I know that a month ago Obama’s pastor said somethings that have the media just cannot move past.  They say how appalling it is that an American would say such negative things about their country.  They especially have a hard on for his statement that the US brought the attack on themselves.  Of course, that would be a no-no to the corporate media and they just cannot understand why he would say such a thing.

Please, these people are idiots!  we are observing the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King and his accomplishments.  as we should, there is not a more deserving person than he.  I know you want to know where this is going…

A year before his death the Rev. Martin Luther king, jr, made a speech on the war in Vietnam, in that speech he said “….that he felt he must speak out against the biggest purveyor of violence in the world…..my own government…”  (this a paraphrase}.  So my point is that even MLK made speeches about the policies of the US.  His words were different than those of Rev. Wright, but none the less the sentiment is the same.

So may I suggest unless the media wants to degrade an American hero, then let the speech go, on both of these men.  The country is trying to move pass the crap of the media, but there are some that want to keep beating a dead mule.  This is no longer newsworthy, it is no bordering on propaganda.

1. According to the Washington Post the Basra Assault Exposed U.S. and Iraqi Limits. “When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched an offensive in Basra last week, he consulted only his inner circle of advisers. There were no debates in parliament or among his political allies. Senior American officials were notified only a few days before the operation began… The offensive, which triggered clashes across southern Iraq and in Baghdad that left about 600 people dead, unveiled the weaknesses of Maliki’s U.S.-backed government and his brash style of leadership.” Personally, I do not believe Maliki thought up of the confrontation in Basra in a vacuum.

   “On many levels, the offensive strengthened the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The United States has spent more than $22 billion to build up Iraq’s security forces, but they were unable to quell the militias.” Not only where Iraq’s military no match to the militias, The New York Times reports “More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts during the inconclusive assault against Shiite militias in Basra last week… Iraqi military officials said the group included dozens of officers, including at least two senior field commanders in the battle.” This is not their war and the Iraqis know this. They aren’t going to fight for Bush’s agenda.

   The WaPo story suggests the biggest winner in the Basra wasn’t Sadr, but “it was Iran that helped broker an end to the clashes, enhancing its image and illustrating its influence over Iraq’s political players.”

   This is what I think happened. The Bush administration pressured Maliki to confront fellow Shi’ite Sadr to either prove Iraq’s security forces were ‘up to their job’ or to provoke Iran in some way. Either success or defeat would fit the Bush administration’s political agenda. According to WaPo, an anonymous senior official in Iraq’s Defense Ministry claimed “as the fighting progressed… the militias received weapons from Iran, including mortars and other large weapons”. The Iranians deny these charges.

   While it is seemingly okay for British and American forces to back their surrogate in the fight, Iran is depicted as meddling in the factional fight. According to this official, the militias had between 12,000 and 15,000 fighters, about the the same number as Iraqi troops. But, “if the British and American forces were not there, the Mahdi Army would have gained a victory,” he said. Meanwhile, according to the Post, “Many Sunnis now view Iran as a greater enemy than the United States.” We are taking sides in a centuries old disagreement about Islam.

Four at Four continues below the fold with stories about Iraq’s Christian refugees, 81% of Americans disapprove of where we’re headed as a country, and a profile of the artist who made the iconic migrant crossing highway sign.

2. The Los Angeles Times profiles An advocate for Iraq’s displaced Christians. “Robert DeKelaita, born and baptized Christian in Iraq and raised in the U.S., is a solidly built man who dwarfed his slender client, a frightened young Iraqi named Yousif Ibrahim. DeKelaita murmured assurances in a modern version of Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus. Ibrahim, 23, a Christian, had been jailed as a ‘deportable/inadmissible alien’ since he walked across the U.S.-Mexico border at San Ysidro in May… Minutes later, DeKelaita described how Ibrahim’s father had been burned to death in his home by Muslim insurgents in Iraq in January 2007 — because he was a Christian working for the U.N, and because another son had served in the U.S. armed forces.”

   According to the most recent estimate of Iraqi refugees that I’ve seen, the conflicts in Iraq have displaced around 2.8 million people inside Iraq and “some 2 million Iraqis have also fled abroad, mostly to Syria and Jordan.” According to the LA Times story, only “2,631 Iraqis were admitted for resettlement in the U.S. last year” and “819 Iraqis have been admitted” so far this year. For a self-proclaimed Christian president of a so-called “Christian” nation, the compassion for Iraq’s Christian refugees by America doesn’t seem very Christian to me. Meanwhile, life in Iraq is not becoming more peaceful because of the McCain/Bush “surge”. The Guardian reports that Dozens were killed in Iraq as a suicide bomber strikes at funeral.

3. 81% in poll say the nation is on the wrong track according to The New York Times and John McCain champions staying on the course Bush and Cheney set us on. “Americans are more dissatisfied with the country’s direction than at any time since the New York Times/CBS News poll began asking about the subject in the early 1990s, according to the latest poll… The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.”

   McClatchy Newspapers adds “McCain’s economic views are a work in progress, but as he does on the war in Iraq, McCain identifies with President Bush’s market-oriented views on the economy.” McCain should share his McBush economic views with the 80,000 people who lost their jobs in March. As reported by the NY Times, “sharp downturns in the manufacturing and construction sectors led the decline, the biggest in five years.” The biggest since Hurricane Katrina. “In the last 50 years, whenever there has been an employment downturn like the one of the last few months, a recession has followed.”

   More and more Americans have come to recognize we’re on the wrong course, but McCain offers nothing but McSame. In fact the Washington Post notes McCain’s leading economic adviser is former senator Phil Gramm, who not only lead the deregulation efforts in the Senate in 1999 that “tore down the Depression-era Glass-Steagall wall separating regulated commercial banks from largely unregulated investment banks”. Ugh. McCain — wrong on Iraq, wrong on the economy, just wrong.

4. The Los Angeles Times interviews John Hood, The artist behind the iconic ‘running immigrants’ image.

   On the fifth floor of Building Two of Caltrans’ San Diego compound, a bear of a man with a quiet voice sits in a cubicle…

   He is surrounded by blueprints of overpasses and trucking lanes. There are photos of his son, training seminar certificates, cups of Jell-O and bottles of Tabasco, the remnants of 27 years at the same job, 27 years of eating lunch at his desk, 27 years of unremarkable government bureaucracy — with one notable exception.

   “Here it is,” says John Hood, riffling through a portfolio. The drawing he pulls out was done as a prototype; it is crude and a bit frayed. But its characters, captured in silhouette, are instantly recognizable…

   It would become one of the most iconic and enduring images associated with the nation’s war over illegal immigration. And it would leave John Hood, now 59 years old and preparing to retire, conflicted and ambivalent about his strange legacy.

   “What does it mean,” he asked the other day, after sifting through his work, “to live a meaningful life?”