Iraq snapshot - March 8, 2012
The Common Ills
Thursday, March 8, 2012. Chaos and
violence continue, Josh Rogin is an embarrassment whore and Foreign
Policy is not about journalism, Iraqi women reject the government spin,
the US Congress hears about burial issues, was Dennis Kucinich's
Tuesday loss a great blow to the left, and more.
In
2009 and 2010, US House Rep John Hall was the Chair of the House
Veterans Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and memorial Affairs.
With others on the Subcommittee, including former US House Rep Steve
Buyer, they raised many important issues. We'll drop back to September 24, 2009 to note one example:
During the first panel, US House Rep Steve Buyer opened with a visual display showing various cemeteries. Normandy American Cemetery, Arlington National Cemetery, Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery.
These were "beautiful" and up to standard. He then went to a national
cemetery run by the Department of the Interior, Andersonville National
Cemetery. Pointing to the dingy, dirty headstones, "This should not
matter that this is the marker of someone who died in the Civil War. It
shouldn't matter. It shouldn't matter if it was someone who died in
the Revolution or someone who died that's interned in Mexico City." He
then "So when you said in your testimony that you gently, finely clean
the markers, well that's going to take you a lot of time. This is not a
standard for which we should have in America. I think Mr. Cleland, if
you saw that in one of yours, you would just freak out." Buyer
explained that he complained about the weeds and the result was they
pulled out everything, including the grass.
If
you can't take the heat and embarrassment from the shoddy work noted
above, what do you do? Maybe you do like the National Park Service did
too and skip a Congressional hearing. The Subcommittee Chair noted that
they were invited but they decided they wouldn't attend today. The
first panel was made up of government officials who were willing to
attend, the Veteran Affairs Dept's Steven Muro (Under Secretary for the
National Cemetery Administration), the Pentagon's Kathryn Condon
(Executive Director of Army and National Cemeteries Program) and the
American Battle Monuments Commissions' Deputy Secretary Raymond Wollman.
In
the 2010 mid-terms, control of the House flipped to the Republicans and
some House members chose not to seek re-election and others did not win
their re-election races (that applies to Buyer and Hall). US House
Rep Jon Runyan is now the Chair of the Subcommittee and Jerry McNerney
is the Ranking Member.
Chair
Jon Runyan: We are here today to examine the current state of our
final resting place for our nation's heroes. These cemeteries and
monuments span across our country and the entire world: from my own
District in New Jersey with Beverly National Cemetery; to across the
Atlantic in Normandy, France; or across the Pacific with Clarke Veterans
Cemetery in the Philipines. Some of these cemeteries instantly bring
to mind the triumph of courage in conflicts fought around the globe for
liberty and freedom. Others hold memories of bravery now known only to
God and those who died on the field of battle. Others hold memories
of bravery now known only to God and those who died on the field of
battle. Yet each one of these national shrines has this in common: They
are all honored tributes to our service men and women now resting in
peace.
He
would go on to explain that audits reveal more than "240 mismarked or
unmarked graves and 8 veterans or their loved ones buried in the wrong
place. Again, this was not a failing of just one national cemetery, but
at 13 NCA cemeteries nationwide. Ladies and gentlemen, there is a
pattern here and I find it totally unacceptable."
The following exchange was typical of the responses offered in the hearing.
Chair
Jon Runyan: I want to start with Under Secretary Muro. Currently NCA
is performing 39 raise and realignment projects. Could you discuss what
is being done to make sure the problems related to the prior raise and
realignment projects are not repeated?
Steven
Muro: Thank you for the question, sir. The first thing we've done is
ensure that the headstones are not taken from the grave sight. So
they're maintained on the grave sight. The second thing is we're
requiring the COR -- which is the Contracting Officer's Representative
at the site -- to do a daily check at the end of the day at the site
before they leave to ensure that the headstones are on the correct grave
sight.
Chair
Jon Runyan: Were you able to identify all of the contractors who were
involved in all of the previous raise and realignment projects where the
errors occurred that actually uncovered and started this national
audit.
Steven
Muro: Yes, we were able to uncover the contractors that had done the
work. Some of them had done multiple cemeteries and we didn't have an
issue at other cemeteries but we were able to identify them.
