Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Capehart always embarrasses

I was asked what I thought about Jonathan Capeheart's whine from last week?

I think his paper needs to tell him to stop writing with his weeping penis.

I think he needs to grow the hell up and get over his crush on Barack and stop pretending he's Mrs. Obama.

I think he needs to try to gather some facts before writing as well. He wrote, "As Jim Downie pointed out in his excellent post last night, Boehner’s rejection of Obama’s joint-session request is unprecedented. "

But according to the Wall St. Journal, that's not true:

The June 24, 1986, edition of The Wall Street Journal featured a story headlined, "President's Bid to Address the House On Nicaragua Is Rejected by Speaker." That's right, no quibbling over the date and time, just a flat-out rejection. In that case, President Ronald Reagan wanted to address the House before its critical vote on funding for the anti-communist "Contra" rebels in Nicaragua. Then-Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neil said that he was willing to host a Reagan speech if it was expanded to include the Senate in a joint session, or he would allow the President to speak to the House alone if the President would also agree to take questions from lawmakers. Otherwise, there would be no Reagan speech in the House chamber. Reagan already had the votes to prevail in the Senate, and Mr. O'Neil wanted to avoid having the spotlight turned on the House, which would make him and his colleagues accountable to the public if Contra aid were rejected.

Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, September 6, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Norah O'Donnell presses the White House to go on the record about Iraq, politics remains murky in Iraq, a new cable reveals Blackwater guards didn't really leave Iraq, and more.
Danny Schechter (ZNet) notes US President Barack Obama is set to deliver another speech, this one on Thursday and supposedly focusing on jobs:
Attention, collapsing Economy: you finally have the big man's attention. Nearly 70 organizations are pressing the President to take strong action.
Please give him a break. He's been busy tending Empire business -- waging GWOT warfare on IraqAfghanistanLibyaYemenPakistanSomalia et. al . . .
Call it the greatest "long war" in American history: an unending and unbelievably expensive intervention justified as necessary to keep us safe.
But the Iraq War made no one safe. Iraqis aren't safe, and we'll get to that later in the snapshot, but neither is "the west." The former head of British intelligence, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller just said so in a recent speech.
Eliza Manningham-Buller: War was declared on a rogue state, an easier target than an elusive terrorist group based mainly at that stage in the difficult terrain of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And, in my view, whatever the merits of putting an end to Saddam Hussein, the war was also a distraction from the pursuit of al Qaeda. It increased the terror threat by convincing more people that Osama bin Laden's claim that Islam was under attack was correct. It provided an arena for the jihad for which he had called so that many of his supporters including British citizens traveled to Iraq to attack western forces. It also showed very clearly that foreign and domestic policies are intertwined, actions overseas have an impact at home and our involvement in Iraq spurred some young British Muslims to turn to terror.
BBC News has video here and notes, "She was speaking during her first 2011 Reith Lecture, which will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 6 September 2011 at 09:00 BST and repeated on Saturday 10 September at 22:15 BST. You can also listen via the BBC iPlayer or download the programme podcast." In the US, Richard Cohen (New York Daily News) observes:

This is a melancholy season in Washington, much talk about the decline of America and how our vaunted system has broken down. I won't quibble. But the most consequential breakdown of our system is exemplified by waging an unnecessary war and then - history, brace yourself - the reelection of the incompetents who had done it. Is it possible that for all the treacly talk about "the fallen" and all our salutes to the troops, we care so little about them that we casually gave second terms to the very people who wasted their lives?
This lack of accountability is not limited to our ill-conceived military adventures. After all, the financial system collapsed, but afterward there were no metaphorical hangings. People of modest means, suckers fooled into thinking a home of their own was a gift of citizenship, lost it all, but the guys at the top had a couple of bad years and then got the bonuses they were accustomed to. We are a get-over-it nation, always moving on.
Still, Iraq was different. Lives, not homes, were lost - and the Middle East was thrown up into the air.
And the Iraq War continues. Over the weekend, Aswat al-Iraq quoted from a statement by Humam Hammoudi, "head of the Iraqi Parliamentary Foreign Relations Commission," which says of the issue of a US withdrawal: "we are waiting the PrimeMinister to present a new agreement following the U.S. forces withdrawal for the training cadres." Al Mada reports today that Iraqi Gen Anwar Hamad Amin has released a statement stating that Iraq will need "years" to be able to secure their own air space and that, post-2011, they will continue to need US air support. But the big news happens because of Fox News.
Today, they reported, "The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News." They reported that US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had agred to it and they quoted Panetta denying that any decision had been made. Some rushed to slam Fox News. Why? Today Norah O'Donnell, CBS News, raised the issue of Iraq.
Norah O'Donnell: And can I turn to Afghanistan and ask whether the President has received a recommendation from Secretary Panetta to reduce the number of troop levels to about 3,000 by year's end?
Jay Carney: I think you mean Iraq.
Norah O'Donnell: Excuse me, Iraq. Thank you. I misspoke.
Jay Carney: No. And the process has -- as you know, we are operating under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government that was signed by the previous administration to draw down our forces. We are in negotiations, consultations with the Iraqi government about what our relationship with Iraq will look like going forward. We want a normal, productive, healthy relationship with Iraq going forward. We have said in the past that if the security component of that relationship -- if the Iraqi government makes a request of us, we will certainly consider it. That request has not been made. No decisions have been made. And so we are operating as of now under the existing agreements.
Norah O'Donnell: I understand those negotiations are underway. But the question specifically, though, is has Secretary Panetta delivered a recommendation to the President --
Jay Carney: No, I think what I -- This is contingent upon what our relationship looks like with Iraq, and that component of it depends on our negotiations with the Iraqi government.
Wendell Goler: Will budgetary concerns be a part of the President's decision about how many troops to leave in Iraq?
Jay Carney: The President has I think made abundantly clear for a long time now that he will end and has ended our efforts in Iraq, our combat efforts, responsibly. We have been operating on a timetable that has withdrawn over 100,000 U.S. forces since he took office in a way that has been incredibly careful and responsible, and has allowed the Iraqis to further build up their security forces and improve their capacities. And uh, the -- Wh-what our relationship looks like going forward with Iraq will depend upon our negotiations with the Iraqi government.
Wendell Goler: And not concerns about how much it costs?
Jay Carney: I think we live in a world of, uh -- where resources aren't infinite, and that -- that's the case with every consideration we make. But the answer is we will uh-uh make decisions based on what is the best for the United States, best for our national security interests and best for having the most effective relationship with Iraq going forward.
Norah's with CBS News, Wendell Goler is with Fox News. The is the most Jay Carney has spoken of the Iraq War. A war that has no cease fire. A war that has no peace treaty. A war that is ongoing. A war that the White House should be asked of regularly. Today they were forced to address it. They should. The State Dept is forever being asked about Iraq. Why isn't the White House? Is Barack not the commander-in-chief? Was an executive order signed that no one knows of?
If not, the White House needs to be pressed on what is going on with Iraq.Victoria Nuland, State Dept spokesperson, is a better speaker than Jay Carney to begin with. But part of the reason she's not forever stammering and uh-uh-ing her way through Iraq issues is because she's regularly forced to address it. That includes today:
MS. NULAND: On Iraq. Yeah.
QUESTION: The [Kurd] president, Masoud Barzani, has told the U.S. forces to stay in Iraq, and warning of a civil war if the American forces withdraw. What can you tell them?
MS. NULAND: I think our public position, our private position, hasn't changed, that our plan is to withdraw by the end of the year. Were the Iraqi Government to come forward and make a request for some continued security assistance, we would be prepared to look at it.
QUESTION: Do you consider this call as a request from an Iraqi leader?
MS. NULAND: Well, we have heard many different views from individual Iraqi leaders, but they have a government, and we need to hear a united view from the government.
QUESTION: There was an article, a very lengthy article, by Ayad Allawi last week basically calling for that, so that's the head of a major political Iraqi bloc. Now you have the Kurds calling for that. There are talks of some sort of behind the scene agreements between the Pentagon and the Iraqi Ministry of Defense for a rotation. And so, did you know of that?
MS. NULAND: I mean, it's clear that a lot of Iraqis are thinking about this and talking about it. But obviously, we couldn't get into a discussion on the basis of informal comments by individual Iraqis.
QUESTION: I guess the question is: Is the United States flexible enough to accept such a request when it happens?
MS. NULAND: Again, you're taking me into hypotheticals as to when this might happen. Our view hasn't changed, that if they have something that they would like us to do, we're prepared to look at it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Is there any --
MS. NULAND: Oh, sorry. Still on Iraq?
QUESTION: Is there any possibility to make a deal with north Iraq regarding the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq instead of waiting for a request from the Iraqi Government?
MS. NULAND: I think we have for many years operated on the basis of a single policy with regard to a unitary Iraq. I don't see that changing.
On the issue Fox News reported on and that Norah O'Donnel asked about, Lolita C. Baldor, Rebecca Santana, Lara Jake and Robert Burns (AP) report that the White House "is reviewing a number of options" but that a request needs to be made before Barack can decide which option to go with.
As noted earlier, the Iraq War didn't make Iraq safer for Iraqis. Lara Jakes (AP) reports on the mood of Iraqis and notes, "Security is a key indicator of Iraq's future -- it drives business investment, government policy decisions and the psyche of the war-torn nation. In interviews across Baghdad, Iraqis cited the random daily bombings and shootings that continue to kill people here. At least under Saddam, they say, they knew they could avoid being targeted by violence by simply staying quiet." Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing left two people injured and a Haditha attack on the military left 8 Iraqi service members dead with one more injured.
Yesterday Al Rafidayn reported on the political intrigue in Iraq. A healthy portion of the National Alliance is the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council headed by Amar al-Hakim and they are calling for pressure on Nouri's government to force it to provide basic services. And there may be an effort to form a majority government -- an effort which would sidestep Nouri and his political slate (State Of Law). Iraqiya's MP Talal Zaobaie states that Iraqiya, parts of the National Alliance, the Kurdistan Alliance and Sadr's bloc can come together to form a majority government which would shut out Nouri. As the article notes, Nouri began floating a threat that they would shut others (sometimes defined as Iraqiya) out of the goverment by tossing aside what currently existed and forming a majority government. Zaobaie insists if such a move was taken, everyone would be welcome provided they weren't part of the effort which harmed advancing the ministries (naming heads to the ministries) or part of the effort interfering with ending corruption. The article notes that the Sadr bloc has already stated that the government's response to the upcoming protests will determine whether or not they (the Sadr bloc) will withdraw confidence from the government. Supposedly this potential alliance would have at least 180 members (therefore 180 votes) and they would be able to push through a measure to withdraw confidence in Nouri's government and then establish a new majority government which, the assertion is, would avoid sectarian strife.

