Betty: "Can't I be a feminist and support Barack Obama?" asked the dimwits of the net. No, you can't. Because as you rushed to slam Gloria Steinem, every one of you little twits seemed to think that feminism was supporting a homophobic candidate. Jennifer Fang, you're a homophobe, Racalious, you're a homophobe, That Angry Black Bitch, you're a homophobe. Everyone of you hurt the feelings of lesbians and you meant to do that and you intentionally excluded them from the table and you rendered them invisible.
Cedric: I love Betty.
Betty: Barack Obama thinks homophobia sells in South Carolina. A feminist doesn't support homophobia. The three women may not be homophobes. I really don't know if they are but as they rushed to attack Gloria Steinem, I thought I'd point out for them how easy it was for that uncomfortable shoe to be placed on their feet. Knowledge is power, dimwits, don't shy from it.
Oh, and Mud Flap Gals, they are homophobes, even their token "I am a gay feminist." And unlike the three women above, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt, they've made very clear that they're homophobes among other things.
Jim: I just read Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary to everyone and Betty said, "Oh, let me get into that in the roundtable." Betty?
Betty: I don't know how Ava and C.I. do it. I'm hearing it and thinking, "Yes!" I'm agreeing and I'm thinking, "At least two people can say it!" And then they do what they always do, find something so obvious that no one's spoken of it. Something that was right there but every one refused to notice. In this case, it was Melissa Harris-Lacewell's attacks, and true of the little web girls attacking Gloria as well and the attacks they fronted from their posters leaving comments, those evil second-wave feminists who were White. Evil, evil, evil. Golly, gals, were all the White women in the world you're substitute for Obama's White mommy?
Rebecca: Let me jump in there too. I didn't even think of it, I didn't even notice it. But especially with 'Professor' Melissa and her vast attacks on White women of that generation. My opinion, for his groupies Bambi brings out a Mommy response. He's too weak to get a sexual response. He's like a gay pop star that is obviously gay but all the teeny bopper girls pretend not to notice. So the response is a Mommy response -- a less complicated response than James Dean brought out. And if you want to Mommy him, you gotta deny his real mother, don't you? And didn't Melissa do that?
Cedric: She really did. She put her hate out there for White women. And it really is funny what Ava and C.I. pointed out. 'Those women did this, those women did that!' But she left out the most obvious thing that White women of that generation did: gave birth to Barack Obama. That's what really kills Melissa Harris-Lacewell. That's why she works over time to deny he's bi-racial and insists upon calling him "Black." It's like Paul, the disciple, working overtime to deny all women and especially Mary, mother of Jesus. Melissa Harris-Lacewell shamed herself in front of the nation and just when you can't think of another way she did so, along come Ava and C.I. to set you right.
Ty: Well, unlike Melissa, they've regularly covered the intersections of race and gender. And, like Betty said, this denial and destruction of the White woman by Jennifer Fang and all the others really is a denial and destruction of Obama's mother. Poor dumb little girls posing as feminists but revealing the real agenda in their own words. And Betty's right, those dumb idiots kept saying "I'm a feminist and I'm supporting Barack Obama." He uses homophobia, he lets homophobia go onstage. A feminist can't do that. A feminist can't support that. You little girls aren't feminists, you're not smart enough to be and your vision is too limiting. And I'm a gay African-American and I won't give them a pass. Homophobes! All of you are homophobes! You didn't take homophobia seriously, you didn't call it out and you supported it. That's you Jennifer Fang. Live with it you ugly homophobe, you ugly gay baiter. I wish we could call this "Jennifer Fang is a homophobe!" instead of "Roundtable." Since we can't, I'll repeat it: Jennifer Fang is a homophobe. Jennifer Fang supports homophobes. That makes Jennifer Fang a homophobe. She's no feminist. She's just a gay hater. Kiss my gay and black ass, Jennifer Fang!
Dona: I should point out that while Ty is very serious, he's also having a lot of fun with that topic. What Ava and C.I. wrote, especially that point, really was a revolutionary moment and it was actually online for four hours until just a second ago. They were tired when they went to type it up and didn't grasp that they'd clicked on "publish now" and not "save now." A number of readers saw it and e-mailed. Ty and I were going through the e-mails on a break right before this and we quickly took the piece down. But that point really registered and Donnie, who is bi-racial, was among the ones writing in about this week's TV commentary. He said, "That's what happens when you refuse to recognize a person is bi-racial. And that's how hard a woman like that professor has to attack and work overtime to deny the realities of being bi-racial." The fact that the groupies have a savior who was birthed by a White woman is something they have worked overtime to ignore and erase. And yes, she was of that generation.
Ava: And she actually did self-describe feminist, second-wave, according to two who knew her. That hit us on the plane ride back to California. We were looking for feminists in Hawaii who might have known her so we sent out a S.O.S. when we landed to feminists we know in Hawaii. They were able to come up with three women. One said, "She lived it, she believed in it but I'm not sure she ever self-described that way to me." The two others said, she lived it and that she regularly self-described that way. So congratulations, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, in sliming Gloria and all other White women who were part of the second-wave -- along with women of color that you rendered invisible -- you slimed Bambi's mother. You killed Bambi's mother. I'm laughing because what an idiot. And how comfortable she was to put it out there. She can't stand the fact that Bambi had a White mother. And Bambi's mother was part of that second-wave feminism. Congratulations, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, you truly are an uneducated, bigoted idiot. How proud Princeton must be too have a racist like yourself on staff.
Kat: I'll give the backstory because I was on the plane ride back. Ava and C.I. were doing their pieces for El Spirito and, after they finished that, they were talking about the segment. They kept asking me about it and they kept saying there's something there, did I see it? I didn't. So they're reviewing the segment and Ava's asking C.I., "What did she say?" We all know C.I.'s memory. So C.I.'s reciting Professor Melissa. And when going through Melissa's hate at White women, C.I. stops. Ava and C.I. both exclaim, "Holy sh*t!" at the same time. I'm going, "What?" Then they explain it to me.
Cedric: Well it's so obvious, once it's pointed out. And to sell Barack as "Black" you really did have to have some hang ups about race. Melissa Harris-Lacewell is all for giving Obama's wife a verbal tongue bath but she ignores his mother. Check out her interviews anywhere. That is a consistent pattern. Because for Barack to be "Black," you have to kill off and eliminate his White mother. Melissa Harris-Lacewll has done that in interview after interview. It's like as long as she can deny that he's bi-racial, that woman will not exist. She really is something, Harris-Lacewell, a full-on freak and racist.
Jim: Next week, we plan to go into the ramifications of that. But we're on a strict time table so we're moving on to the "THIS JUST IN! TOUGH TIMES FOR BAMBI!" and "Bambi supporter reveals blow job." Those are Wally and Cedric's joint-posts for Saturday. And they are explosive. Cedric?
Cedric: We saw Alexander Cockburn make a fool out of himself by quoting Obama's preacher. Has Cockburn ever stepped into a church? I don't know but he doesn't seem like he has. I was actually a little nervous about it when I brought it up to Wally and wondering if Wally would want to tackle it. Wally's reaction was "How insulting." And it really was. But we wrote it and Wally called C.I. to see if it met the laugh-meter.
Betty: And C.I. calls me and says, "Betty, something really appalling happened and Cedric and Wally are writing about it. Cedric wants to be sure he's not just the only one offended so I wanted to run it past you." I hear it and my mouth just drops. I said, "Hold on. I'm handing my cell phone to my father." My father, who's a deacon at our church, was so appalled. I said, "Dad, those are C.I.'s ears you're screaming into."
Wally: What happened was that Bambi's preacher decided to act smutty. He decided to say that Bill Clinton did to African-Americans what he did to Monica. As offensive as that is coming from a preacher, the guy says it in church, from the front of the chuch. In the Lord's house, he's trying to do blue material.
Betty: My father was so mad and asked, "What kind of Black churches do they have up north. If that had happened here in Georgia, we would have all called him out and told him just how much he disgraced himself and the congregation with that statement." Dad also loved Wally and Cedric for turning it around him. He said, "Turnabout's fair play and no one's ever mistook the web for a church." He was laughing when he said that.
Ty: Yeah, they turned it around because Bill Clinton did not "screw" or "f**k" Monica Lewinsky. So they made the obvious point that the preacher was saying Bill tempted him with his magic wang. Bill waived it in his face and the preacher must have chowed down. I loved that. I don't know what kind of churches they have in Illinois, but it wouldn't fly in most of America. Of course, the campaign has worked overtime to keep that preacher out of the limelight because he's already considered controversial.
Rebecca: My favorite part was the part about, since the preacher didn't grasp what a blow job was, it was all the more proof that the church needed to stay out of sex education.
Jim: Elaine, you're not supporting Hillary Clinton --
Elaine: No, I'm not.
Jim: But I'm wondering if the Hillary campaign will extend you an invitation to the White House if she is elected. The reason I bring that up is that last week ("Roundtable") you spoke of how if Mike Gravel had dropped out by the time the primary was held in your state, you would either vote Green or you would vote Hillary just to stick it to The Nation. We got a lot of e-mails from people who said, "I think I'll vote for Hillary now just to stick it to The Nation."
Elaine: Well that would be hilarious. For Hillary to get the nomination and to read The Nation and watch them try to act like they hadn't set out to destroy her. It would be priceless. But there is one person supporting Hillary and that person may want to speak.
Betty: That's me. I talked to Elaine about it last week. A friend at work was having some problems with her child and the school counselor wanted the child put on medication. So I called Elaine to get the names of some doctors in my area that she might know who did not automatically hand out prescriptions. And, while we were on the phone, I said, "I think I'm supporting Hillary again." A lot of it has to do with the attacks. It has to do with being a Black woman as well because I'm sick of these women like Melissa Harris-Lacewell rushing out to insist that Barack is "Black." In terms of celebrity endorsements this campaign season, I like Danny Glover and his endorsement did make me strongly consider John Edwards, but there are two women in the world who I have read everything they've written: Alice Walker and Maya Angelou. The fact that Maya's supporting Hillary means a lot to me. Maya's writing has gotten me through good periods and rough periods and she's always been this voice for those everyone else wanted to silence. So her opinion carries more weight than any one else who has endorsed. I was for Hillary until the remarks about 'find another candidate.' But I've looked. No other candidate, no real one, is significantly different than Hillary. I'm also sick of seeing the Harris-Lacewells attack Blacks who speak up for Hillary. And if there's a line in the sand being drawn, which the Harris-Lacewells are trying to do, this Black woman is going to go with Hillary Clinton. Harris-Lacewell really angered my mother. My mother had said, repeatedly, "Don't ask me, I haven't decided." My sisters have been asking her since February. But I was talking about that disgraceful broadcast of Democracy Now! with my father Monday, I'd gone over to their house because I was so upset. I thought my mom was just playing with my kids, but not only was she listening, she ended up going to Democracy Now! to see that interview. When I went over Saturday, she told me, "After what that woman did," meaning Harris-Lacewell, "I'm supporting Hillary. I want no part of people like her" meaning Harris-Lacewell.
Jim: Before we go further, since you've mentioned your family, who are they supporting? Is there a split?
Betty: You don't play the Black card and then try to be White. That doesn't play in my family. And the latest double application of QT as Bambi gets closer to the south just makes them laugh. I had a brother-in-law who was for Chris Dodd -- because of the work Dodd was doing regarding stopping illegal spying. For everyone else, it was between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Both of my parents are supporting Hillary. One of my sister's is. One is supporting John Edwards. My nieces and nephews are mainly for Edwards.
Jim: If Cynthia McKinney runs?
Betty: I don't feel really comfortable discussing this since Jess isn't here so let me just say that next week he can have a rebuttal and I'm not an expert on the Green Party. Jess is a Green. But I listened to that debate and they can't go with anyone but McKinney. So she's not going to need my vote in the primary. In the general election? That's a ways off. I've never not voted for Cynthia, she used to my representative. I'll be factoring in how many states the Greens are running a nominee for president in and I'll be factoring in whether they are running to win or running 'safe state' strategies. Again, Jess isn't here and I feel bad about talking about the Green Party because I may be making a million mistakes in my statements or assuming things wrongly. No offense to Ralph Nader, who is very genunie, but after Harris-Lacewell's performance, if he or anyone but Cynthia gets the nomination from the Green Party, they won't be a consideration in the general election. Like my mother, I felt very offended by Harris-Lacewell. I was offended by her attacking Gloria Steinem. I was offended by her distorting Gloria. I was offended by the fact that Harris-Lacewell is a liar, coming on Democracy Now! a week before and plugging Bambi while acting like she wasn't already supporting him. She was and she was even campaigning for him. She came on Democracy Now! and lied to everyone. Then, last week, she comes on to attack Gloria Steinem and suddenly wants to get honest about the fact that she's always been for Obama. She's a liar. She's a con-artist. She's a complete fraud. And to hear a woman like that rip apart Gloria Steinem was just disgusting. Like my mother said of Harris-Lacewell, you can't present yourself as a voice we should listen to when you just lie. And that's all Harris-Lacewell does is lie. My mother also pointed out that Gloria's repeatedly come to our area, Atlanta, and Harris-Lacewell is just another do-nothing-woman who wants to rush in and say, "I've been there." My mother said, "Gloria's been there for all women. That woman" Harris-Lacewell "just wishes she was Mrs. Obama." That pretty much summed it up. My mother does not like liars. If you wanted to get your mouth washed out with soap growing up, tell a lie. She'd give you a chance to correct yourself once. If you didn't, she was bringing out the soap. She'd tell my brother and my oldest sister to stop cursing and they would. But she never used the soap on them for that. She just issued one of her orders that we all knew meant business. But if you lied and she called you out and you didn't say, "Yes, I'm lying." She'd go get the soap. It's too bad Harris-Lacewell apparently wasn't raised in a family where lying wasn't tolerated. Or, in fairness, maybe she was but maybe she just loved the taste of soap in her mouth.
Jim: In Monday's "Iraq snapshot," you were quoted.
Betty: Yeah, Keesha and I were picked by a committee to weigh in. I wasn't part of the committee. C.I. and Ava called me at work and explained I'd been picked and told me I could turn it down if I wanted, that Keesha and I were the top picks but that alternates had been chosen if I didn't want to. Keesha was on the committee so when Gina was making the list of people she felt were the ones the community needed to hear from, everyone knew Keesha was okay with it. I do think, by the way, that Gina is a very strong Black woman and could have spoken better than I did. I think Martha, who was also on the committee could have as well. I think there are a number of Black women, a large number, in the community who could have. I don't think I spoke that well but I do think, going by the e-mails I got, that I did get my points across.
C.I.: Betty spoke wonderfully -- and from the heart and that's what she always does and why she connects with so many people. But I want to note that the Green Party has another presidential candidate forum scheduled. It's at Busboys & Poets in DC (14th and V Streets) February 2nd, which is a Saturday, and starts at ten in the morning -- Jesse Johnson and Kent Mesplay are confirmed to appear others may or may not, but those two are already confirmed. If you're interested in more information, click here. And the Green Party has a new webpage for videos with videos of the San Francisco forum held last Sunday already on it and plans for more videos to be added, presumably including the DC forum. Stealing from Friday's snapshot: "The Green Party's official blog can be found here and certainly if it's happening and known Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is probably posting about it."
Jim: In a snapshot last week, you also did a "note" to the Green Party which Jess asked me to bring up. Jess spend last week and will spend this week with his family. That's due to a number of factors including a project for one of his classes. He does participate in some features here but said, "Jim, you know how long these roundtables go." So he wanted to be sure the note was mentioned because he thought it was important and that the Green Party needed to "get their game on" and stop messing around.
C.I.: No link to the snapshot because I don't want to saddle Dallas with hunting down more links. In the one where I quoted from the debate, I put in a "note to" the Green Party that pointed out that the debate was Sunday. We didn't note it until Wednesday. Reason? I was wanting to include their official comment. But they had none. They held a debate on Sunday and issued no press release by Wednesday. By that time, Grist and a number of outlets, The San Francisco Chronicle among them, were not being what I'll say "kind" about the debate. They should have had a statement up, they should have it up by Monday morning. We couldn't wait for their statement any longer, so the debate was noted without a statement. One of the links above, included in Friday's snapshot, goes to their press release issued at the end of the week about Sunday's debate. But by waiting so long, they allowed others to set the terms. After the DC debate/forum, they need to immediately post a statement. No one's assuming that they're going to offer anything but praise but considering the attacks that are out there, they need to have a statement on record early. I know we're pressed for time but Hilda wanted me to note something also, is that okay?
Jim: Hilda is a community member. She does Hilda's Mix and the newsletter is for all members but is to raise the awareness in the community about the disabled and challenged. Hilda is deaf. I'm assuming her point is something to do with that, though it may not be, and we will make time for it.
Dona: All the time that is needed. I'm stopping the clock.
C.I.: Her newsletter runs on Tuesday and I typed up a transcript of the debate last Sunday so it could run. There are people who are interested in the Green Party this election cycle, some are just learning about it and interested. I've covered that party in a number of columns for Hilda's Mix just for that reason. But Chris Dodd is someone Hilda's Mix turned on, rightly, because he was just offering videos. Over and over. And it does send a message. By the same token, when I typed up the transcript, I wasn't there -- Jess recorded it for me, people were excited and then they start searching and finding just videos. If you can't offer even a sample transcript, you're sending a message, whether you mean to or not, to deaf and hard of hearing people that they're not welcome. That's a very big issue. And if you're asking for votes, if you want votes from everyone, you better be providing more than just video or more than just transcript. You better be providing examples of your own that the challenged and handicapped communities are welcomed by you. Gallaudet is something we covered here. I don't think people how big that was. It was huge. It was huge in terms of student protests, absolutely. But as people like Hilda looked to see who was covering it and who wasn't -- and most in independent media were not covering it -- it sent a message. The spirit of fighting back, which is what Gallaudet was really about, you are not going to define us, you are not going to ignore us -- resonated in a number of communites and it is being applied still. So if you're not including content that's welcoming to all, people aren't interested in supporting you. The students of Gallaudet really took a stand, they dug in for the long haul and risked a lot. As important as we all grasp the immigration rights rallies were, so was Gallaudet and that may not be grasped as easily because so many went out of their way to avoid covering Gallaudet. But John McCain can kiss goodbye his support from a lot of the disabled and challenged communities because he was seen as on the wrong side and doing nothing. Gallaudet demonstrated, as did the immigration rights rallies, that people weren't going to just go along passively.
Jim: That's a good point, thank you to Hilda. And I'll take a moment to say hello to people listening. Under the Hilda's Mix umbrella, audio files are being sent out Tuesdays for everyone signed up but especially for those who have depended upon their families to read to them off the screen. All sites are being asked to contribute and are doing so. For our site, we're sending out the roundtable and my reading of Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary. C.I. and Ava are also doing special commentaries just for the audio thing and we're all wondering where the time for that is going to come --
Ava: We're doing ten to fifteen [minute] commentaries. Two per audio newsletter.
Jim: Okay. Well I know C.I.'s said one will always be you two 'watching' a show without looking at the screen and figuring out how easy it was to follow then watching again to see what was missed. The point there, to convey the accessibility factor. I think everyone else with sites are just reading a post from the week. Right?
Wally: Well Pru's doing a report from London. She's calling it "Today in London" and is just recording herself on a street and noting what going on around her and plans to have street noise in it as well. I'm not really sure what everyone else is doing but Mike's mother, Trina, is doing a thing where she's talking about cooking with my mother and Gina and Krista. Ruth, you're doing something original as well, right?
Ruth: Yes. I'm going to offer an analysis of one statement from the radio each week. I've done the one that will run Tuesday, and it is Heidi Boghosian from last week's Law and Disorder. I am analyzing how she clearly sets up the basics in her statement and then explaining where the conversation was able to go as a result. In the beginning, I will just be noting the ones like Ms. Boghosian who do a wonderful job. I am focusing on radio programs and going with, at first, the ones that you are not asking yourself, "Wait, what's being discussed?" After I have done that for a while, I will be offering the ones who leave you confused. But I want to start with the positives and at the top of my own list is Ms. Boghosian.
Dona: Our roundtables will not be in full, they're too long. We'll pick the liveliest moments. Right now, we're considering thirty minutes the max and if that is too much, we'll shorten it. If we get requests for longer, we'll do that as well. If we don't have a roundtable to offer, we'll do "Mailbag" in full. We intend to offer "Mailbag" any week that we don't do a roundtable, for those wondering when the next one is showing up. Obviously, Ava and C.I.'s TV commentaries are the hallmark of this site, the most popular feature, and there's no way we couldn't offer those. Jim already reads them out loud to all of us when Ava and C.I. have finished writing them in long hand so it's no problem to switch on the tape recorder when Jim's doing that. Ty's over the transfer to wave files and I'll be editing the auditing of the roundtable. Clock is now back on and ticking.
Jim: Okay, Cedric and Betty are supporting Hillary. Mike and Wally really want to support John Edwards. What happened last week? Did he firm up your support or close the deal?
Wally: He had a strong week at the end of the week. He demonstrated that he wasn't running an Obama fan club but an actual campaign. Obama made his idiotic comments about how wonderful Ronald Reagan was and John Edwards was there instantly calling that nonsense out. I don't know about Mike, but when it happened, my thought was, "Great. But now you're going to be silent."
Mike: Yeah. I had that fear as well. I've got a fifty dollar bet with my buddy Tony that this is the way Edwards is going to run the rest of his campaign, staying strong and saying, "No, I don't think you can vote for Obama or me and be right. I'm the one to vote for. I'm the one who's going to fight for you." I hope Edwards doesn't cost me fifty dollars. But last week, he followed up that moment by calling out Bambi for the ads that 'friends' were running in Nevada. If you've forgotten, Bambi went to town on John Edwards in Iowa. He was screaming that Edwards should stop the ads that 'friends' were running. Edwards did call them out, which I think was a mistake. But along comes Nevada and as usual Bambi thinks it "There are rules for everyone else but I'm exempted." So Edwards called him out.
Wally: He seemed so much stronger at the end of the week. The Ronald Reagan thing got talked about on campus but the issue with the ads came too late to register on my campus. If it had come earlier, I think people would have stopped saying, "Hey, Edwards may be about to get into the fight" and have instead said, "He's a fighter." That's what we want to see and that's been a huge issue. So I think it was a good week for Edwards and I think that even with the media trying to write him off after Nevada, my prediction, if he keeps this up, you're going to see some strong showings from Edwards. I think that will especially be clear on Super Duper Tuesday. That's my predicition.
Mike: And I think so as well but, remember, I've got fifty bucks bet on it.
Jim: Okay, that's our pulling for Edwards contingent. Dona's passed me a note saying Rebecca's really not spoken a great deal. So Rebecca will toss to you with Hillary, whom you are not supporting.
Rebecca: Well, you have to give it to her, she had a strong week in terms of winning Nevada and winning Michigan. And what The Nation, and others, sent out last week was that Hillary's just a "girl" and it doesn't matter when "girls" win. I don't think they grasp how that message is playing, or that it plays to her benefit. With Michigan, you had Edwards and Barack telling their people to vote "uncommitted." You had John Conyers campaigning for that in Michigan, on behalf of Bambi. And Hillary still got approximately 55% of the vote. John Nichols embarrassed himself crowing that the "uncommitted" vote was a message. Hillary got more in that primary, percentage wise, than any GOP candidate or Democratic candidate has received in any caucus or primary thus far this year. It is a win. Then came Nevada and it was time to down play her with one of the Non-Stars Airs at the magazine posting it was a win for both Barack and Hillary. But somehow when Hillary left Iowa with more delegates, that wasn't a "both" win. They're really pathetic because they are supposed to be journalists and they are supposedly for whomever gets the nomination but they're doing nothing but attacking Hillary. I keep waiting for the "We need a recount in Nevada!" campaign. I'm sure crazy Dennis Kucinich will sign up for that too if he thinks it will get him a few headlines.
Jim: Okay, let's talk about the illegal war and I'm sorry that it's waited for the last. Community member Brandon e-mailed to praise Trina's "Basic in the Kitchen" and to say "Thank you to Trina and C.I. for taking it to a new level." That's the lies that keep us in the illegal war. And Trina's stating in her post that she's basically writing up C.I.'s speech from the Iraq study group that takes place at her house every Friday night.
C.I.: Well, I think that's being kind on Trina's part and robbing her of her credit for what she did which was more than 50%.
Rebecca: Oh shut up, that was an amazing speech you gave.
Elaine: It really was.
C.I.: I have no idea. I was tired. That group goes on for at least three hours. I wasn't planning on speaking. Usually, Ava and I will do a brief bit on what we saw that week speaking around the country. Ava had to take care of some stuff and I wasn't sure what to talk about until I stood up. Trina took my ramble and made it coherent. The illegal war started because of lies. Lies continue to keep the US in Iraq. They aren't the same lies and too often we're being encouraged to believe that they are. When someone's going to the well again on Judith Miller, for instance, we're being sent a message that those were the lies. When they're not confronting today's lies, with Miller gone from The New York Times and Miller the only one being named over and over, the implication is that the lies have stopped. But they haven't stopped. They continue. We're being told, for instance, that 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' are launching attacks in Iraq. No, Iraqis are launching attacks in their own country. The lies of 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' are to divide up the people for US audiences. That's very clear if you saw Gates' joint-press conference last week, by the way. And if one more Iraqi official participates in a conference by opening with "Praise be to God," I really think Americans are going to start asking, "Who are these kooks we've put in charge?" And Americans need to ask that because the Iraqi government is a puppet government. It is not legitimate in the eyes of Iraqis because it does not serve the Iraqi people. That's why it's hidden away in the Green Zone. As bad as Bully Boy is, and he's really bad, as illegitimate as his rule is, he still hasn't felt the need to wall off DC with physical barriers and set up check-points that Americans have to pass through and may, in fact, be denied entry to DC as a result. When Iraq's puppet government has to be hidden away, has to be locked away, when Iraqis cannot freely travel to and in Baghdad, it's a sign of how little support there is for al-Maliki and how little he is seen as a ruler for Iraq. Apologies to Ava because I'm speaking really fast because I know we've got a time limit. That's just one example of the current lies that exist to prolong the illegal war. In Vietnam, the false "North" and "South" was created by outsiders. Vietnam was a single country. In Iraq, the false "Shi'ite" versus "Sunni" was created, by the US, to foster an idea that the US was staying in Iraq to protect the 'good' Iraqis. Briefly, the US repeatedly required Iraqis, from the start of the illegal war, to identify themselves as Sunni or Shi'ite. They created the division. They have fueled it by siding with the Shi'ites early on, by installing them into government. By training them and arming them. Now, to prolong the illegal war, they're alarming the Shi'ites by training the Sunnis. Iraqis could make their own future if the US wasn't picking sides -- and constantly switching -- and fostering the divisions. So you've got two divisions right there, two lies, that prolong the illegal war. You've got the myth of 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' and you've got the myth of Shi'ites and Sunnis cannot get along. Extremists from either sect -- and they are not the only populations in Iraq -- probably will have difficulty getting along. But when you've put in one lunatic fringe, put them in charge, and they are a lunatic fringe based on the behaviors of the thugs at the Interior Ministry and based on the attacks they have condoned -- legal and with a wink of the eye -- on women and the gay community, you create the illusion that only the US can bring peace and only the US can save Iraq from itself. It's a lie and it's a big one because it continues and prolongs the illegal war.
Ty: I heard of that speech from Mike and Trina but I really wish I'd heard it. I think those are excellent points. And by refusing to make them and make them repeatedly, independent media -- which lost interest in Iraq sometime ago -- is prolonging the war. Mike was really impressed with your part on the air war, from the speech.
C.I.: Well, again, it's a lie that prolongs the illegal war. It's told to US audiences that only 'terrorists' are killed. If there's a push back by enough in the Big Media, they will come out, the US military command, with a brief "We regret the deaths of civilians." Well when you bomb a neighborhood, you have to know you are going to kill civilians. If you really regret it, you wouldn't be ordering people to do those missions. And civilians are being killed but, always, Iraqis are being killed. Whether they are part of a resistance, nut jobs or whatever, they're being killed in their own country by foreign forces. And the press releases come out from M-NF and everyone rushes to rewrite them and include them in their reports but very few bother to note that the dead 'terrorists' are always alleged 'terrorists.' You've had wedding parties killed because they were mistaken for 'terrorists.' You've had people sleeping on roofs due to the heat killed because they were mistaken for 'terrorists.' So this idea that the press will go along with calling them 'terrorists,' the press that generally wasn't in any way present for the bombings, is just beyond belief. It's a nice little lie that is supposed to make people in the US feel good. "The US military killed 7 terrorists." Yea! No, not really. That's not what happened. And by repeatedly using that language, the press continues the illegal war. The ones dropping the bombs have no idea who they're dropping bombs on, they're too far up in the sky. The ones ordering it usually aren't present but are dealing with a request. The ones making the requests may be spooked, may be nervous, may be any number of things. But when, as happened this month, 40,000 pounds of bombs are dropped in one area in ten minutes, let's not pretend that this isn't a slaughter. I know we're pressed for time so I would encourage everyone to read Trina's "Basic in the Kitchen" -- she covers it better than I did or am doing here.
Jim: Okay, we're inserting this from the snapshots. It appears in every snapshot and has since November or October. It will continue to run through the event itself.
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.
Jim (con't): Normally an outlet very friendly to IVAW elected to make some claims last week. They were offensive. C.I.'s Friday "Iraq snapshot" addressed the nonsense but a number of us wanted to address it here. Ruth, Dona notes you have now spoken the least, so you get first crack at it after I summarize. In fact, I'm not going to summarize it and I'm not being kind. This is the US Socialist Worker showing their ass: "On the other hand, the IVAW is discouraging antiwar activists from making the Winter Soldier event a focus for wider organizing, apparently because some leaders of the group believe the IVAW will be better served if it maintains a distance from the larger antiwar movement." Ruth?
Ruth: I was surprised that the outlet would pen such a statement. I am one of the ones who wanted to talk about it but mainly to register how appalled I was by their article. It seemed to me as if they did not know what they were talking about. IVAW has asked only that no event be staged nationally or in DC during their investigation. They announced the dates, as C.I. has pointed out, long ago. They did so in plenty of time. Their investigation does not take place on the anniversary of the illegal war. There is nothing preventing anyone from staging something on the anniversary. I think that is a distortion of what IVAW has stated.
Elaine: I think it's appalling as well. The event is based on an earlier one and, though largely suffering from a media blackout in this country, it had a huge impact. You could see that in terms of the Nixon White House sending out their stooges and staging their photo-ops with their stooges. You can see that in the long attacks on the earlier investigation and it came back to life in the 2004 campaign. John Kerry allowed it to by refusing to honor the young man he was by defending himself. That was a huge event and this will be as well. Even if there is a media blackout. I know we're all trying to figure out our own logistics in terms of attending. I know C.I. will be noting the investgation each day. As someone who gets lazy and let's C.I. carry the weight for all of us, let me say I'm going to insist on special features here and I'll be doing them at my site, on this event. The realities are. You know what, Mike and I have had this discussion since we read C.I.'s comments in the snapshot and I'm going to toss to him because I'm getting really mad right now.
Mike: Okay, well who's not getting to stage an event? No one. But it does appear that people who dabble in impeachment, Iran, Hurricane Katrina, Pakistan and assorted other topics, people who only seem to remember the illegal war on the anniversary of the start of it, yet again want to ride in and say, "Look at us! We're opposed to the illegal war!" Well you're not working to end it. You're too scattered to the wind. I think it's okay to note that from my own conversations with veterans in Elaine's Thursday night groups, conversations outside their group session, I'm not in that and I don't hear about it from Elaine. But from their conversation there is real excitement building for this event. And I'm sure that's the case across the country. This is IVAW's event and, unless I'm missing something, no one else has planned a big event. No one else has thought, "What can we do that's different from our usual action?" IVAW has members who will vote for __ or ___ or ___ but those are members. The organization has not confused itself with a political party or an election campaign. They have not offered repeated excuses for War Hawks. They've stayed true to their purpose and they've planned a big event. It's not fair for the dabblers to show up and try to strut for a day pretending they give a damn about ending the illegal war when they don't. So too bad you big cry babies. Maybe you should have realized that Iraq is a topic for every day and not wasted everyone's time with your Cult of Bhutto crap. Maybe if you pathetic hitchikers had shown a little bit of focus, the illegal war still wouldn't be going on. You pick up Iraq and you drop it based on what will get you into the news, what will get you heard, what will get you read. You're disgusting. It's cute the way you dropped your big story after it turned out your created hero was a little rat who cut a deal to save his own ring-leading ass and finger the five others. Yeah, we haven't heard a word about that independent media created 'hero' since then, have we? You didn't care about the other five. You did care about not telling people, "Uh, this guy's already on probation several times over and one of those probations is for assaulting a woman." You've always got something to rush off to in order to avoid Iraq. Now there's a big event planned by IVAW and you're sensing the excitement and wanting to ride it. You didn't create the excitement, you didn't do a damn thing. This is their event, stop trying to do your usual lazy ass thing of glomming on someone else's work. You're all a bunch of hacks trying to get the title of 'leader' and the reality is you don't lead. If you were Moses, we'd all still be wandering around because you get lost every damn day. "Oh, look, Pakistan!" "Oh, look Lebanon!" "Oh, we've got to go to Jena!" "Oh, there might be a war in Iran!" There's no might about Iraq. So, really, go screw yourselves. You're pathetic. And I have my own beliefs of why that is. I will state simply that you don't care about the illegal war but you do care about building something -- but it's not really what you loosely define it as. I think a lot of you are in political closests and the rest of you are just desperate for the limelight. I don't see that any of you really give a damn about a war that's about to enter the fifth year because just doing something once a week on Iraq is too much for you. Forget every day, just once a week. You're a bunch of losers who used the illegal war to make a name for yourself and if the illegal war isn't the big issue in the morning news that day, you don't think there's any reason to weigh in. Instead you glom on whatever topic made the front page of The New York Times. You are pathetic. "You" doesn't include the US Socialist Worker, by the way. They treat the illegal war seriously. But I was appalled by that piece.
Jim: Dona says there's time for only one more comment and that Ava's spoken very little and it should be her because "Mike is on fire" and, obviously, Ava can do that as well.
Ava: I can but I'm not in a good mood. So consider yourself warned. I mean Medea Benjamin, I don't give a damn about what happens in Pakistan right now. Is that clear enough for you? I don't give a damn. Pakistan will do what Pakistan does. The US has sent the military into Iraq and an illegal war is ongoing. Try remembering that. We don't need your Saint Bhutto piece. Try writing about war resisters or is that too difficult for you? We don't need your excuses for Congress. Tom Hayden, we don't need your excuses for Congress. We don't need your pathetic attempts to channel the peace movement into voting for War Hawks. What we need, and this is true of Medea as well, is your strong voice on the war and you are failing us. You are failing us over and over again. You are failing us and you are prolonging the illegal war. Norman Solomon, is it impossible for you to write about Iraq? That should be your only focus in your columns since you love to jump that train in book form. That's what Molly Ivins planned to do, focus on Iraq in every column until the illegal war ended. Was she just that much stronger and tougher than you are? Maybe she was. Molly was very strong. But you want to whine about this or that. And the air-wars are going on and what the hell are you writing about? I'm still waiting for your piece on Ehren Watada or any war resister. I'm waiting on Phil Donahue and Jeff Cohen and all the rest of you little boys. People are standing up and you can't note them. But you'll all rush to defend a woman who won't stand up. Yeah, I went there. Stupid little Sarah Olson. All three of you and many more suddenly could mention the name Watada when it was time to defend Olson from having to make a decision. Olson was being asked to testify at Watada's court-martial. Watada was being court-martialed for taking a stand. Olson took no stand. "I can't talk about my strategy" she whimpered repeatedly and pathetically. She wanted everyone to fight for her when she wouldn't even say whether she'd testify or not. And then she got that little dig into Watada in the summer of 2006 that we're all supposed to pretend wasn't catty to the extreme. Watada stood up and where the hell were all of you? Not a damn bit interested. But then Little Sarah might have to take a stand, she wasn't taking one, but, heavens, she might have to, and you all churned out the same bad columns on poor little Sarah. Boo-f**king hoo. You are not the story, your friends are not the story. The story is Iraq. If you can't grasp that, no wonder the war's about to hit the five year mark. You've pretty much all done something embarrassing. Laura Flanders, as a gay woman, you should be the last to make jokes about an assault on any student, but you did that, didn't you? You made a little joke about a deadly attack "by shoe" or "with a shoe." Would it have been so damn funny if the assault had been on a gay kid? Then you, a gay woman, ignored Barack Obama putting homophobes on stage in South Carolina to plead with him instead about dropping Richard Daley as a supporter. That's f**king pathetic. And I could make a long list of a lot of other people who have embarrassed themselves repeatedly. Andrew Cockburn, a relative of Flanders, had an important piece last weekend. It never made the snapshot because CounterPunch decided to launch their attacks on feminism. They then tried to make up for it by offering a 'I'll defend feminism but not that Gloria woman' piece of bullsh*t. Gloria is the public face of feminism. When you slime her, you slime the movement. It's like attacking any leader. And while you were offering that repeatedly, via Ishameal whomever that no one ever knew of and never will because he's a fool, you're not covering the illegal war. So it's no surprise that Saturday rolls around and Alexander Cockburn doesn't have a damn thing to say about the illegal war. Amy Goodman, you're pathetic. You went through 2007 without interviewing a single new war resister and I know for a fact that some did contact Democracy Now! but you had other things to do. You've all offered the 'alternative' equivalent of what's Britney Spears doing now? The only thing that 'independent' media has proven is that they are 'independent' from the peace movement. Talk to Ruth who listens to hours of Pacifica radio each week and ask her how much attention the ongoing illegal war gets? Aaron Glantz, your site is called The War Comes Home. Apparently the same war also goes on lengthy holidays as evidenced by the fact that we had nothing for December from your much promoted project. Now you show up with a piece of crap report where you pick and choose the favorables on Bambi from Stephen Zunes' report which is not as favorable as you imply. I call that lying. I call that wasting everyone's time. I call that ignoring reality and I call that ignoring the illegal war because your project, if you've forgotten, as weak as it is, is supposed to focus on the veterans. Did you forget that when you finally came off your December holiday to do your bad January 18th report? Wasn't your whole point to tell these stories that weren't being told? Instead, you felt the need to refute Ruth and offer up Mark Benjamin did too! Benjamin was as defocused as everyone else in independent media. Grab a clue, The Washington Post broke the story and did so by focusing. And, for the record, before Dana Priest and Ann Scott Tyson's series -- their series -- the paper had already covered the issue. Quit playing like the whole world was silent but sometimes Mark Benjamin offered a report or two. Those reports weren't of interest to CounterSpin or Democracy Now! when they brought him on as a guest and you can check the archives because that's not what he spoke of. Get over it, The Washington Post served independent media their lunch. And there's something really pathetic about you, Janine Jackson and others trying to strip a paper of its credit to score a few points for indymedia. But, isn't it interesting, that to score a few points on Iraq, you have to go deep into the recent past to applaud indymedia? Independent media has no focus and is nothing but a travelogue. "Where will Goodman go today? Oh, this is so exciting!" No, it's pathetic. Do you all suffer from ADD? In your own lives, do you hop from partner to partner as quickly as you do from topic to topic? You should all be sent to your rooms to think about your actions because your actions have prolonged the illegal war. Apologies to C.I. because we take the notes and when one of us speaks, only one is taking the notes. Usually, when one of us needs to shake our hands during one of these pieces or take a break, we'll nod to the other so they'll be sure to catch it. And let me add, don't call time on me yet, Jim, I see you're about to, let me add that these statements were made by me. Ava. Don't go whining to C.I. about what I said. I am a grown woman and I don't need a tattle tale or a whiner. Now you can call time.
Jim: And I am calling time. Dona was correct, Ava did continue Mike's thread. We hope to do a mailbag and not a roundtable next week. Due to the audio report Ruth was working on and due to her helping out here, C.I. said no report from her for The Common Ills. Jess, we miss you and the next roundtable we do will open with your comments on the Green Party.