Chair
Jon Runyan: That -- And what are you doing to ensure that none of
these -- none of these contractors involved during the initial errors
are involved in the future raise and realignments? And are you going to
reach out to the same ones or do we have to make sure that obviously we
have the system of checks and balances and that in there? Because, I
mean, rewarding bad behavior sometimes becomes, unfortunately, a bad
pattern around here.
Steven
Muro: Two things we've done. Some of them didn't rebid other
contracts. But the ones that have? We have been watching them at the
other cemeteries where they didn't have problems. Plus, if they have a
site now, we're making sure that they're doing it --
Chair Jon Runyan: So you're still -- you're still offering them?
Steven
Muro: Unfortunately, if they did an error and we didn't catch it, it
became our responsibility once they left and we signed off on it. So
that's where we're holding our employees accountable for that issue.
Chair Jon Runyan: But you're still offering the same contractors --
Steven
Muro: Actually, most of the contractors that did the first rounds
aren't in the business anymore. A lot of them couldn't keep up with the
standard that we set and have not rebid their contracts.
Chair
Jon Runyan: What is the process of accountabily once personnel are
identified who directly led to some of the failings uncovered by the
national audit?
Steven
Muro: Whenever -- Whenever an aerror is found at the national
cemeteries, it's reported up through the chain and then we -- we double
check to make sure everything they think they found, we do ask differet
questions to verify. Then when we are sure that it is an error, we make
sure we advise Congress of the error and this committee. And we also
work with the families, we contact the families -- where there are
families available -- and we talk to the families. If it's just the
headstone, once we move it -- We advise them before we move it and
after we've moved it that it's been corrected. And then if it's cremated
remains or a body that needs to be relocated -- the eight that we
did, we contact the family and we have a funeral director there. If the
family wishes us to use the original funeral director there -- if
they're still in business we do. Otherwise we hire a local one from
the area.
Chair Jon Runyan: But to the personal accountability, there's nothing being done there?
Steven
Muro: Yes, there is. We're holding those employees there are still
employed there accountable for the error and for not catching the error.
Chair Jon Runyan: You have any examples of that?
Steven Muro: We're in the process of doing the investigation to take the appropriate adminstrative action on those employees.
If
you're not feeling like accountability is taking place, you're not
alone. Runyan's expressions throughout were often of disbelief. And
what of Ranking Member Jerry McNerney? He noted that this was a follow
up to the September 24, 2009 hearing and he would also note that "the
value of the current $300 burial allowance and $300 plot allowance for
qualifying veterans has diminished as funeral and burial costs have
increased -- negatively affecting the survivors left behind."
He
is correct. However, if you go back to our snapshot of that Septemeber
24, 2009 hearing, one of the first things you'll find is this:
"Subcommittee Chair Hall also noted that the VA's $300 for a funeral
plot and $300 for burial does not begin to cover the costs."
This was known in 2009. It's three years later. Why has this not been addressed?
One
new detail that did come up was when the Department of Defense's
Kathyrn Condon informed the Subcommittee that the average wait time is
98 days for the burial of a veteran not killed in action. 98 days
seems like a very long time.
Back in 2009, then public editor of the New York Times Clark Hoyt weighed in
on the issue of anonymous sources. He noted that the paper's "policy
says anonymous sources should be used only as 'a last resort when the
story is of compelling public interest and the information is not
available any other way'." Does Foreign Policy not have a policy on anonymous sourcing?
"This is tough enough without paid advocates making it worse" is what Josh Rogin presents
"one official" in the government telling him. Are there any standards
at Foreign Policy. Is Josh Rogin just allowed write any damn thing?
He's now, yet again, attacking Camp Ashraf and this time he's gong after
their public supporters. And the poor little White House and State Dept
are just so so so worn down by these awful, awful advocates.
Not
only was the quote unneeded, not only did it violate the basic policies
(in journalism) on anonymous sourcing, it also part of yet another
catty attack on Camp Ashraf from someone who's been allowed to launch
many already.
Here's
another reality for Josh Rogin: If the United Nations is monitoring
Camp Liberty -- where some residents of Camp Ashraf are being relocated
-- then you talk to the UN to confirm that.
