Editorial: The end of what? (aka C.I. was right again)

In April 2003, Elaine, Rebecca and C.I. were at a party, discussing the Iraq War with others and, specifically, a woman who was refusing to deploy, nothing that she and her husband had an infant and that her husband was already deployed to Iraq. A supposed lefty woman sniffed, "Well she signed up, she has to go." (Please note the woman's husband enlisted -- was not drafted -- in Vietnam. And he went on to desert.) The attitude seemed to be, "Who cares? You got what you deserved."

That attitude seems to be what the White House is hoping for as they and the press announce the 'end' of the Iraq War, that people will look at all the US contractors remaining in Iraq and take the attitude of they "signed up" -- meaning it's not really war or one to oppose when its contractors?

As John Glaser (Antiwar.com) pointed out:

The State Department is expected to have up to 17,000 employees and at least 5,000 military contractors -- consisting of private soldiers and retired army commanders -- for this ongoing diplomatic presence, which has been described as necessary to provide "situational awareness around the country, manage political crises in potential hotspots such as Kirkuk, and provide a platform for delivering economic, development and security assistance."

That was ignored, so much was ignored. As Rebecca pointed out, on Friday at the Barack Obama's press conference, the press refused to do their job and press to find out the numbers. They knew that not all US troops were leaving. But they refused to press on that. On Friday, Elaine asked the obvious question that the press ignored: What about the Air Force? Not usually lumped in with "soldiers" (which means Army), what about the US Air Force? How many members are staying because, not that long ago, a deplyment went to Iraq with the understanding that they wouldn't be leaving on December 31st. And, of course, C.I. didn't fall for the scam, didn't repeat the b.s.

She led the way. In Friday's snapshot, she noted the issue of contractors, she noted the issue of remaining troops and she pointed out that US negotiations were ongoing. She cited Pentagon, State Dept and White House sources in her snapshot. She credited the two members of the press who got it right -- two out of hundreds -- CBS News' Brian Montopoli and The New York Times' Mark Landler about negotiations.

Jim likes to check the count, the stats, for The Common Ills. C.I. doesn't care if he does as long as he doesn't tell her what they are. He asked her Saturday what she thought had happened on Friday? "I'm sure," she said, "we lost two-thirds of our normal page views." It was actually a little less than that. And she didn't give a damn because it's important to be truthful. She could have lied and kept 'circulation.' Instead, she grasped that truth about the ongoing war was more important than page views.

Last week, she wouldn't allow us to cover the negotiations issues here. (C.I. did not work on this editorial.) For those who have forgotten, The Associated Press reported October 15th that US negotations were over and all US forces would leave Iraq. C.I. responded the same day with her no-they're-not "US leaving Iraq?" That was two Saturdays ago. She refused to allow us to cover it last week noting she'd go out on a limb and not give a damn but she didn't want to drag anyone else out there with her.

On Friday, Barack gave his press conference and how the press did embarrass itself. The AP filed a story congratulating themselves. Tim Arango rushed to praise AP for their October 15th 'scoop.'

Let's check out this evening's front page of Antiwar.com.



Yeah, someone ended up right (C.I.) and many ended up wrong. Including AP which really needs to issue a correction now. But we won't hold our breath.


Yes, 'trainers' may yet remain in Iraq.


As usual, a lot of people gave you pleasing words that you felt so good reading over, you stroked yourself and told yourself the ass in the White House was Dear Leader.


And you cursed the only one who stood up and stood firmly (C.I.).


Do you feel good now? Do you?

As usual, C.I. was right.

Jim, "Which reminds me of last week when, answering e-mails at the public account for The Common Ills, I dealt with three reporters -- Pentagon and Iraq -- and dealt with their pretend crap of I'd-like-to-talk. No, they wouldn't. What they want is to get in an insult. But they don't have the guts or balls -- all three were men -- to be honest about it. If C.I. feels like being bitchy, she'll type that in there. She doesn't hide it. Unlike little cowards including one who wanted to insist that C.I. wasn't in Iraq. When did she claim she was? In the thing he was complaining about, she specifically cited video of an event -- three different videos -- as well as reporting. She's not in Iraq. So that means she can't criticize him? Does he not have an editor? Does his editor walk side by side with him? If not, does that mean his editor can't criticize him? Did he take journalism courses in college? If so, did he tell his professor that he couldn't be criticized or even graded because his professor wasn't with him on the story? What a load of crap. And then there was the nonsense of attacking her because she's 'anonymous.' I word it that way because in 2004, she was. These days, really less so.

"Even so, her point with The Common Ills was, 'Focus on what I'm saying, not on who I am.' January 2005, when she came to our campus to speak out against the war and I was assigned to cover it, I thought she was a great speaker (and I realized she was C.I. from her remarks). I still think that but I have been at many speeches she's given since and the question and answers and, yes, there are times when her celebrity distracts from what she's saying, when people focus on that and not the issue of Iraq. They're grasping at straws, these silly 'reporters.' The fact of the matter is that she's covered Iraq every day since 2004. She's never had a vacation from the online world. She's repeatedly taken the stands that others refused to and she's repeatedly been proven right. Yet again, she was right. The negotiations never stopped. I doubt Tim Arango, for example, will bother to Tweet 'C.I. was right!' But reporters like that are always the first to attack her, aren't they? The ones who get it wrong, the ones who repeatedly get it wrong, are always the first to attack. But her record stands. And their shame sticks to them."


Or as Elaine once observed, "Follow this, you bitches."