was one of the most excruciating, painful, exhausting trips of my life. thank god for kate, my 21 year old companion. i had someone to look at for support. i had a mirror image of myself. travel weary and delirious. it all became quite the joke after awhile. besides all that: a truly eye opening experience. these are some things i shall miss about kurdistan. sugar in my tea. that is: 1/2 sugar 1/2 tea. sounds awful, right? not so. quite the addiction. i will miss the openness of the land. the mountains full of snow and the valleys covered in green. the colors. little boys watching over their flock. bright shiny kurdish clothing. the looks on the faces as i pass. it's not every day that i am the one that draws curiosity. the smiles and laughter of the children. it is in their faces that i saw deep into a culture. our driver amel. beautiful boy/man. he enjoys that song 'glamorous' by fergie. we had a few dancing in the car moments. he is kind and takes such care. his story is one that breaks my heart. he does not come from a rich family but is working hard at making something of himself. he loves a girl. when asked by his family to see her, her family told them that she was unavailable. she was too busy. when they left, she was beaten. for love.?

Brilliant and beautiful. Simone in Iraq.

TECHNORATI TAGS: SIMONE ALLMEN IRAQI KURDISTAN IRAQ IRAQ STRATEGY WOMENS RIGHTS FEMINISM WAR ON TERROR JOE BIDEN AL QAEDA LT. GENERAL PETRAEUS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Arrogant Americans Determined To Go It Alone

Among President Bush's failures leading up to the misadventure in Iraq was his unilateral approach to the problem. Bush wouldn't or couldn't listen to other nation's leaders, not even our traditional allies in France and Germany. Bush didn't listen to many military leaders. He never gave reasonable attention to Collin Powell. And Bush certainly did not pay any attention to the thoughtful opposition within the Democrat party.

Nope, it was "go it alone" Bush that got us into Iraq.

But if George Bush was foolish, the current Democrat leadership are complete and utter idiots! The Iraqi people, our allies in the Middle East and Europe, our military leaders, even the future of America itself be damned.

I can't possibly say it better than today's Washington Post Editorial:

The Pelosi Plan for Iraq It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States. Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page A16 THE RESTRICTIONS on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings. For the Out of Iraq Caucus, which demands that Congress force a withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of this year, there is language that appears to deliver that mandate, albeit indirectly. For those who prefer a more moderate course, there is another withdrawal deadline, in August 2008. Either way, almost all American troops would be out of Iraq by the time the next election campaign begins in earnest. And there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children's health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction. The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave. In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone. The House bill lists benchmarks for Iraqi political progress and requires that President Bush certify by July 1 that progress is being made toward them. By October, Bush would have to certify that the benchmarks all had been reached. This is something of a trick, akin to the inflexible troop readiness requirements that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) wanted to impose to "stop the surge." Everyone knows that the long list of requirements -- including constitutional changes, local elections and the completion of complex legislation -- couldn't be finished in six months. In that case a troop withdrawal would have to begin immediately. If there was no "progress" by July, it would have to begin then and be completed by the end of the year. Congress should rigorously monitor the Iraqi government's progress on those benchmarks. By Mr. Bush's own account the purpose of the troop surge in Iraq is to enable political progress. If progress does not occur, the military strategy should be reconsidered. But aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military steps according to an inflexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls. Ms. Pelosi's strategy leads not toward a responsible withdrawal from Iraq but to a constitutional power struggle with Mr. Bush, who has already said he will veto the legislation. Such a struggle would serve the interests of neither the Democrats nor the country.

TECHNORATI TAGS: WASHINGTON POST NANCY PELOSI IRAQ IRAQ STRATEGY DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS WAR ON TERROR PRESIDENT BUSH AL QAEDA LT. GENERAL PETRAEUS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

National Public Radio Considering Lawsuit

I'm a huge fan on NPR, as all of you know. I'm constantly linking NPR reports from this website and urging you to LISTEN!!

And, while the Copyright Royalty Board has approved new royalty rates for NPR that are only 1/4th the amount our station will be subjected to, the increase is so great that NPR member stations might have to cease all webcasting.