Unless
you're a an idiot, you do not run with this, "While there are some
legitimate problems at the camp, the ["Obama administration"] official
admitted, the U.N. has been monitoring Camp Liberty's water sewage, and
food systems on a daily basis and the condtions are better than the MEK
is portraying." How the hell is that sourcing?
Did
Josh ever get his work fact checked? Or did the little punk cry and
piss his briefs to get his way with every editor he ever had? The White
House is not monitoring by that statement; therefore, the White House
cannot tell you what is or isn't going on. If you want to talk -- on
the record or off -- about what the UN has found, you go to a UN
source. This is basic. And what Josh has offered is bulls**t.
If
you doubt it, this section of his 'report' is a character attack and
you don't allow anonymous officials to launch character attacks:
"The
Americans who ought to know better and claim to be on the side of good
solutions are really damaging it. Either they are too lazy or too
arrogant to actually do their homework. They don't spend the time to
learn facts, they just pop off. They accept the MEK line without
question and then they posture," the official said. "We have a plan that
has a chance to work and the Iraqis want it to work. The MEK ... it's
not clear. And in this situation they are being badly advised by the
people whose names appear in these ads."
I
know Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Patrick Kennedy, Ed Rendell, John Lewis
and Evan Bayh. (I know Lee Hamilton but I loath him.) They're among
the public advocates for Camp Ashraf residents to be treated fairly.
It's
strange because I spoke to two about this little 'report' from Joshy
Posh and, thing is, he didn't try to get a comment from them. He just,
like a good little whore, wrote down what the government wanted him to
write down -- no questions asked. Whores don't ask questions, they just
take your money.
The White House has refused to honor international law. Last week, we called out Hillary for making an idiot of herself and the US terrorist list
by stating that whether or not Camp Ashraf residents were taken off
that list would depend upon how they 'behaved' as the Iraqi government
relocated them -- the same government that's already twice attacked them
and -- as the United Nations publicly acknowledges -- the same
government that's killed at least 49 Camp Ashraf residents.
No,
that's not how you determine terorrism. If Josh Rogin weren't such a
little whore, he'd be writing about that, he'd be pursuing that.
Instead, he launches another attack on a group of people who are
defenseless. And, at some point, the argument's going to be made -- and
I could do it right now and do it in terms of the law -- that Camp
Ashraf residents aren't on the terrorist list. The MEK is. The MEK is
on it for activites that don't involve Camp Ashraf. When that argument
gets made, the White House has even less to hide behind.
Somehow
the State Dept refusing to comply with a court order from 2010 to
conduct and complete a review of the status of the MEK isn't a concern
to a whore like Josh Rogin. It's not even worth mentioning to him.
Camp
Ashraf residents are protected under international law, that's
reality. Josh Rogin doesn't have to like them, doesn't have to support
whatever it is they support. All he has to do is recognize the law.
Once he does that he can respect or reject the law. But there is
nothing in his mental midget ditherings to ever imply, infer or openly
suggest that the idiot knows the first thing he's writing about. But
he's so very good at working in every point the White House wants made.
Here's
what so damn embarrassing about Josh Posh's latest crap-fest, the White
House is complaining that citizens -- that's what Howard Dean and
company are -- are being active in politics. They're using their First
Amendment rights. And that's what has the White House bitching, whining
and moaning. They need to grow the hell up. In a democracy, what
they're facing right now should happen on every issue and if they hadn't
dragged their feet on this issue, maybe they wouldn't be fighting such a
strong push now.
It's
hard to tell when Josh is lying because he's so damn stupid. But at
one point, when he's listing the 'paid advocates' and their activities,
he goes off about sitting in on Congressional hearings. Those aren't
paid advocates and that didn't start this year, it didn't start last
year. It's been going on forever and maybe if Josh Rogin didn't take
swallow everything the White House sticks in his mouth, he'd know that.
Then again, maybe not. As I said, it's always had to tell when he's
lying or when he's just showing how very stupid he is.
I've
noted this before, I'll note it again before someone wonders, I have
not received any money from Camp Ashraf or MEK or anything to do with
them. I don't take money for things like that. I don't take money
period. I don't take money for speaking -- I pay my own travel, I pay
my own lodging. Nor do I speak on behalf of Camp Ashraf. The law is the
law and who knew Foreign Policy would decide that international law
wasn't to be respected?
Today was International Women's Day. Salam Faraj (AFP) reports
that Iraqi women refused to be silent puppets in their government's
attempt to distort the record and use them as props. While the
Baghdad-government attempted to spin, Iraqi women gathered together for
their own conference. Hanaa Edwar
was among the brave women gathered to tell the truth and she tells AFP,
"Iraqi women suffer marginalisation and all kinds of violence,
including forced marriages, divorces and harassment, as well as
restrictions on their liberty, their education, their choice of
clothing, and their social life." It's an important article and, if you
use any link in this snapshot, please use that link.
We covered International Women's Day this morning.
The only thing to add to that is that Iraqi women are very strong and
it's shame they have to be so strong yet again. Their countries been
attacked so many times, they've had to live through crippling sanctions,
the US-picked ruler does nothing to improve the lives of Iraqis (via
jobs or basic services) and the US assisted the "brain drain" -- where
large portions of Iraq's educated class left the country -- by
installing and building up theocratic thugs. Not only that, the US
government actively sought to undercut Iraqi women when the country's
Constitution was being written. On top of all that, they have to deal
with bombings, with shootings, with threats, with the never-ending
attacks just for being a woman.
That
they get up each day and start the struggle all over is a testatment to
their spirit and strength and they are surely (once again) making the
country a better place for their children. Hopefully, when their
children are adults, the US will not again attack Iraq in an illegal war
thereby destroying all the hard earned progress these women are and
will be making possible. They are Iraq's heart and soul, its leaders
and its dreamers.
Today's violence included a rocket attack on Kirkuk's air base, a Kirkuk sticky bombing claimed 1 life and 1 soldier and 1 bystander shot dead in Ninewa.
Turning
to the US, Tuesday in Ohio, US House Reps Dennis Kucinich and Marcy
Katpur faced off against one another in a primary. Both incumbent
Democrats ended up in the same district due to redistricting. Only one
could run for a spot representing the newly designed district in
November. Marcy won the primary and will go on to compete for the vote
this fall. Dennis cannot represent Ohio now althogh there are rumors he
might attempt to run in Washington state. Marcy and Dennis both
represented their constitutents. In what follows, we're not discussing
Dennis Kucinich as "your Congress member" but as the national politician
-- a spot he actively sought.
Theo Anderson (In These Times) wonders
who the next Dennis will be and thinks/hopes it will be US House Rep
Tammy Badlwin. I would hope not. I was not impressed with National
Dennis. National Dennis did vote against the 2002 Iraq Authorization
and applause for that. But so what? Did he filibuster to end the war?
No. In 2008, former US Senator Mike Gravel would repeatedly explain
how you can filibuster to stop the authorization vote for the war
spending. Dennis didn't do that. Did he do anything? He spoke. Often
and well. Little else.
In 2004, he ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. This is, as Rebecca's
explained many times, is why I truly do not care for National
Dennis. After he failed to make much of a dent in terms of votes, he
assured his supporters he would make an impact on the platform and on
the convention and blah blah blah. Rebecca and I were at the 2004 DNC
convention and dealt with the saddest non-physically injured person at a
convention we've ever seen -- a Kucinnich supporter who couldn't
believe Dennis would sell them out. Dennis did what was best for
Dennis. That's all he ever did. Paul D'Amato (International Socialsit Review) analyzed Kucinich's sell-out of beliefs and principals and, yes, supporters at the 2004 DNC convention and concluded:
This
is indeed the role of all left-leaning Democratic candidates. George
McGovern in 1968 and Jesse Jackson in 1988, to mention a couple, did the
same thing: corraling millions of votes by making a Left or populist
appeal, and then handing those votes to the centrist party choice at
convention time. The process is predictable. First the Left-Democrat
presents his candidacy as one that can push the party to the Left and
pressure it to take on issues it otherwise would not. Then, on the
fateful convention day, it is revealed that the dynamic is actually the
opposite: the party co-opts the Left, drags it to the right, and neuters
it. In the end, it has absolutely no influence on the party's platform
or trajectory. All the talk about campaigning for the Democrat as being
"part of the movement" for labor rights, against war, for women's
rights, and so on, is revealed to be a lie. The truth is that backing
the Democrat is aimed at defusing the fight for a genuine
alternative. Those who realize this become demoralized and depressed,
and when the next presidential election roles around, a new crop of
enthusiasts are found who can be convinced that this is the "most
important election of your lifetime," and the whole process begins
again. It is a seamless trap.
