Grave digger Naomi Wolf (not smart enough to pull herself out of the hole she dug) continues to demonstrate she's not a feminist, not even close to one. But she's also a fraud as a writer. Angus Johnston has been calling on her to issue a correction to her smear against the two women who may have been raped by Julian Assange. She finally offered the closest to one that a liar like Naomi can probably get. Johnston writes:
Well, apparently Wolf got wind of my criticism (or received a nudge from someone else), because sometime in the last week or so she finally added a correction to the HuffPo piece.
Here it is:
The Guardian has, since I wrote this original post based on the Daily Mail, reported that the two women’s complaints to Swedish police centered on the alleged misuse of or failure to use condoms, which can be illegal in Sweden.
Yep. That’s it.
No acknowledgment that she misrepresented her own sources. No apology for ascribing false motives to the accusers. No link to the Guardian story.
And most crucially, no honest description of the allegations themselves.
According to the Guardian’s ccount, accuser A claims that Assange first pinned her down during sex to keep her from getting to her condoms, and then — after subsequently relenting and agreeing to wear one — deliberately tore it so that he could have unprotected sex with her without her knowledge. Accuser W claims that Assange penetrated her vaginally while she slept without using a condom after she had repeatedly told him that she would not have intercourse without protection.
In each of these cases, the women allege that Assange forced himself on them. He is accused of holding A down against her will to keep her from getting at a condom, and then later sabotaging that condom. He is accused of having sex with W while she was unconscious under circumstances in which she had previously explicitly denied him consent to do so. That’s what’s being claimed here. There’s no ambiguity about it.She lied about the women but she wants you to believe her on Assange? She's such a dirty ass liar. She really is.
There are people I have no respect for. That includes Coleen Rowley. This community doesn't give a damn about that overrated ____. C.I. was really nice months ago and didn't name her but she was one of the ones smearing the women who may have been raped. She did so on KPFA's Flashpoints. We heard it, we're done with her trashy ass.
It's amazing the way they rush to attack women and prop up men.
Last month, Kathleen Barry wrote a response to those attacking the women. It was brief and I didn't highlight it because I didn't know how to pull from it so you could follow. But it's been a month, so I'm going to include her post in full and urge you to check out her site:
Following is my response to Daniel Elsberg’s defense of Julian Aussange against those “false and slanderous” rape charges as if it is inconceivable that Aussange, because he had done important work with Wikileaks could possibly have sexually assaulted those women in Sweden. See http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2011/01/06/im-a-left-wing-hero-therefore-i-couldnt-be-a-rapist-or-why-daniel-ellsberg-is-no-longer-my-hero/
Why are the men on the left, progressives the last to get that if one in four women are victims of rape, if pornography and prostitution have become massive industries, that a huge proportion of men sexually exploit women and children? As long ago as 1979 I pointed that out in Female Sexual Slavery. Progressive men appear to think that their entire population is outside of these facts, and hence exonerate Julian Aussange because he is one of them.
Daniel Ellsberg is modeling this behavior and thanks to Feminist Peace Network for exposing it as such, for we, women will have peace without rape or there will be no peace.
Why Daniel Ellsberg did you not personally get the accounts of the Swedish women before you stand in judgment against them? Instead of misogynist male bonding, why do you not call for a thorough police investigation that would either lead to charges being made or Aussange being exonerated. And by the way, you can still support Wikileaks for its courageous and significant work.
If you missed it, Naomi's got another 'column' on WikiLeaks. The woman who made her name cozying up to the brass in Iraq, Nancy A. Youssef, wrote a column. I haven't read it. But Little Naomi finds it amazing. See Nancy was explaining that WikiLeaks wasn't the source, they were just publishing --
Yeah, we've heard this from C.I. for months now. But remember, C.I. really called Nancy out on her lies and attacks on Bradley Manning so it's no surprise Nance is raiding C.I.'s writing. Probably helps her have more 'night time' and we all know what I mean (think back to the colleague of Nance's that took part in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin last june).
It's really telling that Namoi and the other crazies keep screaming (falsely) "Guantanamo!" and that Julian might be killed! When, reality, Bradley's the one being held, not little Jules Assange.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):