a big name blogger writes me

a big name blogger writes me.

so why do i feel pissed on?

because it's a man?

maybe because, like most women, i don't like being lied to?

it started this morning with the b.n.b.'s e-mail in my inbox.

why was he writing?

he had a question about something i'd written.

i wrote an e-mail explaining and figured, since i was e-mailing anyway, i'd not a few things.

so i thought we were just talking.

i've thought he does good work.

he wrote me.

it seemed like he was friendly.

and then i send.

i open another 'name' e-mail and find out his e-mail to me wasn't all that it appeared. he'd shared it with someone else.

i immediately wrote back and included the following:

xxxx,
i take back everything i just wrote.
the fact that you didn't just write me but also felt the need to forward your e-mail to oooooo?
jess already got stabbed in the back, i won't.
yyyyyy was who i was addressing. it was clear on my end.
rebecca

'yyyyy' was who the question was about. 'oooo' is whom b.n.b. ('xxxx') was forwarding my e-mail to.

let me be clear right at the top, i have printed out the e-mails. i may be quoting them (in full - i've got nothing on my end that i haven't said here), scanning them and naming names before the week is over.

i get an e-mail back from b.n.b. asking 'now you're mad at me?' (there was more to it. for now i'm leaving it at that.)


now any 1 who knows my site knows damn well that i can let it rip. you will note i didn't in the e-mail and that's because i was still shocked.

i was more shocked when his next e-mail came back saying he wasn't 'forwarding this anywhere.'

i was just in my inbox looking at the e-mail i wrote him that he forwarded.


so i wrote back:

you have written me repeatedly this morning.
when you write me, you then write oooo.
if you're not aware, i'm getting those e-mails.
on my end it appears to be tattling and less than sincere when i go into my e-mails.
'mad at me'?
i wouldn't have taken the time to write you a lengthy response had i known that everything i said was being passed out. i thought i was in a private conversation.
rebecca

that should have been 'everything i said was being passed on' but, again, i'm shocked.

i didn't write this guy. i've never had any contact with him. he e-mails 'i love your site' today (his 1st e-mail) and asks his question and i reply.

and my replies are being fowarded.

apparently, on his end my saying that he is fowarding my e-mails is 'more accusations'.

those aren't accusations.

he needs to get honest.

if he's not, i can quote from the forwards and scan then and post them in full.

i have nothing to hide.

i wrote back:

i thought you were asking me for yourself. i did not realize you were fowarding everything i wrote you to oooo
i answered your question
.i did so in depth because i thought you were asking me for yourself.
i did not realize you were forwarding everything i wrote you to oooo. you write 'i'm not forwarding this anywhere.'i have no idea why you feel the need to foward my e-mails. i also have no idea why you feel the need to lie to me.
you forwarded 1 of my e-mails to you on to ooooo and included this note to ooooo in 1 of the fowards:
---------------------------------------:-)
does that not look familiar?
i'm not an idiot. i know you fowarded my e-mails to yearwood.
i don't know why.
i don't know why you felt the need to or why you want to lie about it now.
i also don't know why you want to act offended.
i replied to you in depth and did so because i assumed you were writing me for yourself. had i known my e-mails would be circulated without my permission, i wouldn't have wasted my time in replying.
rebecca

'--------------------------' is me deleting what i quoted from his e-mail. he did include ':-)' as the end of his sentence.

i'm not trying to out him tonight.

but i have no idea why he's lying.

if i am forced to post the e-mail exchange, i will be quoting from and scanning hard copies of my e-mails that got fowarded.

and let me be clear, i will be scanning the actual fowards because i have those.

i have what he was sending to 'oooo'.

i'm not talking about merely having what i sent him.

i have his e-mails where he forwarded my e-mails on to 'oooo'.

i have no idea why he's fowarding my e-mails.

but we all know jess got burned. i printed all the e-mails and ruth read over them. i showed them to t. i showed them to my husband.

i faxed them to the campus c.i. was at, i faxed them to elaine. i sent them to friends via e-mail.

i asked, 'am i in the wrong?'

(thanks to ___ and ____ -- 2nd is a rape counselor, in case she wants credit. i'm not going to put her name up here but if she wants to tell people, 'i looked at them and gave my opinion,' she did and i appreciate that. so thank you to ___.)

am i in the wrong here?

i was still stunned by the entire exchange.

actually, i was pleased by the 1st e-mail from b.n.b. i did write him about something he's doing offline in my reply (i'm being vague on purpose) and that i wish online he would write more about that.

that was the main reason i was thrilled to get the e-mail. i'm not slamming his online work. but i was honestly more interested in the offline.

so i sent it. i didn't expect to ever hear from him again.

and then i go through other e-mails in my inbox and come across the foward. then i've got another foward. he's writing 'oooo' in both e-mails and i've got the e-mails - and have printed them up - where he fowarded. i don't mean his e-mails to me - i want to be clear about that. i mean in my inbox, i have copies of what he wrote on top of my e-mails when he forwarded them.

that's how i was able to quote him in my final e-mail to him.

now am i missing something here?

i want to know why my e-mails were forwarded?

i'm not 'accusing,' i have the evidence.

my e-mails were forwarded by him.

i want to know why?

i don't appreciate that and i can't imagine any 1 would appreciate it.

but maybe there's some honest reason for it?

but don't lie to me.

don't tell me you're not fowarding my e-mails when i can go into my inbox and see that, yes, you did foward my e-mails because i'm reading the e-mails you sent to 'oooo'.

again, i have all the e-mails. i have already printed them up.

if there's an honest reason for it, fine.

i'm not looking for a war.

but - and i'm sure women can relate to this - do not tell me something didn't happen when it did.

do not treat me like i'm crazy and emotional and making 'accusations' when these aren't 'accusations.'

accusations are charges that need proof.

i have the proof.

i have the e-mails he wrote to 'oooo' where he wrote a few lines each time and fowarded my e-mails on.

after what happened to jess, we are all on the watch.

i could have attacked him. i could have said 'look you ___, who the hell do you think you are you piece of ___' etc. but i didn't do that.

because i was shocked.

i'm still shocked.

and i'd love for there to be a reason for this.

but it seems to me, if you write to me and don't say 'oh i'm going to share this' and i'm responding to you and taking my time, you don't turn around and foward my e-mails.

again, maybe i'm missing something.

i hope that is the case.

but as it stands now here is what is know:

1) big name blogger wrote me.
2) i replied.
3) a few seconds later, i found out my e-mail to b.g.b. was fowarded.
4) i wrote back explaining i knew that.
5) he's telling me he's not fowarding them
6) i'm looking at the copies of his fowarding of them.

if i'm missing something, enlighten me.

i would love to be wrong.

but here's what i know, i replied in good faith and was shocked to find myself being fowarded.

i'm still shocked.

i wouldn't have been at all shocked if i'd found out he'd written about me to 'oooo' but fowarding what i'm writing him?

i'm sorry, i'm not getting why that happened.

i'm not 'accusing' him of anything.

that would be along the lines of, 'you fowarded to laugh at me' or 'this was all some sort of stunt and never genuine on your end!'

stating that what i wrote him was fowarded is not an accusation.

i have the proof. i have the e-mails he passed on - with his passing on remarks at the top - to 'oooo.'

i can talk about my feelings. i feel betrayed.

i was honestly pleased to hear from b.n.b. and took him at his word that he was being genuine in his 1st e-mail.

now maybe this is online standard. maybe we're all supposed to be fowarding e-mails sent to us around?

i get crazies all the time, guys getting off at their keyboards by telling me how they'd kill me or whatever. if i see it (sometimes my husband goes through my e-mails to help out) and it bothers me, i will read it over the phone to c.i.

but if i write some 1 a nice e-mail and they reply, i'm not fowarding it around. (i'm not fowarding it to even 1 person.)

to me, that's like showing letters.

and i really value my personal letters.

i grasp that letters aren't e-mail and that certain rules/guidelines no longer apply.

but i don't grasp why some 1 showed up appearing to be genuine and i wrote him back (being genuine) only to learn that what i wrote was being passed on.

and when i informed that i knew what was going on, to be told i'm making accusations and lying.

it's like, women can relate, knowing a guy's cheating on you and being told by him 'you're crazy.'
and you start thinking, 'well maybe i am being crazy. maybe i'm just the most ungrateful bitch in the world.'

and, to be honest, when he denied fowarding, i did doubt myself and go back into the inbox to make sure i was seeing what i was seeing.

i was forwarded. i have proof of that.

if i'm missing something, and maybe i am, please enlighten me.

and maybe this is just 'normal' online. you write some 1 a kind note (i thought his 1st e-mail was kind) and when they reply, you foward it around. maybe that's how it is and i just don't know.

but on my end, i'm still shocked.

i haven't made any accusations.

i can back up everything i said in my e-mails to b.n.b.

[i was going to add my links but i think i'll just cheat and note, i'm talking about: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, and Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz. i cheated and swiped that from third.]

now when jess got burned, we all got suspicious. and i've written the same man jess wrote (i've replied to him when he wrote here).

so knowing that jess' e-mail was shared with the nation and that they laughed at jess (who was responding to a genuine e-mail and the guy was still acting genuine when he wrote me a day or 2 later - the same guy) makes all raise an eyebrow.

so maybe i am missing something here.

that could be possible.

but as it stands, i noted i didn't know why b.n.b. was fowarding my e-mail and i didn't know why he was lying to me about it. i still don't know.

he's made no effort to answer those 2 questions that i can see.

if he had asked me, 'can i foward your reply,' i might have said yes. (i think i would have but who knows?) but he didn't and he didn't tell me he was going to foward - didn't ask me, didn't tell me.

i had no ill will towards b.n.b. he's not on my links but i don't update my links very often.

and i thought he was a genuine person. reading what he writes, i thought he was genuine and straightfoward.

i didn't always agree with him (and feel he takes out the happy stamp too often) but i enjoyed his work and i respected his offline work.

so i'm really confused and, honestly, hurt that he's fowarded me.

and i'm highly offended that i'm being treated like i'm crazy when i have the foward.

if i'm missing something, explain it to me.

i'm also kicking myself because c.i. called last night about an e-mail. a friend of k.p.'s had written c.i. and she's a feminist and c.i. was asking me whether or not to write back?

i said, 'don't!' but if you're a feminist (or say you are), c.i. gives those e-mails the same high priority as if you were a student.

so i'm on the phone and listening to c.i. read me back the reply. i say, 'don't send that.' 1st of all, c.i.'s playing sin eater and doesn't need to. katha pollitt made a fool of herself. she deserved to be called out.

and fortunately, c.i. noted something like, 'i stand by what i wrote.' but c.i.'s taking the blame. there's no blame to take.

katha pollitt decided she was an expert on a san francisco race and decided to share that 'expertise' with cindy sheehan by telling sheehan to drop out of the race.

that's not feminism, telling a woman to drop out of a race isn't feminism.

but katha offered her 'political wisdom' so c.i. offered career advice for katha.

i thought it was hilarious (i still think it's hilarious) and if katha's friend can't grasp that katha needs to work on the visual, then her friend has a problem.

print is fading.

katha needs to quit changing her hairstyles.

if i still had my p.r. firm (fortunately, i made enough to leave the rat race for good), i'd tell her flat out, you're making yourself ugly. you're never going to be pretty. you can be striking. your hair needs to be chin length on the sides minimum, that will enhance your face and turn your cheekbones into your strongest assett.

i know katha's not going to put on makeup, but i wouldn't offer make up tips. i could offer about 70 more like the hair issue.

the thing is to develop a look. joan didion (c.i.'s going to squirm on this, c.i. knows joan) is not a beauty by natural standards and never was. but she cultivated a look that made her striking and it's a look.

a look is not, 'oh i'll get my hair cut short, oh i'll get it shorter, oh i'll wear a tank top for a professional photo even though i'm too old and my arms aren't going to look good.'

now if katha's trying to break the mold, have at it. but she looks ugly and she's made herself that.

c.i. knows it, i know it, any woman with 1/2 a brain knows it.

and really, come on, i'm blonde and big breasted and always considered pretty and more but, i mean, c.i.'s the looker. to this day. elaine's got incredible bone structure and is beautiful. but she'll tell you, she has to work at it.

c.i. - and we saw that when we all went to speak in texas - is beautiful. no question. but the schedule c.i.'s on doesn't allow time for 'beauty.' c.i.'s usually drying the hair with the hands and it may or may not be dry when the day starts. what we're basically talking - and elaine and i have talked about at length because we are amazed - is c.i.'s hopping out of the shower each morning, drying the hair a little (no blow dryer), using that hair product the friends at crossing jordan were using (i've used it, it doesn't do for me what it does for others - and as ava and c.i. pointed out, it did wonders on crossing jordan) and that's it.

no comb through. no brush. no foundation. probably no mascara (c.i. has long, thick eye lashes naturally so i can't say for sure mascara's never used - but not when we were speaking in texas that week).

now i was always the girly girl. i have my day make up and my night time make up to this day. and each morning, i'd be looking at elaine (who is beautiful, no question) and we'd both be doing our faces in the car on the way to the 1st speaking engagement and c.i.'s going over notes. the hair's still damp. the face has no make up on it. and we're just gaping open mouthed trying to figure out how the hell c.i.'s pulling that off?

i mean c.i. could go pose for a magazine at that moment (or at any moment during the day) and people would go 'good god! the years have been kind and then some!'

after 30, i think most of us need make up. i'd forgotten, elaine reminded me, that in college, c.i. always had the most wonderful complexion and didn't need blush because the cheeks are cheekbones to die for (elaine has great cheekbones, she's audrey hepburn like, but even she wishes she had c.i.'s cheekbones and coloring).

but we were just gaping in awe. we're scrambling to get our make up and just i mean, c.i. looks amazing. c.i.'s always drank gallons of water each day and avoided the sun (i tan every summer) and maybe that's part of it but that skin and it's so soft.

i'm sure part of it as a great haircut. but even there, c.i.'s only getting the hair cut about every 6 weeks. (and only then because the color - i'm not telling tales out of school, c.i.'s noted at the common ills, 'the hair is my own even if the color isn't' - needs to be touched up. and c.i.'s schedule is so buy that the stylist comes to the house.

i'm 2 youngers than c.i. but i felt older, very much older. elaine and i discussed that repeatedly that week (and have since). i did all the beauty creams from day 1. my mother instilled that (and remove the make up each night) into me. i finally had to ask, 'botox?' because i couldn't (and can't) figure it out. (c.i.'s never had plastic surgery. botox and a chemical peel, i wouldn't swear on a bible. but c.i. swears nothing's been done and i believe that.)

maybe that's the look you get for having no vanity?

on that, jess' mother called me yesterday afternoon with 2 stories to share. 1 was her own and 1 she said check with jess.

her father only recently found out who jess was living with. (jess, ava, jim, dona & ty all live with c.i. now.) he was so thrilled because c.i. donated a huge sum (back in the 70s) to a case he was working on. she'd never heard that story and was asking me if i knew about it? no. i don't know half of the donations c.i.'s made. i know that all the money was gone in the 70s because c.i. was giving it out like crazy. and c.i. went from less than 5,000 dollars in the bank to back to rich in less than a year (and though c.i. now has more than the inherentance that was given all away, elaine does worry that we're going to see a repeat - i don't think that will happen. i know c.i.'s generous but that whole make everything back and then some period ... c.i.'s never going to do that again. we were all young and believed the liars who said they were going to change the world. they installed themselves and became exactly the same as the 1s they railed against.)

anyway, so there's that story which has a nora ephron romantic comedy twist to it since c.i. knew jess' maternal grandfather and c.i. knew ava's aunt and now ava and jess are a couple.

the 2nd story, verified by jess, is summer 2005. jess and his parents went out to california and jess ended up staying with c.i. for a week while he was waiting for ava to get out there (she has family on both coasts). on july 4th, c.i. had some spare time. and that was used to get things out of the main bedroom closet (which is so big, it could be a bedroom -- you could put a king size bed in there and a dresser and who knows what else - this isn't a 'walk-in' closet, that's too mild for what this is). jess was offering to help after the party was over and c.i. said no but jess insisted so jess was given the magazines to go through while c.i. bagged clothes to give to charity. (including a sweater i had loved but i'm not bitter, no.) so jess comes across 1 and says, 'you kept this because you're on the cover.' he's joking. (c.i. truly isn't vain.) and c.i. says 'turn to page __ and you'll see why i kept it.' and that was why. then jess finds a tabloid with c.i. on the cover. jess jokes again. c.i. says 'turn to page __. my mortal enemy. pull that page and trash the magazine. i want that page mounted and framed.' (and it was.)

i'd posted early yesterday and mentioned i didn't know if i had anything to write about. jess' mother read that and called with both stories.

now let's take this back to katha. i got sidetracked. 1st off, if katha read it, she made a mistake c.i. never does. c.i. always says 'never read your own press' and lives by that. (that comes from growing up in a press family and knowing how distorted it can be.) but i was still saying, 'don't send that e-mail.' and c.i. said there's nothing in it that hasn't been up at the site and if there is and gets i out, so be it. 'besides, do you realize how many of her superiors at _______' (the mainstream magazine the e-mailer works for) 'i've slept with? if she passes it around and i'm mad, i can screw her life over with just a few phone calls.' that made me laugh so hard. but i was still concered. c.i. said, 'okay forget all my ex-lovers for a moment, the owners are old family friends. trust me, if she screws me over and i give a damn, i can make her life very painful.' (i had to get a story for an actor once. he needed it desperately. he was a client. i mentioned it to c.i. and c.i. reeled off a list of magazines and asked me to choose 1. i did. c.i. made 1 phone call, to the owners, and not only did the actor get a story, he got a cover story. i sometimes thinkg nothing gets done without c.i.'s say so. and overall, that just may be true.)

so after knowing that if c.i. was pissed, there could be severe payback, i said, 'send the e-mail.'

so it's really fitting that today, a b.n.b. writes me and i'm so quick to believe what he says and think he's really asking me a question out of curiosity and not because it's going to be forwarded.

let me repeat, there may be a reason for that. i don't know. but as it stands, i will not have private contact with some 1 who is fowarding my e-mail. i don't know why it's being done, but knowing that it is, that's walking up to the tiger and sticking your head in its mouth.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, August 14, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, a US helicopter crashes, mass fatalities from bombings in northern Iraq, and more.

Starting with war resistance, Mary Wiltenburg (Christian Science Monitor) continues her coverage of Agustin Aguayo today addressing his court-martial, how Agustin's wife Helga cried (Helga: "It was the ugly crying, with snot and everything. I wanted them to see how much they were hurting us."), how Augustin's squad leader, Sgt. David Garcia, testifited ("I told him what he needed to do was stick by his gun, if that was how he felt.") and how, following the conviction, Capt. Jennifer Neuhauser talked about what really was going on (sending a message to others serving). (Click here for part one of Wiltenburg's coverage.) Aguayo's case for CO status is currently awaiting his decision as to whether or not he's going to continue to fight in civilian courts. In his court filed statement (August 10, 2006), Aguayo wrote, "As time progresses (it has been more than two and a half years since I became a CO) my beliefs have only become more firm and intense. I believe that participating in this (or any) deployment would be fundamentally wrong, and therefore I cannot and will not participate. I believe that to do so, I would be taking part in organized killing and condoning war missions and operations, even though I object, on the basis of my religious training and belief, to participating in any war. I have to take stand for my principles, values, and morals and I must let my conscience by my guide. After all, I and no one else has to bear the consequences of my decisions or burden of neglecting my conscience." He also addresses the fact that although he was supposed to be a non-combatant, per The Department of the Army, his "unit will not respect that arrangement."

Aguayo was punished by the military to send a message. As noted on October 20, 2006, "That is their biggest fear. That this will spread. Unfortunately for the military, it is already spreading. That's why it's important to get the word out. Each person who takes a brave stand against the war deserves support. They'll only get that if people are aware of their stand. And with increased awareness it's not just an issue of raising awareness on one person, it's an issue of raising awareness on an entire movement."

Kyle Snyder is another war resister and he self-checked out (April 2005) and moved to Canada. On October 31st, Snyder returned to the US and turned himself in at Fort Knox. Snyder turned himself in and quickly checked back out when the US military refused to honor the agreement they had come to and instead attempted to send him to Fort Leonard. Snyder then began speaking out in the United States, he did some volunteer construction work in New Orleans around Thanksgiving of last year and continued to speaking out (one of the places he spoke out at was Fort Benning). Despite the lie repeated by the media, the US military does attempt to track those who self-checkout. We certainly saw it last month in Denver, CO when a parent's home was searched. We saw with it Snyder who, in the midst of his West Coast speaking tour, suddenly had to worry about the police showing up at stops because the military investigation unit of Kentucky kept calling the California police and instructing them. Snyder returned to Canada after his speaking tour was over and was set to marry Maleah Frisen when Canadian police showed up at his door, drug him off in handcuffs (and in his boxers). Snyder was told the orders for the arrest came from the US military and that charge came, not from Snyder, but from Canada's Border Service Agency.

It was a last ditch attempt to screw with Snyder because, married to Frisen, he's out of the US military's reach. (He no longer needs to be granted asylum by the Canadian government.) Rochelle Baker (The Abbotsford News) reported last week that at last an investigation is taking place. The Nelson City Police -- and specifically Chief Dan Maluta, have repeatedly changed their public versions of events. At one point, Maulta was claiming the Border Service Agency ordered the arrest (the Border Service Agency consistently maintained that they did not, that they did not contact the Nelson City Police Dept., and that, after Snyder was arrested, the Nelson City Police Dept. contacted them). How much of an investigation it will be is unclear since Maluta has strong ties to the Abbotsford Police who will be conducting the investigation.

What happened to Snyder is not a one-time incident. Joshua Key is also a war resister who went to Canada (Key tells his story in The Deserter's Tale). Following the February orders to arrest Snyder, 2 members of the US military (still unidentified) went into Canada, paired up with a Canadian police officer and began inquiring as to where Key was. They showed up at peace activist Winnie Ng's door. The three men identified themselves as Canadian police and began questioning her -- very upsetting. Ng came forward with what happened and that she believed two of the men were US military. "Never happened!" cried the police. They hadn't gone to Ng's door. They hadn't been accompanied by the US military. Those were lies and slowly the police had to admit that, yes, a Canadian police officer did travel with two US military service members to assist their efforts to find Joshua Key. That is a violation of Canadian sovereignty. It is a big deal in Canada.

Back in May, Gregory Levey (Salon) became the first at a US news outletto explore this story. It was an explosive story but if you thought it got traction after Levey covered it, think again. No one in big or small media has picked up on the story (several other outlets ran Levey's groundbreaking story). Only surprising if you haven't noticed how very little attention is given war resistance period.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. IVAW and others will be joining Veterans For Peace's conference in St. Louis, Missouri August 15th to 19th.
Yesterday Sean McCormack, US State Dept. flack, declared the US government was working with al-Maliki and "not only with Prime Minister Maliki, but also with important political party leaders, some of whom are in the government or have representatives in the government, some of whom are not in the government." (Click here for text, click here for a/v.) "Some of whom are not in the government"? Needless to say, there was no follow up asking exactly what that meant. Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, has a cabinet that is falling down. Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) reported this morning that, apparently refreshed from his trips last week to Turkey and Iran, al-Maliki now says he wants to work with others and that he has big hopes that he can rebuild the cabinet. This after he he trashed those that walked out and entertained the kind of conspiracy theories that usually has the MSM using their index finger to make a circular motion while saying, "Koo, koo, koo, koo." Possibly due to the trashing, not all who were boycotting in the cabinet were forgiving. Reuters reports only three who had been boycotting showed up for a cabinet session today.

In other bad news, though northern Iraq keeps promoting itself as "The Other Iraq" (honestly, they should stop the check on the p.r. agency that dusted off the "other white meat" slogan and sold it to them) reality slaps back. Just last week, the push was on again for "The Other Iraq." C.J. Chivers (New York Times) reports that: "A European civil aviation authority said yesterday that it was reviewing security conditions at airports in northern Iraq after two pilots reported that their passenger airliner had been attacked by ground fire last week while taking off from Sulaimaniya." And Louise Nordstrom (AP) reports that Sweden has now suspended all their "commercial flights to and from Iraq". Chivers also notes the Brookings Institute's figure of "at least 34 helicopters" -- US -- shot down during the illegal war thus far.


Helicopter crashes? Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) is reporting that a US helicopter crashed today in Anbar resulting in the deaths of 5 US soldiers. (This is web, not print. By Wednesday am, the link may or may not go to the story.) CBS and AP note the "emergency response crews had sealed off the site" and that it "is about 45 miles west of Baghdad in restive Anbar province". And for those fretting, it's okay to use "crash" -- even the US military is using it in their press release noting the five deaths ("Helicopter crashes in Al Anbar Province").
Turning to other violence today . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing targeting Thira'a Dijla bridge claimed 10 lives and left six wounded. Reuters reports "three civilian cars" were sent into the Tigris. Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) notes that that the "bomber detonated a truckload of explosives on a key bridge north of the Iraqi capital today, plunging the concrete span and at least three vans packed with passengers into the murky waters of a wide canal linking the Tigris and Euphrates rivers." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) also notes a Baghdad bombing that left two people wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack left three people wounded, 3 Kirkuk bombings left eight police officers and five civilians wounded, and, dropping back to yesterday, 2 people lost their lives (a third was wounded) in a Basra rocket attack on a residence. CBS and AP note an attack in "northwester Iraq" where Yazidi members were targeted by a bombing that claimed 9 lives (fourteen wounded). But Reueters has an update: "At least 175 people were killed when three suicide bombers driving fuel tankers attacked residential compounds home to the ancienty minority Yazidi sect".

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two people were wounded while the Iraqi army and unknown assailants had a shoot out "in Shorja market neighborhood downtown Baghdad" and a civilian was shot dead in the capital (four more wounded).

Kidnappings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Abdul Jabbar Al Wagga'a and 2 of his body guards "and 4 general directors" were kidnapped by unknown men who "were wearing a military uniform" when they invaded the marketing building of the Baghdad Oil Ministry (five people were wounded during the kidnapping).
Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.

In addition to the five dead from the helicopter crash, today the US military announced: "Three Task Force Lightning Soldiers died as a result of injuriessustained from an explosion near their vehicle while conducting operations in Ninewah Province, Monday." And they announced: "One Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed and three others wounded during combat operations in a western section of the Iraqi capital Aug. 14." ICCC's total for the month thus far is 41 with 3699 US service members being the total killed in the illegal war since it started. The 3700 mark looms closer. It will be passed, as will other marks, before this illegal war is ended.[CBS and AP report the 3700 mark has been passed: "The deaths raised to at least 3,700 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count." Before the 5 deaths from the helicopter crash, Reuters reported: "United States 3,694." Adding five to that, you have 3,699.]

Sticking with reality, Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) addresses the charges and counter-charges being exchanged between Sunni and Shia leaders in Iraq and weighs in with this: "People are fighting to be the bigger victim. Shiite politicians don't openly condemn the situation, instead they ask 'who picked the fight?' and talk about the higher number of Shiites killed in Iraq. Shiite and Sunni groups compete for the anonymous bodies at the morgue. Each side wants to raise the body count of their population by burying them in their graveyards. A question was raised to me during interviews this week. There is an assumption that the Shiite-led government will try to solve the crisis. But no one official asked 'What if the intent is to continue the purge?' No American officials ever asks this question publicly. No one ever asks whether the true intentions of the current government may be to solidify power by ridding themselves of a restive minority. Are American officials banking on a government that was born under U.S. supervision but may not be the best thing for the future of Iraq?"

The chosen ones, by the US government, were the Shi'ites. They now toy with backing the Sunnis. Whether they will or not remains to be seen but it does, a government run counter-insurgency is supposed to, keep everyone off balance with the hopes of fostering a dependence upon the occupying power (US).

It was really 'cute' at the start of the month when the Iraqi Air Force Commander, Lt. General Kamal Araznji declared, "As everybody knows, the Iraqi air force is basically one of the oldest air force in the region and it was established since 1931. But now, we've started a new beginning since 2004 on a new basis with support and from the abilities and experience by the international air force, particularly by the western countries." He continues but search in that statement, bragging about Iraqi Air Force's long history for any indication that 1931 doesn't matter at all. That's because the US disbanded the military. That's because when it was built back up certain groups weren't allowed back in. This is part of the who got put in control story that Fadel's asking about. It's equally true that when someone tosses out "1931" and starts rambling about the history of the Iraqi Air Force, they're just gas bagging. The military was disbanded. There is no history to speak of. Of course, when asked if the Iraqi military was "working with people who are essentially war criminals?", Fox responded, "I wouldn't necessarily jump or characterize, you know, that we're embracing any particular segment or sect or group of people" but that is what happened and what has happened. So to return to the question Fadel notes American officials don't want to ask in public, "What if the intent" of those currently in charge "is to continue the purge?"

3 more u.s. soldiers killed in iraq

that's isaiah's 'the casual lunch' which went up sunday. in the snapshot (at the end) you'll see that sarkozy showed up late and nothing got accomplished. big surprise.

in an update to the snapshot, ap is reporting right now:


Three U.S. soldiers were killed and another was wounded in an explosion near their vehicle in northern Iraq, the military said Tuesday.

tuesday? how late are you posting, rebecca! it is almost midnight. but it's been tuesday in iraq for some time.

i did the 1st post this morning because i wanted to have something up in case i was wiped up by the time the snapshot posted.

(c.i. was visiting a very old friend who lives up in the mountains where there's no wireless and the phone lines are analog.)

now before the ap story broke, c.i. was already noting we're close to 3,700 mark. and i want to talk about that. i'm really sick of the way these marks get so damn little attention. and that's from the mainstream and from independent media. a mark was passed on december 31, 2006 and if you counted on media, you probably didn't know about it. the new york times did note it, and on the front page, for a change the next morning (monday). every 1 else? guess news can wait when you've got to party. (every community site noted it on sunday. we all tore away from own own parties and plans because it did matter. we'd already agreed we would because we knew the mark was looming and wanted to be sure to note it.)

so that's 1 of my beefs with media coverage.

here's another.

a soccer 'championship' doesn't belong on the front page of any newspaper. sports, fashion, movies, books, they aren't hard news. but not only did we get the do nothing soccer title on the front page, we got outlets - big and small - following. how about you lose the sports fever if you fancy yourself in any way to be involved in the news business?

at 1 point during that hype (check the common ills, c.i. called it out) a mass fatalities from a bombing in iraq were reduced to a single paragraph buried in a story about the soccer championship. (this was in the new york times.) if you don't grasp the screwed up sense of priorities, you are a moron.

it wasn't even the soccer game, actually. it was that a bunch of men & boys (no women, despite billing it as 'iraqis' celebrating) ripped off their shirts, shot some guns in the air and went yee-haw. that's what trumped mass deaths from a bombing.

that wasn't a 1 day thing. here's a link to 1 of c.i.'s commentaries on that.

it was never news and it never meant things were 'better' in iraq nor did it mean that the violence was stopping. however, it did provide plenty of happy footage for tv to run. it did provide plenty of crap to give the impression that things had changed in iraq.

things didn't change.

but the constant lies (and there were others) were more than enough to bump bully boy's illegal war up 10% in approval for his escalation.

so what's my point?

left voices who waste every 1's time? find something else to do.

don't expect to be listened to or followed or heeded when you repeatedly undercut reality by falling for the administration's spin instead of calling it out.

i look at all the brave voices and, thing is, i don't see 1 of them who called out the u.s. military's death announcements for july. c.i. did. c.i. noted it repeatedly. c.i. noted that the u.s. military was holding on to death notices and announcing them as much as 4 days later when the news could be buried under something else.

where were the brave voices?

helping to sell the illegal war.

i don't think they intended to do that.

i think by being so useless, they did help sell it.

so here's tip 1 for all the brave voices. when august ends - when any month ends - do not run with the 'total' on the 1st day of the month. the u.s. military is back to their trick of announcing deaths for the month completed a day, 2 days or even 3 days late and they do that so that the mainstream media will run with the 'X killed in iraq' and the X will be a smaller figure than it actually it is. by the time the real figure comes out, no 1's interested. every 1's already heard the phoney figure.

the escalation got a 10% approval bump in 1 poll. that should be a wake up call for all the brave voices to get their damn acts together.

if you can't, get off the public stage because you're not helping the efforts to end the illegal war, you are prolonging the illegal war. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, August 13, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Operation Happy Talk makes a splash and thank the left and 'left' voices there, US withdrawal fights a strong push-back via spin while one of Bully Boy's nearest and dearest withdraws from the White House, John Howard flaps his gum yet again -- this time in a letter to the puppet of the illegal occupation, the puppet doesn't have time for mail as he faces stinging criticism, and more.


Starting with war resistance, Agustin Aguayo is the focus of Mary Wiltenburg's "When a US soldier in Iraq won't soldier" (Christian Science Monitor) which traces Aguayo's involvement in the US military, working two and three jobs to support his family, Aguayo thought of joining the Army Reserves but was persuaded the Army was the better choice, went to basic training and was distrubed by the chants ("Left, right, kill!," "We are not men. We are beasts," etc.), realized on the eve of deployment to Iraq that he couldn't kill anyone. Helga Aguayo searched online and discovered conscientious objector, a term that applied to her husband and one they had never heard of. That's why it's shameful when publications such as The Nation (the 'leading magazine of the left') refuse to cover war resisters in print or reduce Camilio Mejia (as they did in their overly praised article last month) to a 'deserter' while never noting that his 8-year-contract was up, had been up, and that as a noncitizen the US military could not extend Mejia's contract. Mejia applied for CO status and was rejected. But by all means, let's applaud The Nation for it's repeated cowardice and it's repeated silence. The AP has done a better job covering the war resistance than the laughable Nation magazine. (Community members remember, check in on Labor Day.) In fairness, voices who didn't use the platform to note Ehren Watada but were happy to use their platforms to note a reporter should share the shame of The Nation.


Like Mejia, Agustin's CO application was rejected. Wiltenburg notes, "The decision was divided: Aguayo's company commander and investigating officer called him 'absolutely sincere' and said he had a 'legitimate concern with being a soldier.' The next four levels of command recommended rejection; one called Aguayo's application 'an attempt to remedy [the] anxiety all soldiers face during an extended deployment in a combat theater'." Perspective. "The investigating officer said that it was in the best interest of the military to discharge him and that he believed that Agustin was sincere. However, higher ups in the chain of command -- that never met with my husband -- decided that he wasn't sincere and just didn't really give a reason, just said that he didn't qualify as a conscientious objector," Helga Aguayo speaking to Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) Arpil 20, 2007. Mary Wiltenburg's "When a US soldier in Iraq won't soldier" (Christian Science Monitor) is the first of multi-part story on Aguayo The Christian Science Monitor is doing. So those wanting to be informed can look to that paper and ignored the useless Nation magazine..

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. IVAW and others will be joining Veterans For Peace's conference in St. Louis, Missouri August 15th to 19th.



Over the weekend, the US military made a number of announcements including Saturday when the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier died Friday in a non-combat related incident, which is currently under investigation." And, on Sunday, the US military announced: "A Task Force Marne Soldier was killed by small arms fire while conducting a dismounted patrol southeast of Baghdad August 11." and they announced: "Four Task Force Marne Soldiers were killed and four others were wounded by an explosion during combat operations south of Baghdad Aug. 11." Today, they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was attacked during combat operations in a western section of the Iraqi capital Aug. 13." The deaths bring the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war ever closer to 3700. The cakewalk that had Bully Boy declaring "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" beneath the banner declaring "Mission Accompished" in May 1, 2003 over four years ago When that lie was told at a photo op to sell the illegal war, Jesse Alan Givens was the 140th US service member to die in the illegal war. ICCC's current total is 3690. 3,550 US service members have died in Bully Boy's illegal war since he strutted around on the USS Abraham Lincoln beneath the manner crowing, "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Repeating that, 3,550 have died since Bully Boy's photo op. The 3700 mark looms and, so far this month, 32 US service members have lost their lives in Bully Boy's illegal war.

The five deaths announced Sunday indicate a new strategy in attacks on US service members. Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) reports the first soldier was shot dead to draw "the others to a house rigged to explode." It was a set up. And nothing in the US military press releases notes that.


As the 'cakewalk' had dragged on (and on and on . . .) some of the world leaders who supported it (the few) have been replaced. France has a new prime minister. Nicolas Sarkozy met with Bully Boy Saturday for a "casual lunch." Bruce Crumley (Time magazine) notes Sarkozy showed up Saturday for "the kennebunkport weenie roast" late, "45 minutes late," at a time when a new poll in France found 40% of the citizens want no improvement in the strained relationship between France and the United States that cratered over the illegal war and 26% of those responding expressed the desire for even greater distance between France and the United States. That's 66% of the country not wanting a big hug from the Bully Boy so, to no one's surprise, the two leaders, as Crumley characterizes it, agreed to disagree.

There remains a great deal of 'disagreement' between Bully Boy and the rest of the world and you don't need to look at the international polling and note how great the drop in favorable opinions of the US since Bully Boy began his illegal war to be aware of that. You can look at England's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, who has replaced "The Poodle" Tony Blair and isn't as pliable as Blair causing alarm in the US administration. Sean Rayment and Philip Sherwell (Telegraph of London) report: "America is preparing to pour thousands of extra troops into southern Iraq amid fears that Gordon Brown is committed to withdrawing British troops from the region early next year." While England plans to turn over southern Iraq to the Iraqis, the US prepares to station US troops there.

They can do that thanks to Bully Boy's escalation, which has led to approximately 160,000 service members stationed in Iraq (the highest number since Janutary 2005). Over the desires of the US public and the 'symoblic' resistance of the US Congress, Bully Boy began increasing the number of troops in Iraq at the start of this year. Tim Reid (Times of London) reports the Bully Boy thinks he can continue the escalation "well into next year" and cites a "a string of positive reports" on Iraq that Reid maintains have "left Democrats increasinly powerless to end the war."

The "positive reports" do not refer to any progress in Iraq or even official presentations. They refer to the waves of Operation Happy Talk that began in mid-July. An illegal war the White House refused to end and the US Congress played dumb about -- what to do? Grab a box of "Iraq War Helper!" Which is exactly what the administration began doing in July. Which is why and how you got nonsense such as US General Walter E. Gaskin declaring "we have turned the corner, we truly turned the corner" while for some reason referring to Iraqi soldiers's "hard". No one questioned it because the waves of Operation Happy Talk were splashing and isn't homoerotic subtext what we all expect from generals in the US military?

As Reuters' Kristen Roberts noted, one of the few, General Gaskin's briefing was very "optimistic." And strange and divorced from reality. But Gaskin was a piker compared to Lt. General Ray Odierno, Commander Mulitnation Corps-Iraq, who declared that a "bit more time" was needed for the illegal war and that General David Petraues's September report really wasn't going to tell anyone anything worth knowing because it would be November before anything could be known. In that press conference, Odierno immediately clarified,
"What I was saying is -- again, my remarks were, in 45 days I will have a better idea if the trends are continuing, and that's September. Obviously, we have an assessment we will conduct in September that will provide -- that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will provide. I was not looking at extending that time frame when they have to report back. What I imagine we'll have to do is do assessments that follow that initial assessment in September, and that's -- I'm assuming we'll continue to do assessments while we're here." He would clarify it again on Friday and some of our 'brave voices' would get it wrong and say he clarified it for the first time on Friday. Not true, he did it in the original press briefing. Odierno was part of the push back, the lowering of expectations.

In that, he was successful. In the same press briefing, he also attempted to sell the unproven link between the Iranian government and resistance fighters in Iraq. He was less succsessful there because reporters pressed him forcing him to admit that there was "no specific intelligence" and, still in the same press conference, "We don't see any evidence -- significant evidence". That didn't prevent the New York Times' Michael Gordon from repeatedly citing the false link in July or August or utilizing Odierno as his source (including last week). What a few others questioned, Michael Gordon ran with. No surprise since Judith Miller's former co-writer was there to sell the illegal war from the start. Of course, it helps that 'star' 'reporter' Gordo has to answer to few and that the Baghdad chief for the New York Times is John F. Burns who could, and did, start off the month publicly opining, "I think there's no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference." He did so not in print because reporters aren't allowed to opine on the pages of the New York Times, that's a no-no. So he took his cheerleading on over to right-winger Hugh Hewitt's radio show where he also opined that the US withdrawing from Iraq will
"lead to much higher, and indeed potentially cataclysmic levels of violence, beyond anything we've seen to date." No word yet on when Burnsie plans to handicap the Kentucky Derby.

The waves of Operation Happy Talk also saw sporting events presented as indicators of 'progress.' All the little boys of the press who never got to play sports in their pimply, geeky, sunken chest schools days grabbed their jock straps and pounded furiously at their key boards over soccer matches and what it 'means'? If it meant anything, and it didn't, the alarm should have sounded when the Iraqi soccer team defeated the one from Vietnam. That should have sent a shudder through the jock-boys' spines since, of course, Vietnam was a defeat for the US not all that long ago. So those wanting to read the tea cups (or the sweat stains on the jock cups) should have pondered if that means that, in Iraq, the US has an even stronger resistance?

Where there are no sane comparisons to be made there is John Howard. Howard is not just (for now) the prime minister of Australia, he is the last of the Bully Boy defenders who got on board with the illegal war and (for now) still holds his official title. Now Howard didn't get way on board with actual troops. In fact, his loud mouth and hyperbole appear to be a desperate attempt to compensate for that and prove he can waddle with 'the big boys.' While he talks big, he sends very few troops. (Australians would not put up with him increasing the troop levels and they may not be putting up with him much longer as the election looms.) But Howard loves to shoot the mouth and this year decided the thing to do was to interject himself in US politics as he went on attack against US Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.and the Democratic Party claiming their victories in 2008 would be a winfall for terrorists and terrorism. "Barack Obama: Warmonger" (Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report) has made embarrassing steps repeatedly though the Sammy Power crowd tries so hard to prop him up. In this instance, dropping Chicken Sop for the Soul and leaving aside the I Talk Tough rhetoric, Obama actually scored points -- against a world leader. (It should have been a tip off to his chaotic campaign, but they're all so lost.) Noting that the loud mouth John Howard liked to talk big but has only provided approximately 1,000 troops to Iraq (that would be approximately 159,000 troops less than the US), Obama declared Howard should put up or shut up, send 20,000 more troops into Iraq, because
"[o}therwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." Howard sulked off and tried to keep his head down. But there's a wave of Operation Happy Talk to ride (actually it's over but Howard's timing has always been poor) and damned if Howard's going to miss jock talk! Australia's ABC reports Howard has dashed off a letter to puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki declaring that "Iraqis should follow the example of their nation's Asian Cup-winning soccer team". How so? By only some returning (briefly) to Iraq following the win? That is what happened. The ones he returned got a secluded, within the heavily guarded Green Zone, muted celebration. Somehow that didn't get splashed across the front pages of the New York Times, et al.

al-Maliki doesn't really have time for pen pals these days. He's just returned from trips to Turkey and Iran. Prior to leaving, he saw walk outs in the Iraqi Parliament and his own cabinet. al-Maliki's manner of dealing with it was to term those protesting obstructionists and began speaking publicly (yet again) about conspiracies to oust him. The whole country of Iraq was against him! The travel apparently did him well and he returned to Iraq, as Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) notes in a more peaceful and moderately sane (for him) mood declaring that he was committed to resolving "the growing political crisis" and that "[h]is primary goal will be to reconcile with nearly half of his cabinet members, who have stopped attending meetings in three separate protests against his leadership."

For some Iraqi leaders, the response was, "It's not that easy." Reuters reports that Adnan al-Dulaimi ("a senior figure in the main Sunni Arab political bloc in Baghdad") has declared (in an open statement to al-Maliki), "Your brothers in Baghdad are suffering in genocide carried out by militias and the death squads with Iranian planning, instructions and weapons. If you think what is happening to us will end at Baghdad then you are wrong. By God, this war that started in Baghdad will not stop here. It will extend to every Arab spot where the Arabic tongue is spoken. It is a war of history." Others joined al-Dulaimi in condemning the puppet. Suleiman al-Khalidi (Reuters) reports Sheikh Harith al-Dari ("the top Sunni cleric") stated, "If the Americans remain with this policy and rely on the same men who proved their failure again and again then they will leave Iraq in failure. . . . The U.S. administration should rectify its position in Iraq and stop depending on puppets . . . who have proven their failure."CBS and AP focus on al-Dulaim, and ignored al-Dari, noting that al-Dulami had spoken out against the Shia militias "unprecedented genocide campign".

As the waves of Operation Happy Talk started, 'war critics' showed up to say it was winnable and few bothered to note the 'critics' had argued for the illegal war to begin with. As July drew to a close and August began, the left and the 'left' largely made themselves useless as they accepted talking points (such as 'only 72 Americans died in Iraq in July!' -- a lie when they wrote their pieces) to move to 'bigger' points. Here's reality, the push-back was obvious in July. Save your bigger points until after you address the lies that are being told right then.
They didn't, because they know best. Obviously. After all they stopped the illegal war from even starting, didn't they? Oh, no, they didn't. And if anyone needing to see how that effort failed in real time need only review those end of July start of August critiques. "Wait! We had the MSM to go up against before the illegal war started! They were all selling it!" Yes, and they were all selling it again last month and this month and where the hell were you? Which is why CBS can report a new poll that finds a 10% bump in support for the escalation that Bully Boy calls the 'surge.' Attitudes against the illegal war have hardened and that remains true as the same poll indicates -- 30% want a timetable for withdrawal, 30% want US troops home now. But via a hard-sell by the MSM and a lot of crap from left and 'left' voices, he did get a 10% bump in approval for his escalation. The bump didn't translate into a bump for the Bully Boy himself (he stands at 29% approval rating in the latest poll) but it wasn't about Bully Boy. He has no election to win. He's over. The war drags on. And what the p.r. stunt proved was that (a) the MSM would run with it, (b) the voices with platforms would largely take the spin and say, "True, but . . " instead of calling it lies out right, and (c) new 'techniques' could be seen as worth exploring if a hard sell took place. The lesson for the administration (and War Hawks) was that they might be able, if the press real hard, to string the illegal war along by tri-mesters.

The War Hawks can laugh at portions of the left who make themselves useless, who will accept the same spin the MSM does, and who will be so dense and stupid that they will applaud crap and encourage people to view it. "No End In Sight when the peace movement gets behind crap" addressed that nonsense at various left and 'left' voices began praising a 'documentary' by a Council for Foreign Relations flunky which ignored the entire issue of the illegal war to instead sell the lie that the US screwed up on the ground. No End In Sight exists for one reason only, to sell the concept of wars of choice, wars based on lies, and get us to all agree that the real problem is with the planning, not the illegalities themselves. "Blood on the scarecrow, blood on the plow," as John Mellencamp once sang.

CBS and AP note, "At least 37 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence nationwide. Nearly half of that number, 17, were tortured bodies discovered in Baghdad, officials said." In some of today's reported violence . . .


Bombings?Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 1 life (three wounded),

Shootings?

Reuters notes an Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Hilla.

Kidnappings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Laylan kidnapping today where a truck driver was seized "on Gargcha bridge". Reuters notes that "the mayor of town of Dijla" was kidnapped today.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 18 corpses discovered.

Over the weekend, some realities emerged in the press. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times)
reported that all was not as upbeat as the waves of Operation Happy Talk maintained such as in the Amil section of the capital where checkpoints are set up everywhere but that hasn't stopped Amil and the Bayaa section from accounting for being the site of 160 discovered corpses since May. Meanwhile, in the foreign press, reports emerged of a US helicopter killing 8 Iraqi electrical workers when a rocket was fired on them. Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) was pretty much alone in the MSM in picking up the story and was told by the US military that, on Thursday, in that area, a US helicopter had killed "six men" but they were 'insurgents' who were "in the back of a truck." After speaking with Oppel, the US military would issue a statement and in the military press release on the helicopter firing they would note "eight insurgents" were killed, up two by their original figure -- and consistent with the reports of the US military killing 8 electrical workers last Thursday.

As if to counteract that reality, Stephen Farrell showed up in today's New York Times selling a wave of Operation Happy Talk about the US military taking in a 9-month old girl, Fatima, and raising her on a base in the midst of a war zone with no concern as to what this will mean for Fatima when the US military leaves, no questions as to why relief agencies weren't utilized, no questions about the huge breakdown in command that allowed such a violation to occur but lots of sop to sell the illegal war for a few more tri-mesters.

In other news, the US military is trumpeting their recent war games (click here for Nancy A. Youssef's report) which predicts chaos will come to Iraq when the US withdraws. Chaos came in March 2003. The war game is a game and as useless to reality as holding the Monopoly deed to Park Place when you have no place to live. In the real world, Robert Hutton (Bloomberg News) reports that the United Kingdom's Parliament is predicting the Bully Boy's escalation will fail and that "[t]he cross-party panel of lawmakers called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to set out a policy to promote reconciliation between rival political factions in Iraq." The escalation is a failure and the US military pulled back and slowed the announcements of the deaths of US service members in an attempt to trick -- fortunately many were willing to be tricked. There has been no progress. All this time later, potable water, electricity and security remain impossible. The point being made in the British Parliament are similar to the ones made by US Senator and 2008 presidential hopeful Joe Biden on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show Thursday -- there is no diplomtic 'surge,' there is no progress in basic needs, the focus has been on the privatization of Iraqi oil at the expense of what is good for Iraqis and there is no way to claim that the escalation of US troops into Iraq has resulted in progress.


In news of withdrawals, Karl Rove will leave the White House. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reports, Rove will leave Aug. 31st and this "comes while he is at the center of several Congressional investigations. Last month Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy subpoenaed Rove to testify about his role in the politicization of the Justice Department and the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. So far Rove has ignored the subpoena and has refused to testify, citing executive privilege. In addition, two weeks ago Rove skipped a Congressional hearing on the allegedly improper use by White House aides of Republican National Committee email accounts. Rove told the Wall Street Journal that he is resigning in order to spend more time with his family. For the past 19 years Rove worked as George W. Bush's closest political advisor, first in Texas, then in Washington. During that time he earned the nickname of Bush's Brain." Goodman explored the topic in depth today with News Dissector Danny Schechter who noted, "Well, with his brain gone, what's left? I mean, this is rats deserting a ship. You know, the ship is sinking, clearly. His comment --- President Bush's comment the other day --- he doesn't speak English --- is indicative of an administration that doesn't know what it's doing or where it's going. Bush's top adviser leaving is certainly not going to make it any easier for him. We're going to see more and more crises.

well shut my potty mouth!

this is just a quick post for 2 reasons.

ruth and i were waiting to call c.i. this morning until democracy now was off because of something we loved, loved, loved! and in the meantime, i got a mention at the common ills in 'other items.'

so just to explain for any 1 wondering, mike and i probably have been the free-est with the language at our sites. it was becoming a problem for members and i did note this here. i was told, 'i love your site but i have to go the library to read it now' by 1 person. he wasn't the only 1 explaining that my language was becoming a problem at work. hannah made me laugh by writing something like 'look, with your title, i've already got enough raised eyebrows at work!' so mike and i were talking and we both agreed we'd use '*' in words when possible. so instead of the f-word, it's been f**k here for some time. (c.i. didn't curse here and the policy actually makes me feel bad because that's always been 1 of my big selling points on guest posting here, 'you can cuss to your heart's content!)

for the record, i made the decision with mike.

i don't think i've become a prude or a puritan but i will pass that on to my sister who has spent her life worrying that i'm 'too wild' because that will no doubt allow her to sleep easier.

now what had ruth and me laughing our butts off this morning is c.i.'s 'and the war drags on' (which went up early this morning my time, but late last night c.i.'s). oh my god, that is hysterical.

while we were waiting to call c.i., elaine called and asked, 'did you read it!' i said, 'can you hear ruth laughing in the background?' it is hilarious.

i have about a million things i want to say on the topic of katha pollitt (the nation) 'helping' cindy sheehan out with some advice; however, elaine said, 'we have to do something with this at the third estate sunday review' and she is soooo right. so i'll hold off on it and just tell you that the 'helpful' katha got her stinky ass served back to her and then some.

if you haven't yet read c.i.'s 'and the war drags on,' read it now and prepare to laugh. my favorite line may be the part about our betters ourselves but it is so hard to pick 1 favorite thing from it.

speaking of hilarious and of third, ava and c.i.'s 'TV: P(ure)BS' is an insta-classic. they really were pressured by jim to come up with something hard hitting. they'd been talking to friends at pbs about history detectives and we'd heard about those conversations so jim was begging them to write about that and not the george lopez show (which will be a nice review if it ever gets written - he's asked them to put that on hold twice now).

i asked ava to call me last night if she had time (she's black balling a tiny dicked man who trashed jess behind his back - ava and jess have been a couple now for 2 years, big mistake pissing ava off if you want exposure on tv). she did and we laughed about t.d. man forever. what a moron.

but the reason i wanted to talk to her was because i just can't get over how she and c.i. can pull it together like that. i know that their latest tv commentary was completely unplanned and unprepared so i was really just trying to pick her brain because i'd love it if i could do something like that here.

that's not 'oh poor me'. but what they do is so hilarious, so hard hitting and pretty damn creative.

she pulled a c.i. and said 'it's all c.i.' i told her i'd heard the same thing repeatedly on the other end and i knew it was the 2 of them.

she said the best she can explain, they start off hating it. this is before a word is written. they probably spend 10 minutes discussing how they can't do it, how they have nothing to write, how jim is such an ass to pull their planned review at the last minute and ask them to come up with something completely different at the last minute, how 1 day they will get their weekends back and never again have to spend all night on a writing session, how the pressure is too much, etc.

then 1 of them says 'screw it, let's get to work.'

ava says sometimes it just flows and sometimes it's really hard work. she said they usually have a joke early on and the other 1 (who didn't come up with the joke) will praise it while the 1 who came up with it will say 'that was crap!' then around joke 3 or 4, they'll think, 'well maybe it's not so bad.'

ava: 'but we never think it is good. we never think, "oh, this is wonderful! every 1 is going to love it!" we always think every 1 will hate it. we can't believe they are so popular and we never have time to really think about that because we're always stuck with another 1 or another 1. and remember, we're doing telanova reviews for maria, francisco and miguel's newsletter on sundays and we're doing 1 radio show review for hilda's newsletter every tuesday. so it feels like we are always, always trying to figure out what to write. and it feels like we are always being pushed to make it funny. i mean, we'll probably look back - this is what we tell each other - years from now and say, 'hey, we did a really good job on ___' but we don't do that now. we don't have the time. that's probably a good thing because otherwise, we'd be analyzing. we'd be figuring out what were the most popular pieces we did and picking them apart to figure out why so we could repeat that. instead, we're just focused on "did we finish another 1? good. how long before the next 1?"'

and they never go back and read any of them?

ava: 'no. we don't have the time. and when they're brought up to us, what stands out is usually that 1 of was sick that weekend, or jim was on a war path about how "we really need you, really need, right now" or whatever. if you tossed out a title, i could tell you what the problems were when we were writing it. so if we were looking at them now, i'd probably say, "oh, yeah, we wrote that 1 when i was cramping like crazy" or 'that's when c.i. kept running to the bathroom to throw up." we write in long hand and we have gone into the bathroom - this is why we hate doing those tv things - and set up shop in there because c.i.'s been so tired and so sick that it's been non-stop throwing up. now i've had the flu repeatedly and it seems like more this year than ever before. so we've been in there writing for that reason as well. but that's what i remember when i think of the reviews. and that's not an insult to c.i. i couldn't do it without c.i. and we make the process bearable for each other. i love every 1 working on those editions, including jim, but i couldn't do those tv things with any 1 else but c.i. we know each other's rhythms. if 1 of us can catch an insight or toss out a joke, the other can keep the ball rolling. and let me repeat, c.i.'s the 1 who stuck up for me. from the start. i'd have an idea and toss it out there. with jim, jess, ty and dona, you have to be prepared to fight for your idea. i wasn't like that. if they didn't like it, oh well. but c.i. would say, "hold on, everybody, that's a great idea."
it's amazing we never met before that 1st weekend because my aunt has known c.i. forever and she keeps trying to figure out some point when we must have met, but we never did. not until that weekend. and i think the show was joey. i didn't want to review it, c.i. didn't want to review it, neither of us wanted to write a thing about tv. jim was the 1 saying, 'we've got to cover tv.' so give him credit there. it's the calling card and he knew it would be important to the site. we argue during the writing editions but jim deserves a lot of credit. and outside of the writing sessions, we get along beautifully. but any way, we were kind of off by ourselves, c.i. and i, while jim, ty, jess and dona were crowded around jim's laptop writing that 1st review. and every now and then we'd toss out a line. if c.i. said it, it pretty much made in automatically. if i said it, it would be "oh that's good" and move on to something else. c.i. had to say, "that's good and it needs to go in." i hope i'm not making any 1 sound bad. dona and i were and are best friends. but i just knew the others. i didn't hang out with them. and dona and jim had their whole flirting thing going on for weeks prior to that weekend. so dona, who would usually stick up for me and sticks up for me with jim all the time now, was off in love-love land. jess was interested in me - i didn't know that - and kind of stand-off-ish as a result. ty was just thrilled that all the talk - he, jess, jim and dona had been talking about doing a website forever - was finally coming true. so i was the stranger and c.i. was the stranger and we kind of stuck together for that reason, i'm sure, but also because, you know this, if c.i. feels some 1 is not being listened to, regardless of what they're saying, c.i. is the 1 who always sticks up for them. it was probably about 4 weeks later when we had time to talk - c.i. was back in our area and we were writing in person, in the weeks between, c.i. would call in and we'd write that way - i mentioned something about my mother and c.i. said, "i know your aunt!" and that's when it turned out that we knew a lot of the same people. that's a long winded answer to your question but you said you were writing about and ty says e-mails always come in assuming c.i. and i were best friends before the site started. if we'd met, we would have been. but we didn't meet until the site started. did i answer your question, i'm yawning here.'

yep, she did. and i'm putting this in now (i'd planned for it to be night time post) because i'm stalling for time. but thank you to ava for letting me interview her last night.

they really do not read over their stuff. elaine proved that 1 thanksgiving. she was at c.i.'s (i think this was thanksgiving 2005) and quoting lines back to c.i. (and i think to ava too). and there was no recognition. if you do their 1 liners to them, they'll laugh and say that's funny. if you do more than 1 line from the same review, they'll catch on that they wrote it (they both say it's from the rhythm they write in that they recognize it).

i could spend an entire day reading over some of my favorites of their reviews so it really is surprising that they don't ever go back and re-read them. (sherry asked me about this in an e-mail last week, by the way.) but they don't.

and thank goodness. c.i. just called back to say 'it's up.' while we were on the phone, c.i. told me isaiah had e-mailed and asked, 'don't make jokes about karl rove leaving this morning.' c.i. asked me, 'do you think he's doing a special comic?' and while we were on the phone, it came in. c.i. had to upload it (flickr takes FOREVER!) and it just went up.

here's isaiah's comic on the departure of karl rove:



you can use the link to see it bigger (or click on the image). i'm doing the small version because flickr tends to screw up your site if you're not careful.

i have no idea what i'm writing about tonight. i used pretty much everything i had this morning.