This
is a textbook case of how to kill any attempt to build a third-party
alternative that really represents working-class interests. The Mariah
Williamses are right to believe that we have virtually one pro-corporate
party. And it is the job of the Dennis Kuciniches to make sure that the
Mariah Williamses fail to break from that party by wagging a left tail
behind the mainstream dog.
That
was 2004. Then came his attempt to run for the 2008 Democratic Party
presidential nomination. And we treated him fairly here (check the
archives) despite the fact that I can't stand National Dennis. He was
the peace candidate, he swore. But right from the start, he proved it
wasn't a real campaign. Before the caucus vote in Iowa, well before it,
he was telling his supporters to vote for Barack Obama. They would
support Dennis in the first round and then go over to Barack. Mike
Gravel was a peace candidate. You could make the case that Bill
Richardson or John Edwards were. But Barack Obama had voted for every
Iraq War measure that came before him. And Dennis knew it. So it was
offensive that way. It was also offensive in the "I release you
minions" manner. But what it really did was demonstrate that Dennis
wasn't a real candidate. You don't do that if you're a real
candidate. And Dennis had sworn he was going to fight for every vote.
Then he wanted to whine that the networks were excluding him. You
competed in Iowa by giving your supporters away to another campaign.
You're not a real candidate. The networks were under no obligation to
cover him. I love Rosenne Barr. But with her announcing that she wants Jill Stein
to win the Green Party nomination, that says to me, "You're not a real
candidate." And that's fine. But time is limited as are resources and
there's no reason to cover candidates who aren't trying to win the
nomination. It short changes those who actually are trying to run.
There
have been many key issues since Barack Obama was sworn in as US
President in January 2009. One of them was ObamaCare. The US needs to
address health care. From the left, many of us believe the only way to
control costs is to supply universal, single-payer health care and the
easiest way to get that is to lower the age for Medicare. (You can
raise the age on CHIPS and other state programs that cover children.)
If you do not have the guts or the votes to go to single-payer system
immediately, you go incremental with Medicare lowering the age ten
years. You up the age for the children's health programs and pretty
soon you're dealing with a 15 or 20 year gap and, of course, it is only
fair to everyone that those people be covered so you do one more
incremental and you've basically got everyone covered. That's simple
and you're not selling the American people on a new plan, you're just
expanding one that already has a strong record of serving seniors.
That's
nothing like what Barack proposed. Though he used the buzzword
"universal health care" at the DNC in Denver in 2008, he wasn't going to
provide that and he hasn't. What did he do? Prior to ObamaCare, you
could purchase insurance or not. Now you have to puchase it. He pushed
a law the Congress passed (which hopefully the Supreme Court will toss
out) forces all Americans to buy insurance. It turns you into consumers
of the insurance companies, it leads you like lambs to slaughter. It
is of no help to anyone. Strangely enough, when Mitt Romeny pulled this
crap as governor, my own local Pacifica, KPFA, couldn't shut up about
how wrong that was. Despite the fact that we're in the Bay Area of
California and what Massachusetts does really shouldn't be our biggest
concern. But damned if Philip Maldari and the rest couldn't let go of
this story and what a fraud and rip-off it was. Strangely enough when
Barack pimps it, KPFA will not allow critics of the plan on the air to
voice the exact same arguments they did when RomneyCare passed.
What
does this have to do with Dennis? National Dennis wanted -- and got --
national news stories when he vowed he would not vote for ObamaCare.
And in November 2009, he voted "no" and issued a press release which
included the following:
We
have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only
within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance
system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the
insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault
legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation,
indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry,
the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny
care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying
to make a profit. That is our system.
"Clearly,
the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are
driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy
avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to
hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid
getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that
since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200%
while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no
wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative
costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at
risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health
insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
"But
instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R.
3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the
privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring
at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the
very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at
least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from
taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more
subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies -- a bailout under
a blue cross.
And
despite that when it was time to vote in March 2010, despite vowing he
would stay a firm no, Dennis took a plane ride with Barack and suddenly
changed his vote. Jeff Zeleny and Robert Pear (New York Times) noted
his Mach 17, 2010 announcement that he would vote "yes" for it and
that, "In an interview five days ago, Mr. Kucinich said he could not
support the legislation and dismissed suggestions that his vote would
derail the Democratic health care agenda."
That
is Dennis Kucinich. Dennis talks a big game but in the end he always
does what's best for himself. How is it a loss not to have Dennis in
the House of Representatives? (Again, he served his constitutents very
well. I'm speaking of National Dennis.) Isn't this 'talk big but have
no spine' exactly why many of us on the left were upset with a large
number of Democrats? Didn't we hate seeing them cave in over and over?
What did Dennis accomplish either them getting national press for himself -- press that often portrayed him as a joke?
When
he raised serious issues -- no, not his lawsuit against the
Congressional cafe, think the remarks about Barack's Libyan War being in
violation of the War Powers Act -- he was kooky Dennis. How much did
he undermine the right positions just by supporting them? That's a
serious question and someone should seriously explore it.
He
voted against the Iraq War. He was a critics of the Iraq War. That's
all you can say. He didn't use his office to end the war. Time and
again, he caved and, time and again, he provided cover for the most
craven acts of the Democratic Party.
I'm
sorry that Dennis and Marcy had to go up against each other. But this
idea that the US Congress just lost Russ Feingold isn't accurate. Russ
did stand up and Russ made serious arguments and conducted himself in a
serious manner so that when he took a stand -- like opposing the PATRIOT
Act -- it registered as something other than, "Oh, look why the kooky
flibbertigibbet did today!" The Department of Peace was ridiculed by
many this week. It's something Dennis supported.
However,
contrary to what some of those snarking though, that idea did not
originate with Dennis Kucinich and has been around forever and a day --
it was popularized in 1793 by a free African-American. It's an important
part of Black history and I wonder if knowing that history would have
prevented some of the snark? At Third Estate Sunday Review last October, it was addressed by Jim, Cedric and Ann:
Jim:
I think it was the fact that The Nation could be leading the way
towards something other than making excuses for Barack. And they're not
leading. We're all on a treadmill, jogging in place, never getting
forward. And that was driven home, to me, with the information -- I
didn't know this before -- that a Secretary of Peace had been proposed
as far back as 1793. That's 17 years after the start of the American
Revolution.
Cedric: Benjamin Banneker. That's the person who proposed it in 1793. And that it was proposed in 1793 was as much a revelation to me as the fact that Banneker was a Black man. I had teachers who made a big deal out of Black History Month and really felt like I had a strong grounding in Black History. Obviously, that's not the case and I need to start supplementing what I was taught in school. Ann: Well most of Cedric's Black history reading is on people from the Civil Rights Era. Such as Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth whose passing Ava and C.I. recently noted in "TV: That Bunny Won't Hop." There's a lot of history. Cedric: There is but I think Banneker's contribution is sort of swept to the side the same way MLK's calls for peace, an end to war and economic justice get swept to the side.
It's
a serious idea and it has been for centuries. It's also an idea
popularized by a great American, consider him a founding father,
certainly so in terms of information -- he published an almanac. And
it's not idea that should be ridiculued -- especially considering all
the wars that US has been in lately. But the fact that 'kooky' Kucinich
is championing it, leaves it open to ridicule.
I
realize that those who speak out will always be targeted with
ridicule. But you can bring it on yourself. He didn't conduct himself
in a serious fashion and he was always eager to grab the spotlight by
laughing at himself. Cynthia McKinney speaks out. She is ridiculed for
it. She never plays to the press by pulling "Look how stupid I am" the
way Dennis did and does. Doing that does not make you look like a "good
sport," it makes you look like an idiot because people are calling you
one and you're attempting to get their approval by agreeing with them.
I don't see his departure from Congress as a great loss for the peace
movement. Cynthia McKinney's departure from Congress? That was a huge
loss.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment