DRANT #325: COLIN POWELL - MSCUMFFYBHN

This is a DRANT from May 2004 about the cowardly treasonous Uncle Tom Squared Colin Powell. There was a time when he had the world in his hands, when he could have simply said "NO" and walked- and the world would have changed. But Cheney and Rove knew their man, they knew they had hired a House Slave, who always worked for the Man, and they were right. Powell did what he always had done- and shucked and jived fo' Massuh. Now comes Remus Powell, to endorse Obama. And comes Obama to rub Powell's head, and promise him a nice warm job in Da Main House. It makes sense. Obama, one of the iconic go-along-to-get-along Oreos in memory, being endorsed by Powell, who- in his zeal to please his bosses, caused the death, poisoning, immolation and forced expulsion of millions- became one of history's great war criminals. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DRANT Number 31 May 5, 2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ COLIN POWELL – MSCUMFYBHN BUSINESS AS USUAL Once a Massuh Sucking Covering Up MF Yassuh Boss Oreo House Nigger, ALWAYS a MSCUMFYBHN. Wait a minute don’t tell me. Sounds realllly familiar. Ummmmmmmmmmm. Colin Powell, Seymour Hersh. War crimes, atrocities ummm Hold it, Hold it, it’ll come to me. Sorry, but maybe I have Abuseimers Disease, like Rumsfeld. YES ! Now I remember ! MY LAI ! (That’s in Viet Nam). Aha. 1968. The first REPORT comes to Powell. He smothers it, covers it up, and gets his promotion. Yassuh Boss rides again. All the way to Iraq '91, and those ohsoMANly fatigues on CNN. And you know who OUTED him ? Why Seymour Hersh. And here it is all over again. Horrendous atrocities, lies, covering for The Man. Just like at the UN Security Council, one of the MSCUMFYBHN award winning performances of all time. And then- can you believe this – in JENIN- where Sec of State Colin Magoo testified that he never saw any atrocities or graves. Just like in King George’s office, when he coulda woulda shoulda said NO WAY, and this massacre would never have happened. Just like yesterday sitting on Kofi’s lap and purring to order that Sharon was a cool guy. Let’s take a walk down Memory Lane, and try not to throw up. And one more time- Let’s HEAR IT for HARRY BELAFONTE ! Harry knows a Tom when he sees one, and man did he smell the Tom in Powell. “There's an old saying in the days of slavery. There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell was permitted to come into the house of the master.” “- - - we have high expectations. Necessarily for those who come from color, who come from a history of oppression, or at least an understanding of it. And what we would hope is that people who come from that experience would use it effectively to change the way in which others do business in the world of oppression.” H Belafonte on CNN Larry King show October 15, 2002 And speaking of Larry King, which I never do General MSCUMFYBHN his seff was on last night. In the best tradition of Steppen Fetchit he said: "In war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they're still to be deplored," he said. "It's a fairly small number of soldiers. Let's not let that take away from the magnificent contributions being made by most of our soldiers." "We will deal with this by telling the people of the world that this is an isolated incident." Business as usual for Colin Powell. Here is what General OREO, then just a Major, said in defense of My Lai: "There may be isolated cases of mistreatment of civilians and POWs," Powell wrote in 1968. But "this by no means reflects the general attitude throughout the Division." Business as usual for Colin Powell. Here is a direct quote from Powell’s AUTOBIOGRAPHY: “- - -We burned the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters ... Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said people were like the sea in which his guerillas swam. We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference does it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?" Behind Colin Powell's Legend -- My Lai THE CONSORTIUM (c) Copyright 1996 http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin3.html By Robert Parry & Norman Solomon On May 16, 1968, a bloodied unit of the Americal division stormed into a hamlet known as My Lai 4. With military helicopters circling overhead, revenge-seeking American soldiers rousted Vietnamese civilians -- mostly old men, women and children -- from their thatched huts and herded them into the village's irrigation ditches. As the round-up continued, some Americans raped the girls. Then, under orders from junior officers on the ground, soldiers began emptying their M-16s into the terrified peasants. Some parents desperately used their bodies to try to shield their children from the bullets. Soldiers stepped among the corpses to finish off the wounded. The slaughter raged for four hours. A total of 347 Vietnamese, including babies, died in the carnage that would stain the reputation of the U.S. Army. But there also were American heroes that day in My Lai. Some soldiers refused to obey the direct orders to kill. A pilot named Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr. from Stone Mountain, Ga., was furious at the killings he saw happening on the ground. He landed his helicopter between one group of fleeing civilians and American soldiers in pursuit. Thompson ordered his helicopter door gunner to shoot the Americans if they tried to harm the Vietnamese. After a tense confrontation, the soldiers backed off. Later, two of Thompson's men climbed into one ditch filled with corpses and pulled out a three-year-old boy whom they flew to safety. A Pattern of Brutality While a horrific example of a Vietnam war crime, the My Lai massacre was not unique. It fit a long pattern of indiscriminate violence against civilians that had marred U.S. participation in the Vietnam War from its earliest days when Americans acted primarily as advisers. In 1963, Capt. Colin Powell was one of those advisers, serving a first tour with a South Vietnamese army unit. Powell's detachment sought to discourage support for the Viet Cong by torching villages throughout the A Shau Valley. While other U.S. advisers protested this countrywide strategy as brutal and counter-productive, Powell defended the "drain-the-sea" approach then -- and continued that defense in his 1995 memoirs, My American Journey. (See The Consortium, July 8) After his first one-year tour and a series of successful training assignments in the United States, Maj. Powell returned for his second Vietnam tour on July 27, 1968. This time, he was no longer a junior officer slogging through the jungle, but an up-and-coming staff officer assigned to the Americal division. By late 1968, Powell had jumped over more senior officers into the important post of G-3, chief of operations for division commander, Maj. Gen. Charles Gettys, at Chu Lai. Powell had been "picked by Gen. Gettys over several lieutenant colonels for the G-3 job itself, making me the only major filling that role in Vietnam," Powell wrote in his memoirs. But a test soon confronted Maj. Powell. A letter had been written by a young specialist fourth class named Tom Glen, who had served in an Americal mortar platoon and was nearing the end of his Army tour. In a letter to Gen. Creighton Abrams, the commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam, Glen accused the Americal division of routine brutality against civilians. Glen's letter was forwarded to the Americal headquarters at Chu Lai where it landed on Maj. Powell's desk. "The average GI's attitude toward and treatment of the Vietnamese people all too often is a complete denial of all our country is attempting to accomplish in the realm of human relations," Glen wrote. "Far beyond merely dismissing the Vietnamese as 'slopes' or 'gooks,' in both deed and thought, too many American soldiers seem to discount their very humanity; and with this attitude inflict upon the Vietnamese citizenry humiliations, both psychological and physical, that can have only a debilitating effect upon efforts to unify the people in loyalty to the Saigon government, particularly when such acts are carried out at unit levels and thereby acquire the aspect of sanctioned policy." Glen's letter contended that many Vietnamese were fleeing from Americans who "for mere pleasure, fire indiscriminately into Vietnamese homes and without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves." Gratuitous cruelty was also being inflicted on Viet Cong suspects, Glen reported. "Fired with an emotionalism that belies unconscionable hatred, and armed with a vocabulary consisting of 'You VC,' soldiers commonly 'interrogate' by means of torture that has been presented as the particular habit of the enemy. Severe beatings and torture at knife point are usual means of questioning captives or of convincing a suspect that he is, indeed, a Viet Cong... "It would indeed be terrible to find it necessary to believe that an American soldier that harbors such racial intolerance and disregard for justice and human feeling is a prototype of all American national character; yet the frequency of such soldiers lends credulity to such beliefs. ... What has been outlined here I have seen not only in my own unit, but also in others we have worked with, and I fear it is universal. If this is indeed the case, it is a problem which cannot be overlooked, but can through a more firm implementation of the codes of MACV (Military Assistance Command Vietnam) and the Geneva Conventions, perhaps be eradicated." Glen's letter echoed some of the complaints voiced by early advisers, such as Col. John Paul Vann, who protested the self-defeating strategy of treating Vietnamese civilians as the enemy. In 1995, when we questioned Glen about his letter, he said he had heard second-hand about the My Lai massacre, though he did not mention it specifically. The massacre was just one part of the abusive pattern that had become routine in the division, he said. Maj. Powell's Response The letter's troubling allegations were not well received at American headquarters. Maj. Powell undertook the assignment to review Glen's letter, but did so without questioning Glen or assigning anyone else to talk with him. Powell simply accepted a claim from Glen's superior officer that Glen was not close enough to the front lines to know what he was writing about, an assertion Glen denies. After that cursory investigation, Powell drafted a response on Dec. 13, 1968. He admitted to no pattern of wrongdoing. Powell claimed that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were taught to treat Vietnamese courteously and respectfully. The Americal troops also had gone through an hour-long course on how to treat prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, Powell noted. "There may be isolated cases of mistreatment of civilians and POWs," Powell wrote in 1968. But "this by no means reflects the general attitude throughout the Division." Indeed, Powell's memo faulted Glen for not complaining earlier and for failing to be more specific in his letter. Powell reported back exactly what his superiors wanted to hear. "In direct refutation of this [Glen's] portrayal," Powell concluded, "is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's findings, of course, were false. But it would take another Americal hero, an infantryman named Ron Ridenhour, to piece together the truth about the atrocity at My Lai. After returning to the United States, Ridenhour interviewed Americal comrades who had participated in the massacre. On his own, Ridenhour compiled this shocking information into a report and forwarded it to the Army inspector general. The IG's office conducted an aggressive official investigation and the Army finally faced the horrible truth. Courts martial were held against officers and enlisted men implicated in the murder of the My Lai civilians. But Powell's peripheral role in the My Lai cover-up did not slow his climb up the Army's ladder. Powell pleaded ignorance about the actual My Lai massacre, which pre-dated his arrival at the Americal. Glen's letter disappeared into the National Archives -- to be unearthed only years later by British journalists Michael Bilton and Kevin Sims for their book Four Hours in My Lai. In his best-selling memoirs, Powell did not mention his brush-off of Tom Glen's complaint. MAM Hunts Powell did include, however, a troubling recollection that belied his 1968 official denial of Glen's allegation that American soldiers "without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves." After mentioning the My Lai massacre in My American Journey, Powell penned a partial justification of the Americal's brutality. In a chilling passage, Powell explained the routine practice of murdering unarmed male Vietnamese. "I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male," Powell wrote. "If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen (West Germany), Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong." While it's certainly true that combat is brutal, mowing down unarmed civilians is not combat. It is, in fact, a war crime. Neither can the combat death of a fellow soldier be cited as an excuse to murder civilians. Disturbingly, that was precisely the rationalization that the My Lai killers cited in their own defense. But returning home from Vietnam a second time in 1969, Powell had proved himself the consummate team player. My Lai Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre The My Lai massacre (pronounced "Me Lie") was a massacre of hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War. It prompted widespread outrage around the world and may have helped end public support for the war in the United States. Initial investigations of My Lai were undertaken by the 11th Brigade's CO, Col Oran Henderson, under orders from Americal's Ass't CO, BG Young. Six months later a young soldier of the 11th Light Infantry (The Butcher's Brigade) named Tom Glen, wrote a letter accusing the Americal division (and other entire units of the US military, not just individuals) of routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians; the letter was detailed, its allegations horrifying, and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers. Colin Powell, then a young US Army Major, was charged with investigating the massacre. Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's refutation would be called an act of "white-washing" the news of the Massacre, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public. Independent investigative journalist Seymour Hersh broke the My Lai story on November 12, 1969 and on November 20 The Plain Dealer (Cleveland) published explicit photographs of dead villagers killed at My Lai. The carnage at My Lai would have gone unknown in history if not for another soldier who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to his Congressman. Courts martial Ron Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai second-hand, by talking to members of Charlie Company. He then appealed to Congress, the White House, and the Pentagon and eventually got Calley charged with murder in September 1969. It was another two months before the American public learned about the massacre. On March 17, 1970 the United States Army charged 14 officers with suppressing information related to the incident. American Army Lt. William Calley was convicted in 1971 of premeditated murder in ordering the shootings and initially sentenced to life in prison; two days later, however, President Richard Nixon ordered him released from prison. Calley served 3½ years of house arrest in his quarters at Fort Benning, Georgia and was then ordered freed by a federal judge. Calley claimed that he was following orders from his captain, Ernest Medina: Medina denied giving the orders and was acquitted. There were no other convictions. Seymour Hersh published a story after discussions with Ron Ridenhour. The Powell Doctrine: Baghdad/Jenin/My Lai by Heather Wokusch August 17, 2002 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/wokusch4.html “- - - Back home, flag-waving hysteria followed Operation Desert Storm to its climax, and returning conquerors, including then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, were feted as national heroes. Minor glitch. A few months later it was revealed that actually 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis, many of them unarmed civilians, had died during the six-week attack, including tens of thousands mowed down in aerial assaults as they were trying to flee along what became nicknamed "The Highway of Death." Equating civilians and combatants is integral to "The Powell Doctrine" which recommends using overwhelming force on the enemy, regardless of civilian casualties. In his autobiography, Colin Powell discusses the Vietnam War and explains the benefits of destroying the food and homes of villagers who might sympathize with the Viet Cong: "We burned the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters ... Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said people were like the sea in which his guerillas swam. We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference does it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?" - - - Fast forward to April 2002, and having risen to Secretary of State, Colin Powell reported to a US congressional panel about his visit to the Jenin refugee camp, site of a recent Israeli attack. Powell testified, "I've seen no evidence of mass graves ... no evidence that would suggest a massacre took place ... Clearly people died in Jenin - people who were terrorists died in Jenin - and in the prosecution of that battle innocent lives may well have been lost." In the same vein, Amnesty International issued a short release stating that while it appeared "serious breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed ... only an independent international commission of inquiry can establish the full facts and the scale of these violations." For its part, the White House also claimed more facts were needed, and then Bush called Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a "man of peace." So in essence, the whole Jenin attack would need to be swept under the carpet because (since Israel had not allowed a UN investigation and NGOs had come up with very little) there was not enough solid information to support accusations. Minor glitch. Unmentioned is the fact that the US military, under the auspices of learning about urban warfare, had accompanied the Israeli military on its attack on Jenin (Marine Corps Times, 5-3-2002). Or the fact that dozens of foreign journalists witnessed 30 Palestinian corpses being buried in a mass grave right near the hospital. Or the fact that local hospital personnel describe seeing the Israeli military loading other corpses "into a refrigerated semi-trailer, and taking them out of Jenin" (which would answer the question posed in Amnesty's release, "What was striking is what was absent. There were very few bodies in the hospital. There were also none who were seriously injured, only the 'walking wounded'. Thus we have to ask: where are the bodies and where are the seriously injured?''). Moral of the story? Truth is often the first casualty of war. Before we hang our hopes on heroes or unquestioningly believe what we hear from even the most reliable sources, we need to dig deeper to find the real story. Second, while the US was appropriate to be outraged at the targeting of its civilians in the September 11 attacks, we should extend that outrage to scenarios in which our government targets, or is complicit in targeting, civilians elsewhere. CNN LARRY KING LIVE Interview with Harry Belafonte Aired October 15, 2002 - 21:00 ET HARRY BELAFONTE, ACTIVIST: There's an old saying in the days of slavery. There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell was permitted to come into the house of the master. - - -Last year, in South Africa, the United Nations under Kofi Annan gave us an excellent opportunity in convening the International Conference on Racism directed by a woman of remarkable credentials, the former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson. There was a place where the United States should have been in attendance, and given us the benefit of thought on a very grievous set of conditions that affect the human family -- the issue of race. And in that instance, the United States government sought to turn its back on the thousands of people who were gathered there to make a difference. And Colin Powell was the point person on that distancing of our country. KING: What did you want him to do? What do you want him to do? BELAFONTE: I would like him to live up to a higher moral standard. - - - Where is Colin Powell's conscience ? CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228 IRAQ The Unread Report The news is filled today with the ongoing allegations of abuse in Iraqi prisons. The NYT reports, "In the last 16 months, the Army has conducted more than 30 criminal investigations into misconduct by American captors in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 10 cases of suspicious death, 10 cases of abuse, and two deaths already determined to have been criminal homicides, the Army's vice chief of staff said Tuesday." The U.S.-appointed Human Rights Minister in Baghdad, Abdul-Basat al-Turki, said yesterday "he had resigned to protest abuses by American guards." He claims he is stepping down "not only because I believe that the use of violence is a violation of human rights but also because these methods in the prisons means that the violations are a common act." According to the Financial Times, "It has become commonplace for George W. Bush and Tony Blair to assert that the insurgents are enemies of democracy, but it is the US that most Iraqis see as anti-democratic. This is a disastrous image for a nation that waged a war promising freedom and democracy." This underscores one dramatic fact: the United States has lost credibility and needs to act to restore it immediately. RESTORING CREDIBILITY: The new strategy put forward by American Progress calls for the U.S.-administered prison system to be opened up to international inspections as one step towards restoring lost credibility. A permanent committee to monitor prison conditions should be established and the new Iraqi Ministry of the Interior should keep a centralized database of all detainees in Iraqi prisons. THE UNREAD REPORT: The NYT writes, "the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House had difficulty explaining why they had not acted earlier and more aggressively to deal with the abuse." One reason: No one wants to admit to having read the report. According to the LA Times, the White House has known about the investigation since December. The report was completed in February. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers called Dan Rather at CBS three weeks before the story ran and asked the network to hold it; this past Sunday, questioned on Face the Nation, Myers admitted he still hadn't read the report himself. Two days after Myers's admission, President Bush still hadn't read the report and his press secretary attempted to shield him, claiming the president "only become aware of the photographs and the Pentagon's main internal report about the incidents from news reports last week." And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, commenting on the report for the first time yesterday, said while he'd seen a summary and recommendations from the investigation, he hadn't read the full report. The report is 53 pages. It is available online. What are they waiting for? KEPT IN THE DARK: The NYT reports the State Department is frustrated that the Pentagon knew about the report weeks ago, knew about the abuse allegations, knew that it was about to become public, yet did not tell the State Department. U.S. lawmakers are also incensed at having been kept in the dark about the report. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said, "It's a neglect of the responsibilities that Secretary Rumsfeld and the civilian leaders of the Pentagon to keep the Congress informed." Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said, "It's been a month since that report has been available. It should have been sent to this committee immediately." And Senator John W. Warner (R-VA) Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, "said the Pentagon should have informed Congress earlier. He said he would summon Mr. Rumsfeld to testify in a public hearing as soon as possible." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read more!!

DRANT #312: FAUXBAMA; or The Obaminable Snowman

OK Evvybody ! Let's play da Name Game.

Obama mama fo fama fanana fana fo fama
Ooooobama !
Let's start with
FAUXBama.
The talk is that bygoshamighty, Barack is shifting to da Right !
Ashama.
He's a designated prop of the Tri-Lateral Commission and the DLC, anointed in 2004 (whocudfuggetit?) as the opening act for the Kerry "Reporting for Duty" tour, Fauxbama can't be shifting away from the Left, 'cause he wasn't never ON the Left.
He's the same kind of PR/pimp media concoction CNN regularly drags out to "balance" discussions on the Lou Dobbs Lynching Hour.
AS IF there is a real Opposition Party living and breathing anywhere within smelling distance of K Street.
AS IF he doesn't lipwalk for AIPAC, and doesn't think we need 80,000 troops and 160,000 Blackwaters picnicking in the Green Zone until the Tigris freezes over, and 10,000 more in Afghanistan.
AS IF the Fourth Amendment is not his personal Charmin Ultra.
AS IF Fauxbama would represent a CHANGE.
He's a corporate chameleonic sheep who rented his wolf's clothing just long enough to get the job. He posed as Superman, then quickly jumped into a handy phone booth, and out came - Dark Kent.
But- the Fauxbamification ain't HIS fault. It's OURS. We're BUYING this bullbleep.
We need so desperately to have HOPE, to be in touch with whatever sliver remains of our self-worth, that we have chosen Him as the object and the instrument of our self-delusion, the pusher who will help us maintain our addiction to our presumed decency, our perception that we are, after all, good people- who have been sadly led astray.
Baah baah baah.
The braying of the interminably flaccid "progressives" whose anguished cries betray yet another tragic disillusionment.
Oh please, for once, blame the disillusionEE not the disillusionOR.
It was US who are creating this Emperor, and WE who have put the clothes of righteousness on his back. We needed some political Prozac, and we chose a basically blank canvas on which to paint an effigy of our profound yearning for absolution and redemption.
All he did was tell us how great we are, what a great country, what great people, all we need to get back on the righteous path we had trod for lo these 250 years, and to show ourselves how very righteous we are, is to elect a Black Man as President.
Instant Karma, as John said.
Instant karmas gonna get you Gonna knock you right on the head You better get yourself together Pretty soon you're gonna be dead What in the world you thinking of Laughing in the face of love What on earth you tryin to do Its up to you, yeah you

As always, we don't haveta do very much atall. Simply remove him from the easy-open package, inflate him, float him, and poof, we're saved.
















Of course, as soon as he's elected, we can go back to the couch for another 4 year snooze, and he can messianize our problems away.

Annnnd- how about 'HO-Bama ?
Have you seen the list of his campaign contributors ?
'HoBama cashes checks from some of, no make that MOST of the biggest bastards in America.
The path is deep and wide from footsteps leading to HIS cabin, so Check it out.
What do you see ?
Fatwallet McLawyer, Nicky the Nuke, Clean Coal Willie, Warner Disney Redstone, Armistead Armsales, and enough Banks to keep the Mississippi in mud for generations.

'HoBama's biggest steadiest John ? The company that most epitomizes the deceitful manipulative rapaciousness** of Wall Street- Goldman Sucks. 600 grand so far and counting.
These guys are 'HoBama's biggest of the big spenders.
They have also sent some of their prime Alumni to run Bill and Bush's Treasury and The Fed. Nice job guys. Yeah, you can be sure big changes are coming from that direction.
Plus, of course, smaller fry like JP Morgan, UBS AG, and Lehman Brothers, at a mere 400K, with Morgan Stanley back in the crowd at 275.
Next- the lawyuhs that front for the worst of the worst. The ones who do the marinating and greasing for a long list of people-screwing corporate generational cannibals: Sidley Austin, Skadden Arps, Jones Day, Latham Watkins, Wilmerhale.
Warning: extended exposure to their client lists may cause vomiting or diarrhea.
'HoBama says he's gonna rationalize taxes, create corporate responsibility, fight for the middle class.
Well who you gonna believe ? Him or his lying checkbook ?

and OREObama: the black man who is sometimes but not sometimes and learned early on to "get along." He went to Harvard. Everybody liked him. UH OH.
What exactly did the Reverend Wright say that was untrue ? Any honest man would have stood up and told us - "he said it badly, but he said the truth".
OreoBama couldn't run fast enough to wash the shit off his shoes.
Jesse Jackson ? Its only too bad that he didn't mean to say it.
Of course O speaks down to black people. He speaks down to all of us.
OreoBama is black enough to once again make US feel good about Ourselves, but not toooo Black, to, umm, err, cause Trouble, ya know ?
And once again, many in the Black community are investing THEIR hopes and dreams and desperate needs in a blow-up doll.
Stampeding to congratulate ourselves on running a Black Man for President, we are setting ourselves up for something far worse than disillusionment.

Beware the Progressives' litany of apologia: how Obama is shifting Right, but we have no choice. We have to work within the two-party system. We have to vote for Obama or get McCain. We need to get Obama in there, and then work to move him back to where he said he was, and we thought he was, in the first place. That McCain would be much worse than even a flawed Obama, that we have to get rid of the people who did this to us.
But the truth is that Obama IS the people who did this to us. He works for them. He is paid by them. We just don't want to believe it.

I fear Obama much worse than I fear McCain.
McCain is The Enemy. Right there, out in the open. We KNOW who he works for.
Obama builds a shadow play of promises, hopes and dreams, and strenuously aided and abetted by the pimp corporate media, has created the fiction that he and McCain are different.
The Obaminable Snowman.




Ultimately, he is NObama.
A true straw man, invented, owned and run by the worst of us, chosen and created by them: for his gift for instilling hope in millions, for his charm and patina of integrity, and for his willingness to do or say whatever it takes or whatever he's TOLD, to win.
He scares me deeply because I know who he is, but I don't think HE does.

It is up to us.
It is up to us to look at ourselves and what we've done, and dedicate ourselves to making it right. We can't appoint a surrogate or messiah to do it for us, and we damn well can't participate in further self-delusion.
You want to vote for him, that's your business.
But confront what you're doing, and why.
It sure ain't for CHANGE. Unless what change means to you is what I think it means to you -- a rewind button to get back to the nineties, when we could afford two cars, and a second home, and didn't really need to notice the bombs we were dropping, or the ice caps drizzling down the window, gas was cheap, and our biggest worry was a blowjob.
You don't mean change, you mean comfort.

And one more thing- don't come to me whining about how you were fooled or how disillusioned you are.
You want to stand for real change ?
Vote for Nader or McKinney.
Better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want, and get it.
You want to feel good about yourself ? That you did the right thing ? That you're a kind and caring person ?
Then vote for FAUXbama.
You'll get what you deserve.
-----------------------------------------------
**- GOLDMAN: These are the lovely guys who were deep into the public rape known as the "subprime crisis". 1- They had fabillions of their clients' bucks in all kinds of piñata-like derivatives. 2- The Goldman partners had stenchillions of their own in it too. One day more than TWO YEARS ago, their chief financial brain called a secret clandestine emergency meeting. Uh oh, he says. This subprime crap is going to blow up. They came up with a plan. Quietly, steadily, so as not to let a whiff be detected, they took all of their own money out. Of course, they left all their clients' money in. And not only left their clients' money in, they kept selling the crap to other clients. Right up to the whacking of the Pinata.
Read more!!

DRANT #269: OUT OF THE FIRE, INTO THE FRYING PAN

More on what r e a l l y went down in So Cal.
No surprises really, not even that the pimp media has totally ignored this whole story.
And what do we find ?
Greed, racism, brutality, excessive force, class warfare, environmental destruction, FEMA detention camps, and of courrrrrse: media and governmental complicity.
This is a mirror -- not an aberration but a true reflection -- San Diego is Fallujah, is New Orleans, is Kabul, is Pakkoku, is Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JUSTIN AKERS CHACÓN: SAN DIEGO DIVIDED BY FIRE
The Great Firestorm of 2007 has revealed deep fissures cutting through a place that calls itself "America's finest city."
http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/651/651_06_Divided.shtml

MIKE DAVIS: THE COLLISION OF CAPITALISM AND NATURE
The author and activist talks about the deeper causes of the California fires--above all, destructive land development driven by profit, and the failure of politicians to do anything about it.
http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/651/651_08_Collision.shtml

SHARON SMITH: A TALE OF TWO STADIUMS
The mainstream media overlooked the real story of the California wildfires. Just as in New Orleans, race and class loomed large in who got help and who didn't.
http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/651/651_09_Stadiums.shtml
Read more!!

DRANT #256: DEMOCRACY WHILE BLACK

"Democracy While Black" - Rev. Lennox Yearwood Arrested,
Charged with Assault While Entering Petraeus Hearing
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/1445202

The Rev. Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, was tackled by six Capitol police officers after he tried to enter the Petraeus hearing on Monday. Rev. Yearwood was injured in the incident taken to hospital. He was later charged him with felony assault of a police officer. [includes rush transcript] President Bush is expected to announce tonight plans to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 130,000 by next July.
In a meeting with top Democratic leaders, the president said he was trying to find common ground on Iraq by planning to "start doing some redeployment."
But at the meeting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly interjected, "No you're not, Mr. President. You're just going back to the pre-surge level."
President Bush will be outlining his plans in a nationally televised address to the nation at 9 p.m. His speech comes just three days after General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker came before Congress to recommend the continuation of the war for the indefinite future.
On Monday, at least 10 protesters were arrested during General David Petraeus' hearing. Most were arrested for disrupting the Congressional hearing but at least one activist was arrested for simply trying to watch the proceedings.
(DR NOTE: Cindy Sheehan's daughter and her assistant were being charged with "Contempt of Congress" and Rep. Ike Skelton, the Idiot ("assholes") Democratic Chairman of the committee, has invoked Title 10, which mandates much harsher penalties on the demonstrators.)

Video posted on YouTube shows the Reverend Lennox Yearwood of the Hip Hop Caucus being tackled by six Capitol police officers after he tried to enter the hearing.

Rev. Yearwood was injured in the incident and was taken to the hospital. The capitol police charged him with felony assault of a police officer.
The Rev. Lennox Yearwood is the founder of the Hip Hop Caucus. He is among the organizers of this Saturday's anti-war march in Washington. He joins us in Washington D.C.

* Rev. Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus. He is a minister and community activist. He is one of the organizers of Saturday's anti-war march in Washington.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

JUAN GONZALEZ: President Bush expected to announce tonight plans to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq back down to 130,000 by next July.

In a meeting with top Democratic leaders, the President said he was trying to find common ground on Iraq by planning to “start doing some redeployment.” But at the meeting, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly interjected by saying, “No, you’re not, Mr. President. You’re just going back to the pre-surge level.”

President Bush will be outlining his plans in a nationally televised address to the nation at 9:00 p.m. His speech comes just three days after General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker came before Congress to recommend the continuation of the war for the indefinite future.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, at least ten protesters were arrested during General David Petraeus's hearing. Most were arrested for disrupting the congressional hearing, but at least one activist was arrested for simply trying to watch the proceedings. Video posted on YouTube shows the Reverend Lennox Yearwood of the Hip Hop Caucus being tackled by six Capitol police officers after he tried to enter the hearing.

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: No, no. For what? No. What kind of arrest? Ow!

WITNESS: Hey, take it easy! Easy! Easy! He's a nonviolent man! He's a minister! He's a minister!

AMY GOODMAN: He was injured in the incident and was taken to the hospital. The Capitol police charged him with felony assault of a police officer. Reverend Lennox Yearwood is the founder of the Hip Hop Caucus. He’s among the organizers of this Saturday’s antiwar march in Washington. He joins us from the studios in Washington, D.C. Welcome to Democracy Now!

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Good morning, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us what happened.

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Well, on September 10, I went to hear the hearing, and I can tell you that it was, for me, as a former Air Force officer, obviously someone who is the President of the Hip Hop Caucus leading a march on Saturday, I knew how important it was to hear the general's report for myself. I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die. So I was going in, in essence, to make government more transparent. It was also critical for me as a person of color to be in the room to report back to my community.

But instead, when I got there, I was waiting in line. I was standing there. I had to do a radio interview. I asked the officer, I said, “Can I step out of line for a second to do an interview?” He said, “No problem.” I did my interview. I came back to the line. I got back in the line. I was waiting.

And then, all of a sudden -- it was somewhat suspicious -- another officer came down, was passing out blue post-it notes. And as he was coming in the line, he actually came to me and actually Colonel Ann Wright, who was standing with me. It was amazing. The two officers who were going in to hear General Petraeus, he actually told us both, “You can't get in,” and then walked past us.

And so, me and Colonel Ann Wright looked at each other and said, “Why can't we get in?” He said, “You can't get in.” And so, we went up forward, and we kept walking to the front of the line and said, “Why are we being denied?” “You just can't get in.” And so, somebody came and passed one of the blue post-it notes to Colonel Wright and put it in her hand. And she showed it to him. “I didn't give you that.” She said, “I know. Why can't we get in?” He said, “Well, OK, you can get in.” And she said, “What about Reverend Yearwood?” He said, “No, he can't get in.”

And that’s when it started. I said, “Why are you singling me out? What is going on?” It’s important to know. We have this huge rally at the White House, and a march to the Capitol is coming Saturday. And I know my picture is on the flier. But regardless, I asked, “Why are you singling me out?”

At that point in time, they became to be aggressive, and they got around me. And I said that -- “You’re going to be arrested.” I said, “What am I going to be arrested for? What have I done? I just want to go inside and hear the hearing for myself.” At that point in time, one came behind me, said, “You’re going to be arrested.” And then somebody grabbed me on my shoulder. And I kind of turned. Amy, by the time I turned, I was on the ground. And I actually just felt myself going headfirst into the concrete.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Reverend Yearwood, to your knowledge, was anyone else who was on the line singled out and told they could not come in?

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Well, there were three of us. One was Gail from CODEPINK -- Ann Wright and myself were the three who were singled out. All of us are obviously very prominent peace activists. And so, we were the three. Gail, who was singled out, kind of moved to the side, and then myself and Ann Wright were right there at the front. And then somebody put a blue post-it note in Ann's hands. And then he just let her in, so it wasn't about anything else. And then he just singled us out. He said, “You’re not getting in.” It was amazing. It was just stopping the peace activists, like just stopping the peace activists from going in.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Reverend Lennox Yearwood, President of the Hip Hop Caucus. How often do you go into congressional hearings? Do the police know your face?

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Well, no, they definitely know my face. With the Hip Hop Caucus, it is our job to make government transparent, particularly for urban youth. What’s so tragic about this is that we tried to go into the halls of Congress so that young people can come and become familiar with the process. And obviously they cannot be afraid of the process. A lot of young people of color -- a lot of young people, period -- don't trust the system. And so, not trusting the system, our job is to tell them to register to vote, to get them encouraged to make it more transparent. And so, obviously they know.

Obviously they know that I’m also a peace activist. I’m also a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. I’m obviously -- I’m totally against this war. I think it is an atrocity. They know that. So I’m a face that they recognize, and not somebody -- and I’m also a minister, a man of God. And so, they knew who I was, standing in line.

And so, when they pulled out of -- they actually didn’t pull me out. They just stopped me from getting in, and they wouldn't tell me why. They just stopped me. What was worse, when they leaped on me, started to beat me in the halls of Congress. And I say, here I am, a former officer lying in the halls of Congress, while there’s another officer in the hearing lying to the Congress. And here I am just lying and being beaten. I couldn’t understand.

It was -- and I have to tell you, Amy, when I was literally -- when I was lying there, I have to admit, I actually, as a person of color, lost hope for a second. I was sitting there, “Why am I doing this? I’m just here to try to make the injustice visible. I’m not hurting anybody. I’m not hitting anybody. I’m just here. I was in line. I just want to go in. And instead, I’m being beaten in the halls of Congress, sitting here being leaped on by police officers and being beaten all for this reason.”

AMY GOODMAN: They charged you with assaulting a police officer?

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: The amazing thing is that then, after obviously I tore ligaments in my ankle, and then they took me to the hospital, and then they took me to jail, and they charged me originally with felony assault on an officer. And then the court -- and they tried to ban me from the Capitol. And obviously that was thrown out, the banning of me from the Capitol, which is wonderful for our march, because we’re marching to the Capitol on Saturday. And they kept the misdemeanor. So I’ll be going to court again for that. But it was amazing.

I must say this, though. When I heard the chant, my mother in the movement, Cindy Sheehan, and DeeDee were there. When I was down on the ground, I literally was just like, “This is ridiculous.” But I heard them say, “Arrest Bush, not Rev!” I can tell you that I knew that the movement -- we will not be denied. We will show up at every hearing, and our voices as a people will be heard.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Tell us, in terms of the upcoming march this Saturday, the response that you’re hearing, especially in terms of the African American, Latino and the non-white communities, because many of the peace marches have still had very few or low participation level from those communities, even though in those communities the public sentiment seems to be more against the war than even in the general population.

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Well, obviously. I mean, obviously. If you can beat on a reverend in the halls of Congress, how many of you want to come out to these marches. You’re going to think the same thing’s going to happen to you. If you can beat on ministers and fathers and priests and women, this is going to have a tremendous effect on communities of color, and so they recognize this. So, obviously, their sentiment against this war is very high. They are against this war from the beginning, and it continues to be high.

But regardless of that, what we have been seeing now, so many who have seen the video, they are saying that we are fired up, and we’re not going to take it anymore. And there have been so many from the communities of color, Black and Latino, who are saying that we will come out and we will march to the Capitol, because we recognize now if we don't stop this madness seven years into the twenty-first century, there is not going to be a twenty-second century. Humanity is on the line. So people of color are uniting. And you’re seeing a peace movement now that hasn’t been seen. You’re seeing black and white and brown and yellow, male and female, straight and gay, coming together, because we understand that this is one of the most important -- this is our lunch counter moment for the twenty-first century. And if we don't stand up now, we recognize that all -- all -- could be lost.

AMY GOODMAN: Will you be on crutches, as well, on Saturday, Reverend Yearwood?

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR.: Unfortunately, I will be on crutches on Saturday. I’ll be on crutches for quite some time, unfortunately, for what was done to me. I might have been beaten in the halls of Congress, but my spirit wasn't beaten. So I will be limping all the way to the Capitol on the 15th.

And folks can find out about this at sept15.org. We need everyone. If they can beat on me in the halls of Congress, they will come and beat on you next.

AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Lennox Yearwood, thanks very much for being with us, President of the Hip Hop Caucus, minister and community activist, one of the organizers of the antiwar march that will be taking place in Washington, D.C. on Saturday.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
Read more!!

DRANT #251: TOILET TYRANNY

What exactly is wrong with a man going into a men's room looking for anonymous sex ?
Why is it illegal ?
Who cares ?
Egregious crimes have been committed by uncountable numbers of our high elected officials that have resulted in the death, dismemberment, immolation, starvation and poisoning of millions of people, and so far not ONE of them has spent a minute behind bars. Few have even lost their jobs.
But one guy goes for a quick weenie wank and from our duly elected representatives and the pimp media erupts a deafening ubiquitous self-righteous roar -
What's most frightening about the Larry Craig debacle is not about getting hit on in the crapper, its that there are actually POLICE hiding in toilets everywhere, waiting to bust us.
Think about it - next time you go pee in a public restroom. My advice is to hold it til ya get home. Not worth the risk.
Odds are there's a cop in there, hanging out (!) -- just waiting to slam the cuffs on some poor slob - like us.
This country's gestapo doesn't stop at snooping on emails or eavesdropping telephone calls, or spy video cams.
Read the transcript of the Craig bust from June 2007.
What scares ya ?
That Craig might have been looking for some ?
What's the big deal ?
Here's what scares me.
That every goddam place we go there's a cop, or a camera.
That under the lie of some loonie War of Terror, we are being surveilled and spied upon, literally everywhere.
And, get this straight- this means YOU. And they want you to KNOW it.
Especially if you are UnWhite.
Here is a section from the transcript of the interrogation after the bust.
The Cop says:
"I just, I just, I guess, I guess I'm gonna say I'm just disappointed in you sir.
I'm just really am. I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood. I mean, people vote for you."

Did ya get that ?
"I EXPECT this from a guy... out of the HOOD"

What ? whatwhatwhat ?
The COP says he EXPECTS this from an UNWHITE person, but not from a nice white guy, a SENator forchrissakes.
He EXPECTS it.
I have heard not one word about this from anywhere. Sharpton ? Are you awake ?
The Press is positively enthralled with Craig's sexuality, but not one peep about a cop blatantly and publicly proclaiming his fundamental racial prejudice, proud of his pattern of racial profiling.
As for his fellow Senators- do you think they would be treating Craig like Typhoid Tom if this wasn't about faggots ?
Men are supposed to fuck WOmen, hookers, young girls, their secretaries, other Senator's wives- whatever. That's all fine.
Senator David Vitter and who knows how many others admit to seeing the DC Madam and her stable. Hey thass OK. Its just Men being Men.
There's a littttle Strom Thurmond in alla us boys, ya know.
Har Har.
But Craig- uh oh. A faggot. Mark Foley redux.
String him up. We gotta show America what we do to Faggots around here.
Ya do what Tucker Carlson says (on National TV, to great applause) he did- ya go back with a few testosterone poisoned good ole boys, and kick the faggot's ass.
Har har har.

Now I think they got the right man, but for the wrong things.
I don't care who Craig licks, or where. I don't care where he sticks any part of himself, or how.
That's up to him and the consenting adult lickorstickee.
I do care that Craig was a war-mongering racist hypocrite, who has the blood of thousands on his hands.
A man who rushed to vote for the very spying that bit him.
He deserved to be outed as a murderer, a snoop, a gay bashing homophobe, a willing and enthusiastic reactionary bastard.
So, good that he's gone.
But not at this price.
Because we are next.

Right now, thousands -- hundreds of thousands - of us are being arrested, and imprisoned by the I.C.E. for being Brown.
Right now, the President and his stooges have the power to name us as traitors and not only bust us, but imprison us as enemy combatants.
And not just bust us, and imprison us, but take away everything we own.
Just because they think or have reason to believe us "to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing"
various acts, in their SOLE judgement.

So, do you see ?
Do you see that we are all walking into the toilet, every day ?
And that we are all subject to the whims of millions of cops who are just sitting there, hiding, waiting for us to drop our drawers ?
Let down our guard for an instant ?
Craig was one of Them. But he was one of Us as well.
And ya better believe it-
You're next.
Read more!!

DRANT #224: IMUS- A PURE PRODUCT OF CORPORATE RACIST MALE-DOMINATED WHITE AMERICA AND ITS PIMP MEDIA

#1: The corporations who sponsor Imus--
Sprint, Ditech, Am Ex, Proctor and Gamble, Capital One, Cadillac, etc etc etc take a look at the list --

Imus Struggling to Retain Sway as a Franchise - New York Times
Whether Don Imus can use a meeting with the Rutgers women’s basketball team to save his career is unclear.
www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/business/media/11imus.html?hp - Apr 11, 2007 -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2: Then of course the media that has supported him, and STILL supports him- white male racist bastards -
What he said on the air was just more of what they all just yukked it up about over a few stiff ones after work:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3083

Media Advisory

Rallying Around Their Racist Friend
Before firing, pundits defended Imus

4/11/07

In the aftermath of the racial outburst that got talkshow host Don Imus' dropped from MSNBC--referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"-- a Washington Post editorial (4/10/07) posed a question many critics have been asking for years: How do prestigious journalists defend their cozy relationship with a well-known bigot?

As the Post put it: "But those who bask in the glow of his radio show ought to consider whether they should continue doing so. After all, you're judged by the company you keep." Since discovering Imus' long record of bigotry, misogyny and homophobia is not difficult (Slate, 4/10/07), it's a question reporters should have been asking long ago—FAIR posed the very same question to NBC's Tim Russert six years ago, for example (Action Alert, 3/1/00).

When journalist Phil Nobile (TomPaine.com, 6/28/01) presented many top pundits with evidence of Imus' bigotry, few (of the white ones, anyway) seemed to think what Imus was saying should affect their decisions to appear on his program. Nobile noted that Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz wrote in his 1996 book Hot Air that "Imus's sexist, homophobic and politically incorrect routines echo what many journalists joke about in private."

Really? Do Washington journalists really call people "thieving Jews"--and then make mock apologies, saying that the phrase is "redundant" (Imus in the Morning, 12/15/04)? Did they really call Clinton's attorney general "old Bigfoot shaky Janet Reno," taunting her for her Parkinson's disease (Imus in the Morning, 6/12/01)? Do they really laugh uproariously at the news of hundreds of Haitians drowning (Imus in the Morning, 3/20-24/00)? If so, Kurtz has been sitting on a great many scoops.

Whatever their private conversations, many pundits are now being forced to answer questions about their associations with Imus, and those answers are worth documenting. Appearing on the Imus in the Morning show on April 9, Newsweek's Howard Fineman explained:


You know, it's a different time, Imus. You know, it's different than it was even a few years ago, politically.... And some of the stuff that you used to do, you probably can't do anymore.... You just can't. Because the times have changed. I mean, just looking specifically at the African-American situation. I mean, hello, Barack Obama's got twice the number of contributors as anybody else in the race.... I mean, you know, things have changed. And the kind of—some of the kind of humor that you used to do you can't do anymore. And that's just the way it is.

Fineman's suggestion, clearly, is that Imus' brand of racism was acceptable not too long ago— at least before Barack Obama was able to raise significant campaign donations.

On PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer (4/9/07), Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant rejected the notion that appearing with Imus gave some form of cover to his bigotry:

I don't consider myself an enabler. But I recognize--and one reason I feel that it's possible to be this tough on him is that I think he understands that those of us from politics and public affairs and whatever who work with him are going to be seen as enabling. And if that's the case, then his conduct is of interest to me as much as it is to you.

Those words stand in contrast with what Oliphant said on Imus' show that very morning:

The train went off the tracks, which, you know, can happen to anybody. And, of course, what counts when the train goes off the tracks is what you then do.... Those of us... who know better, have a moral obligation to stand up and say to you, "Solidarity forever, pal."

That's not enabling?

Other media defenders point out that Imus does charity work, as if this gives him more room to be a racist. As USA Today's Peter Johnson noted (4/10/07), "His politically incorrect satire has been tempered by an intellectual and considerate side: He runs a camp for sick kids, cares about politics and has an eye for books that can catapult them onto the best-seller list." (As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out—3/24/05—Imus' ranch spends $3,000 a night to host each child; other organizations that do similar work spend about one-tenth as much.)

Appearing on the CBS Early Show (4/10/07), CNN host Lou Dobbs said much the same. While calling Imus' remarks "inexcusable," Dobbs went to offer what sounded very much like an excuse:

These calls for his resignation, frankly, in my opinion, this is a man you have to take into account. He does more public service, works with kids, he is an absolutely exemplary person in terms of his humanitarianism. And those who suggest you can't take into account the broader man for these, as I say, ignorant and inexcusable remarks, I don't think is adequate.

NBC reporter David Gregory (MSNBC, 4/9/07) stressed that "Imus is a good man," and that "this is a difficult time, not just because of the hurt that he has inflicted and what he said, as he tries to deal with it, but for all of us who are on the program and certainly don't want to be associated with this kind of thing that he's done, as all of this plays out." Gregory apparently wasn't so bothered with his association with Imus before this latest controversy.

Others made it seem as if deciding not to appear on the Imus show would be a problem. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas told the New York Times (4/9/07), "He should not have said what he said, obviously. I am going on the show, though. I think if I didn't, it would be posturing." To which the Charlotte Observer editorialized (4/10/07), "Which raises this question for Mr. Thomas: What posture would that be--upright?"

In a Los Angeles Times report (4/11/07), some Imus guests appeared to have second thoughts about their silence. CBS reporter Jeff Greenfield said, "That's something people like me should have challenged him on." (Greenfield, to his partial credit, did try to raise the issue when he interviewed Imus on Larry King Live--2/24/00.)

Others, meanwhile, seem to think Imus really means it when he says he's sorry. CBS host Bob Schieffer condemned Imus' remarks, but "said he would probably go on Imus' show again, noting that they had been friends for 15 years." The Times quoted Schieffer: "There's probably a good lesson for all of us in this. We all need to refocus and be sensitive to these things. Maybe sometimes he's gone too far and some of us really haven't been paying attention." Newsweek editor Jon Meacham (Washington Post, 4/11/07) said: "We don't want to rush to judgment.... Imus appears genuine about changing the tone, but if there's any backsliding, then it's over as far as we're concerned."

Pundits making such assessments might consider that this was not the first time Imus has appeared to sound contrite about his words, so it's hard to know why to believe him this time around. In a recent Vanity Fair profile (2/06), Imus said: "I regret the times I've been mean to people.… It's fine to pick on people who can defend themselves and deserve it. Some people don't deserve to be picked on who I picked on, so I don't do it anymore."

He made a similar pledge on his show years earlier (3/4/00):

There's no reason to hurt people's feelings. In some cases I have, and I'm not going to do it anymore. I get accused of being a racist all the time, but I'm not. I realize that we do things here that are misconstrued and frankly I regret it. People have criticized me and they're right.

Given Imus' repeatedly violated vows to rein in his racist schtick, one has to look to his pundit friends—his enablers—to show more resolve. Unfortunately, given their co-dependent relationship with the talk host, such resolve is unlikely. As Newsweek's Fineman put it (Imus in the Morning, 4/9/07): "You know, all of us who do your show, you know, we're part of the gang. And we rely on you the way you rely on us."

Click here to subscribe!

back in print by popular demand

FAIR's book-length debunking of one of talk radio's most notorious figures. A timeless classic. 128 pages.

Phyllis Bennis on Iran & British captives, Dean Baker on trade coverage (4/6/07-4/12/07)

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org
Read more!!