Now that's funny

Read the rest of this post...

Some gays still not happy with the DNC

I don't pretend to understand what the DNC does or how it does it. But I've known Donald, the author of the letter below, for years, and I known his partner Paul Yandura for just as long. I trust both of them, personally and politically, so if they have a gripe, I think it's worth airing. And if the DNC has a response, I'm happy to publish that as well.

This is a letter to be published in Friday's Washington Blade (one of the two local gay publications in DC):

Washington Blade

DNC Not Ready to Make Nice

Dear Editor,

After attending the recent Democratic National Committee LGBT Caucus meeting, it reaffirmed for me my reasons for standing up to Gov. Dean’s reluctance to treating our community with dignity and respect, an action for which I was fired. I claim that firing as a badge of honor.

Gov. Dean barely addressed the LGBT caucus with only 5 minutes worth of comments, and no questions from the floor. And unfortunately, his talking points had shifted from the comprehensive plan to address the anti-LGBT state ballot measures offered last year to throwing only “a little bit of money” into the states at the end of the fight. So much for the strategy to combat them that he touted in the LGBT press prior to the elections. A recent survey shows that the DNC gave states less than $20,000 in-total, despite having raised almost $2 million from the LGBT community in 2006. But we will never know the exact amount given to state groups since the DNC is embarrassed to officially release the numbers.

The most shocking revelation during the meeting was that Gov. Dean misspoke by claiming that there were no 2006 LGBT exit-polling numbers, stating that “people won’t admit that they are gay” to pollsters while walking out of the voting booth. However, as many of us know, there are indeed exit polls reporting that approximately 80% of LGBT voters voted Democratic. Obviously, either his staff still does not have access to brief him on our issues, or he is not listening. I wonder if he would address any other constituency group, not knowing this basic information.

At the meeting, LGBT finance staff and key fundraisers did sit at the Caucus table, as before, but what is different is that lately we seem to be treated solely as an ATM for the party, with our civil rights seeming an afterthought or burden. After Gov. Dean became Chair of the DNC, two LGBT political positions were abolished, and two finance positions were added, for a total now of four positions in Finance and zero in Political. Given the meeting, it’s obvious that we continue to be invited to the table, pay for the meal, but we are not allowed to eat.

I have great faith in the community to continue to ask questions, and hold our party accountable. That is the only way real progress can be made.

Sincerely,

Donald Hitchcock
Washington, DC

Editors Note: Donald Hitchcock is the former Director of the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee

Read the rest of this post...

How not to win hearts and minds

I think we've been here before.

A U.S. airstrike Thursday killed 13 insurgents in a volatile area west of Baghdad, the military said. Local officials said 45 civilians, including women and children, died in the attack.

Read the rest of this post...

CNN shows 3 Republican congressmen criticizing Nancy Pelosi and ZERO Democrats defending her

CNN let its resident xenophobe Lou Dobbs repeat, yet again, the lie that Nancy Pelosi had asked for a 757 - not true - and just for the heck of it. Nancy Pelosi is "in denial," CNN's correspondent reported. Yeah, no bias there. There was also no bias when the correspondent showed video of 3 republicans attacking Pelosi, but no Democrats defending her.

Yes, we're a partisan Web site. But for CNN to simply let its correspondents, and hosts, go on TV and lie is unprofessional. And it doesn't matter if the host in question is popular and CNN is afraid to take him on. The man has been lying about this story for almost a week now, and at some point it would be nice for CNN to report the truth. And if we're so partisan about our thoughts on the story, then why did ABC's Jake Tapper manage to the get the facts straight? Read the rest of this post...

Russert thought Plame leak was "really big"

Tim Russert, who blabbed to the FBI about his conversation with Scooter Libby, thought the Valerie Plame leak was "really big." Funny how no one at NBC bothered to share the "really big" leak with their viewers. A "really big" story that they never told:

Mr. Russert, who limped into the courtroom Wednesday using a crutch because of a broken ankle, recalled that conversation for Mr. Fitzgerald, who took less than nine minutes to draw out the account, in which Mr. Russert said that Mr. Libby was “agitated” about Mr. Matthews.

Asked how he could tell Mr. Libby was agitated, Mr. Russert replied: “He said, ‘What the hell’s going on with Hardball. Dammit, I’m tired of hearing my name over and over again.’ ”

Mr. Russert insisted that it “would be impossible” for him to have told Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson in their conversation on July 10 or 11, 2003, “because I didn’t know who that person was until I read the Bob Novak column.” He said that, when he read it on July 14, he said to himself, “Wow, this is really big.”

You said it to yourself? You run the Washington bureau of NBC News. Your news team repeated the White House denials for years. You knew the White House was lying. Now, that's a "really big" story. Tim Russert, like most of the Washington press corps, blew it.

But, hey, Nancy Pelosi is going to get an Air Force plane to transport her (just like her predecessor did). That non-story came via the Moonie-owned Washington Times, so the Washington press corps is all over it.

The media's standards: Lying, leaking White House, not a story. Pelosi plane, big story. Idiots. Read the rest of this post...

This just in from CNN... Anna Nicole Smith is still dead

Wolf Blitzer is on the story, non-stop, well into its second hour. You'll recall that this is the same Wolf Blitzer who on Monday said that the homophobic Snickers Web site controversy was a non-story. Yet we're now devoting the entire politics show on CNN to a former Playboy playmate mess of a woman who is now dead.

I can't wait for the six o'clock hour, when Lou Dobbs blames Anna Nicole's death on Nancy Pelosi and the Mexicans. Read the rest of this post...

CNN on the news that Anna Nicole Smith just died: "This is certainly an unexpected and very tragic turn of events for Anna Nicole Smith"

Gee, you think?

I promised myself I wouldn't post about this woman, because seriously, who the hell cares? Strike that, the Situation Room has now devoted their coverage to this mess of a woman dying. And we wonder why CNN hasn't caught on that the Pelosi-plane story is a lie. There are apparently much bigger stories to investigate.

UPDATE: I'm reminded of the time I was having breakfast in my favorite diner in New York City a few months back, and this easily 85-year-old man was sitting at the next table with his wife, reading the New York Times. All of a sudden he says, way too loudly, "who the fuck is Anna Nicole Smith?" Read the rest of this post...

Hillary responds to WSJ Iraq smear

The uber-conservative republican Wall Street Journal published an editorial today attacking Senator Hillary Clinton on Iraq (which now makes me wonder if perhaps she's doing something right.) In any case, Hillary's campaign has prepared a point-counterpoint of the charges made in the WSJ editorial. Since Hillary's position on Iraq has been a topic of lively debate of late, I'm publishing the campaign's response, in full.

Hillary on Iraq: What the WSJ Won't Tell You

The Wall Street Journal published a piece today on Hillary Clinton's statements on Iraq. They bill it as "a summary of the arc of Mrs. Clinton's public thinking on Iraq." Actually, it's a highly selective account designed to distort and simplify her actual views.

First, WSJ article provides one quote from Hillary before the war, selectively quoting from her speech on the use-of-force resolution and attempting to paint her as unequivocally in favor of invading Iraq. They leave out these other statements she made before the war:

JANUARY 2003: HILLARY SENDS LETTER TO POWELL, URGES HIM TO CONTINUE ROBUST INSPECTIONS: "If our words about supporting UN inspectors have any meaning and if we truly want the United Nations to be effective, we must act to support the UN arms inspectors and act to unite the UN Security Council behind the use of U2 aircraft in Iraq...Additionally if we are truly serious about supporting the UN inspections we should increase our intelligence support to the inspectors." [Letter to Colin Powell, 1/31/03]

MARCH 2003: HILLARY URGES 'PEACEFUL SOLUTION,' PUSHES BUSH TO 'ENLIST MORE SUPPORT' FROM ALLIES: "'It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection'...[T]he senator said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action. 'The administration should continue to try to enlist more support,' she added." [AP, 3/3/03]

Next, the WSJ selects one quote from a Council on Foreign Relations Speech in December 2003 attempting to paint her as completely supportive of President Bush's policies. The WSJ leaves out these other statements, also made in December 2003:

DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS WAR IS BEING RUN BY 'POORLY PREPARED PEOPLE' WHO ARE 'OBSESSED WITH IRAQ': "As a result, we are living with the consequences of refusing to admit the size of this undertaking. I've said on many occasions that it is bewildering to me how this administration, which is run by people who've been obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War, could be so poorly prepared once the military success was assured." [Press Conference With Jack Reed, 12/1/03]

DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS BUSH HAS 'NOT LEVELED WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE' FROM 'THE VERY BEGINNING': "I think that the administration has from the very beginning not leveled with the American people. There is no doubt that we have seen a rather disastrous aftermath of the military action." [Meet the Press, 12/7/03]

DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SAYS BUSH'S 'HAPPY TALK' IS 'NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR POLICY': "I think that one of the missing elements in our strategy thus far has been the president and the administration leveling with the American people about what it is we're up against, how long it's going to take, how much it's going to cost…No reasonable person looking at the facts can't see that there are some real problems that we have to deal with. I don't think happy talk, you know, is a substitute for a policy." [Face the Nation, 12/7/03]

DECEMBER 2003: HILLARY SLAMS BUSH FOR 'MISCALCULATION' AND 'INEPT PLANNING': "So, there was a lot of miscalculation and, and, frankly, inept planning that we're now living with the consequences. I regret the way the president has used the authority. I mean, it's one thing to say, you know, we're heading down a road that is rooted in the values and ideals and practicalities of what got us to this point, looking back at previous administrations, and there was an expectation about how that authority would be used, which, you know, frankly, I'm, you know, disappointed that it wasn't." [This Week, 12/7/03]

Finally, the WSJ selects on quote from a Larry King in late-April 2004, attempting to paint her as unquestioning of the intelligence Bush used to justify the invasion. But they leave out her speech on the floor of the Senate in October 2003:

OCTOBER 2003: HILLARY ASSERTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION 'GILDED THE LILY' ON IRAQ WAR INTELLIGENCE: “Nevertheless, I think it is clear, and it is not just a mistake, it is not just a wrong assessment--I think now it is clear that, for a combination of reasons, the administration gilded the lily, engaged in hyperbole, took whatever small nugget of intelligence that existed and blew it up into a mountain, in order, I suppose, to make the case more strongly and convincingly to the American people. But at what a cost? The cost of our credibility, the cost of our national leadership, and even more so the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at least the administration that cried wolf. It is a big price to pay.” [Floor Speech, 10/17/03]

Since that time, Hillary has continued her criticism of the Bush administration on Iraq. You can watch and read her speech on the Senate floor last night HERE.

Read the rest of this post...

House Speaker Pelosi accuses Pentagon of double-standard towards first female Speaker, leaking lies about her

Good for her. And she's right. The Pentagon has decided to play banana republic politics and take a swipe at the incoming Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the person two steps away from the presidency of the United States.

Why are they doing this? Because, in my view, the Pentagon brass think that if they damage Pelosi at the outset, like they smeared their commander in chief Bill Clinton at the beginning of his term, this will somehow make Pelosi injured and more docile when they deal with her in the future - i.e., she'll have to prove that she really loves the military and they'll own her.

Well, boys, you screwed up. Democracy is back, and the new folks in town don't look kindly on generals who think they're politicians - we don't like it in Uganda, and we don't like it in America. In our country, civilians rule the military, not the other way around. Perhaps if the generals running the Pentagon paid as much attention to building democracy in Iraq as they do fighting democracy at home, maybe we wouldn't be getting our asses kicked in the biggest military blunder since Vietnam. Our men and women are getting killed over there and their bosses are busy playing politics at home. Pathetic.

Here is what Pelosi just said, as reported on CNN:

Why would the Department of Defense be putting forth any of this information, which is misinformation and mischaracterization of a request by the Sergeant at Arms [of the US House] for security? I know that it is not coming from the president of the United States because he has really been insistent that I have the security that I need. And I myself would rather not have security.

So, no we haven't asked for any larger plane.

B, this is not my request, it is a request of the Sergeant at Arms.

C, I don't know why they would say this was necessary for the previous speaker but it's not necessary for you. And that's what the Department of Defense seems to be saying. So if you want to take it to a place... I'm not saying I'm being discriminated against because I'm a woman, I'm just saying I have no intention of having any less respect for the office I hold than all of the other speakers who have gone before me.

Read the rest of this post...

Fight in Najaf: different perspectives

Following up on the recent battle in Najaf, it's never quite become clear exactly what happened. The narrative most media outlets eventually settled upon was that the group, which threatened to overwhelm Iraqi security forces before they called in American support for both ground and air operations, consisted of Shia "death cult" members attempting to hasten the return of the Mahdi (i.e. the 12th Imam). This week's Newsweek reports,

Dhia Abdul Zahra claimed he was the messiah. And on the eve of the holiest day in the Shiite calendar, Ashura, when believers beat themselves bloody with chains and swords, Zahra tried to deliver salvation. Hundreds of his followers, armed with heavy weapons, clashed with Iraqi and American soldiers northeast of the holy city of Najaf on Jan. 28. The Soldiers of Heaven, as the cultists called themselves, apparently planned to storm Najaf and assassinate top Shiite clerics.

Not good times. In addition to the group being surprisingly effective and well-armed, it was Shia-on-Shia violence of the type that has largely remained latent.

That's not the story in Iraq, however, and Arab press paints a starkly different picture. Azzaman (translated into English) describes the battle as a U.S. provocation against a group on its way to celebrate the Ashura holiday:

Iraqi officials said 263 members of a little known group they identified as the Soldiers of Heaven were killed. They and U.S. officials who sent in helicopter gun ships and tanks to back Iraqi forces were pleased of their ‘victory’. But who were those Soldiers from Heaven? And how could both Iraqi and U.S. officials persuade U.S. troops to market a story wholly based on lies? The ‘victory’ was short-lived and its impact has already backfired and it could not have come at a worse time for the United States as it is on the verge of launching a new military offensive to retake Baghdad. Now it appears that Iraqi troops had attacked a huge procession by Shiite tribesmen on their way to take part in the Ashura ceremonies. The tribesmen were armed because their areas are among the most dangerous in Iraq. But the slogans they raised and the demands they made seem to have angered the government and prompted a violent response.

The article goes on to claim that the group was actually a sect opposed to Iranian influence in Iraq, implying that tribal rivalries led U.S. forces to intervene on behalf of a pro-Iranian tribe against an anti-Iranian one. It's entirely possible that this report is erroneous, of course, and I'm skeptical of the analysis for a few reasons, particularly because Ashura celebrants usually head to Karbala rather than Najaf.

But the overall point is that we still have very little understanding of Iraq's internal conflicts. Further, virtually every U.S. military action will be treated as an attack on civilians by one group or another, feeding a constant cycle of hatred, recriminations, and death. At the beginning of our occupation, the situation was relatively close to classical counterinsurgency: there was a government and a group (mostly nationalist Sunnis with some jihadist types as well) fighting it. Under those circumstances, it is possible to undertake military operations against "the enemy" that is fighting the government. Now, however, the conflict is much more complex, and asking U.S. troops to, essentially, shoot at any group that starts a fight with another group would be laughable if the results were not so deadly. Read the rest of this post...

Pentagon joins GOP to engage in partisan attack on Speaker Pelosi -- with no evidence

Jake Tapper from ABC News dissects the fake scandal pushed by the "unnamed administration officials," Pentagon officials, GOP Congressmen Blunt and Putnam, the Moonie-owned mouthpiece of the right wing, the Washington Times, and, sadly, CNN.

The right wing noise machine, with the help of many in the traditional media, is accusing Pelosi (falsely) of wanting to use the plane that hauls Laura Bush around the country. It's not even true, but that seems to be the crux of their complaint. (Interestingly, Mrs. Bush, as far as I can tell, has no constitutional authority and most of her trips are pure fluff. So even were it true, why would Laura Bush need a better plane than the person second in line to the presidency during a time of war?)

The rules for travel by the Speaker changed after September 11, 2001. After Cheney, Pelosi is next in line to be President. In these times, where the Speaker is and how she travels is a major security issue for our country - and this was acknowledged by the Pentagon when they provided then-Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) with a military plane to travel back and froth from his district in Illinois, non-stop, without needing to refuel (which makes sense, considering the man may need to return to Washington in a hurry, as our new president, if Bush and Cheney and the rest of us are nuked).

Well, the Pentagon joined the political fray today and denied Pelosi a non-stop plane to California, even though Hastert was provided a non-stop plane to Illinois. The Pentagon's decision - clearly meant to be a partisan swipe at the House Speaker and the Democrats (after all, God forbid the generals at the Pentagon existed to protect all Americans, not just Republicans) - comes after a week during which the Republicans simply lied about this entire issue, repeatedly, until CNN, and especially Lou Dobbs, picked up the lie and beat it like a dead horse for an entire work, including today.

The Pentagon is playing politics with this issue and it's disgusting. And worse, in a democracy it's downright dangerous for our generals to act like we live in a banana republic. The Air Force provided a long list of rules for Pelosi's travel. Great. Do they give the same list to the White House for travel by Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney? Maybe David Gregory from NBC News, who breathlessly reported this story morning during the TODAY Show could find out. (That would be the same David Gregory who knew that the White House staff had leaked the name of Valerie Plame, but nonetheless dutifully reported their denials without question. Plame leak, not a story. GOP lies about Pelosi's plane, he's giddy. Pathetic.)

Then we have the complete disinformation campaign spewing from House Republican leaders, Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Adam Putnam (R-FL). Blunt and Putnam are just plain lying. Per ABC's Jake Tapper, one of the only reporters who took the time to find out the truth (Lou Dobbs, check out how a real reporter covers the news - yeah, I know this story has nothing to do with bashing Mexicans, so it might be hard for you to follow):

Republican leaders have also stated — with no tangible evidence — that Pelosi wants to use the plane to reward financial contributors. [emphasis added because it's a key point overlooked by many in the media]

"She was offered the same aircraft that the previous speaker had," Putnam said yesterday. "It sat 12 people, and she refused it, didn't think it was big enough for all of her friends and supporters. In fact, she specifically requested that supporters be able to travel."

Said Blunt, "If you can take your supporters in the air on a government plane, that is a pretty big perk to be able to offer, I would think, whether you are the speaker or anybody else."

No tangible evidence to back up those claims, yet the GOP leaders - and CNN - never worry about the facts. Has Blunt ever checked to see if the Bush White House has taken supporters on government planes? Doesn't have to. Blunt and Putnam know few reporters (Lou Dobbs) will do what Tapper did to see if there is any basis to their claims.

In the past two days, 11 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq. That's news. But the GOP and the Pentagon don't want to talk about the disaster their incompetence has created in Iraq. If the GOP and the Pentagon want to talk about aircraft, let's talk about aircraft - how about all the helicopters being shot down in Iraq? No, we can't talk about that - that's real news. They'd rather manufacture scandals about nothing, then disseminate it through the GOP's all-too-willing allies in the press who fall for it again, and again, and again.

Hey, did you hear the one about how the Clinton people trashed the White House before they handed it off to George Bush? Read the rest of this post...

11 dead in two days while GOP Senators prevent debate

The GOP Senators, who have enabled the Iraq War by never, ever challenging Bush, are now preventing even having a debate. It's sick that in America, elected officials won't even talk about a war where the death toll continues to mount. Via Reuters:

Four U.S. Marines were killed in combat in two separate attacks in western Anbar province, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

Wednesday's deaths took to at least 11 the number of U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq in the last two days.

The most pathetic Republicans are the Senators who are now for the anti-escalation resolution before they were against it before they were for it. Or something like that. John wrote about those seven losers last night:

The Washington Post is reporting that seven GOP Senators, five of whom successfully filibustered the Warner Iraq resolution earlier this week, are now demanding - simply demanding - that the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders permit the Warner resolution to come up for a vote.

Uh, okay. It was your own party that filibustered the Warner resolution, and one of the guys who joined the filibuster was Senator John Warner (R-VA) himself - yes, he filibustered his own resolution - and then two days later Warner is now a signatory of a letter demanding that his resolution not be filibustered. Kind of pathetic that this is what passes for courage in what remains of the Republican party.

The GOP is playing political and procedural games while soldiers are dying. It's sick. Read the rest of this post...

Snickers parent, Masterfoods, reportedly says "heads will roll" over anti-gay snafu

A little birdie tells AMERICAblog that while Masterfoods, Snickers' parent company, is acting all "our target audience LOVED the anti-gay ad" in public, they're not so calm and collected in private. Reportedly, the candy giant is operating in full crisis mode inside the company, trying to resolve the Snickers anti-gay ad issue and ensure it never happens again. The phrase our source heard used was, "heads will roll."

MasterFoods is notoriously secretive - the Mars family that runs the entire enterprise is filthy rich, and insanely private (they reportedly won't even let their photographs leak out). This much internal strife can only be a good thing, our source says.

If Masterfoods wants the crisis to stop growing, they need to stop putting out stupid messages to the public - which they're still doing by email - bragging about how everyone from their customers to the media loved the hateful, bigoted, violent-ladened homophobic ads and the accompanying bigoted commentary.

It's gonna be a long winter if someone over at candy central doesn't wake up. Read the rest of this post...

VoteVets.org storms Capitol Hill

This is great. Iraq vets were on the Hill this week with a strong message for the pro-escalation members of Congress:

In several news conferences, [Iraq war veteran Jon] Soltz accused McConnell of "aiding the enemy" by allowing the Bush administration to build up troops in Iraq at the expense of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. "We are not fighting the war on terrorism, we are in the middle of a civil war," he said, referring to Iraq. "Meanwhile, the guy who attacked this country on 9/11 is living in a cave in Afghanistan."

Soltz called Cheney a "draft dodger," repeating charges he made last month when he disparaged a "president who frankly knows nothing of war and a vice president who knows even less." He said: "Senators on the fence have a choice. They can stand with veterans like us, or they can stand with the draft dodgers down the road."

Democrats said they will not muzzle the veterans. In many ways, the former soldiers and Marines are expressing sentiments the lawmakers want broadcast, and they help inoculate Democrats against Republican claims that opposing the president's plan undermines the troops.

Not everyone was happy to see the vets. Yep, those GOPers who purport to support the troops were disdainful and dismissive:

Soltz, Van Riper and the others got polite if reserved receptions from Republicans, with one exception. The veterans said they stormed out of a Tuesday meeting with Sen. Larry E. Craig's chief of staff. "He was almost dismissive in his tone," said Joe Kramer, 31, who was in the light infantry in Iraq. "We agreed to disagree. Very loudly."

Dan Whiting, a spokesman for Craig, would say only that the Idaho Republican's chief of staff, Mike Ware, sees things differently.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and likely presidential candidate who supports the addition of troops, dismissed VoteVets.org as a "handful of veterans" not representative of the military.

There are 20,000 members of VoteVets including 1000 who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a handful? The guys represent soldiers -- and they are giving a voice to the overwhelming majority of Americans who think Bush's war in Iraq is a failure. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Wow. It's so easy to be a right winger and manipulate the media.

Republicans in Congress are feigning outrage over the non-story that Nancy Pelosi gets a plane to fly her to her home district. It's not a story. It wasn't a story when Dennis Hastert had his fat ass hauled around the country. But the press is eating it up like the little lapdogs they are. Imagine if the GOP showed as much outrage over real issues, like the mess that is the Iraq war or the fact that our troops in the war they started don't have the right equipment.

Then there's the non-story started by an anti-semitic, homophobic loudmouth about bloggers on the Edwards campaign. A spewer of hateful venom, like Donohue, just has to feed inanity to the media -- and AP decides it's newsworthy. AP's reporters should consider their sources. But that might take too much work.

All of this plays out against the backdrop of the Libby trial where we've heard testimony about how the big names in DC media knew that the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative -- while we are at war. Yet, they all dutifully reported the Bush team's denials -- even when Bush himself was the denier. The White House played them all for the fools that they are.

The right wingers must just sit back and laugh at how easy it is for them to manipulate the traditional media.

Okay. I need coffee now. Read the rest of this post...

UN report: 2 million Iraqis have fled the country in last 3 years

They must all be out of town shopping for welcome gifts for the Americans visitors. Who wouldn't be grateful for this kind of liberation? Read the rest of this post...

EU to fine and possibly jail polluters

Lots of grumbling about this new discussion at the EU level, mostly over the national governments preferring to control such policy at a state level instead of an EU level. At the state level it's much easier to go soft on polluters. Besides finding this interesting from a green perspective, it's an interesting time within the EU as important issues start to migrate to Brussels instead of the national capitals.

But Franco Frattini, European commissioner for justice and home affairs, believes that the public is so concerned about damage to the environment that the measure will be popular across the continent.

His proposal lists nine sets of offences which would be recognised in all 27 EU member states, with possible punishment ranging from one to 10 years' imprisonment. These include illegal treatment or shipment of waste, discharge of dangerous substances into the air, soil or ground or unlawful possession of protected wild plants and animals. Other crimes would include causing drastic deterioration of a protected habitat and unlawful trade in ozone-depleting substances.

Maximum penalties for the most serious offences would include jail sentences or fines of at least €1.5m (£900,000). These would include "crimes that have resulted in death or serious injury of a person or a substantial damage to air, soil, water, animal or plants, or when the offence has been committed by a criminal organisation".

In introducing the legislation now, Mr Frattini and the environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, have chosen their moment well. As The Independent's Campaign Against Waste has shown, there is mounting concern across Europe over the state of the environment - from climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to wasteful packaging of consumer goods.

People in Europe want change and are demanding it. Read the rest of this post...