Al Mada also picks up the story and mainly adds input from the Sadr bloc via Jawad al-Jubouri who states that the bloc will suport Nouri or anyone who pushes for a government that serves its citizens. The newspaper also notes that State of Law MP Ammar al-Shibli is declaring that this plan demonstrates that State of Law must move towards forming a majority government. Dar Addustour's coverage emphasizes that such a plan would shut out certain "leaders of their lists" (more than just Nouri) and that this appears to be an effort to punish these leaders for the failures of government.

That was yesterday. Today UPI reports that Moqtada al-Sar has issued a call for "resistance" over the US "temporarily closing" Baghdad International Airport and Iraq's air space August 30th. Maybe this 'brave' stand will cover up his latest cave. After much bellowing from his bloc and Moqtada himself, Reuters reports his big protest isn't even on, doesn't have a date and that he announced yesterday Nouri al-Maliki had one "last chance" to work on reforms it was supposed to have implemented long ago. Reuters reminds, "Earlier this year Sadr had given Maliki six months to accelerate reforms after protesters took to the streets across the country demanding more electricity and jobs and better government services."

Al Mada also reports on First Lady Moqtada's latest drama and notes there are conflicting views on the political feasibility of it. State of Law's Adnan al-Sarraj insists that the government does not currently have the resources to make the improvements necessary. Readers of the article leave blistering comments that might surprise the western press still so sure Moqtada is a beloved and important 'force' within Iraq. The first comment questions Moqtada's ethics and wants to know exactly what is "your salary? Has the electricity gone out in your home? Are your children sharing hell with us in Iraq or have they been scattered outside of Iraq?" The second comment starts with the premise that he and his bloc are the "scourge" in Iraq and expands from there. The third comment opens with sarcasm before pointing out that Moqtada himself is part of the government. He can take comfort that the fourth comment condemns all in government. Dar Addustour notes that Moqtada's statement sent out yesterday is a refusal to topple Nouri's government and that Baghdad is demanding permits for any protests taking place (this Friday, the youth activists plan to return to Tahrir Square and protest).

Meanwhile Al Rafidayn reports the KRG is stating Nouri is becoming a dictator who disregards political agreements and they are calling for the withdrawal of the draft oil law his Cabinet announced they'd devised last week. The KRG states that the draft conflicts with the Constitution and other laws and they call for it to be withdrawn by the Cabinet or rejected by the Parliament. That outcry comes as Nouri is set to meet with the KRG's prime minister. Al Sabaah notes Barham Salih and Nouri have a previous scheduled meeting.
Yesterday W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports on a recently leaked State Dept cable which explains that although Blackwater was banned from Iraq in 2010 as a result of the September 16, 2007 slaughter in Baghdad where they shot at and killed Iraqi civilians, the same security guards/mercenaries/contractors who had been working for Blackwater just switched over to other firms (such as DynCorp and Triple Canopy) and continued to work in Iraq. It's not noted in the cable whether or not the information was shared with the Iraqi government but it most likely wasn't due to the fact that the position of the US Embassy in Baghdad was that they needed Triple Canopy to protect their staff. Press TV discussed the latest disclosed cable with Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation's Sabah Jawad:

Press TV: Who are the Americans trying to deceive, why are they using guards who have committed crimes against the people of Iraq?

Jawad: There are two aspects regarding these Blackwater [operations]. Obviously, the Iraqi government knows about these people operating in the country despite the fact they have changed their name from Blackwater to Xe [Services]. They [Iraqi officials] should know better than allow these people to still operate in Iraq. The second thing it shows is the total mentality behind the American occupation of Iraq; they have been killing Iraqi people since 2003, and even before that, since they actually began to get involved in the affairs of Iraq and after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It is total disregard for the lives of innocent people in Iraq and we have many examples that when they (Blackwater employees] are proven to have committed crimes against the Iraqi people, in fact sometimes they are treat as heroes. We have reports recently in the United States that a couple of guys who used to operate in Iraq are planning for local election and even Congress and they are boating about crimes in Iraq. There is no justice as far as American occupation of Iraq is concerned. The Americans are not subjected international or Iraqi or any law for the matter, even the US's laws. These people get away with murder and they will continue to do so until the Iraqi government does something about them and we see the back of American occupation in Iraq.

Last week, another cable garnered press attention. It addressed the Ishaqi slaughter of 2006, when US forces handcuffed a family and then shot each one dead in the head -- including children. As noted Friday, Matt Schofield reported on it at length in real time. His first report ran March 19, 2006 (Knight Ridder Newspapers, now McClatchy). Saturday Matt Schofield (McClacthy) reported more on the latest developments:

Five years after reporting on what I came to call the Ishaqi Incident, five years after it had largely been forgotten in this country, five years after sleepless nights and bouts of despondency began, I found myself thinking again of five innocent faces, their bodies covered by blankets in the back of a pickup truck in Baghdad.
It came back in an unexpected manner: through WikiLeaks. What happened March 15, 2006, in Ishaqi, Iraq, was the topic of an unclassified diplomatic cable by Philip Alston that came to light in the last few days.
Alston has one of those titles that won't quit: United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
His job is much simpler: When very bad things happen, he looks into them. Sometimes those things happen in Kenya or the Congo. Sometimes in Afghanistan or Iraq. Rarely, Americans are involved.
What happened in Ishaqi, no matter whom you listen to, was very bad.
PJAK is a rebel Kurdish group engaged in an independence struggle with the Iranian government. PJAK has set up camp in northern Iraq. David Batty (Guardian) reports that Iranian military spokesperson Hamid Ahmadi has declared Iran has killed 40 PJAKs and that PJAK declared a ceasefire but Iran is rejecting it stating they want the PJAK out of certain (Iraqi) areas. And should that happen? Xinhua reports that Hamid Ahmadi stated "that after the withdrawal of PJAK, talks will be held on truce if deemed necessary" -- if PJAK withdraws from Iraqi areas, the Iranian government may or may not go for a truce, they'll decide after. Aswat al-Iraq adds that Ali Akbar Salihy, Foreign Minister of Iran, is due to visit Erbil in the KRG shortly to meet with Kurdish leaders to discuss "border attacks." In addition, Aswat al-Iraq reports that Massoud Barzani, President of the KRG, is due to visit Tehran.

As attacks take place and Iran's dispatched their military, the Iranian government traffics in fantasy. Press TV reports, "The state-funded British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is seeking to encourage the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) terrorist group to continue militant attacks against Iraq." Back on the planet earth, Aswat al-Iraq reports on the civilian population effected, "The Kurdish local authorities of Soran Qadha, Arbil, declared that the Iranian bombings of border villages continued into today, and covered populated areas in Seedkan, north of Arbil. The shelling resulted in overall panic in the area, likely related to the death of one woman and wounding of two civilians in yesterday's bombing."

And a demonstration is planned for Wednesday in Erbil to protest the attacks on northern Iraq by both the Iranian military and the Turkish military.
Turning back to the US. It's an interview that will have you rolling on the floor with laughter and it's not a skit from a Christopher Guest film. The two are actually serious. The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild and CODEPINK's Jodi Evans. But before we get to that. Elaine's begged me for years to share here my first meeting with Jodi Evans and never has it been more appropriate.
I know Jerry Brown. Via his campaigns, I was aware of Jodi who worked on them. (I mainly donated to them.) At some point after he was elected governor, I finally was face to face with Jodi one day when I arrived for a scheduled meeting (non-governmental business, but it was scheduled) and he came out of his office to apologize that he was running late but had I met Jodi (formally I hadn't) and if I needed anything while I waited, she could get it. So Jodi and I said our hellos and I asked for a Tab (this was the seventies). Jodi stopped to answer a phone call. Then she explained just how much pressure she was under. And she certainly sounded as if she was. And this went on for about ten to fifteen minutes before Jerry was done with his meeting at which point I went off to speak with Jerry while puzzling over his in-over-her-head assistant.
And all these years later, Jodi, I'm still waiting on that Tab.
Elaine thinks that story encapsulates Jodi Evans -- and if you know Jodi, you'll may agree. But now for Progressive Radio's effort at Revisionary Theatre:
Jodi Evans: I said to my son recently who was big in the Obama campaign, "Maybe it was good that McGovern lost." Because all of us who had come there with our hearts and souls and the vision of what that campaign stood for had to then carry it forward ourselves. And, you know, it -- We didn't get disappointed by Obama, we-- the kind of -- I've seen a lot of his friends get depressed and really feel lost. Instead we got empowered and it really set the trajectory for our lives.
Matthew Rothschild: I'm speaking with Jodi Evans, the co-founder of CODEPINK, you're listening to Progressive Radio, I'm Matt Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive magazine. Let's talk about Obama a little bit. My daughter, like your son, worked for the campaign, though she was just knocking on doors here in Wisconsin as was my wife for that matter. They were both very, very disappointed in what Obama has done as you say your son was. What's your take on Obama? What happened?
Jodi Evans: I think he's a great, inspiring speaker. [Giggles.] I think it was a perfect storm of a moment. You know, I was for Obama in the beginning because he was the anti-war candidate and was actually speaking out against the war. It wasn't until later that he decided to make Afghanistan the good war which is when I started to get pretty upset and was able to actually say to his face twice during the campaign, "There's no such thing as a good war."
Jodi is highly creative. As co-founder of CODEPINK, she determined who was "bird-dogged" and who wasn't. She made the determination that, for example, Hillary was to be bird-dogged (stalked) by CODEPINK and she made the determination that Barack wasn't. Despite the fact that Barack's voting record was identical to Hillary's. That had an impact. As for her being for Barack "in the beginning because he was the anti-war candidate" -- does she mean the fall of 2002?
I ask because -- as Elaine and I have both long discussed online -- before he was elected to the US Senate, right after he started running for that office in fact, Elaine and I were at a pricey fundraiser for Barack and, during our face time, we raised the issue of the Iraq War -- our big issue and he was the alleged peace candidate -- only to have him declare that "we" were already in Iraq (actually, no, we were in the United States) so it no longer mattered. It was similar to statements he'd later make to the New York Times during the 2004 DNC convention.
So it's a lie when Jodi says he was the anti-war candidate. He presented himself as that and groups like CODEPINK encouraged the lie by refusing to note that if Barack truly was against the Iraq War then voting for continuing it once he was in the Senate was more disgusting than the hawks who voted for it in 2002.
As for "later" on Afghanistan, I don't know what the hell she's talking about. In February 2007, he declared his intent to run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. June 3, 2007 -- in a televised debate -- he declared that, "One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda." Want to go back further? The October 12, 2004 debate when he ran for the US senate, "It is an absolutely hopeful sign for the people of Afghanistan. As I have stated unequivocally, I have always thought that we did the right thing in Afghanistan. My only concerns with respect to Afghanistan was that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan in terms of moving into Iraq [blah, blah, blah]." Or how about his August 1, 2007 speech? CNN's opening sentence in their report on that speech? "Sen. Barack Obama says he would shift the war on terror to Afghanistan and Pakistan in a speech he delivered Wednesday."
So I'm confused as to when Jodi was confused about where Barack stood on Afghanistan since it was pretty much always clear and it certainly was before 2008 rolled around -- the year Jodi did her part to demonize Hillary while building up Barack. I'm confused because I'm not a fan of let-me-lie-my-way-out-of-the-hell-I-created revisionary tactics.
As for Barack being a great speaker, as Ava and I noted February 15, 2009:
We watched Monday in full as Barack uh-uh-uhed and spoke in that robotic manner that allows him to find more unnatural pauses than Estelle Parsons and Kim Stanley combined. "He's our Method president!" we quickly gasped while wishing we could have one president this decade capable of normal speech. If he gets any worse, he'll be Sandy Dennis.
Back to the interview.
Jodi Evans: I think he's a great, inspiring speaker. [Giggles.] I think it was a perfect storm of a moment. You know, I was for Obama in the beginning because he was the anti-war candidate and was actually speaking out against the war. It wasn't until later that he decided to make Afghanistan the good war which is when I started to get pretty upset and was able to actually say to his face twice during the campaign, "There's no such thing as a good war."
Matthew Rothschild: Well how did he respond?
Jodi Evans: He said, "I was thinking the Civil War." And I said, "I really don't think you're that stupid because that was about economics really." But, you know. [Laughs] I said, "Shame on you." So, you know, I had experiences of him when he was a senator. I made a movie called The Ground Truth which is about the wounded soldiers and took it to his office and talked to him about it because Veterans Affairs was one of the Committees he was on. And he was -- You know, when you're in the office with him, he's super-inspiring and personal and "I'm going to do this with" and "We're going to bring these people in" and "We're going to change this." But nothing happened. So I think I kind of knew the 'nothing happens' out of the story personally. But I also know what it's like having been inside a governor's office, what happens when you get power. And unfortunately, watching it from the outside, I've never seen a more closed, you know, presidential community. I mean, it's all really weird. It's never been this bad. And I don't know why that is, what they're afraid of. It seems to be really out of a lot of fear and --
Matthew Rothschild: "Closed"? By that you mean cloistered? All of one mind set?
Jodi Evans: Yes. And elite. Super elite given who he is. Even my friend Van Jones was in the White House for awhile and the stories he would tell me about how they were told to dress and behave is just not kind or relational. I think relational is the important thing. And so you think there must be a lot of fear that creates that. That's what cause people to be that way. You see that in how he is around war and how he is around Wall Street. I think they're all issues that he really doesn't have a grasp of so he gives that power away to others. I've been in that situation. Jerry [Brown] did that a bit with me, he'd be like, "I don't want to deal with that," so he'd give the power away. And so, unfortunately, he's given the power away to, you know, the wrong [laughing] people as far as I'm concerned. Or the people that don't represent what he ran on. His words and actions aren't matching. And they just seem a little lost. They can run a good campaign but they just don't know how to be president.
Matthew Rothschild: At least at the beginning of his presidency, it seems to me, that Obama anesthetized the peace movement. Uh, did you have that same feeling?
Jodi Evans: Well we've had that experience before like in 2006 when it was the peace movement that actually -- it was the anti-war, you know, push that got all those new people in and, you know, really changed the tenor of the election and then they get there and they vote for war. So you know, we've been there before. But, yes, I think it sucked the air out of anything that any organization or movement that had a wet blanket thrown on it You kind of get thrown back and you don't know what to do next and you kind of have to rethink. I mean, that doesn't happen in CODEPINK, we just kind of go, "Yeah, we're used to this," and keep going and we're usually all alone in the street for awhile and people will get back when they get their feet kind of on the ground again.
A.N.S.W.E.R. and World Can't Wait continued protests. CODEPINK alternated between silent mode and cheerleader mode. And if you've forgotten it, click here for Scott Horton's Antiwar Radio piece (transcript) on when CODEPINK supported the Afghanistan War. Short on facts, but almost as entertaining as Corky St. Clair.

No comments: