Impeach Chimpo
Impeach Shotgun

Impeach them now!

Snow also tried to clear up confusion about Libby's probation. While commuting Libby's sentence in terms of prison time, Bush left in place his two years of supervised release. But supervised release — a form of probation — is only available to people who have served prison time. Without prison, it's unclear what happens next.

Snow said the White House view was this: "You treat it as if he has already served the 30 months, and probation kicks in. Obviously, the sentencing judge will figure out precisely how that works."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, earlier this week, said the law "does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration."

He gave Libby's attorneys and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald until Monday to respond.

It's called making it up as you go along...after you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and knocked it to the ground broken into a thousand little pieces. So much for our justice system?

There is no precedent for this sort of crooked action by a president. So the justice system will just have to come up with a way to make it "look" legal?

It's how this White House has handled every failure on their watch...the WMD issue, the Iraqi looting and Saddam's ammo dumps, the Terri Schavio court case, Katrina, Walter Reed, the national debt, the health care crisis...they us make up as they go along. The hell with the American people and their Constitution.

It's just so much easier to just deny that there is a problem. Tony Snowjob has the that down pat.

Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by equal justice under the law.

Finally, some truth from the mouths of imcompetent fools.

dpojfvV

hONK HONK

"There is no precedent for this sort of crooked action by a president." SandyH - So, according to the democrats, there is a precedent for a president running a red light district in the White House, lying to the American people on national TV - not once, but twice - and covering for his friends when caught in scandal. Hmmmmm...sounds like that pimp Slick Willy Clinton to me...Bush may not be the most graceful president, but he isn't as embarrassing as Clinton. Are you blind? Or taking memory pills? Ah..that's right. You are just liberal.

U.S. Government IS a Ponzi Scheme

The following quote from "TheGreat U-Turn" Corporate Restructuring and the Polarizing of America by Bennett Harrison and Barry Bluestone defines a Ponzi scheme as:

Ponzi Scheme: An ingenious fraud almost perfected in 1919 by Charles Ponzi, who set up business in the heart of Boston's financial district. His offer to an eager war-weary public was simple: Invest any sum with him for 45 days and he would return the money plus 50% interest. Invest for 90 days and realize a profit of 100%. He claimed that he was speculating in a sure market -- the market for International Reply Coupons. These were vouchers for postage stamps that could be redeemed in any country belonging to the International Postal Union. Ponzi told his customers that, with the money they invested with him, he intended to buy the coupons in European countries where the exchange rate was low and then redeem them for stamps where the exchange rate was high. By selling the stamps he had purchased in this way, he promised his investors a fortune.

Ponzi never did buy any reply coupons or attempt to arbitrage them. But he guessed that people who were offered a chance at a geometrically increasing return would probably leave their money with him indefinitely. He was almost right. He seduced 20,000 Bostonians into giving him $14 million in the first few months of his operation. By paying off early investors with money given to him by new ones, he built up a pyramid whose early success earned him cheers on the streets of Beantown.

The fatal flaw of pyramids, however, is that they have to be perpetual motion machines in order to work. Ponzi's, of course, was not. It was stopped by his arrest and conviction for fraud in 1920. It took auditors until 1931 to untangle his finances, the end result being that his hapless investors received only .30 cents on the dollar. Ponzi eventually went to jail in Massachusetts, later jumped bail, and started a venture in Florida swamp land. In 1934, the U.S. Government deported him to Italy.

In Charles Ponzi's Scheme, Ponzi was at the top of the pyramid, had a cadre of those who benefited beneath him to sing praises for Ponzi's scheme, and together Ponzi and those singing Ponzi's praises harvested the resources from everyone else in the pyramid with no one else in the pyramid except Ponzi and those singing praises for Ponzi's scheme receiving benefit from Ponzi's scheme.

What is government in the United States today other than an exceeding large Ponzi Scheme? The Elite Capitalist Class are representative of Charles Ponzi at the top of the pyramid, the class in the middle, as a cadre of helpers to Ponzi that sing the praises of Ponzi's scheme, is the Professional Middle Class; and everyone else beneath them, the Common Population, the Working and Poor Class and Culture, are the victims that get harvested for the benefit of the Ponzi Scheme of Government that at present can only be made reference to laughingly as [Representative Democracy?].

The 70% Majority Common Population of the United States can do better than to be the victims of a large and enduring governmental Ponzi Scheme controlled by the Elite Capitalist Class and the class in the middle, the Professional Class.

The Common Population of the United States can rule the government of the United States and in so doing rule themselves democratically together with the Ponzi Class of Elites and the Ponzi familiars singing Ponzi's praises, the Professional Middle Class, together with their own 70% Majority Common Population if they will rouse themselves from their slumbering intellects and vote for their own best interest of their own Common Population, rather than Ponzi Democracy
controlled by Ponzi Republicans and Ponzi Democrat familiars that commodify and harvest the 70% Majority Common Population for obscene benefit from their communal resources.

It is time for the Common Population to take over control of the Democratic Party and the government of the United States. It is time for the Democracy For America Movement to begin in earnest. It is time for an end to Ponzi Government of the United States.

It is time for ACTUAL Democracy For America.

RushBaby:

You may be right when you say there is no precedent, but there IS a STANDARD, and the STANDARD IS the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. I would say that based upon the STANDARD, the 70% Majority Common Population should insist that BUSH and his administration are impeached and and that they ALL serve a full measure of time incarcerated for their crimes against the people of the United States.

Well the next time I'm convicted of purgery I hope I can get the same deal minus the fine of course. You see that fine would exceed my net worth 10 times over and I would have to make bugetary adjustments just to pay 1/100th of it. Hmm, equal justice, no time served and a fine you can afford I would like that just fine. I also promise not to tell.

Scooter's sentence of jail time was commuted for a covert reason; a very well played game of chest one might say. Many are comparing this legal case to Clinton's impeachment case. The difference between President Clinton's impeachment and Libby's conviction is worth looking at first.

Clinton was impeached. That means he was put on trail for lying to Congress. He was not convicted and therefore remained in office. Did he lie? Yes. Did he need to be convicted for lying? Yes. I guess he wasn't convicted for the good of the country, just like Ford pardoning Nixon for the good of the country. The shameful ordeal and memory would have been a heavy load for America.

Libby's case however differs from the Clinton case. Libby was found quilty in a court of law for not only lying to the Congress and like Clinton, obstructing justice, but also lying to the FBI. He was not found guilty for outing a CIA operative, but for shielding the rat that did.

Under federal guidelines of sentencing, the 30 month sentence was not harsh. The average person convicted for the same crime can and usually does receive up to five years in prison.

Here's the kicker: Bush and Chaney know that if Libby went to prison for shielding the White House, he would probably crack and reveal who, what, when and how. So, in commuting Libby's jail term they are able to contain the situation and Libby. They know that he is still indictable and want to shelter him. Most of all, by getting him out of a prison sentence where he would most certainly have been questioned further by the Feds and would more than likely have cracked under interrogation, they save themselves.

Where in the name of God does any of this sound like a Christian Administration. I know as a fact that there are ministers out in America that put Bush's picture up in the sanctuary to be viewed by their sheep. HE IS CHRISTIAN! they pronounce as though that alone qualifies one for the Chief Executive office. It is a absolute qualifier, but it most be genuine and coupled with wisdom, courage and intelligence. Those preachers are limbic and controled by their id. Consequently, they and their sheep are just not well informed and easily deceived. Bush has blood on his hands, not for fighty terrorism, but for his puppet on a string participation in a covin.

A TREE IS KNOWN BY ITS FRUIT!

The real question here is, do the American voters have integrity.

RUSHBABIES

Yes you are: BABIES.

First of all, I am not defending Clinton on being so stupid as to behave as he did in all his personal life before, during and after the Presidency. But, those who cry the most about his transgression against God and wife, not country, usually are guily themselves of the same.

Secondly, he didn't run a red light district. He was not pimping, he was the John.

Thirdly, lying to the American public in this case is not a crime. However, any representative or President who lies to the people should never be re-elected, more over, elected in the first place. The Presidency and Congress require real men of integrity as well as a people of integrity.

Fourthly, Bush may not be the most graceful President, but he and Nixon run neck to neck as to who is the most disgraceful.

Finally, NO, we are not blind. We ALL want a good President. Personally I am not writing this just to write. If Bush was a good President, I'd be delighted. Democrate or Republican, I give a shit! I want good people in government! We all suffer when this nation gets lost as it too often does. I can tell by the Liberal label you throw around that you need to think for yourself and not let Rush Limbal tell you what to think.

JUST PAY ATTENTION TO EVERYTHING, NOT JUST ONE PERSON.

Much of US Favors Bush/Cheney Impeachment: Poll

WASHINGTON — Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday[7-6-07].

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG’s Internet site http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/.

The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.

The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached — that is, formally charged by the House — for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” by a simple majority vote.

Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office.

Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely.

In late April, left-wing Representative Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot Democratic presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution calling for Cheney’s impeachment. To date, the measure has nine listed co-sponsors and a 10th set to sign on when the House returns to work next week.

But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

7/5/07 Favor Oppose Undecided

All Adults 45% 46% 9%
Voters 46% 44% 10%

Democrats (38%) 69% 22% 9%
Republicans (29%) 13% 86% 1%
Independents (33%) 50% 30% 20%

3/15/06 42% 49% 9%

Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?

7/5/07 Favor Oppose Undecided

All Adults 54% 40% 6%
Voters 50% 44% 6%

Democrats (38%) 76% 24% -
Republicans (29%) 17% 83% -
Independents (33%) 51% 29% 20%

Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Sinan Antoon Says, "Iraq Was Better Under Saddam Hussein"

"Even if there is withdrawal, it's going to be withdrawal Israeli-style: from urban centers to the military bases...that have been built there with millions and millions of dollars. This is the old colonial style: when it's too costly you let the natives kill each other, let the natives police each other." Sinan Antoon

Sinan Antoon is an Iraqi-born poet, novelist and filmmaker. He left Iraq in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War and currently teaches Arabic literature at New York University. His poems and essays have been widely published in both Arabic and English. In the summer of 2003, Sinan returned to Baghdad with a group of filmmakers to co-direct "About Baghdad," an acclaimed documentary about Iraq under U.S. occupation. His novel "I'jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody" was recently published in English, and a collection of his poetry was published last month titled "The Baghdad Blues." He is a member of the editorial committee of Middle East Report.

* Sinan Antoon, Iraqi-born poet, novelist and filmmaker. He currently teaches Arabic literature at New York University.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to another Iraqi voice, Sinan Antoon, an Iraqi-born poet, novelist, filmmaker. He left Iraq in 1991 after the Persian Gulf War, currently teaches Arabic literature at New York University. His poems and essays have been widely published in both Arabic and English. In the summer of 2003, Sinan returned to Baghdad with a group of filmmakers to co-direct About Baghdad, an acclaimed documentary about Iraq under US occupation. His novel I’jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody was recently published in English, and a collection of his poetry was also published in June, called The Baghdad Blues. He’s a member of the editorial committee of Middle East Report. Sinan Antoon joins us in our firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

SINAN ANTOON: Thank you for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: As you listen to your fellow Iraqis speaking about the oil law, your thoughts?

SINAN ANTOON: Well, frankly, it gives me hope, because even under terrible conditions and a military occupation, these people are fighting and organizing really to resist what I would think would be the last nail in the Iraqi coffin, this oil law, because with all of the destruction to the infrastructure and the damage to human life and material in Iraq, what’s left for Iraq, if anything is left, is the oil reserves for the future, to rebuild the country. And if that also is given to foreign corporations, then there’s no hope left for Iraqis and for future generations. So I am proud -- and I think every human being, citizen of this world, should be proud -- of these people who, under terrible and difficult conditions, are fighting these powerful oil corporations and, you know, the United States with all of its might.

AMY GOODMAN: What is it like watching your country from afar?

SINAN ANTOON: I mean, it’s devastating, even for someone who -- I mean, I’m not a nationalist, but I think any human being with a conscience should be, you know -- would be really saddened by what’s happening, because here is a country that had seen so much violence and had gone through wars that were supported by the so-called civilized world. And not that there’s any, you know, any linearity in history where you expect any justice from history, but it’s just too much, I think, for one people to go through in the last three decades.

But I just want to point out that the tragedies that the Iraqis are going through right now, of course, were compounded by the latest invasion. But they started a long time ago, and it’s important for American citizens to understand the responsibility of this country goes way back to supporting the Baathist takeover of power in Iraq and also supporting the Saddam regime while it was building its reign of terror and destroying Iraqi lives during the Iran-Iraq War. So 2003 and the invasion is a culmination for a long policy that’s been going on for three decades.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to those who say, “Are you going to say Iraq was better under Saddam Hussein?”

SINAN ANTOON: You know, I had hoped that I would never say that, but if you want to go to the question of either/or, which now we are used to, of course life was better under Saddam Hussein than now. That does not mean that I or those who say that are pro-dictatorship.

But the reality is, for average citizens and human beings, most of us would want to live under, you know -- when we have electricity, we have the basic services, we have water, there is police, there is order on the street. Most people, if they have this choice of living under dictatorship, while having electricity and water and knowing what the red lines are -- under Saddam, people knew what to do to stay alive. You don’t organize politically, of course. You don’t say anything against the regime. You can have a relatively safe life, that is, if you have no political ambitions and don’t say anything.

But now, it’s a complete collapse and chaos. You could be just walking down the street and be killed. So, of course, life was better under Saddam Hussein. Also, that does not mean that Saddam was better, but under Saddam Hussein there was something called the Iraqi state. I want to emphasize that what the US did is not only overthrow Saddam -- that’s a byproduct -- it destroyed the Iraqi state, which is something that took eighty-five years to build, all of its institutions and everything. That was not all the product of Saddam. Saddam was a latecomer. What the United States did is destroy an entire state, entire infrastructure, all of the institutions, so that there, you know -- so, of course, life was better when you had a system that was functioning.

AMY GOODMAN: And your response to proposals like those of Senator Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, to divide Iraq up, forget trying to keep it together, let there be a place of the Shia, a place of the Sunni, a Kurdistan?

SINAN ANTOON: I even wrote an article about that. First of all, it is not up to Senator Biden or any other senator to tell Iraqis how they should live their lives or divide their country. That’s number one.

Number two is the problem of this perspective of Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. It’s been repeated ad nauseum so that now it seems real. The fact is, these categories are not functioning categories, as well. And these are the product of the United States’ imperialist look upon Iraq. Sadly, since the invasion and because of the political system that Bremer put in place, he turned these ethno-religious identities into political identities, because they put the quota system in the governing council. But ten or fifteen years ago, people did not define themselves primarily as Sunni or Shiite and Kurds, you know. There were other kinds of identifications.

But the destruction of the social fabric of Iraq under the sanctions and the political void that was created by overthrowing a regime and then the political system that Bremer put in place -- and the media also were parroting this thing about Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites with, you know, no consideration for class differences, urban and rural differences -- let’s take, for example, the Shiites. It’s not that all Shiites want the same thing, you know. You know, middle class Shiites in Najaf want something different from the downtrodden in Sadr City.

But most importantly, it’s not up to Senator Biden, who knows very little about Iraq, to tell Iraqis how to divide and rule their country.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Sinan Antoon. He’s a professor at New York University, Iraqi-born, left Iraq after the Gulf War, and has written two new books. One is I’jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody -- I want to ask him about this book, about the novel about the imprisonment of a dissident in Iraq under Saddam -- and also The Baghdad Blues. It’s a book of poetry. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Amer Tawfiq, singing in Iraq in 2003, filmed by, well, Sinan Antoon and his fellow filmmakers, who went to Iraq to capture life under occupation. Sinan Antoon is our guest, the Iraqi-born poet, novelist and filmmaker. When you returned from Iraq and came into our studio in 2003, returning after many years from being away -- I think you came in actually in May of 2004 -- we spoke to you about your trip to Baghdad, the first time you had returned since leaving Iraq after the Persian Gulf War. This is some of what you had to say.

SINAN ANTOON: It was very shocking to see the actual destruction, not just of the war, but, to me, the most damaging -- and that’s what a lot of people in our film also say -- is to the social fabric of Iraq. Really, the destruction of the structure of Iraqi society, which basically had gone on for a long time, started by Saddam as he was aided by the US, but the crucial, crucial factor is the thirteen years of the sanctions, which really had, you know, driven Iraq to the edge, so that the war was the final blow. And, to me, it was just really depressing to see how drained and destroyed Iraqis are. I mean, they’re still resilient, at least, when we were there, and wanted to rebuild the country. But, really, people are really drained.

AMY GOODMAN: Sinan Antoon, three years ago, May 2004. Your thoughts today?

SINAN ANTOON: Well, sadly, you know, they have been drained even more, and even many of us or most of us who were against the war had thought that maybe something positive could come as a byproduct from the situation over there, not because of what the US was doing, but because of Iraqis. But I don’t think Iraqis have been allowed to, you know, capitalize on any hope, and I think they have been stripped of everything. I mean, it’s enough to mention that three million Iraqis have left Iraq in the last three years to go to neighboring countries, creating --

AMY GOODMAN: Out of?

SINAN ANTOON: Out of, you know, 26 million. And three million, at least, had already left in the ’90s because of the draconian sanctions, which, to my mind, are even worse than war. So, you know, everyone who can leave the country is leaving the country, because life is really unbearable. I mean, just going to get your groceries, as I read on Iraqi websites, is a major, major challenge, to go get your groceries without being shot.

AMY GOODMAN: Amer Tawfiq, who we were just listening to in break, you filmed him when you were there. Where is he today?

SINAN ANTOON: I don’t really know. We kept contact with him for a while after the film, but then we lost contact with him. And as I was telling you during the break, you know, sadly, I don’t know if he’s alive or dead, because so many people have been killed, especially those who are artists or professors and whatnot, because of all the complications and because of the sectarian violence. So I hope he’s alive somewhere in Iraq or in a neighboring country, but I do not know.

AMY GOODMAN: I’jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody, what does that mean, “I’jaam”?

SINAN ANTOON: It’s a word that has two double meanings, antithetical meanings, that have to do with the Arabic script, because initially the Arabic script was without dots, although many of the letters had one or two or three dots. Initially, the dots were not actually written and could be understood from the context and the structure. And later, to avoid ambiguity in interpretation in reading, some suggested that the dots should be written, and because the dots were borrowed from a foreign language, which was Aramaic at the time, so dotting came to have two double meanings. One of them is elucidating and making something clear, but also because it was borrowed from a foreign language, it came to mean making something ambiguous.

And it has to do with the premise of the novel, is that a manuscript is found in one of the prisons that has no dots, and it seems that it was written by a prisoner, and then one of the security personnel is asked to add the dots and to decipher what the prisoner was thinking, but, of course, because there are a lot of puns and ambiguity, then the attempt of the kind of the state representative to understand what the prisoner was saying is also a challenge.

AMY GOODMAN: This is a novel about a prisoner under Saddam Hussein.

SINAN ANTOON: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us his story.

SINAN ANTOON: I just want to say first, preface, is that, I mean, it’s important to me as a novel first, but also during the ’80s at the height of Saddam’s oppression of Iraqis, we inside Iraq felt really lonely, because, you know, it was not an issue to the world. Now, you know, it’s a fad now. Everyone talks about the poor Iraqis and how they suffered under Saddam. But while the suffering was taking place, the entire so-called civilized world was aiding and abetting Saddam. So that’s the impetus for writing this story.

It’s basically about -- the narrator gets taken into prison by the security personnel, but he does not know what is the reason for him being taken there. And then he gets tortured, and one of the guards gives him paper and tells him to write. So at first he’s afraid, because he thinks it’s a ploy to torture him further, but then he thinks if he writes in Arabic without dots, only he will be able to understand, and no one can implicate him. So it’s his attempt to kind of reconstruct his memory and also reminisce about being outside the prison and kind of to keep his sanity inside the prison, which, as we know, a lot of prisoners, that is the main challenge, is to keep their sanity while they’re in prison and to kind of resist the attempt to break them on so many levels.

AMY GOODMAN: So you’re writing this book now, through this war, about Saddam Hussein, the times then and the brutality then. What were you thinking, as you were watching TV and seeing, well, the old Abu Ghraib, known for torture under Saddam, today?

SINAN ANTOON: I should point out the novel was finished before the war and published in Arabic. It only came later in English.

You know, the most eloquent statement I heard about it all was from someone walking down the street in Baghdad when we were filming, and he saw us interviewing people and asking them, and he said one thing that appears in the film. And he said, you know, “The apprentice is gone, and the master is here. The student is gone, and the teacher is here.” And that sums it all up.

I mean, I don’t want to equate dictatorship with military occupation, but from the standpoint of most Iraqis, the great majority of Iraqis, things only got worse. And to quote another Iraqi, who said, you know, “Everything that was good, that existed as good in the system, was destroyed by the United States, and everything that was terrible was compounded.” And this is what happened to Iraqis.

And Abu Ghraib is a great example. I mean, here is the symbol of Saddam’s oppression, and look what happened. You know, the great democracy, the light onto the nations, did the same things that Saddam did. And it’s more terrible, because Saddam was a dictator and never had, you know, pretense to democracy or human rights. But for the United States to practice the same practices against others, it is more atrocious.

And I should just point out that while we were filming in Baghdad, there were reports in the Arab press about atrocious incidents at Abu Ghraib, and we went there to film, but we were not allowed to go in by US soldiers. And I remember us saying, the crew, something terrible must be happening inside if they don’t allow us to go in and film.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Sinan Antoon. You have both I’jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody, now translated into English, and your book, The Baghdad Blues, which is the compilation of your poetry. One of your poems is “A Prism: Wet with Wars.” Talk about that poem.

SINAN ANTOON: That poem was written in Baghdad in February of 1991. That’s another forgotten war, for the most part. You know, after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, there was so-called Desert Shield, that was then turned into Desert Storm. And while most of us Iraqis also understood that maybe Saddam should be evicted out of Kuwait, but what happened was a massive bombing and the total destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure back in 1991. I wrote that poem in the shelter, which was not even a shelter -- it was a basement -- while we were being bombed twenty-four hours a day for almost two months, and, you know, not knowing if we’re going to survive or not. So it was about the pain and the absurdity of war.

AMY GOODMAN: How old were you at the time?

SINAN ANTOON: I was twenty-two.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you read a poem from The Baghdad Blues?

SINAN ANTOON: Maybe I’ll read that one, actually: “A Prism: Wet with Wars,” which was the title of the Arabic collection. “A Prism: Wet with Wars”:

this is the chapter of
devastation
this is our oasis
an angle where wars intersect
tyrants accumulate around our eyes
in the shackle's verandah
there is enough space for applause
let us applaud

another evening climbs
the city's candles
technological hoofs crush the night
a people is being slaughtered across short waves
but the radio vomits raw statements
and urges us to
applaud

with a skeleton of a burning umbrella
we receive this rain
a god sleeps on our flag
but the horizon is prophetless
maybe they will come if we
applaud
let us applaud

we will baptize our infants with smoke
plough their tongues
with flagrant war songs
or UN resolutions
teach them the bray of slogans
and leave them beside burning nipples
in an imminent wreckage
and applaud

before we weave an autumn for tyrants
we must cross this galaxy of barbed wires
and keep on repeating
HAPPY NEW WAR!

AMY GOODMAN: Sinan Antoon, poet, novelist, filmmaker, professor. His book of poetry is called The Baghdad Blues. His now-translated-into-English novel is called I’jaam.

I wanted to ask you about President Bush's July 4 speech. He gave it in West Virginia to the Air National Guard. He said, “Our first Independence Day celebration took place in the midst of war, a bloody and difficult struggle that would not end for six more years before America finally secured her freedom. More than two centuries later, it’s hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way, but at the time America's victory was far from certain.”

SINAN ANTOON: It’s ludicrous. And, you know, not that presidents are necessarily always more intelligent, but it’s amazing, because it’s -- the analogy is flawed, because as, you know, a letter pointed out in the New York Times, it was the insurgents who won the war -- right? -- against British occupation. So this is the wrong example to use.

AMY GOODMAN: He goes on to say, “Those who wear the uniform are the successors of those who dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty. Like those early patriots, you’re fighting a new and unprecedented war, pledging your lives in honor to defend our freedom and way of life. In this war, the weapons have changed and so have our enemies, but one thing remains the same: the men and women of the Guard stand ready to put on the uniform and fight for America.”

SINAN ANTOON: Well, what can I say? I mean, as I said, it’s tragicomic, because it’s a flawed example. But also, you know, the Americans who fought against British occupation did not fight with the aid of any foreign military troops, as the situation is in Iraq right now. And Iraqis now, I mean, are fighting against US occupation in many, many ways. Of course, we, in the mainstream media, have more focus on the suicide bombings and the terrorist activities, but there are many incidents on a daily basis of Iraqi men and women fighting against, you know, the US troops and foreign occupation, which is a universal right, so if President Bush is right, then he’s only, you know, nailing the -- putting the last nail in his own coffin, because sooner or later, as it has always been, the United States military has to leave Iraq, because Iraqis, like other human beings, will not accept that.

AMY GOODMAN: If you were in charge, if you were President of the United States, what would you do now?

SINAN ANTOON: I would never want that, but first of all, an apology, a recognition of the mistakes and an apology, not only to Iraqis, but to the entire world, for what has happened and what has been done and for all the lies, and then a speedy withdrawal from Iraq as soon as possible, but also an international program to reconstruct Iraq and to compensate Iraqis for all the destruction that has been visited upon them and all the money that has been stolen from them in the last three years, especially.

AMY GOODMAN: What would Iraq look like if the US soldiers left?

SINAN ANTOON: I mean, unfortunately, because of many reasons, most of them having to do with the last three years, if and when US soldiers and troops leave, there’s going to be more of the same. There’s going to be chaos, because we don’t have an intact or organized system over there. It will take time to sort out all the complexities and for the forces to kind of crystallize.

But I just want to say also that we’ve been embroiled in this debate about withdrawal. You know what? Even if there is withdrawal, it’s going to be withdrawal Israeli style, from urban centers to the military bases. Most people, Democrats and Republicans, are saying we are staying there for ten or fifty or sixty years. So all this talk about withdrawal is just to fool the American people. It’s withdrawal from the urban centers to the military bases that have been built there with millions and millions of dollars, and to let the natives kill each other. This is old colonial style: when it’s too costly, you let the natives kill each other, let the natives police each other.

AMY GOODMAN: Is your family still in Iraq?

SINAN ANTOON: No, most of my family, the great majority of them, have left.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you have plans to return?

SINAN ANTOON: We, with my, you know, comrades at In-Counter Productions, made the first film, have been wanting to go back to Iraq, but obviously it’s really dangerous and it’s very expensive to even go back to Iraq, because we don’t want to be killed, and it’s so easy to be killed right now.

AMY GOODMAN: And that international force that you see if the US pulled out, who would spearhead it? The United Nations?

SINAN ANTOON: The United Nations, but it should have involvement from non-European, you know, Islamic countries, because, frankly, the Iraqis never had reason to trust, you know, Anglo-American troops. I mean, this is ridiculous. The memory of British colonialism is so fresh in the minds of Iraqis. Brits left Iraq in 1958. And why would Iraqis trust the very same forces that supported Saddam Hussein and supported the sanctions that destroyed them? And even if there was a shred of confidence in America or in the UK, even if there was, it was lost after 2003. So they have no credibility whatsoever. Ideally, Iraq should be handed over to the UN or to an international -- I know the UN has a lot of problems and the international system has a lot of problems, but Iraqis are better off with an international system than with the US.

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll leave it there. Sinan Antoon, thank you very much for being with us, author of I’jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody, and his latest book of poetry is called The Baghdad Blues.

*******FREEDOM*******

FREEDOM is the absence of oppression.

FREEDOM is not the right of State, Federal and Local Governments to use laws to harvest resources [money] from their populations in the name of keeping their populations, subjects, SAFE and FREE without providing actual benefit.

What kind of freedom is ACTUAL FREEDOM?

Actual FREEDOM is the absence of oppression. And oppression is to be burdened, subdued and forced to perform actions in the interest of others by harsh and wrongful use of power and authority. Actual FREEDOM is the right of subjects of a state or nation not to be burdened, subdued and forced to perform actions in the interests of others by harsh and wrongful use of power and authority.

For State, Federal and Local Government to use oppressive laws in the name of FREEDOM and SAFETY to harvest resources [money] from the population has nothing to do with either FREEDOM or SAFETY -- it has only to do with State, Federal and Local Government perceiving a need for resources [money] and using FREEDOM and SAFETY of the Population as an excuse to create a revenue stream that fulfills their perceived need for resources [money] by way of enforcement authority and judicial administration of the laws that government has created to enable creation of the revenue stream for FREEDOM and SAFETY.

It is not Government's mission to use my personal FREEDOM and SAFETY as an individual as a means of creating a revenue stream and to criminalize me, oppress me and tyrannize me in the name of FREEDOM and SAFETY to acquire resources [money] for Government Operating Expenses.

It is the Government's mission to act in the greater good of society, not the protection of the individual for money; selling protection is what Al Capone and the mafia did, and no doubt the mafia still does it. The American people do not need their government using the law to "make them an offer they can't refuse" to keep them FREE and SAFE; this is not legitimate government. This is ORGANIZED CRIME.

I want FREEDOM and SAFETY in my life as an individual and in the work place, FREEDOM and SAFETY for the greater good, FREEDOM, product safety, safety for the greater good, and safety in general for goods and services produced and distributed in the economy, but I strongly feel that I need to be in charge of my own personal FREEDOM and SAFETY and that if laws are passed that give enforcement and judicial authority to the Government that places the Government in charge of my own personal FREEDOM and SAFETY; that I am not being kept SAFE, I am being harvested for resources [money] by Government in the name of FREEDOM and SAFETY with an offer of FREEDOM and SAFETY that I cannot refuse.

An offer of FREEDOM and SAFETY by the Government to its subjects, individual isolated citizens; that subjects, individual isolated citizens, cannot refuse is not an offer of FREEDOM and SAFETY at all, it is the Protection Racket that was employed by Al Capone and the Mafia; when criminals sell FREEDOM and PROTECTION that are not a part of the Government it is a crime, and when Government sells FREEDOM and PROTECTION it is oppression and tyranny, a crime by the Government against the people.

All levels of Government in the United States must stop using the "protection racket" to raise resources [money] for funding Government Operation by oppressing and tyrannizing subjects in the General Population in the name of their FREEDOM and PROTECTION in the manner of cheap two-bit thugs in the mafia.

*******FREEDOM*******

FREEDOM is the absence of oppression.

FREEDOM is not the right of State, Federal and Local Governments to use laws to harvest resources [money] from their populations in the name of keeping their populations, subjects, SAFE and FREE without providing actual benefit.

What kind of freedom is ACTUAL FREEDOM?

Actual FREEDOM is the absence of oppression. And oppression is to be burdened, subdued and forced to perform actions in the interest of others by harsh and wrongful use of power and authority. Actual FREEDOM is the right of subjects of a state or nation not to be burdened, subdued and forced to perform actions in the interests of others by harsh and wrongful use of power and authority.

For State, Federal and Local Government to use oppressive laws in the name of FREEDOM and SAFETY to harvest resources [money] from the population has nothing to do with either FREEDOM or SAFETY -- it has only to do with State, Federal and Local Government perceiving a need for resources [money] and using FREEDOM and SAFETY of the Population as an excuse to create a revenue stream that fulfills their perceived need for resources [money] by way of enforcement authority and judicial administration of the laws that government has created to enable creation of the revenue stream for FREEDOM and SAFETY.

It is not Government's mission to use my personal FREEDOM and SAFETY as an individual as a means of creating a revenue stream and to criminalize me, oppress me and tyrannize me in the name of FREEDOM and SAFETY to acquire resources [money] for Government Operating Expenses.

It is the Government's mission to act in the greater good of society, not the protection of the individual for money; selling protection is what Al Capone and the mafia did, and no doubt the mafia still does it. The American people do not need their government using the law to "make them an offer they can't refuse" to keep them FREE and SAFE; this is not legitimate government. This is ORGANIZED CRIME.

I want FREEDOM and SAFETY in my life as an individual and in the work place, FREEDOM and SAFETY for the greater good, FREEDOM, product safety, safety for the greater good, and safety in general for goods and services produced and distributed in the economy, but I strongly feel that I need to be in charge of my own personal FREEDOM and SAFETY and that if laws are passed that give enforcement and judicial authority to the Government that places the Government in charge of my own personal FREEDOM and SAFETY; that I am not being kept SAFE, I am being harvested for resources [money] by Government in the name of FREEDOM and SAFETY with an offer of FREEDOM and SAFETY that I cannot refuse.

An offer of FREEDOM and SAFETY by the Government to its subjects, individual isolated citizens; that subjects, individual isolated citizens, cannot refuse is not an offer of FREEDOM and SAFETY at all, it is the Protection Racket that was employed by Al Capone and the Mafia; when criminals sell FREEDOM and PROTECTION that are not a part of the Government it is a crime, and when Government sells FREEDOM and PROTECTION it is oppression and tyranny, a crime by the Government against the people.

All levels of Government in the United States must stop using the "protection racket" to raise resources [money] for funding Government Operation by oppressing and tyrannizing subjects in the General Population in the name of their FREEDOM and PROTECTION in the manner of cheap two-bit thugs in the mafia.

Culture is the problem.

The problem for the Common Population today is much the same as it was in the time of Henry David Thoreau. What I say to both children and adults that ask me for solutions to today's problems is paraphrased as follows from Henry David Thoreau's, "Walden":

If you want more out of life than poverty and endless need that is beyond your means, you must change your wading, webfooted, bog-trotting ways. Start a new life with a new culture. Goad, prod and provoke yourself culturally away from your wading, webfooted, bog-trotting ways into reality and as the sleeper in you is awakened, your poverty and endless need will diminish as your slumber diminishes.

The U. S. Government as indicated in "Education For Extinction" by David Wallace Adams had an American Indian policy in the 19th Century of "Kill The Culture and Keep The Man".

I say that the policy in the 21st Century for the Common Population of the United States must be for the Common Population to "Seed and Grow a New Culture For the Common Population" that reflects the best interest of the Common Population, and as the culture of the Working and Poor Class, the Common Population, grows and develops so will Henry David Thoreau's John Field as a trope for the Working and Poor Class.

I don't recall that President Clinton SERVED any jail time for his conviction of perjury.

So Thomas, What freedom did you give up today? Your statement is bogus. You know why? You are trying to sound more than you are. OK, so you read, big woup. So do millions of others.

Oppressed people also come in the flavor, hard workers that have done well for themselves and then are taxed for it over and over again, such as, Fed Income tax, social security, state tax, road tax, sales tax, death tax so take your philosphy and sell it to the Al Queada group whom need it more than us.

Regardless of what you think about Bush, Clinton, Bush SR, Reagan, Carter, Ford and so on. They all gave amnesty to someone. It is a fact of life, and it is one of the powers given to all Presidents, regardles of political party. Some were convicted for purgery, CIA leaks, etc such as the most recent, and there was drug dealers let off by clinton only hours before leaving the office. So, which one has the most guts, the one that did it only a few hours before he left or the one that did it 17 months before he leaves?

Also, don't ever forget, the Dems have a man in a senate seat that killed a woman, and because of his name, never paid any type of price. He should have atleast gottem Man Slaughter. Edward Kennedy, yes for youngsters that don't know, killed a woman with his car while driving intoxicated and running around on his wife.

So while you Dems are feeling so clean and slippery, just remember, You can say what you want and make all the claims you want, but you will always be a liberal socialist ignorant nobody.

Have a good day

PoliticalBS:

Here is my answer to your last two posts:

Your binary contention is the backbone of the Republican Party and the way of life for Satan. I will not participate in binary contention or emotional rhetoric with you, both are a part of the language of propaganda and are used for pedantic parsing and justifying knowledge that is "worse than useless".

In “Walden", Henry David Thoreau says:

“A man’s ignorance sometimes is not only useful, but beautiful,—while his knowledge, so called, is often times worse than useless, besides being ugly. Which is the best man to deal with,—he who knows nothing about a subject, and, what is extremely rare, knows that he knows nothing, or he who really knows something about it, but thinks he knows all?”

When I was young both children and adults would tell me how smart I was, and still do. My answer to them was then, and now, that when I was young I thought that I knew something, but that as I grew older I realized that I knew nothing.

I say that pedantic parsing of and binary contention over “worse than useless” ugly and mean spirited knowledge is an unproductive and useless pursuit. Talk to those that know nothing and desire to know something of knowledge that has elegance and beauty, rather than those who have “worse than useless” knowledge of which they know something and think that they know all. To be rich in “worse than useless knowledge” is poverty of the spirit. To have any degree of knowledge that is constructive without destructive purpose is elegant and beautiful and is significant of a spirit that is beautiful and elegant on a path that is constructive without destructive purpose to become rich in beautiful and elegant knowledge.

I say, be worthy, if you want to be treated as if you are worthy.

***Can America Be More Than A TROPE???????

A trope is a figurative metaphor that has more than one meaning.

FREEDOM as a trope can be used to express both the absence of oppression and tyranny of American Aristocracy over the Common Population, or the freedom of the American Aristocracy to enforce oppression and tyranny over the Common Population and exploit the Common Population in pursuit of private interests and the interests of capital.

The founding fathers were very much interested in metaphorical tropes that appeared to express the interests of the Common Population while at the same time they embodied private interests and the interests of capital.

During the Revolutionary War Era in Colonial America WE THE PEOPLE was a trope. During the Revolutionary War Era in Colonial America the British and American Aristocracies controlled vast estates that each comprised millions of acres and the Common Population were at this time either abject slaves or wage slaves in service to the British or American Aristocracies. As a trope the American Aristocracy used WE THE PEOPLE to distinguish the American Aristocracy as WE THE PEOPLE to the American Aristocracy, and WE THE PEOPLE as a rhetorical trope to the Common Population to lead the Common Population to believe that the Common Population were WE THE PEOPLE. As a trope WE THE PEOPLE is used to address both the American Aristocracy and the American Work Force of wage slaves as WE THE PEOPLE, so that both constituencies can be addressed at the same time; the American Aristocracy hear WE THE PEOPLE as distinguishing the American Aristocracy's power, control and domination as WE THE PEOPLE over the Common Population of American Wage Slaves, and the Common Population of American Wage Slaves hear WE THE PEOPLE as a trope for HOPE for their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness as a majority Common Population that wants to share in the American dream as WE THE PEOPLE.

The American Aristocracy hear the metaphorical trope of WE THE PEOPLE as an expression that is exclusive, and the Common Population hear the metaphorical trope of WE THE PEOPLE as inclusive of ALL the constituents of the Common Population.

All of the language of the American Revolution against Britain before, during and after the Revolutionary War has been, is and will continue to be used as rhetorical tropes in the same way as WE THE PEOPLE.

Freedom, justice, the American way and WE THE PEOPLE are ALL examples of tropes that mean different things to the American Aristocracy and the American Common Population. The FOUNDING FATHERS' language of tropes to lead the Common Population against its best interest and the American Aristocracy in its best interest must be eliminated in the 21st Century, and a COMMON LANGUAGE without rhetorical tropes must be developed where metaphorical tropes are no longer used by the American Aristocracy as tools of commercial interests and the interest of capital to exploit, tyrannize and oppress the Common Population of the United States by way of thoughts, feelings and beliefs in rhetorical tropes with non-existent benefit for the Common Population, and sole benefit for the American Aristocracy; tropes that are not inclusive of the Common Population and that have exclusive benefit for the American Aristocracy.

Can America be more than a rhetorical trope?

The American Way IS a rhetorical trope. Unless the United States can develop ACTUAL freedom, justice, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the American dream; rather than hollow rhetorical tropes that only provide benefit to the American Aristocracy, America is and will continue to be in a permanent state of decline and turmoil that can only end in the metaphorical equivalent of the Common Population "Storming the Bastille".

U.S. Backed Iraq Oil Law Considered "Robbery" By Union Oil Workers Founder

Friday, July 6th, 2007
Founder of Iraq Oil Workers Union Rejects U.S.-Backed Oil Law as "Robbery"

As the Iraqi cabinet approves part of a controversial oil law, we speak with Faleh Abood Umara, the general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and a founding member of the oil workers union in Iraq. He calls on Iraqi lawmakers to reject the legislation. We also speak with Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union and the first woman to head a national union in Iraq. [includes rush transcript]
In Iraq, opposition is growing among some Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions to a controversial oil law backed by Washington. Draft legislation on the distribution of oil wealth in Iraq was approved by the Iraqi cabinet on Tuesday and could go to parliament for review as early as next week.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the bill "the "most important law in Iraq," and U.S. lawmakers have demanded Iraq advance the measure before Congress approves additional war funding. But critics say the law would leave Iraq's oil open to foreign takeover. A parliamentary boycott by Sunni and Shia factions is expected to slow the bill's passage.

In addition, six Nobel Peace Prize Laureates have released a statement in opposition to the legislation. The laureates include Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Rigoberta Menchu, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi and Wangari Maathai. The statement read, in part, "The Iraq Oil Law could benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people, deny the Iraqi people economic security, create greater instability, and move the country further away from peace."

Last month, the Iraqi oil workers union went on a strike to protest the law. Two leading union members recently traveled to the United States to meet with members of Congress and attend last week's U.S. Social Forum in Atlanta.

Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein is the president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union, she is the first woman to head a national union in Iraq. Faleh Abood Umara is the general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and a founding member of the oil workers union in Iraq. In 1998, he was detained by the Saddam Hussein regime for his activities on behalf of his coworkers. They recently joined us in our firehouse studio. I began by asking Faleh Abood Umara to describe the current situation for oil workers in Iraq and why he is protesting the proposed oil law.

* Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions.
* Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union in Iraq.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: In Iraq, opposition is growing among some Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions to a controversial oil law backed by Washington. Draft legislation on the distribution of oil wealth in Iraq was approved by the Iraqi cabinet Tuesday and could go to parliament for review as early as next week. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the bill "the most important law in Iraq."

US lawmakers have demanded Iraq advance the measure before Congress approves additional war funding, but critics say the law would leave Iraq’s oil open to foreign takeover. A parliamentary boycott by Sunni and Shia factions is expected to slow the bill’s passage.

In addition, six Nobel Peace Prize laureates have released a statement in opposition to the legislation. The laureates include Betty Williams, Mairead Maguire, Rigoberta Menchu, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi and Wangari Maathai. The statement read, in part, "The Iraqi oil law could benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people, deny the Iraqi people economic security, create greater instability and move the country further away from peace.”

Last month, the Iraqi oil workers union went on a strike to protest the law. Two leading union members recently traveled to the United States to meet with members of Congress and attend last week’s US Social Forum in Atlanta. Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein is president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union, the first woman to head a national union in Iraq. Faleh Abood Umara is the general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and a founding member of the oil workers union in Iraq. In 1998 he was detained by Saddam Hussein's regime for his activities on behalf of his coworkers. Well, they recently came to New York and joined us in our firehouse studio. I began by asking Faleh Abood Umara to describe the current situation for oil workers in Iraq and why he’s protesting this proposed oil law.

FALEH ABOOD UMARA: [translated] With regards to the situation of the Iraqi oil workers, they’re persevering in their work and preserving the Iraqi oil wells. The reason we went on strike was to make twenty-seven demands, which we submitted to the Iraqi prime minister. He agreed to them, but the minister of oil did not implement the demands that led to the strike.

The most important point or one of the most important points is our demand not to rush through the new Iraqi oil law, because we believe that this oil law does not serve the interests of the Iraqi people. So we ask our friends in the United States, as well, to stand in solidarity with us and publicize the ill effects of this law, so that it never is agreed upon in the parliament.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain the law.

FALEH ABOOD UMARA: [translated] According to Article 111 of the Iraqi Constitution, which states that the oil and gas of Iraq are owned by the Iraqi people and they have the right to control it. But when you look into the details of the law, many of the articles of the law actually conflict with this preamble of the law, the most important point of which is the issue of the production-sharing agreements, which allows the international oil companies, especially the American ones, to exploit the oil fields without our knowledge of what they are actually doing with it. And they take about 50% of the production as their share, which we think it’s an obvious robbery of the Iraqi oil.

We also object to the procedure by which these companies are given the contracts for exploiting the oil, because it allows the granting of the contracts with the aid of foreign advisers. We demanded that it’s actually the Iraqi experts that need to be consulted with regards to the granting of the contracts.

In brief, there is hardly an article in the law that actually benefits the Iraqi people. But they all serve American interests in Iraq. And we know well that the law was actually written here in the United States, with the help of James Baker and Ms. Rice and the experts from the IMF. And it serves the interests of the American government and not the Iraqi people.

We’re still negotiating with the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi government, and we succeeded in halting the discussion of the law in the parliament until next October. And we hope that we will manage to modify some of the articles of the law. As regards to the strike, we actually declared victory last week.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re also joined by Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, who is the first woman to head a large union in Iraq. It’s the electrical workers union. Can you talk about why you’re here and why you protested at [BearingPoint] Cross, at this military contractor?

HASHMEYA MUHSIN HUSSEIN: [translated] She thanks you for this opportunity to talk. We were invited by the US Labor Against the War to talk directly to the American people about the problems that we’re suffering under the occupation and ask for the support to pressure the American administration to pull out the armed forces out of Iraq.

As regards to the demonstration, it’s an account of our certainty that this company was consulted in the formulation of the Iraqi oil law. There was a technocratic committee that was convened in Iraq, headed by Mr. Barham Salih, the vice president, and this committee consulted many foreign firms, and BearingPoint is one of those companies. That’s why we demonstrated against this company and to ask this company and others to stop interfering with Iraqi affairs, because it’s companies like these, plus the IMF, who are the ones who are pressuring the Iraqi government to pass this law.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about how you came to be head of the electrical workers union as a woman?

HASHMEYA MUHSIN HUSSEIN: [translated] After the fall of the regime in 2003, union committees were formed in September of 2003. I was elected as head of one of these committees, and I was elected as president of the union in 2004, during the founding conference. My term was two years. So after the interim two years, I was elected -- my term was renewed again after that.

AMY GOODMAN: Does it make you a target to be a union leader in Iraq now?

HASHMEYA MUHSIN HUSSEIN: [translated] In the beginning, because our work actually interfered with the interests of some groups in Iraq, we were threatened. But now work is easier.

AMY GOODMAN: Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union, the first woman to head a national union in Iraq, and Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions, speaking -- he’s from Iraq, speaking to us recently in our firehouse studio. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. We’ll return to the rest of that conversation. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Amer Tawfiq, from the soundtrack of the film About Baghdad, co-directed by Sinan Antoon, an Iraqi poet, novelist and filmmaker who will be joining us in our firehouse studio in a few minutes, after we finish the conversation with the two leading Iraqi union members. They were in the United States recently to meet with members of Congress. Faleh Abood Umara is the general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions, founding member of the Oil Workers Union in Iraq. And Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein is the president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union. She’s the first woman to head a national union in Iraq.

I asked her to talk about what the US occupation means in Iraq and to describe the situation in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

HASHMEYA MUHSIN HUSSEIN: [translated] It’s more stable than other places in -- like in Baghdad, because they handed the security over to Iraqi forces security and the British forces were redeployed to the outskirts of the city. But the situation in Iraq, in general, and Basra, just like any other part of Iraq, suffers from the situation. It’s not very good, especially economically. We have about 65% unemployment rate, and nine million Iraqis live in poverty. The services are really bad, especially electricity. So for every hour of electrical current, we have six hours of black out, and sometimes they skip the actual hour of electrical current. And this is really an adverse situation, because it’s really hot and humid in the south.

AMY GOODMAN: And how did that compare under Saddam Hussein?

HASHMEYA MUHSIN HUSSEIN: [translated] The electrical situation was better under Saddam. At least during the night you would have a constant electrical current. And this situation is such, because of the sabotage and exploding the power stations in the center of Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: How has life changed for women in Iraq, in Basra, where you are?

HASHMEYA MUHSIN HUSSEIN: [translated] As a part of the Iraqi society, they suffer like everybody else, but also there were laws that were issued under the occupation that specifically targeted women, especially Law No. 137, which canceled the old civil law and delegated all issues that have to do with civil law to the local communities and religious communities, religious authorities. We took this very seriously and went out in demonstrations until the new law was canceled, but it was reintroduced through the new constitution, and we now demand the cancellation of this article.

As far as women's rights are concerned, women are not completely suppressed. As you can see, I am right here in front of you. And we have 25% of the parliament members who are women, and we seek, we hope that it will soon become 40%. And this is a result of our struggle and determination that women in Iraq will have their rightful place.

AMY GOODMAN: Faleh Abood Umara, your thoughts on the occupation? Do you think US troops would leave immediately? And what would that mean for Iraq?

FALEH ABOOD UMARA: [translated] We consider that the occupation is vile to us. The main problem of Iraq is the occupation. I don’t think there would be extraordinary troubles when or if the occupation forces leave. And even assuming such an occurrence, we can eventually solve our problems ourselves. Our main problem is the occupation.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Faleh Abood Umara, why did you have trouble coming into this country? And are you afraid of returning back to Iraq?

FALEH ABOOD UMARA: [translated] I cannot be afraid of my own country. I love my country, and I’m prepared to lay my life for it.

I think that the technical problem I had had to do with a conversation I had with an American ambassador, because he accused me of not being diplomatic because I used the term "occupation forces," instead of the “multinational forces” or “friendly forces.” So I discovered just before leaving that there was a problem with the termination date on the visa, so I was returned from the airplane, basically, in Amman, and I had to stay three more days in Amman before joining Hashmeya. And thanks to interference and pressure from friendly members of the Congress, who interfered and talked to the embassy over there in Amman, they expedited the correction of the date on the visa so that I could arrive here and give my message to the American people.

AMY GOODMAN: Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions in Iraq, and Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, president of the Electrical Utilities Workers Union, first woman to head a national union in Iraq, speaking recently in our firehouse studio.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/06/1359232

Would someone please tell me how this scumbag of a Press Secretary, Tony Snow, gets the respect that has been afforded him in the past? I do not understand how anyone can treat this guy with any level of respect when all he knows how to do is to help cover up every illegal move this administration makes with some sort of deluded scenario that supposedly "covers" the situation at issue of the day. I have never heard more bullshit pour from the lips of what I used to regard as a human being in my life. How in the world to you people continue to listen to him without exploding?

One thing is the same and will always be the same about Democrats. Taxes, Taxes and more Taxes. Take from anyone that has worked their ass off for 35 years to get where they are, and put them in a higher tax bracket and give it to some one else, or pay for a congressional payraise. You know, when a kid does good, maybe we should give em a butt kicking. Teach that it is bad to do good. Or maybe, when son #1 does good, take it way and give it to son #2 because he don't have one. Son #1 can go earn another. I just wonder............if that is the way the Dems raise their children at home.

Conscious - When I said that Willy there was running a brothel in the White House, that was being sarcastic. But what is not sarcastic is when you said that "lying to the American people is not a crime." The fringe kook lib and the mainstream lib base says all the time that President Bush "lied to the american people and he should be impeached for those lies." You your self just said that lying is not a crime, but here you are demanding the President be impeached for lying. So where do the double standards stop? Presidents, all through history have used the power to pardon. Countless presidents have used that very power, but only when a Republican uses that power do the dems get livid."Oh... Republicans can't do that They can't pardon Scooter Libby...he lied to us. That's abuse of power!" Oh..so it's alright for democrats to pardon terrorists and cons? And another thing...you said the President must be impeached for crimes committed against the American people...WHAT CRIMES? And don't give me this cock and bull story about the Iraq War or wiretapping being a "crime". I want to hear about a real crime committed against us; a la Watergate. And until I hear such, and such has been proven, I will back the President of the United States.

Conscious - One more thing. I do not let Rush do my thinking for me. It just so happens that what Rush says and what is fact just happens to line up 95% of the time. I have my own research methods of finding the dems' skeletons and their closets. And yes, I do throw the lib label around because it is accurate portrayal of this group of people, the democrats. And if you don't think so, then get off this website and out of the political arena, because you don't know what your talking about. If you don't like the lib label, boo frickety hoo. Socialist whackos...

The greatest tragedy is that the Special Prosecutor investigating the CIA leak did not indict the person who actually gave the name of Valerie Plame to the press. When that happens, the country will know that Justice has been done. The whole incident has been a two-faced, cavalier symbol that everyone is a pawn of the cronyism of executive politics. The administration keeps saying that politicians should not decide about the war in Iraq and we should listen to the commanders on the ground. Than why didn't it listen to the Commanders from the beginning? Every former military,CIA and FBI head warned what would happen and were silenced or let go. Congress has the Consitutional duty to oversee the conduct of war. And Generals serve the Consitution.

Generals don't serve the constitution...it's a piece of paper. They swear to uphold and defend the constitution, not serve it. Generals serve the Congress, who in turn, serve the people. And what majority of the American population are military officers and have some inkling of military knowledge they have personally applied in a war zone? maybe 1%. So, yes..you should listen to the general on the ground, because that general on the ground lives, breathes and works in Baghdad. Americans live, breath, and work in the congested craphole that is Los Angeles, or DC, or Seattle, or Boston etc. So, it's fair to surmise that the general knows a little something about the war and what is going on "on the ground", don't you think?

Posting into the realm of relatively obscurity: news:alt.lang.asm
And into an even more obscure topic ...

> Ratch wrote:
>
> You of all people should be old enough to know that evidence can be
> subpoenaed by the Congress or a special prosecutor.

Recent events seem to prove that sentence is completely false. Even
if executive priviledge didn't obstruct justice, the paper, email, and
visitor-log shredders surely would.

Further, I suspect that if the GOP, or Republican HQ, were ever to be
effectively probed, I suspect that the RICO Act would be left bursting
at the seams. But not to worry, the Democrats are, as usual, inept
and incompetent, which is why the GOP is so bold. I think the GOP did
get a little nervous after the last elections, hence why Halliburton
was planning to move to Dubai. In either case, the Dept. of Justice
is just another arm of a very corrupt system.

Personally, I'd like to resurrect the founding fathers. Especially
the ones that lost their lives and the lives of their family members
for signing the Declaration of Independence which formed this country.
If such a thing were to occur, two things become immediately apparent
to me. First, there would be many new construction jobs here in the
US. And second, Hemp would become a popular agricultural product.
And no, not because you can smoke it (lest ye spin) - many a Schooner
was rigged with miles of rope made from Hemp. All those construction
projects would need a lot of rope. Then Libby, Powell, Cheney, etc.
could have a choice - tell the truth, or face the gallows, with those
ropes of Hemp. There's no lack of evidence, just a lack of justice.

The most concerning issue facing us internally is an election coming
up in 2008 with electronic voting machines. For all of you in the
technology field, or *in the know* as it were, how scary is that?

Rico Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

- Jascwa

[Disclaimer] - I am neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. Just an
average US citizen deeply ashamed of the Executive, Judicial, and
Legislative branches of this government, and, at ALL levels: Federal,
State, and Local.

> "Ratch"

I like your email address.

> What events are those?

Those in the news. Subpeona's blocked, logs destroyed, etc. You know
the drill.

> Executive priviledge exists for a reason.

In this case, yes - keeping them from being exposed, right? Kinda
like in the Nixon Watergate days.

> It can be broken for good cause.

What exactly can be broken?

> Getting rid of evidence to conceal a crime is risky because it can
> be prosecuted..

It can be prosecuted if it can be proven. It can be proven if there
is evidence. But alas, there can be no evidence, because there is
executive priviledge. See MC Hammer lyrics - "U Can't Touch This" -
Perhaps they should use that as the theme song at the GOP convention.

> Not just to GOP.

Right now, that's where all the evidence points - When you have
Hassert (Speaker) & crew protecting and defending Foley (Pedophile) -
it's not to difficult for the average American like myself to draw my
own conclusions about the severity of issues were discussing.

> Just about everyone in political power has something to hide.

Possibly because everyone is human. Honestly the Bill and Monica
thing really didn't phase me that much. But Foley - that was a big
big boom boom, right in the middle of the halls of Congress.

> Until a strong independent political investigative bureau (not the
> FBI) comes into being, it will continue business as usual.

Great another level of bureaucracy - the head of which is appointed by
the President, right? In either case, I referred to the DOJ as being
corrupt, of which the FBI is but a finger. Probably the thumb.

> The corruption exists in other legislative bodies throughout the
> world too.

I don't live around the world, but thanks for the information.

> Resurrecting someone from 250 years ago is going to do what to
> solve problems in the present world?

Simple. I would trust the framers of the Constitution to suspend that
which they felt was being abused by a system which they themselves
paid dearly to ensure could never occur here in the US. And yet, here
we are.

> No one is required to testify at his/her trial, so no truth or
> falsehood need be uttered. Telling lies is not a capital offence

That's the beauty of it. The framers could make that determination.
Since the current administration dispenses with this article or that,
I'm sure the framers would see fitting to return the favor. Then
telling lies under oath could be a capital offense for our capital
offenders. I'm quite certain Libby knew he'd never see the
inside of a jail cell long before he went to trial. But if he knew he
would be facing the gallows, I'm pretty sure he would have sang like a
song bird.

> Hemp was grown and used during WWII. Trouble is, a field of
> industrial hemp looks just like a field of drug hemp. It takes a
> sophisticated lab to tell the difference.

Do tell. A sophisticated lab, really? I would think that the
difference between Ragweed and Maui-Wowi would be rather obvious.

> Those problems are well known, and will probably be heavily
> scrutinized by the losers. Expect recording printers to be
> required.

And the comfort in that expectation lies where. Could you provide
some technical justification for implying that having a recording
printer should alleviate my concerns as a voter?

I mean McDonald's gives me a receipt and a printed grill ticket which
says I ordered a Quarter Pounder with NO PICKLES, and yet I open the
box and there's my Quarter Pounder WITH PICKLES on it.

Anyway, as a programmer, I'm fairly certain that I can prove, that you
can't prove, that my vote will be accurately counted. But please, do
attempt to alleviate my concerns.

Anyway, I haven't been to the Circle Pines area lately - how's the
weather there?

- Scott

PoliticalBS:

As always, you are talking about your own diseased "Ronald RayGun Agenda". Calling Democrats your own family names -- nothing new in what you have to say.

BTW, you have a really appropriate name.

RushBaby:

Generals SERVE BUSH, the "Commander N Thief".

ASPECTS of CULTURE that are Passed Down from GENERATION To GENERATION

Aspects of Culture

1. Form of Government based upon U.S. Constitution.

2. Infrastructure of Government for City, County, State & Federal Governments, such as: Buildings, Roadways, Bridges, Waterways, Waterworks, Dams and Levies, etc.

3. Infrastructure of Commercial Interests and the Interests of Capital that comprise all of the cities throughout the United States.

4. Public Institutions of Government and Private Institutions of Commercial Interests and the Interests of Capital.

ALL of the above are “aspects of culture” that are used to CONTROL the 70% Majority Common Population that are passed down from GENERATION to GENERATION.

The question that must be asked is what are the “aspects of culture” that SUPPORT the 70% Majority Common Population that are passed down from GENERATION to GENERATION?

Trees have “aspects of culture”, but what “aspects of culture” do the 70% Majority Common Population have that can be passed down from GENERATION to GENERATION?

Sadly, I think there is nothing. Perhaps someone on this democratic blog can locate an “aspect of culture” that SUPPORTS the 70% Majority Common Population, but I doubt that anything will emerge other than triviality. Never the less, try.

The "culture of nature" is passed down by GOD in the genetic code of people from GENERATION to GENERATION, and in all other things in nature other than people, that are both animate and inanimate; a cultural heritage exists in nature that passes from GENERATION to GENERATION. The only area where culture has been expunged is in the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States. Cultural Design accounts for the 70% Majority Common Population of the United States having “NO cultural aspects” to pass down from GENERALTION to GENERATION, and both the cause and effect as an explanation of why can be found in such books as:

“The Making of Citizens” by Charles Edward Merriam

“Education For Extinction” by David Wallace Adams

“A Treatise of Human Nature” by David Hume

The 70% Majority Common Population must not allow themselves to be excluded from "cultural aspects" and a "cultural heritage" by Cultural Design.

Even dirt and rocks pass down from generation to generation.

In the "culture of people", must the 70% Majority Common Population be below dirt and rocks by Cultural Design to fulfill the requirements of Freedom and Democracy in the United States of America?

Thomas G. Miller