Esenberg Knows Better

By Jeff Simpson 

As we have documented numerous times, JSonline keeps allowing the Bradley funded mouthpieces to push propaganda.  From Christian Schneider never making a salient point to Rick Esenberg trying to.  
The latest assault on the truth comes from Mr. Esenberg.  In a piece entitled "Free Speech for Me But Not For Thee". he attempts to make a correlation between campaigns being allowed to coordinate secretely with dark money donors and the press being allowed to keep theur sources secret.

But why should the media - corporations who already have a great big soap box - have greater rights than those who must rent that soap box? Again, it is necessary to balance the risk of corruption against the rights of persons to freely associate and speak. The strong presumption should be in favor of free expression, but, however that cashes out, it is not clear why some people called the "media" should have greater freedom than others who are not.
But even if you dispute my view of the matter, a sixty second "phony issue" ad pointing out another view would seem as relevant to the public's right to know and as much a contribution to our public discourse as anything in the pages of the Washington Post or seen during the nightly news.
Nor can we assume that the media is not a "special interest." Just about anyone - including people with a variety of interests - can own a media company. In any event, what the New York Times wants is not intrinsically of greater value than what George Soros or David Koch want. It should have no greater First Amendment rights.

 Because there is no one left (except for Rowan) on the left side of the aisle in the JSonline to dispute this ridiculousness, lets take a minute to do so.

Does anyone really think the New York Times, the supposed paper of record, has the same interests in getting a story out as Soros or Koch?  

The media's value is in their ability to give us the "news".   In order to have real value, we have to trust that what the media is giving us is true and timely(Fox News being the obvious exception).  Not only do these news organizations have to be true and timely, their reporters, have to give us true and timely news as part of their brand also.

A 60 second phony issue ad, usually has one goal in mind, to smear an opponent of the person they want to get elected.   Truth actually works against the idea of a dark money ad.   The fact that the issues are at best skewed and more likely flat out lies is why the people who fund the dark money ads do not want to be ackowledged.   It is much easier to lie and smear when no one knows who is behind it.  

Let's look at a couple examples.

In the lead up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration realized how important the NY Times was as a paper of record.  They then found a reporter, Judy Miller, who they would feed false stories too, and she would print without verification because she trusted her sources.   These stories of doom and gloom and WMD's in Iraq were blatantly false, but helped sell the public on starting the war of choice.  
We know now, that he stories were false, her informants were lying and she is now a disgraced reporter who will never write for a news organization again and the New York Times credibility took a huge hit.

Now let's compare that to a phone issue ad.

While we know WMC paid for the ad, we do not know everyone involved or who is spending the most money there.  We also know that the "information" inside this ad is as phony as any story that Judith Miller wrote.  

Yet while Judy Miller was disgraced for life, ads like this help get Scott Walker elected.  

To compare the media with WI Club for Growth, or  Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce is not only laughable, Mr. Esenberg knows better.  

Now for solutions.  While I do not think we should stop people from spending money on ads, as human beings, I do believe when we have a forum, we should at least make an attempt at the truth.

Simply by signing names and disclosing donors to these issue ads would make sure that happens.   When you have to sign your name to something then you need to take responsibility for the contents.  

The irony is not lost on me that the self proclaimed "party of personal responsibility" never wants to actually take any.  

The retaliation argument also falls on deaf ears, after the current Republican party has spent six years trying to punish anyone who signed the recall petition against Governor Walker.  

Karl Rove - Chickenhawk

Hindsight is 20/20!

By Jeff Simpson

And we can now see that the Dixie Chicks were 100% correct! 

"Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence. And we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

 

It didn't matter that the evidence to invade Iraq was questionable or that Maines later apologized. The damage was done, and one of the most popular acts in the country became its most hated. Its music was banned from radio, CDs were trashed by bulldozers, and one band member's home was vandalized. Maines introduced "Soldier" with a call for peace, but she would soon find that the group needed metal detectors installed at entrances to shows on its stateside tour because of death threats.

Thank Goodness the hate group Free Republic(that was behind these attacks) was  down for awhile!   How they acted was shameful! 

A little bit of trivia - writing about the Dixie Chick fiasco was one of  my first blog posts, long before I had ever heard of bloggingblue or CogDis.  

Iraq Deficit!

As John Fugelsang notes, if you supported the Iraq war, you have no business complaining about our deficit!

"Dear Mr. President"

Only the most hate-filled people could watch this video and not be moved:



Methinks that there are some people that don't like President Obama just because of his success.

Quick To Damn, Slow To Praise

During the recent pirate incident, the right were all over President Obama, condemning him for not blowing up everyone, pirates and hostages alike, or mocking him for not being a cowboy like Bush was.

I am still waiting for one, just one, to give the credit to him and apologize for speaking out of turn now that the last hostage has been freed unharmed, through the use of force as ordered by President Obama (emphasis mine):

Navy snipers on the fantail of a destroyer cut down three Somali pirates in a lifeboat and rescued an American sea captain in a surprise nighttime assault in choppy seas Easter Sunday, ending a five-day standoff between a team of rogue gunmen and the world's most powerful military.

It was a stunning ending to an Indian Ocean odyssey that began when 53-year-old freighter Capt. Richard Phillips was taken hostage Wednesday by pirates who tried to hijack the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama. The Vermont native was held on a tiny lifeboat that began drifting precariously toward Somalia's anarchic, gun-plagued shores.

The operation, personally approved by President Barack Obama, quashed fears the saga could drag on for months and marked a victory for the U.S., which for days seemed powerless to resolve the crisis despite massing helicopter-equipped warships at the scene.

I also can't help but believe that if this had happened a year earlier, Bush/Cheney would have found this as the excuse they were seeking to invade Iran and get us stuck in yet another quagmire.

International Women's Day (Plus One)

Yesterday was International Women's Day, but it's not too late to commemorate it. From the inbox:

International Women's Day Action

Global Gender Caste Action

Please tell your friends about the petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/savenow/

To: U.S. Government and United Nations

We call upon America's government representatives and the international representatives of the United Nations to recognize the global threat of oppression and violence to women from Islamic supremacism.

We demand that they pass national and international resolutions condemning Islamic supremacism as a threat to women everywhere. We demand that these world leaders recognize the existence of Islamic supremacism, and we demand that they take measures to protect the women of the world from the Islamic supremacist ideology.

Women are being oppressed, beaten, murdered in America and around the world in the name of Islamic supremacism. Being "sorry" is not enough. We call upon the leaders of the world to take responsibility to SAVE WOMEN NOW from this cruel, vicious, and deadly ideology of Islamic supremacism.

Sign Here

http://www.petitiononline.com/savenow/

Read more about the action here involving 2 marches - in London and Wash DC here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/03/04/save-women-now-the-march-8th-washington-dc-rally-means-muslim-women/

More can be found here.

In a related matter, women are truly suffering in Iraq as they recover from the years of neglect and abuse under Hussein, but also for the long, long war that we started over there. From the New York Times

The higher levels of stress and mental illness among women, common in many postconflict societies, may be even higher in Iraq because of the long period of war, according to a study to be released Sunday by the nonprofit research group Oxfam

and Amal, an Iraqi nonprofit group that concentrates on issues of concern to women.

Despite the recent increase in stability in Iraq, many women have seen their circumstances worsen over the past two years, according to the study, which surveyed 1,700 women in five provinces and was completed last May.

More than three decades of war have made widows of an estimated 740,000 women and left many others fatherless or without brothers to look after them, said Olga Ghazaryan, Oxfam’s regional director for the Middle East.

The survey found that more than three-quarters of all widows were not receiving pensions, and a third of the women surveyed had three hours or less electricity per day. Quality health care is harder to obtain than it was in 2006 and 2007, they said.

“These widows take care not only of their children but often of their extended family so they are bearing a heavy burden,” Ms. Ghazaryan said. The responsibility of finding food for the family and obtaining electricity and water puts great stress on women.

Beyond that, she said, “many of these women have lost loved ones and seen what happened to them, they have seen family members killed in front of them and that’s a tremendous burden.”

Marine General Wants To Cut And Run

I saw this story over the weekend (emphasis mine):

Iraq is stable enough to allow the roughly 22,000 U.S. Marines there to withdraw, the service's top general said Friday.

"The time is right for Marines in general terms to leave Iraq," said Marine Corps Commandant James Conway.

This is good news. Now, maybe, we can start going after the people that caused 9/11.

But, it strikes me that just a week ago, even has Bush was about to be relieved of his duties as POTUS, we were being warned that pulling out of Iraq would be too dangerous.

It either means that Obama is the deity that the right keep insisting that he is, and was able to change Iraq around in four days, or that Bush was lying. Again.

Spreading Democracy, Bush Style

Including the Iraqi version of the Patriot Act.

Coming to an occupation near you.

If This Is Winning The War, I'd Hate To See Losing The War

A couple, three days ago, the AP put out an analysis that we are winning the war in Iraq.

Today, they celebrated the news in Iraq, with a string of suicide bombings that killed dozens and injured many, many more.

Meanwhile, even McCain admits that things are getting worse in Afghanistan.

If this is winning, what the hell would losing look like?

And does anyone honestly believe no matter how long we keep troops in Iraq, that we would ever be able to bring a lasting peace to the region?

That Was Then, This Is Now

That was then.

Fourteen months ago, Bush said that if Iraq were to request the U.S. troops would be removed, of course they would be removed. After all, we were there as Iraq's "guests" (emphasis mine):

In an interview last month with PBS's Charlie Rose, President Bush said the U.S. would leave Iraq if asked to do so by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"This is a guy," said Bush of Maliki on April 24, "who has been elected by the people. And it's a sovereign nation. And we're there at their request. The truth of the matter is, if they said 'get out now, we're tired of coalition presence, the U.S.'s presence is counterproductive,' we would leave."

Bush then quickly followed up those comments by confirming for Rose that he does not think Maliki will ask the U.S. to leave because to do so, in his view, would lead to catastrophe.

"That's why he's not going to say it," said Bush.

This is now.

Iraq is demanding a timeline for the removal of the troops. Not at all surprisingly, Bush is refusing. From the AP, via JSOnline (again, emphasis mine):

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

But then again, is anyone really surprised that Bush is caught up in yet another lie.

And as the saying goes, "Bush lied, people died". Bush continues to lie, people continue to die.

And for those of the right who say that the left doesn't get it, I'm sorry, but we get it all too well. Later in the AP article:

In northern Baghdad Tuesday, guards opened fire, wounding 13 people when a crowd seeking aid payments for the poor, widows, orphans and disabled people became unruly, Iraqi officials said.

The U.S. military said a soldier had died from injuries sustained when a roadside bomb hit a troop convoy in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says five other soldiers were wounded in Tuesday's attack in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Amiriyah.

When will enough be enough?

Addendum: Grumps has his take on the issue as well.