1st off, there seems to be a little confusion about bully boy's 9-11 face. the new york times wrote about how there were dueling images of his image 'after' 9-11 versus his image in hurricane katrina. as wally's 'THIS JUST IN! THE REAL 9-11 MOMENT!' wonderfully points out, it's the same damn face. the only difference is that the news media didn't want you to see his face on 9/11. most people had to wait for michael moore's film to see the face of bully boy. he did nothing. he sat and he did nothing. nothing too different from his response to katrina. so let's all get clear on that.
in 2001, near the end of his 1st year, he did nothing. in 2005, near the end of his 1st year of his second term, he did nothing. it's 2006 and that means 2007 is war with iran. he just repeats himself. (2003, for any who've forgotten, is when the illegal war with iraq began.)
2nd, required reading, c.i.'s 'It takes a War Pornographer.' oh my god. i read that and thought, 'this is over 24 hours after c.i. got up.' i mean we're talking 24 hours with no sleep. we're talking a very difficult edition during which ava & c.i. repeatedly said they didn't think they could write even 1 tv commentary. they were tired. they were tired 1/2 way into the edition.
but they wrote 3 tv commentaries:
TV: Washington Weak
TV: Make Room For Bully peters out
TV: Vanishing
they did other stuff as well, participated in the writing of other pieces, but writing 3 was something they didn't want to do, they were tired, they were both falling asleep during the edition (ava started drinking coffee, c.i. started eating chocolate - and they were still tired and yawning throughout the edition). and then, c.i. turns around, at the end of 24 hours plus with no sleep and writes 'It takes a War Pornographer'? that still amazes me. it's the best thing you'll see on the topic though elaine and i both think most won't bother to weigh in.
what's it about? sexually exciting u.s. armed forces in iraq with little outlet (other than rosy palm). the 'answer' for the troops today is to give them a t&a show. good thing no troops have been accused of raping civilians, right? is there a more idiotic thing? it was idiotic during vietnam, it's idiotic today. but some 1 had the bright idea that cock teases needed to go into iraq. they'll tease and tease but who's going to be there when the 'gun' goes off?
and exactly how does this help us women serving in iraq? as c.i. pointed out, if they're lesbians (and might be turned on), they can't acknowledge that unless they want to be drummed out of the service under don't ask-don't tell. if they're straight, not only are they going to have to put up with 'jokes' that probably border on or are sexual harrassment (think of what suzanne swift went through) but they're also going to have to wonder where the beefcake is?
if you're going to exploit, do it equally.
by the way, 53 u.s. troops have died in iraq thus far in august. not that many pay attention to it. they're dabblers. looking for the latest cause bandwagon to jump onto. they got bored with iraq. they wanted the war to end, but goodness, golly, it's such work. so better that they move on and independent media has moved on. from amy goodman on down (or on up), they've moved on. 69 iraqi deaths made it into this morning's paper (for sunday) today and you know there were more. but 69 made it in and where the hell is independent media? darfur? israel?
they're a bunch of dabblers. they can't follow through.
they lose interest and move on to something else. to them 'eye on the prize' is just a mini-series they can't get due to copyright issues. they're bored, so they don't cover it.
what is it amy goodman ridiculed the new york times on? their response about to the misreporting on the anti-war protests against the war in iraq: 'it's a matter of emphasis.' well amy goodman and company have demonstrated that their own 'matter of emphasis' is seriously flawed. a dabbler, that's what she's become. you've got an ongoing fast, you've got people dying in iraq, you've got ehren watada, you've got a whole host of things to report on but she's bored with iraq and needs to dabble elsewhere. dabble, dabble, dabble.
what a joke she's become. people used to really look up to her and think, 'here's some 1 who takes the war seriously.' for 2 months now, she's demonstrated how unseriously she takes the iraq war. that ought to help the sales of her new book!
i asked c.i., who still listens to the show, 'are you going to buy the book?' the reply, 'i don't think so.' if any 1 doing a site in this community was going to buy the book, it would be c.i. my next question was, 'are you not buying it because you'll end up getting it for free?' no. not buying, not receiving and not reading.
like the last one, this 1 is credited to 'amy and david goodman' which always made me wonder about the last book. it's written by the sister and the brother so why does it use 'i' all the time? is it 'as told to david goodman'? i've heard of the royal 'we,' but never a royal 'i.'
she had her day in the sun. those days appear to be over and it's her own fault. she could cover iraq and i think even mike would overlook the last 2 months when war was treated as an after thought. (that's my opinion, mike might disagree.) but that hasn't happened.
dabble, dabble, dabble.
and we wonder why the war drags on?
what else? let me note ruth's 'Ruth's Report' and betty's 'On Our Vacation, Thomas Friedman Got Burned' and trina's 'Mixed Greens with Honey and Oranges in the Kitchen.' those went up this weekend, in case you missed them.
steve young's got a post entitled 'Note to Air America: Watch The Daily Show,' and while i agree with his critique of air america radio in some instances, i was also left to wonder if he knew that air america already attempted humor in its early days. for the 1st year, unfiltered attempted to do just what he suggests. janeane also attempted to do humor. then the majority report turned into non-stop screaming and ranting (and squealing) from sam seder. but lizz winstead actually attempted this with many of the shows (she was more than a co-host of unfiltered). it's ratings were higher then so i'm not suggesting it didn't work. but i am saying, it's not that they need to try something new, it's that they need to get back to their original formula.
i don't think he realizes that lizz (who was a creator of the original daily show) did start the shows off that way. as i've noted before, i'll listen to randi and to laura. mike if i've got time. (and can remember. before the majority report became the sam seder show, i could listen all the way through.) oh, the majority report? right now not on the fall schedule.
ha-ha!
who would want to listen to sam seder for five minutes let alone an hour? (no 1 judging by the ratings. and they'll only get worse now that janeane's gone.)
as long as people are discussing what to do with air america, let me bring up something i've brought up before (and i believe we've addressed it at the third estate sunday review as well), does any 1 notice that beside laura's show, women aren't guests? sam seder could go a week with 2 women and how many men? the network is too white and too male. the problem's only gotten worse. i never did understand why fair, which studies race and gender ratios on guests, never felt the need to study air america.
is the point to improve things for women and people of all colors? if that's the point, then they need to study the air america guests. if it's just about sticking it to the big tv networks and cable channels, then just admit that you don't give a damn about representation, you just want to needle cable and networks.
but that appears to be the state of the left today, everywhere, it's not just 1 organization or group, there can be no critiques of it from the left. maybe if there were, maybe if fair turned their eye to the left, we could get iraq covered again? as it is, the left should be ashamed (not just amy goodman) because the coverage of iraq has gotten so rare that you'd think it was the invasion of grenada and not a war going on it's 4th year, started by the u.s. government.
bobby e-mailed me and i did make a point to try to catch up on e-mails from people who aren't regular readers of this site. (i failed, but i read bobby's.) he wanted to know if i felt i was hurting myself by critiquing the left?
how? i like fair. if they're offended by my comments, oh well (as cedric would say). i mean, it's not like they've ever linked to me. they're not as bad as some of the girly-girls posing as feminists (if feminism means you repeat the mainstream critiques and babble on about about shopping - feminism is supposed to critique consumerism). elaine won't link to most woman who writes to her for a link. there's a reason for that.
i did. i gave out 41 links in the time i've done this site, according to elaine who kept track, to the girly-girls. 'rebecca, i love your site. let's exchange links.' i'd write back, 'great, we need more women online and we need to be aware of them.' they'd write back that they hadn't linked to me yet but they were about to. they were always about to. when elaine substituted for me in the summer of 2005, the 1st thing she did was drop 13 girly-girls who had many months to link to me but never did. i guess writing about your vacations takes a lot of time?
elaine said, before she filled in for me, 'rebecca, you're being just like c.i.!' and i was. c.i. doesn't care. that stuff doesn't matter. if it happens to a friend, it matters, if it happens to c.i., it doesn't. i've lectured c.i. for years (decades) that 'you need to fight for yourself as much as you fight for every 1 else.' and i mean that (even now).
but i didn't do that with the links. it took elaine to pull the last of them. they'd write and sometimes say something like 'you know, right now, i can't link to you but i will soon.' apparently i was too controversial. no problem. but if i'm so controversial (elaine's point) then you probably don't want a link from me for fear of being tarred by association.
i have susan (random thoughts) on my links and she may be the only 1. she never wrote. she never said, 'link to me and i'll link to you.' sherry pointed out to me that susan linked to me so i thought 'thank you!' (and i mean that.) i don't know her, i've never e-mailed her and she's never e-mailed me. but i've got a link and she's got a link.
but elaine gets about 7 requests for link exchanges lately. (last month it was 10.) from the girly-girls. she doesn't even reply. she knows the sites that burned me. she knows they'll probably burn her too.
it's my site. if i'm going to do it, i'm going to say something. it's worked well enough that i've got some really great and loyal readers. and it didn't come from 'links.'
i have what i need. so, no, i don't worry about losing anything that i don't have. (the support has always come from the community. they've given me support, they've given me word of mouth.)
so i'll speak my mind.
there's no support from the girly-girls. (among men outside the community, i've had support. i am aware of that and thankful for that.) but, hey, they were nowhere to be found when sandra day o'connor retired. all of them. big girly-girls, little girly-girls. they were off writing about vacations or cats or silly tv shows they were shakespeare. so it's not like we'd have the same audience. (1 wrote about it, later in the day. i enjoyed that post. of course i enjoyed it several hours before when c.i. had posted it. if you're going to steal, probably shouldn't do it word for word. but that gives you an idea of the girly-girls.) i don't even remember the girly-girls noting the death of molly yard. they probably didn't know who she was.
like when they were all, panties in a wad, screaming 'newsweek owes susan faludi an apology.' let me go to ava & c.i.'s 'about the women' because i thought they 'served' the girly-girls up perfectly with that:
Take one site which actually blogged on Iraq this week (for a change). They did it about an Abu Ghraib trial and only because a female carried a book to the trial with a one word title that rhymes with "runt," but hey, they're doing their part, right? No comments on Iraq or even Abu Ghraib but that book title, gotta' love it!
Why they're so on top of things they also noted the 'clarification' Newsweek offered last week for creating a "fact" about a woman being more likely to be killed by a terrorist than married after a certain age. They even noted that Susan Faludi revealed (in 1991) that the claim wasn't true. After that, it got a little confusing for them. They started wondering if now Newsweek would apologize to Susan Faludi?
For what exactly? They ran a story in 1986 and she debunked it in 1991 (in Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women). Why does the magazine owe her an apology? They may owe everyone, male and female, who read the article in 1986 an apology, but why would they owe Faludi an apology? It makes no sense (neither does ignoring the war). But for the sake of argument, let's defy logic and just nod and say, "Newsweek owes Susan Faludi an apology!" Well it's a shame they waited so long, a little while ago and they could have just written "I'm sorry" on her paycheck. (The screamers for an apology to Faludi from Newsweek are aware that Newsweek hired Faludi as a contributing editor in the late nineties and that she worked for the publication until recently, right?)
no, they weren't. it's the difference between knowing what you're writing about and just offering hot air. the girly-girls usually offer a lot of hot air.
as i've said before, i think we've allowed feminism to be far too elastic. there are no 'pro-life feminists' - not if they're advocating taking the rights away from women. that's not feminism. you can be against abortion for yourself but when you advocate that no woman should have an abortion, you've left the feminist world.
i'll stop here but may pick up tomorrow on this topic. trina had a wonderful point, early on, about the girly-girls and how they love to flaunt their ignorance. i'm going to call her and see if she remembers when that post was. i think it was her 3rd or 4th post. but i want to talk to her and see if she has anything to add. (i'm betting she does.)
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, August 28, 2006 and chaos and violence continue in Iraq, England's defense minister attempts to bring back Top Of Pops -- live from Baghdad -- as Operation Happy Talk continues to reject reality, eight US soldiers died on Saturday and Sundy, and, in Australia, Soldier 14's DNA argument is rejected by a forensic expert in the military inquiry into the April 21st death of Jake Kovco.
On Sunday, as Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) reported, "Gunmen and bombers claimed at least 69 lives in Iraq". That would be the same Sunday that puppet of the occupation (officially billed as prime minister) Nouri al-Maliki declared on CNN, "In Iraq we'll never be in a civil war." Downplaying "unemployment as high as 40 percent,"
al-Maliki stuck to the Operation Happy Talk latest wave, "But this is a new Iraq."
Speaking Sunday on The KPFA Evening News, Antonia Juhasz responded to the latest wave of Happy Talk by noting, "The statements run counter to the facts that, well have been on display every day on our televisions, but even in mainstream media, of violence increasing between Iraqis, between the Shia and Sunni, but also violence increasing tremendously against the presence of the occupation, against US forces. Security is definitely down in Iraq, as are basic services. What is, what is up is Bush administration pressure on the Maliki government to put up a better public face."
Juhasz, the author of The BU$H Agenda: Invading the World One Economy At A Time, will be at Camp Democracy in DC on September 5th and, Texas community members, she will begin a Texas speaking tour on September 26th.
On Monday, Des Browne, the British defense secretary, wanted to duet with his Iraqi counterpart Abdul Qader Jassim. Reuters reports the two held a publicity conference where they dueted on how things were looking up, things were looking up, things were looking up . . . They spoke in the heavily secure Green Zone, the bunker-like compound in the midst of Baghdad -- Baghdad being the site of the 'crackdown' with the huge influx of US soldiers since the 'crackdown' began on June 14th. Things are looking up? Apparently that means next week they might step a toe outside the Green Zone. Maybe just half a toe. In the meantime, possibly they could consider recording a duet of Ashford & Simpson penned Motown classics? "Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing?"
The real thing? CNN reports that, when not dueting with Des Browne, Jassim was busy today "sending reinforcements to the Shiite city of Diwaniya to try to stem ongoing clashes that have resulted in the deaths of 23 Iraqi soldiers and 38 militia fighters". Reuters reports that: "Ahmed al-Haji, in charge of the town's main hospital, said the bodies of 25 soldiers and ine civilians have been brought in."
Bombings?
Sudarsan Raghavan and Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) report that a car bomb went off "at a checkpoint leading into the Ministry of Interior" in Baghdad. Reuters puts the dead at 16 and the wounded at 47. AFP notes that, "The blast and the carnage in Diwaniya were [the] latest blow to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's campaign to convince Iraqis and the world that his government and security forces are up to the tast of restoring order in Iraq." The BBC reports that the Ministry was "frequently targeted in the past and is heavily guarded." In addition to that car bomb, Reuters reports that a roadside bomb in Baghdad claimed the life of one police officer and left two others wounded while, still in Baghdad, a civilian was injured by a roadside bomb. Another civilian was killed in western Baghdad, according to the AP, who notes the dead was in "a car transporting five barbershop workers" and that four were wounded.
Today, Reuters reports, the US military announced six US soldiers died from bombings in Baghdad yesterday: "Four . . . killed by one roadside bomb north of Baghdad and two others killed by separate devices around the capital". AP notes that if you put together Saturday and Sunday's count, eight US soldiers "in and around Baghdad." 8 US troops dead and US military flack wants to brag, "We have reduced the amount of violence. We are actually seeing progress out there."? Try "Iraq: This is what failure looks like" (The Third Estate Sunday Review).
Shootings?
Reuters reports a a police officer was shot dead in front of his house in Mosul, that three other police officers were shot dead "in separate attacks", and that "two women and one man" were shot dead ("members of the same family). AFP reports: "A security official says gunmen have also killed four of former Sunni deputy prime minister Abd Mutlaq al-Juburi's bodyguards in an ambus on their car in Baghdad's Ameriyah neighborhood."
Corpses?
Reuters reports four corpses were discovered in Baghdad ("gunshot wounds").
Maybe Caldwell can join Browne and Jassim as some sort of power-trio? They couldn't cut it as Cream or The Jimi Hendrix Experience, but possibly as some sort of homage to Grand Funk Railroad they could have some chart success? There first single could be "Ride That Wave (Of Happy Talk)".
They might want to review, before warbeling again, what Nancy A. Youssef and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday: that families are swapping houses in Baghdad "as Iraqis find themselves searching for ways to avoid becoming vitctim to Baghdad's increasingly vicious cycle of sectarian violence. Shiite families in Sunni neighborhoods and Sunni families in Shiite neighborhoods change places."
In peace news, Ehren Watada's case was addressed by Charles Burress (San Francisco Chronicle) this weekend and he noted that some Japanese-American war vets were against Watada and, as Joan noted this morning, so is Daneil Inouye.
Speaking on Sunday's The KPFA Evening News, Bob Watada (father of Ehren) explained that people need "to get behind him so that the military knows that what he did, the steps he has taken, and why he's taken these steps is-is-is for democracy, he refused to kill Iraqis, innocent Iraqis, and he's spoken out on it and we're talking about free speech so we need people to support Ehren for standing up [for] the Constitution." Jim McMahan (Workers World) notes, "Many people now consider Watada's statements to be not only his right but his duty."
Again: Cedric (Cedric's Big Mix) is advising those calling Donald Rumsfeld (703-545-6700) or mailing him (1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000) to say: "Hands off Ehren Watada! Let him go." Billie advises that you can use public@defenselink.mil to e-mail the Pentagon. She suggests "Re: Ehren Watad" or "ATTN: DONALD RUMSFELD." Courage to Resist and ThankYouLt.org. will continue to offer resources, ideas and inspiration. Get the word out.
Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iraq (the first officer to have done so publicly) because it is an illegal war. Other resisters have found other ways of refusing. Peter Laufer (Times of London) reports on four who went to Canada: Darrell Anderson: "Soldiers were describing to me how they had beaten prisoners to death."; Joshua Key: ""We was going along the Euphrates river. It's a road right in the city of Ramadi. We turned a sharp right and all I seen was decapitated bodies. The heads laying over here and the bodies over there and US troops in between them."; Ryan Johnson: "I had two choices: go to Iraq and have my life messed up, or go to jail and have my life messed up. So I came here to try this out."; Ivan Brobeck: "I have seen the beating of innocent prisoners. I remember hearing something get thrown off the back of a seven-ton truck. The bed of a seven-ton is probably something like 7 or 8ft high. They threw a detainee off the back, his hands tied behind his back and a sandbag over his head, so he couldn't brace for the impact." Peter Laufer's most recent book is Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq.
In other news of resistance, Bully Boy's latest vacation didn't go as quietly as he might have hoped. From Sunday's The KPFA Evening News, Vanessa Tait: "Anti-war protestors have followed President Bush to Maine at his summer house in Kennebunkport. An estimated 700 anti-war demonstrators got to within an half-mile of the Bush compound in Kennebunkport yesterday before being stopped at a security checkpoint. They sang, chanted, beat drums and waves signs calling on the president to bring US troops home from Iraq." AFP reported Saturday that Jamilla El-Shafei stated: "Our message to President Bush is: We want the troops brought back home, we want democracy to be restored, we want you to stop trampling on our civil rights."
Things were chilly for US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well when he was in Alaska Saturday meeting with military families. Kristin Roberts (Reuters) reports that the questioning got a little intense in a closed-to-the-press encounter. Roberts quotes Jennifer Davis, "wife of one soldier in Iraq," as stating, "I think it was a show."
Cindy Sheehan remains in Crawford, Texas at Camp Casey III and notes "and hoping to be back on my feet . . . to go and protest George with Mayor Rocky [Anderson] in Salt Lake City and be up and about when he comes back to Crawford for the Labor Day Weekend. Apparently George Bush is a 'regular guy' who meets with his constituents, so I am looking forward to finally getting the meeting with him that I have been asking for all year long." Sheehan recently had surgery ("hoping to be back on my feet"). August 31st is the day of action in Salt Lake City, when Bully Boy (who arrives August 30th) make a speech there.
And CODEPINK's Troops Home Fast is on the fifty-fifth day of action with at least 4,833 people participating (that's how many have registered their participation at the site). The action continues up to September 21st. Those wanting to take part can grab a one-day only fast, a one-day a week fast or something longer (on longer, seek advice from your medical adviser).
In Australia, the military inquiry into the April 21st Bagdad death of Jake Kovco continues. To recap in light of today's issue, Soldier 14 testified Friday and denied 'silent cocking' Jake Kovco's gun. Soldier 14 also continued to maintain (as he did on August 21st and as he did on August 18th ) that he did not touch Jake Kovco's gun the day Kovco died. On Kovco's gun, which is thought to have been the gun that killed him, DNA other than Jake Kovco's was found. Soldier 14 has suggested that a share radio, megaphone, etc. may have led to his DNA being transferred to Jake Kovco and Jake Kovco then transferred Soldier 14's DNA to the Kovco gun. On August 18th, the results of DNA analysis were testified to in the hearing by Michelle Fanco, forensic biologist, who stated that a match could be made of Soldier 14's DNA and the DNA found on the slide of Jake Kovco's gun. Other DNA may have matched Soldier 14 as well and some press reports stated it did; however, Franco testified that only the DNA on the gun's slide could be considered a conclusive match.
Today, Michelle Franco testified to the hearing again.Australia's ABC notes "forensic expert Michelle Franco told the inquiry it was more likely that the presence of Soldier 14's DNA on Private Kovco's gun was from direct contact." Malcolm Brown (Sydney Morning Herald) reports that Michelle Franco ("of the NSW Department of Health's Analytical Laboratories) rejected the idea that one person's DNA could transfer via an object to another person and then to an object required a very specific time frame and stated "[a]fter 10 minutes it could probably be found but after 30 minutes it would be virtually all gone." Belinda Tasker (The Age) reports that although Jake Kovco and Soldier 14 were on duty together the day of his death: "Given Private Kovco had changed out of his combat gear after finishing duty with Soldier 14 at the Australiam embassy compound in Baghdad, any traces of Soldier 14's DNA on his hands probably would have been wiped off, she said." In addition to the issue of timing, there is the DNA found on the slide which matched Soldier 14's DNA. The Australian reports that Franco also noted the "concentration" of Soldier's 14 DNA on the gun's slide. Malcolm Brown reports: "Had Soldier 14's DNA been deposited onto the pistol in the way he suggested, she would not have expected it to be the major component of the DNA." Meaning it would be secondary and not "a greater concentration" than Jake Kovco's. Belinda Tasker reports that when Jake Kovco's parents' attorney Lt. Col. Frank Holles asked Franco if her testimony meant that Soldier 14 handled Jake Kovco's gun and Franco responded, "It is consistent with that." Jake Kovco's parents are Judy and Martin Kovco, his widow is Shelley Kovco. Soldier 14 is expected to be called to testify re: the latest DNA testimony. Tasker closes with: "Soldier 14, who has refused to be interviewed by police about the DNA tests, will return to the Syndey inquiry tomorrow for more cross-examination."
Friday, we noted the burial of British soldier Jason Chelsea who took his own life (he was nineteen) "because he feared . . he might have to shoot children" (BBC) as he maintained he'd been told during his military training. Felicity Arbuthnot (Palestine Chronicle) provides more details of Jason Chelsea which include that he "joined the Regiment at sixteen" and that, in his final moments, he told his mother, "I can't go out there and shoot at young children. I just can't go to Iraq. I don't care what side they are on. I can't do it."