Internetnews.com has the story: Webcasters Plan Legal Action Over Rates

Lawyers for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) are in Washington this week, planning legal action aimed at overturning a ruling from US Copyright Royalty Judges which raised royalty fees for webcasters high enough for some to predict the demise of Internet radio. "Right now the thought is that the initial response needs to be a legal response," NPR station WXPN General Manager Roger LaMay told internetnews.com. WXPN 88.5 FM is a non-commercial member- supported radio service of the University of Pennsylvania. The ruling NPR and CPB plan to fight in court was passed down earlier this week by a panel of judges charged by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board with establishing the rate for a webcaster performance license. According to the ruling, the judges were told to establish rates "that would have been negotiated between a willing buyer and a willing seller." For commercial and for larger non-commercial webcasters the judges set a pay-per-play rate of $.0008 for 2006, $.0011 for 2007, $.0014 for 2008, $.0018 for 2009 and $.0019 for 2010. "If this were to go into effect it's going to have public radio stations looking for ways to cut back what we do, as opposed to expanding. Now, there is significant dis-incentive when you're talking about services that are committed to public service," LaMay said. Commercial Internet radio broadcasters were equally upset. "Left unchanged, these rates would be disastrous. It will not only end Internet radio, but will also stifle innovation as entrepreneurs and investors will abandon this space - leaving a vacuum that will be quickly filled by illegal unlicensed services with no intention of creating legitimate businesses," a spokesperson for commercial webcaster Pandora said in an email to internetnews.com. Pandora founder Tim Westergren told internetnews.com his company plans to follow NPR and CPB into court. NPR station manager LaMay said if the rates stay as high as the Copyright Royalty Board set them, it will be independent musicians who depend on Internet radio to get there music out who will be hurt the most. "There's nobody in public radio that's making money overall on their [Web] streams," LaMay said, "We're doing them because we think it's the right thing to do."

TECHNORATI TAGS: INTERNET RADIO NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO LIVE 365 RADIO PARADISE RIAA PERFORMANCE ROYALTIES FREE SPEECH MUSIC

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

The World Spins Madly On

Are there bigger issues facing the United States today?

Of course. The Occupation of Iraq. The threat of terrorism. The political infighting in Washington. The list goes on and on. For some readers it includes the results of the voting on this week's American Idol.

But, if you can multi-task a little today. Consider the plight of Internet Radio.



The Internet has done more to break down borders, to bring people together, to foster the healthy exchange of ideas and to bring the various cultures of the world together than any invention in the history of mankind. More than even the printing press.

Today, you hear the music of virtually every country on earth at the click of your mouse. And that's on Wizard Radio alone! You have another 20,000 radio stations to explore beyond that.

At least you do today.

Tomorrow you are likely to lose one of the greatest cultural treasures in the entire history of man. All because of the greed and the desire for power of a small, elite group on multi-millionaires who comprise the major record labels.

Learn more by click some or all of the links below.

	Will Web Radio Get Turned Off?
	Web radio reels from rate ruling
	Fee ruling may imperil Internet radio
	The Last Days of Internet Radio?
	Royalty-Rate Hike Alarms Web Broadcasters
	New royalty rate has webcasters worried

TECHNORATI TAGS: INTERNET RADIO DCMA LIVE 365 RADIO PARADISE RIAA PERFORMANCE ROYALTIES FREE SPEECH MUSIC

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

This Time It's Personal - The View From Paradise

This time it's personal.

I operate three Internet Radio Stations with a world wide audience in the thousands. My FREEFORM, Extreme Variety Stations have listeners in all fifty states and over 60 countries world wide. My current playlist of over 22,000 tracks strong. A mix that you cannot possibly hear on any corporate radio station.

I know many readers here are also listeners. And I hope the rest of you will listen as you surf or blog. Click on this banner to go to my radio station page.

It's a hobby, a labor of love. And it's terribly expensive. I spend several thousand dollars a year for server space, bandwidth, music and, especially, songwriter and performance and recording royalties. I do not make any profit and have virtually no income stream. It's a hobby.

Now, primarily because of the continued greed of the recording Industry, my hobby is threatened. Of course, in the overall scheme of things, my hobby is unimportant.

What is important is the fact that the recent royalty rate increases, approved by the Copyright Royalty Board (our Federal Government at work), are being made retroactive, almost two years retroactive. The net effect will be to kill all independent Internet Radio Stations. If you listen to any Internet Radio Stations, kiss them goodbye.

Unfortunately, the ruling of the CRB, it will cause the personal bankruptcy of hundreds, perhaps thousands of individuals, families and small businesses. This is very real. Some of my personal friends are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in retroactive royalties after paying the previous approved rates for the last two years.

Most frustrating is the fact the Internet Radio Performance Royalties are 4 times larger than satellite radio. And terrestrial radio (your local AM and FM stations) pay no performance or recording royalties at all. They are exempt. I'm guessing Clear Channel's Washington lobbyists are better than mine. Oh, wait, I don't have any lobbyists representing me.

This is a terribly complex issue and I'll be posting a great deal more about it soon.

But the issue and history of this issue are so complex, I'm suggesting you read the story from Paradise Radio: The View From Paradise. Their story is well written, entertaining and informative.

The Internet has changed radio in a profound way. Instead of a business that required investments so huge (millions of dollars for even a small-market FM station) that a programming focus on the lowest common denominator and an extreme aversion to risk or experimentation was an unavoidable consequence, a radio station with a global reach was now within the grasp of anyone with the talent and determination to make it happen. Every day we hear from listeners who are profoundly touched by our efforts - by the music we play, by the way we assemble the songs into meaningful sequences that are more than the sum of their parts, by our passion for what we are doing, and our commitment to never contaminating the music with advertising. And our station is but one of many who have attracted that kind of passionate following, and provided that kind of outlet for radio artists like myself. The Internet’s paradigm-shifting gift to radio programmers and music lovers - at least those in the US - is now in danger of being taken away by the misguided actions of the US Copyright Board. The performance royalty rates released by the Copyright Board on March 1, 2007 are not just extreme, not just burdensome. They are a death sentence for all US-based independent webcasters like Radio Paradise, SOMA-FM, Digitally Imported, and many others.

Want less drama and more facts? Here are the facts, figures and specifics from the industry newspaper: Radio and Internet News (RAIN)

Information about how you can make your voice heard is available here: Live 365 - Save Internet Radio

TECHNORATI TAGS: INTERNET RADIO DCMA LIVE 365 RADIO PARADISE RIAA PERFORMANCE ROYALTIES FREE SPEECH MUSIC

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

International Women's Day

Did you know that today (3/8/2007) WAS International Women's Day?

You mean you never heard of International Women's Day?

That's not surprising. Although it seems to have originated right here in the United States around 1900, it has primarily taken root in the Socialist and Communist countries in Eastern Europe.
It's actually a legal holiday in Armenia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

The reasons this Holiday never caught on in the United States are obvious. It was the Socialist Party that began the fight for basic human rights for women. Those damned communists actually thought women should have equal rights with men. Rights like voting, owning property, holding public office and obtaining a higher education.

These ideas were, in fact, wildly unpopular in the United States of 1900. The Socialists were rabble rousers. The Communists were trouble makers. When our founding fathers so proudly decreed that "All men were created equal," they certainly didn't mean to include women in that proclamation (or slaves, if you remember).

Did you realize that the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote wasn't added to Constitution until 1920? That's only 87 years ago.

But you know what's significantly more tragic? Nearly 1/3rd of all the women in the world today still lack most basic of rights and protections. Some are held captive by restrictive and oppressive governments, others held back by religions or traditions and customs.

And, for all the progress women have made in the last 100 years, the most recent ten years or so have seen a reversal of the trends. Increasingly certain governments and religions are pushing women backwards. Laws and regulations regarding clothing, marriage, education and even basic medical care are pushing a large portion of the world's women back over 100 years.

And even worse, it has recently become a popular tactic in war to rape and enslave women as part of a terror campaign. Certainly men have always done this, but never on the scale now being experienced in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

What bothers me most is that there is no outrage. Cable news covers endless hours of Anna Nichole Smith's death, but cannot muster even a minute for the daily mass rapes of thousands of women in Africa.

Fictionalized stories of sexual slavery make for a compelling hour on Law and Order, but the real world sex slave rings, involving children as young as six, don't even attract attention on the back page of the newspaper.

International Women's Day is a day to acknowledge the achievements of women all over the world. It is a day to remember past struggles and celebrate past victories. In some countries, like the United States, women have almost achieved equality. Almost.

But we also must reflect on the ongoing battles for the rights of women everywhere.

On a day when the world is celebrating women and commemorating their struggles, I urge you to honor all women by doing what you can to protect those women who are most vulnerable.

Please consider a contribution to The Genocide Intervention Network to assist in their efforts to help the women and children in Darfur.

TECHNORATI TAGS: SAVE DARFUR INTERNATIONAL WOMENS DAY SUDAN SUFFRAGE WOMEN'S RIGHTS HUMAN RIGHTS DARFUR UNITED NATIONS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Who Are Our Heros?

Those who are genuinely serious about taking on President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Bush administration would be well served to use the many and ample FACTS at hand.

Certainly it is possible to make an overwhelming case against Bush's foolish and ill conceived INVASION of Iraq and the administration's botched OCCUPATION of the country.

I genuinely believe a viable case for impeachment could actually be made by disciplined and honorable men and women who arduously stuck to the facts.

But the President's critics do themselves a great injustice when they instead rally around a scoundrel.

Joseph C. Wilson is making the rounds on television once again. He envisions himself as an American Hero. Tragically, Wilson's inflated ego has not helped the cause of those who genuinely believe that Bush must be held accountable for his misdeeds. Instead, as The Washington Post writes today "Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard."

Here is part of an Editorial from Today's Washington Post (registration required): The Libby Verdict

THE CONVICTION of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice was grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury. The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations. The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance. It was propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury. Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration. A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson. The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert. It would have been sensible for Mr. Fitzgerald to end his investigation after learning about Mr. Armitage. Instead, like many Washington special prosecutors before him, he pressed on, pursuing every tangent in the case. In so doing he unnecessarily subjected numerous journalists to the ordeal of having to disclose confidential sources or face imprisonment. One, Judith Miller of the New York Times, lost several court appeals and spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify. The damage done to journalists' ability to obtain information from confidential government sources has yet to be measured. Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess. Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.

TECHNORATI TAGS: VALERIE PLAME JOE WILSON THE WASHINGTON POST PLAMEGATE GEORGE BUSH SCOOTER LIBBY I. LEWIS LIBBY PATRICK FITZGERALD

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

The Libby Verdict

Yes Virginia, there really is a Fitzmas.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is tough, thorough and diligent. He is one of the brightest and the best Federal Prosecutors. And he is an adversary you don't want to face.

Today he served up the guilty verdict against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby was convicted moments ago of lying under oath and obstructing Prosecutor Fitzgerald's investigation into the release of CIA agent Valeria Plame's identity.

It is worth noting that Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since ....... you guessed it ....... the Reagan era Iran-Contra affair.

I'm already on record as saying and believing this entire prosecution of Libby was and is a gross miscarriage of justice. I believe that Fitzgerald is yet another Special Prosecutor out of control.

But I'm also a strong believer in the American Justice System and, especially, jury trials. So, while I continue to believe that Fitzgerald should have never even been appointed, let alone allowed to run an extensive Grand Jury investigation that never yielded a single indictment EXCEPT lying to the Grand Jury.....

.....I respect the verdict and believe that Libby is guilty of lying to, and misleading, Fitzgerald's totally non-productive Grand Jury.

My reaction is a far cry from the joy and glee being exhibited over on MSNBC, especially by Chris Matthews. It's truly Fitzmas over on MSNBC. And that joy will continue throughout the week. I can hardly wait for Hardball (starting in about one minute). The under card will be John Edwards weeping about the gay bashing attack by the very evil Ann Coulter.

But it's Matthew's Main Event celebrating the Libby conviction that will demand all the attention. Edwards has the continuous bad luck of having his few precious moments in the spotlight being eclipsed by meteoric news stories.

And Olbermann? Could we just go ahead and make Libby the "Worst Person of the New Millennium?" All kidding aside, Keith Olbermann does have Joe Wilson already booked as a guest tonight.

I do have one important point to make and it actually concerns my earlier post "In Support of the Bush - Petraeus Strategy in Iraq". In that post I made the point that we must separate our battle with President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration from the actual ongoing military battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "Scooter" Libby verdict provides ample ammunition for the "progressives" to take the fight to the President and, more importantly, onto the floor of the House of Representatives. There is no need to continue to use the military as pawns in their battle with Bush.

Let General Petraeus do his job until you are able to replace the Commander and Chief, by impeachment or election.

Link to the AP Story about the Libby verdict.

TECHNORATI TAGS: VALERIE PLAME JOE WILSON MSNBC CHRIS MATTHEWS PLAMEGATE GEORGE BUSH SCOOTER LIBBY I. LEWIS LIBBY PATRICK FITZGERALD KEITH OLBERMANN

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

In Defense of Bill Maher... and,oh yeah, Ann Coulter

I had no intention of writing on this topic du jour simply because the blogosphere was all over it with unrestrained glee and nothing short of reckless abandon.

But as the group think outrage continued and built for several days, I found almost no one actually defending free speech or free thought. No one, that is, except Bill Maher. And Maher was actually under attack!

Bloggers, especially conservative bloggers, were attacking Ann Coulter. Somehow conservatives felt morally compelled to condemn Coulter. They felt some sort of need to cleanse their collective souls. To get the full force of the conservative blogosphere's unified condemnation of Coulter, I suggest you read this compilation of conservative reaction to Coulter by Michelle Malkin.

But the conservatives didn't stop there. In order to claim even more high ground in the "politically correct" debate, conservatives turned their attack on to Bill Maher recent "discussion" of the attempted assassination of Vice President Cheney.

Here's the often repeated conservative mantra: "We condemn our own when they use hate speech, but the evil liberals never raise a peep when similar (or much worse) hate speech is spewed by a fellow liberal.

Here's what Maher said to cause such moral outrage. Edited from a transcript provided by Rick Moran (you can read both the transcript and conservative Moran's outrage here).

Maher: What about the people who got onto the Huffington Post – and these weren’t even the bloggers, these were just the comments section – who said they, they expressed regret that the attack on Dick Cheney failed. Joe Scarborough: Right Maher: Now… John Ridley: More than regret. Maher: Well, what did they say? Ridley: They said “We wish he would die.” I mean, it was (?) hate language. Barney Frank: They said the bomb was wasted. (laughter and applause) Maher: That’s a funny joke. But, seriously, if this isn’t China, shouldn’t you be able to say that? Why did Arianna Huffington, my girlfriend, I love her, but why did she take that off right away? Ridley: It’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney, which applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion.” And I think, you know… Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause) Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say… Frank: I think he did. Scarborough: Okay. Did you say… Maher: No, no. I quoted that. Frank: You don’t believe that? Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

You have to work hard to miss the points that Maher and Coulter were trying to make. Maher was condemning The Huffington Post for deleting readers comments from their website. Arianna Huffington "cleansed" her website of posts implying (or outright saying) they regretted that the Afghan suicide bomber hadn't "taken out" Vice President Cheney.

Coulter was saying (with the most amazing premonition) that you cannot use the word "faggot" without being forced into "rehabilitation" (a joke clearly aimed at television star Isaiah Washington's punishment for his remarks about fellow gays on the set of Grays Anatomy).

Boy was Coulter ever right. She used the word and now faced near total condemnation. She now finds herself in "virtual" rehab.

But I digress. My point is that the only real villain here is Arianna Huffington. She exercised unwarranted and undue censorship by deleting dozens (hundreds?) of comments from her website to simply avoid the negative press.

Coulter comments are just her classic satirical zingers. But all bloggers and conservatives are well within their rights in their verbal rebuke and their efforts to now shun her.

Bill Maher was well within his rights in making the comments he made. He did it in the right venue and reflected the views of many anti-war, anti-neocon people. But, here again, Maher's critics are also well within their rights in condemning Mahar.

This is called debate. So long as no one is actually trying to silence the other side, this is good honest debate.

But Maher was especially right in questioning Huffington's removal of comments by her readers. It was Huffington who denied her own readers of their free speech. In a comments section at that.

By the way, this isn't the first time Huffington has restricted comments and prevented open discussion. Normally her editorial control is used to simply push her "progressive" agenda. You can read about another flap and my personal experiences here.

TECHNORATI TAGS: FREE SPEECH ANN COULTER HUFFINGTON POST BILL MAHER RICK MORAN MICHELLE MALKIN CONSERVATIVE LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

In Support of the Bush - Petraeus Strategy in Iraq

Is it possible to simultaneously support the Bush - Petraeus military strategy in Iraq and yet oppose the President and his previous misadventures in Iraq? The answer is not only that we can, but that we MUST.

I'm sick and tired of the left - right, black - white, red state - blue state approach to virtually all issues by politicians, the press, commentators and many bloggers. This simplistic attitude solves nothing, inflames tempers and completely ignores reality.

It's all posturing, positioning for the cameras, gearing up for the sound bite.

We are at a fork in the road in Iraq. We can either withdraw our troops in a rapid, yet orderly fashion and leave the outcome of our gross misadventure in Iraq to the Iraqi's and the regional interests in Iran, Syria, Turkey and other middle eastern parties (including al-Qaeda), or we can stay and strongly support the current, flawed, Iraqi government we established.

Those are the only two options on the table today for Iraq. Chose one. There simply isn't a path down the middle.

President Bush and General Petraeus have been clear and articulate in outlining their plan.

But there is an viable alternative outlined and supported by a very few brave Democrats. Senator Barack Obama "may" be a supporter of this option, but he is elusive and a little unclear. Still, if Obama gets strongly on board and galvanizes the support of the American people (most of whom what us out), this might become a realistic option.

When and if the "Obama" strategy crystalizes and becomes coherent and/or when and if Obama himself is elected President and becomes Commander and Chief we must all reassess our positions. We can change our minds as the facts and options change.

But the current opposition strategy of Senator Reid and the wishy-washy, poll driven, meaningless resolution debating, endless subpoenaing, waffling, wimpy Democrats isn't an option at all.

It's not even as viable as John Murtha's "slow bleed" strategy. At least in "slow bleed" the injured party eventually dies or is forced off to the hospital.

No, I'd call the current Democrat opposition strategy "talking it to death."

This doesn't mean you can't condemn (or even impeach) President Bush for leading us into this quagmire. And this doesn't mean we can't hold George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld responsible for implementing one of the worst military strategies in American history.

It's valuable to look back. But we must look realistically at the situation on the ground today. And we must deal with it.

The Democrat approach is akin to looking at a bus accident and trying to assess blame rather than sending in ambulances to save the injured passengers. Or, to be more blunt, the current Democrat strategy is like the Bush approach to Hurricane Katrina. Issue a lot of "atta boys" without actually doing a damned thing.

I find Senator Joe Lieberman's rationale for supporting President Bush's and General David Petraeus' "surge" strategy for Iraq compelling and reasonable in a world where most other politicians and pundits demand a black - white response to anything Bush.

Here is the link to Lieberman's article The Choice in Iraq in the Wall Street Journal, but you must be a WSJ on-line subscriber to read it. Below is an abridged version. The words are all Lieberman's but the emphasis is mine.

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital. Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq -- or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here? If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security -- meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year. Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism. ....the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago -- with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security -- and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress. Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work. There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions. I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct. But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake -- assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq. I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.

Update! Check out this summary of NEWS STORIES compiled by Bruce over at The Gay Patriot:
Good News From Iraqi Theater in WWIII

Previous Related Wizard Articles:
The Road Not Taken
We See What We Want to See, We Hear What We Want to Hear
The Failure to Plan for Iraq After Saddam's Fall
Save the Cheerleader... Part Duex
Binary Choices


TECHNORATI TAGS: JOE LIEBERMAN JOHN MURTHA BARACK OBAMA IRAQ IRAQ STRATEGY DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS WAR ON TERROR PRESIDENT BUSH AL QAEDA GENERAL PETRAEUS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Darfur: The Final Solution

Cooper, blog owner and contributor over at Darfur: An Unforgivable Hell of Earth wrote a recent blog entry titled:

"One Day There Will Be No Darfur To Raise Awareness For."

That title is somehow inarticulate. It's certainly grammatically incorrect. It flows badly. But I found the message conveyed in the title so very compelling. So frightening. So very sad.

I've tried hard to re-write that title. I want to say what Cooper said, but cleaner.... clearer.... louder.... But I just can't say it any better.

Someday soon Darfur will be a memory. A blight on our history. A sad moment we'll all look back upon and say "Why didn't somebody do something?"

Maybe we will build a monument. Or a Darfur Genocide Museum. Maybe we'll have speeches and an annual "Remember Darfur" day.

But one thing is certain. Darfur will be over. Genocides all eventually die. The people all die.

First, of course, the victims die. In Darfur it's mostly the men and boys, murdered tortured, buried alive, burned to death and much worse.

No one knows the numbers of the dead. Various sources put the toll form 200,000 to 450,000.

Next comes the rape, torture and eventual murder and starvation of the women and children. The toll here is by all accounts over a million.

Villages have all been burned and crops destroyed. The men are all gone and the women have fled to refugee camps where all food, aid and support are withheld.

The wonderful Angelina Jolie is on a mission to Darfur right now to raise awareness, except she can't actually go to Darfur anymore. It's too dangerous. She can't even get close. She will visit refugees in Chad, which only a week ago begged for U.N assistance, but now, under massive military threats from Sudan, has rescinded its call for troops.

The U.N. has pulled out its humanitarian aid teams from Darfur for reasons of safety.

The people's Republic of China helps the Sudanese government with massive oil purchases, while simultaneously covering Sudan's flank by vetoing any possible U.N. intervention.

Even Warren Buffett is refusing to divest his massive investment in PetroChina at Berkshire-Hathaway. Buffett's sick rationale, "divestment wouldn't make any difference, anyway."

Sure, why not make gigantic profits while enabling the deaths of millions. The Sudanese government would just kill them anyway.

And, in the ultimate irony, the International Criminal Court at the Hague announced Tuesday that they "suspect" a former Sudanese junior minister and a militia leader of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the country's Darfur region.

Not enough evidence to actually have any indictments. You see only 450,000 are dead so far. And only a million people are displaced. And we can't get really good reporting. And Anna Nichole Smith's estate isn't settled yet....

So finally the last people will finally die alone of starvation, murder and neglect.

It's the only solution the people of the world, as a group, will accept.

Oh, I know there are few of us who are screaming, begging, working, praying and fighting to help. I know. But, every time one of us even goes so far as to make a blog entry we get dozens of replies that say "What do you expect us to do...invade another country?"

Nope. Ignorance is bliss.

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around, does it make a sound?

If a person dies or is raped, tortured or murdered in Darfur and there are no television cameras or reporters, did she suffer?

What the heck! We all love a good museum. And who wouldn't want another holiday. We can all have a picnic and ask "I wonder why no one helped the poor people in Darfur?"

------------------------

Things you can do today, if you really want to:

Please follow this link to Darfur: An Unforgivable Hell on Earth and read this entry: Travesty, Politics, comments and Darfur is still Dying. Cooper has some important things to say about politics and the presidential derby.

Please pick up the phone this minute and call your Congressperson and Senator. Call everyday, until every staff member knows you by name. Be polite, but firm in requesting aid for Darfur.

Please write and call President Bush. Or, at least, fill out this post card. Better yet, if you have the courage, sign the petition supporting President Bush's "Plan B" of action in Darfur.

Write to Ban Ki-Moon, the new Secretary General of the United Nations. Believe me, he does care. We've made it easy. The link takes you to a web based form.

Wear, and never remove, your "Not on My Watch" green wristbands.

TECHNORATI TAGS: SAVE DARFUR BAN KI-MOON SUDAN CHAD WOMEN'S RIGHTS ANGELINA JOLIE HUMAN RIGHTS DARFUR GEORGE BUSH UNITED NATIONS WARREN BUFFETT BERKSHIRE-HATHAWAY

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us