Isaiah's always done strong work. 2012, however, has been a really strong one.
If you missed it, go read Ava and C.I.'s "TV: The networks go all Grand Guignol." If you already have read it, you know the sad news: "666 Park Avenue" has gotten the axe.
Thank you to Ava and C.I. for linkin to me in the article. I don't know how good my call was but I do appreciate it.
If you missed the show, it is on ABC and airs (or aired?) Sunday nights. It didn't air last night because they had those American Music Awards on instead.
So the best part of the show as Vanessa Williams and I will miss her being on weekly television. As I've noted, my daughter was a huge fan of Vanessa's. We watched her on "Ugly Betty" and then switched to "Desperate Housewives." I would have liked three or four more years of "666 Park Avenue" so that she could watch a strong and beautiful Black woman on TV.
We do not get a lot of those. When you realize how many beautiful women are on television, that is surprising. But a lot of the plainer women on TV are women of color. I'm thinking of, for example, "The Cosby Show." Mrs. Huxtable? Not a beautiful woman.
Kerry Washington stars in "Scandal" and we're going to move over to that. Rebecca covers that show (her latest post is "scandal 'spies like us'") and it sounds like a good show. Pretty is very important to my daughter. And I don't want her to grow up with the notion that there are pretty women but they're not women of color.
Fortunately for her, she's a pretty girl. Very pretty. I was more Clair Huxtable like, myself. And that's fine. But I think part of her girly-girl ways (so different than me as a young girl) stems from her looks. And I don't want her to ever think she's less attractive due to her skin color -- although TV repeatedly conveys that racist message.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday,
November 19, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Barack let terrorists
loose from US custody in 2009 when he negotiated with a terrorist group,
terrorist Daqduq's release by Iraq last week threatens to remind people
of Barack's talks with terrorists, the US Treasury Dept issues a
statement on Daqduq, Nouri remains at odds with the Kurds, Bob Somerby
tries to pretend he's not sexist . . . by attacking a woman,
misrepresenting what she's wrote and her entire body of work, and more.
It
was supposed to be so easy for Barack Obama. He squeaked by earlier
this month, just winning the popular vote in the race for US president.
Re-election was one thing but having opponents -- Republican, Green,
Libertarian, Constitutional, Socialist Equality Party, etc -- who
refused to call him out for negotiating with terrorists was even
better. Now it appears the British press may force the American press
to do the job they should have done on their own. Colin Freeman (Telegraph of London) observed Saturday:
If
a prisoner exchange was done, though, it was a high price to pay,
particularly for the Americans, who believed that Khazali brothers's
militant group, the League of the Righteous, was involved in the Kerbala
attack. Not long after Moore and Qais al Khazali were released, I spoke
to Vanessa Chism, the stepmother of one of the murdered soldiers,
Specialist Johnathan Bryan Chism. While she didn't object to a prisoner
swap in principle, she lamented the prospect of not getting justice for
her stepson.
"We were informed that this
was going to happen, and while personally we would like the people who
did this to our child to be punished, they will have to live with what
they did," she said. "But if some good came out of it, by the release of
that British man, then I am fine with that."
It
wasn't just Westerners, though, who lost their chance for a day in
court. The League is also believed to have been behind the abduction of
30 Iraqi Red Crescent workers in Baghdad in 2006, most of whose fate
remains unknown. When I was last in Baghdad, the family of one of the
workers told me that they felt that they too should have been consulted
over any prisoner swap. They argued that as part of any deal, the League
should have been made to hand over some of its Iraqi hostages as well
as Mr Moore – or at least say where the bodies lay.
Iraq's
homegrown League of Righteous with the help of Lebanese terrorist Ali
Musa Daqduq are believed by the US government to have been behind the
murders of 5 US soldiers.
The White House has never had to explain why they negotiated with a terrorist group, let alone why they released it's leader, it's leader's brother and other high ranking members. No one went to the American people and said, "Look we have the killers of the 5 Americans in custody. But there are four dead British security guards and one IT hostage we think is alive. We're thinking of releasing these terrorists, in fact, we're in talks with them, so that the corpses and maybe the one hostage can be released. Does that sound like justice? Because that's what we want to do."
It's that crap that has so many in the military and who are veterans feeling betrayed by the White House. And don't get them started on the press that has refused to press on this issue. The official US public position is: We do not negotiate with terrorists. Yet Barack did just that. Not because some mythical bomb would go off in 24 hours. Not because the League of Righteous was a threat to the American people.
The White House has never had to explain why they negotiated with a terrorist group, let alone why they released it's leader, it's leader's brother and other high ranking members. No one went to the American people and said, "Look we have the killers of the 5 Americans in custody. But there are four dead British security guards and one IT hostage we think is alive. We're thinking of releasing these terrorists, in fact, we're in talks with them, so that the corpses and maybe the one hostage can be released. Does that sound like justice? Because that's what we want to do."
It's that crap that has so many in the military and who are veterans feeling betrayed by the White House. And don't get them started on the press that has refused to press on this issue. The official US public position is: We do not negotiate with terrorists. Yet Barack did just that. Not because some mythical bomb would go off in 24 hours. Not because the League of Righteous was a threat to the American people.
Dropping back to July 9, 2011 when the League told Barack the deal was off:
Al Mada reports
they have issued a statement where they savage the US government for
not honoring -- and quickly honoring -- the agreement made with them. As
a result, they say Alan McMenemy will not be released.
Peter Moore, the only one released alive, was a computer tech working in Iraq. Four British bodyguards were protecting him. The bodyguards were McMenemy, Jason Swindlehurst, Alec MacLachlan and Jason Cresswell. The families of the four have continued to publicly request that Alan McMenemy be released.
They [Leauge of Righteous] condemn the "procrastionation" of the US government after the deal was made and state that a promise was also broken when "US forces did not stop attacks" -- apparently Barack made very grand promises -- so now Alan McMenemy will not be released. The statement is credited to Akram al-Ka'bi.
What the statement really does is demonstrate what many condemned in 2009: The US government, the administration, entered into an agreement that did not benefit the US or Iraq. They freed known killers from prison. Killers of Iraqis, killers of American citizens. There was nothing to be gained by that act for Iraq or the US. At some point, history will ask how Barack Obama thought he was fulfilling his duties of commander in chief by making such an ignorant move?
Peter Moore, the only one released alive, was a computer tech working in Iraq. Four British bodyguards were protecting him. The bodyguards were McMenemy, Jason Swindlehurst, Alec MacLachlan and Jason Cresswell. The families of the four have continued to publicly request that Alan McMenemy be released.
They [Leauge of Righteous] condemn the "procrastionation" of the US government after the deal was made and state that a promise was also broken when "US forces did not stop attacks" -- apparently Barack made very grand promises -- so now Alan McMenemy will not be released. The statement is credited to Akram al-Ka'bi.
What the statement really does is demonstrate what many condemned in 2009: The US government, the administration, entered into an agreement that did not benefit the US or Iraq. They freed known killers from prison. Killers of Iraqis, killers of American citizens. There was nothing to be gained by that act for Iraq or the US. At some point, history will ask how Barack Obama thought he was fulfilling his duties of commander in chief by making such an ignorant move?
Alan McMenemy's corpse was finally released and sent back to England where his loved one could hold a proper funeral for him.
Barack has never had to answer for the deal he made with the League of Righteous. Outside of military and veterans circles, the issue is never raised when we speak. College students we speak to usually don't know about it. Not because they're uninformed but because the press has really refused to cover this story. From the June 9, 2009 snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
After Barack made the deal with the League of Righteous (and after they mocked him publicly and repeatedly in the Iraqi press after they were released), the US still had Ali Musa Daqduq in custody.
And many senators were calling for Daqduq to be brought to the United States and tried. Instead, in 2011, the White House turned him over to Iraq and received 'promises' regarding Daqduq's fate.
'Promises" turned out not be all that. As noted in Friday's snapshot, " Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that the rumors Ali Musa Daqduq had been released from Iraqi custody are true (see Wednesday's snapshot). It's a huge embarrassment for the White House. Victoria Nuland, State Dept spokesperson, was asked about it in today's press briefing." Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) reported Friday:
In a phone call on Tuesday, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, that the United States believed that Mr. Daqduq should be held accountable for his actions and that Iraq should explore all legal options toward this end, an American official said. Robert S. Beecroft, the United States ambassador in Baghdad, made a similar appeal to Mr. Maliki that day. But Mr. Maliki told Mr. Biden that Iraq had run out of legal options to hold Mr. Daqduq, who this year had been ordered released by an Iraqi court.
Susan Crabtree (Washington Times) notes
of that phone conversation between Joe Biden and Nouri al-Maliki, "The
Whie House previously released a read-out of Mr. Biden's call with Mr.
al-Mliki Tuesday that contained no mention of Mr. Daqduq."
Right wing commentator Max Boot noted at Commentary,
"The fact that he [Daqduq] was set free anyway is hardly a sign of
Maliki's respect for the rule of law. It is a sign of how little
influence the U.S. now wields in Iraq and how much influence Iran now
has."
As we've pointed out before, Daqduq was found innocent by an Iraqi court. The US government then complained so he was, in effect, retried. That went over and above what should have been done. Iraq is a struggling whatever it is right now. And if it's ever going to be a democracy, rule of law has to be in effect. There are many cases -- criminal cases -- in the US where the guilty walks. That's part of the process of having a functioning justice system. Some will walk, some will luck out. In Iraq, all that could be done was done. The verdict was not guilty. That was it for the Iraqi courts. It was wrong of the US government to attempt to get another trial (in the US, we'd call that double jeopardy -- trying someone for the same crime twice). Extradtion requests? No problem on that. But throwing a fit because you didn't like the verdict?
As we've pointed out before, Daqduq was found innocent by an Iraqi court. The US government then complained so he was, in effect, retried. That went over and above what should have been done. Iraq is a struggling whatever it is right now. And if it's ever going to be a democracy, rule of law has to be in effect. There are many cases -- criminal cases -- in the US where the guilty walks. That's part of the process of having a functioning justice system. Some will walk, some will luck out. In Iraq, all that could be done was done. The verdict was not guilty. That was it for the Iraqi courts. It was wrong of the US government to attempt to get another trial (in the US, we'd call that double jeopardy -- trying someone for the same crime twice). Extradtion requests? No problem on that. But throwing a fit because you didn't like the verdict?
Max Boot's
arguing that setting Daqduq free was less about rule of law and more
about ties to Iran. I honestly believe he's probably right. But I also
believe that if Nouri al-Maliki had not released Daqduq (to the US or,
as Nouri did, to go free), this would have shown arrogance and
disrespect for the law. I consider Michael Rubin to be even further to
the right of Max Boot. He's a leading neocon which might seem trendy if
this were 2002. The neocons (called out in Peggy Noonan's 1990
biography What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan
Era) -- Pushed? It's such a mild word. Tricked? Lets Bully Boy Bush
and the others off. They cheerleaded and demanded the Iraq War. Then,
when they got it, they didn't have the spine to stand up and say, "Yeah,
we screwed up big time. Boy, were we wrong!" Not about WMD -- they
knew that was lie. They were wrong about how this illegal war would
lead to peace and stability in Iraq. At any rate, Michael Rubin argued at Commentary yesterday:
Rather
than wring hands with outrage at Maliki -- any Iraqi prime minister in
the same position would likely make the same decision, even Ayad Allawi
-- the question that the American audience and someone in Congress
should ask is why, if the United States wanted to try Daqduq for
terrorism and murder, they would not just keep him in the first place.
That is certainly a quip I heard from Maliki's inner circle last month
in Baghdad. State Department and Pentagon lawyers might fall over
themselves talking about the letter of law and process, but by doing so
they lost track of the greater American interest for an artificial and
debatable intellectual point.
And, as Michael R. Gordon notes in his New York Times article,
Daqduq was captured by British forces in March 2007 and quickly handed
over to US forces which imprisoned him until December 2011. (In 2008, Gordon reported
US forces captured Daqduq in March 2007, FYI.) The US could have tried
him in Iraq, in the US or even in Guantanamo (I do not support
Guantanamo being open -- but Barack's the one who promised to close it
and didn't -- having kept it open, it was an option for Daqduq).
Michael Gordon's latest book with Bernard E. Trainor is The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. Julian E. Barnes (Wall St. Journal) reminds
that when the White House announced their plan to hand Daqduq over to
Iraq, many members of Congress objected before the transfer took place,
"Ms. [Senator Kelly] Ayotte and 18 other Senators called on U.S.
officials not to hand him over to Iraq, but the Iraqi government
insisted on taking him into custody."
Treasury Designates Hizballah Commander Responsible for American Deaths in Iraq
11/19/2012
WASHINGTON --
The U.S. Department of the Treasury today designated Ali Mussa Daqduq
al-Musawi (Daqduq) pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 for acting
on behalf of Hizballah. Daqduq is a senior Hizballah commander
responsible for numerous attacks against Coalition Forces in Iraq,
including planning an attack on the Karbala Joint Provincial
Coordination Center (JPCC) on January 20, 2007, which resulted in the
deaths of five U.S. soldiers.
On March
20, 2007, Coalition Forces in southern Iraq captured Daqduq, who falsely
claimed to be a deaf mute at the time and produced a number of false
identity cards using a variety of aliases. From January 2009 until
December 2011, U.S. military forces held Daqduq in Iraq under the terms
of the 2008 "Agreement Between the United States of America and the
Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and
the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in
Iraq" (the Security Agreement). In December 2011, the United States
transferred Daqduq to Iraq's custody in accordance with our obligations
under the Security Agreement. He was subsequently tried in Iraq on
terrorism and other charges. On May 7, 2012, an Iraqi court dismissed
terrorism and false documents charges against him. Daqduq remained in
Iraqi custody until last week when the Iraqi government determined that
it no longer had a legal basis to hold him, and he was released
Friday.
"Ali Mussa Daqduq al-Musawi is a
dangerous Hizballah operative responsible for planning and carrying out
numerous acts of terrorism in Iraq," said Under Secretary for Terrorism
and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen. "The United States is
extremely disappointed he was allowed to go free and we will continue
our efforts to bring him to justice."
Today's
action further highlights the fact that Hizballah's terrorist
activities stretch beyond the borders of Lebanon. These terrorist acts
are in some cases funded, coordinated, and carried out in concert with
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). Hizballah,
along with its Iranian allies, trained and advised Iraqi militants to
carry out numerous terrorist attacks against Coalition and Iraqi forces.
Daqduq
has been a member of Hizballah since 1983 and has served in multiple
Hizballah leadership positions, including as commander of a Hizballah
special forces unit and chief of a protective detail for Hizballah
Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.
In
approximately 2005, Iran asked Hizballah to form a group to train Iraqis
to fight Coalition Forces in Iraq. In response, Hassan Nasrallah
established a covert Hizballah unit to train and advise Iraqi militants
in Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) and JAM Special Groups, now known as Asa'ib Ahl
al-Haq.
As of 2006, Daqduq had been ordered
by Hizballah to work with IRGC-QF to provide training and equipment to
JAM Special Groups to augment their ability to inflict damage against
U.S. troops.
Identifying Information
Individual: Ali Mussa Daqduq al-Musawi
AKA: Ali Musa Daqduq
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Lami
AKA: Hamid Muhammad al-Lami
AKA: Husayn Muhammad Jabur al-Musui
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Musui
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Daqduq al-Musawi
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Musawi
AKA: Hamid Majid 'Abd al-Yunis
Nationality: Lebanese
DOB No. 1: 1 September 1969
DOB No. 2: 31 December 1971
DOB No. 3: 9 August 1971
DOB No. 4: 9 September 1970
DOB No. 5: 9 August 1969
DOB No. 6: 5 March 1972
POB No. 1: Beirut, Lebanon
POB No. 2: Al-Karradah, Baghdad, Iraq
AKA: Ali Musa Daqduq
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Lami
AKA: Hamid Muhammad al-Lami
AKA: Husayn Muhammad Jabur al-Musui
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Musui
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Daqduq al-Musawi
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Musawi
AKA: Hamid Majid 'Abd al-Yunis
Nationality: Lebanese
DOB No. 1: 1 September 1969
DOB No. 2: 31 December 1971
DOB No. 3: 9 August 1971
DOB No. 4: 9 September 1970
DOB No. 5: 9 August 1969
DOB No. 6: 5 March 1972
POB No. 1: Beirut, Lebanon
POB No. 2: Al-Karradah, Baghdad, Iraq
###
In Iraq, AFP reports,
"Iraq's premier has warned Kurdish regional security forces not to
advance towards government troop positions, a military spokesman said on
Monday, after deadly clashes in a flashpoint nothern town." What's
Nouri talking about? The ongoing problem he created with his Tigris
forces. From Friday's snapshot:
The big violence in Iraq today? Alsumaria reports
violence resulting from Nouri's Operation Command Tigris. Alsumaria
reports a clash between the Tigris forces and members of a Kurdish
official's protection detail left many injured (over ten and possibly
one dead). All Iraq News reports 1 person is dead -- a civilian and the outlet says all the injured were Tigris forces. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports
that 1 Iraqi soldier also died and states that clash took place in
Khurmato "when Iraqi soldiers attempted to search a house belonging to
Goran Najam, a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, officials
said. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is the current leader of the PUK."
Sinan Salaheddin (AP) offers, "The
clash occurred as police commandos were attempting to arrest a Kurdish
smuggler in the city of Tuz Khormato, said Lt. Gen. Abdul-Amir
al-Zaidi, of the newly formed Dijla Joint Military Command. When the
smuggler took shelter in the offices of a Kurdish political party,
police tried to break into the building, but gunmen guarding the office
opened fire, he added." Peshmerga spokesperson Jabbar Yawar tells Alsumaria that this was a personal problem between the two and is now contained.
Saturday, AFP noted that "the head of Baghdad's recently established Tigris Operations Command, Lieutenant General Abdulamir al-Zaidi, told AFP that the incident did not involve the peshmerga and was rather an attempt to arrest a man accused of offences including murder and kidnapping." And Saturday KRG President Massoud Barzani weighed in on Friday's events with a statement posted to the KRG website in which he declared the blood of every Iraqi is important regardless of religion, ethnicity or doctrine. He offered his condolences to the family of Aziz al-Salmen who died. And while noting that the death was tragice, he states that the KRG if ready to defend their land from any attack.
Al Mada reports that the KRG's Interior Ministry's spokesperson declared Sunday that they had learned of a plan to send Nouri's Tigris forces into Tuz Khormato and that the Peshmerga will not allow it to happen. Alsumaria reports Nouri's State of Law is saying that the Peshmerga needs to join the Iraqi military. That would certainly kill their independence, right? And Nouri's done such a great job 'absorbing' other forces, right? Sahwa ("Sons of Iraq," "Awakenings") provided security for as little as $300 a month. But rather than absorb them, Nouri targeted them with arrests, refused to absorb them into the Iraqi forces or the Iraqi government and as violence has risen, especially in the last year, a strong argument can be made that some of the increase in violence results from Nouri's refusal to utilize and pay the Sahwa.
Let's turn to Bob Somerby. Saturday, we noted his non-stop sexism.
So, of course, today, he had to suddenly pretend he gave a damn about
women, tossing around misogynist and other phrases. But the often
maligned (and sometimes rightly maligned) Freud told us long ago of the
criminal's compulsion to confess. So it was that Somerby, while
pretending to decry sexism had to yet again exhibit it by yet again
going after Maureen Dowd. The (droning) text of The Daily Howler
is "My friend Al Gore was treated badly." (Actually, Tipper Gore was
treated badly and I first met one of Al's mistresses when Al was on the
ticket with Bill Clinton in 1992 -- I can name her and I can tell you
where she was sent to -- a very low place on the campaign trail -- as a
result of that affair -- Ava and I noted that affair in passing back in 2007's "Global Boring."
And it really pissed Bob Somerby and his stooge off when Ava and I
noted that, we received blistering e-mails.) But if the text of The Daily Howler has always been the mistreatment of Al Gore, the subtext is and has always been: "I hate Maureen Dowd."
Maureen Dowd is not above criticism. I've criticized her here. Ava and I've criticized her at Third Estate Sunday Review. Rebecca's
criticized her over the years at her site. The three of us have also
praised her over the years because it's only in Bob Somerby's mind that
Maureen Dowd is the greatest evil in the press. (Or is it greatest evil
in the whole wide world?)
Maureen Dowd is a
very popular columnist. She revolutionized the column industry. For
that alone, her Pulitzer was earned. Maureen shook up a staid and dull
format. Bob Somerby's convinced reporting was being done in columns
until Maureen came along. Bob lives in a fantasy world. Most columns
were paint-by-number pieces and, if you knew the writer, you knew where
the column was going. Dowd style is a roller-coaster ride. She's
bringing in, on her best days, a variety of topics, a variety of sources
and a variety of threads. Yes, she does you Pride and Prejudice
too often as a reference point (as Woody Allen uses several classics
too often as his reference point -- to Dowd's credit, she's ensuring
that a female canon author -- Jane Austen -- is represented in the
cultural discussion).
Among the brave stands
she's taken? Dowd was against the Iraq War. She wasn't kind-of,
sort-of against it, she was flat-out against. You can't say the same
about Nicholas Kristof, Bill Keller (he was a columnist then) or Thomas
Friedman. Dowd fails as a columnist when she tries to write about her
own family. I have no idea why that is. The columns are clearly
heart-felt but they are her weakest work. Possibly, they are her robbed
of her own style by trying to convey a heart-felt message?
That's
not Dowd. Dowd is ripping apart this and sewing on that and who can
believe what she ends up with? On her best days, it's a total surprise
and a thrill to read from start to finish.
After
her family, her weakest columns in the last years are ones about
elections. She really doesn't go out on the campaign trail the way she
did, for example, in 1992. If you read closely, you can feel her trying
to work up excitement for the topic that never really comes.
But
what Bob Somerby objects to is Maureen Dowd's style. In all of his
years and years spent slamming Maureen Dowd, he has found very few true
errors. Differences of opinion are not errors. (The only real error
he's found, the one he can't stop yammering about, is that Dowd took a
quote from John Kerry that wasn't a quote. Dowd wasn't present. We've
covered that. She shouldn't be writing about campaigns if she's not on
the bus. It leads to weak and repetitive writing on her part.)
He's
so pissed at Dowd that he blogged about it Sunday and returned to the
topic today to write four posts about it. You know while Bob Somerby's
thrown his hissy fits all these years over Maureen's style, we've taken
on serious issues, like letting the military vet your copy. But, by all
means, let's pretend Bob Somerby using Maureed Down to work out his
hatred of women is worthwhile and productive.
Here's the link to Maureen Dowd's Sunday New York Times column. (You can also read it here, at the Post-Gazette.)
I talked about Dowd's overall stengths and her revolutionizes the column and then we talked specifically about some of her weaknesses. The column goes to some of her specific strengths. She's no longer on the campaign trail, hasn't been in some time. But what she does have is a broad vista when it comes to sources and she can take what they're telling her and write about it in a way that no one else can.
Bob
Somerby doesn't like what Dowd's sources have told her but Somerby's
not smart enough to grasp what his problem actually is. So he whines
and whimpers and attacks Dowd. At one point, in his fifth post on this topic,
he offers "Shorter Dowd: Susan Rice should have revealed classified
information when she went on those Sunday shows! And she should have
agreed wit that Libyan pol!" That's really not exactly what she wrote
which raises serious comprehension questions about Bob Somerby. Again,
that's his fifth post on the topic. By his fifth post in two days, he
should be calm enough to make some sense but he's still raving like a
lunatic.
Here's reality for Bob Somerby: If
Susan Rice knew classified information (a terrorist attack) and she went
on the air with what she did, she deliberately misled the American
public and that's unacceptable.
She's under no
obligation to reveal classified information, but she is under an
obligation not to lie to the American people. Bob Somerby thinks he's
caught Dowd in a trap but all he's really done is underscored Dowd's
column: It is one thing to keep classified information classified, it is
another to tell the American people a lie.
He
distorts Dowd throughout. Having assigned Susan Rice the role of
Virgin Mother, he now attacks Dowd and calls her a sexist when its his
vision of women that's limiting. He insists that Dowd's always
attacking liberal women when he means to say he believes she's always
attacking Democratic politicians and Judy Dean (Howard Dean's wife).
And, sorry, but Maureen said what needed to be said there and Diane
Sawyer pursued the right tactic in her interview with the Deans -- if
you are running for president, your spouse needs to be there -- that
shouldn't be shocking. It wasn't shocking to Hillary Clinton when Bill
ran for president in 1992 and again in 1996. And it wasn't shocking for
Bill when Hillary ran in 2008. They know, as most people do, that if
you're running for president (and you're married), your spouse is
expected to be there.
But Bob Somerby either
forgets or lies because Maureen Dowd's been writing columns for years
and she's called out Republican women as well. I can think of one woman
she called out so loudly that rumors ran around that Maureen had slept
with the male politician and that's why she despised the wife so much.
In recent years, she's gone after US House Rep Michele Bachmann and many
others. In fact, in 2010, Laura Donovan reported for the conservative Daily Caller
that the conservative Independent Women's Forum was objecting to Dowd's
'mean' remarks about "Jan Brewer, Michele Bachmann, Sharron Angle,
Linda McMahon, Carly Fiorina, Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman and Sarah
Palin."
In one of the most jaw-droppingly dumb moments, he writes the following:
But
how about Condoleezza Rice (no relation to Susan)? Dowd was even
tougher on Condi [in Sunday's column], saying she sold her soul during
her service to Bush.
Question: Did Dowd ever say such a thing in real time? Or does she only write columns like this about Democratic women?
What
a stupid idiot or lying fool, he is. Maureen Dowd called out Bully Boy
Bush constantly. Her nickname from the White House was "Cobra." The
2004 collection of her columns was entitled Bushworld: Enter At Your Own Risk. Post-collection, Condi was called out in the July 22, 2006 column
for "air-guitar diplomacy" and Dowd wondered of Condi's efforts, "Keep
more civilians from being killed? Or at least keep America from being
more despised in the Middle East and around the globe?" Or take the
November 28, 2007 column entitled "Jump on the Peace Train:"
When
they invaded Iraq rather than working on the Palestine problem, W. and
Condi helped spur the greater Iranian influence, Islamic extremism and
anti-American sentiment that they are now desperately trying to quell.
[. . .]
The
tight-as-a-tick team of W. and Condi have been consistently culturally
obtuse on the Middle East, even with a pricey worldwide operation
designed to keep them in the loop.
First,
Condi missed the scorching significance of the August 2001 presidential
daily brief headline "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." "An
explosive title on a nonexplosive piece," as she later dismissively
described it.
Then she and W. failed to fathom that if Iraq went wrong, Iran would benefit.
For
someone who has made the hunting of Dowd his life sport, Bob Somerby is
woefully ignorant of his prey. We could go on and on but Dowd did call
out Condi Rice repeatedly in real time. He attacks Dowd because she is
a woman. We called him out Saturday for his vile filth tossed at Karen
DeYoung of the Washington Post. He returns to attack her today in a post that -- in the headline -- questions whether DeYoung's even a human.
Golly
gee, I'm having a real hard time remembering when Bob headlined a post
about a man like that. Oh, that's right, he doesn't. It's only women --
"the other" -- that are always treated like this by Bob Somerby. Bob
Somerby's an idiot. On behalf of all women, let me say, "Bob, I'm
sorry no woman wanted you. I understand why that is but I'm sorry that
it made you so hateful. I'm sorry that it makes you think you can call
Dowd a 'spinster' and the other sexist terms you've aimed at her. Most
of all, I'm sorry that since you've never really been close to a woman
you don't get that we're not idiots. We do remember. We remember your
attacks on Dowd for being single, your attacks on her for her age, your
attacks on her for this and that and everything in between. If we were
as stupid as you need us to be, we could read your filth today and say,
'There goes Bob sticking up for us gals!' But we're not stupid and
you have a long, long record of sexism."
How
telling that on the day Somerby wanted to call others sexist, he again
went to town on Maureen Dowd. How very telling. A woman can be a Queen
Bee, a gender-traitor, any number of terms. But in the landscape of
sexism, a woman will rarely be the biggest offender. Unless you
yourself are a sexist. Bob Somerby's called Maureen Dowd a sexist more
often than he has Chris Matthews -- and he supposedly hates Chris
Matthews -- and Chris Matthews, before the 'lean forward' makeover,
bathed nightly on the TV screen in his hatred women.
On
the larger issue of the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012 that
killed Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Chris Stevens, it's
really amazing how this had to wait until after the investigation and
how our slowest of children -- such as Paul Abrams of Huffington Post -- want to not just instruct America on "proper" but also to insist that the answers are now known.
Really? If you cherry pick Senator Dianne Feinstein, I guess you do arrive at that. But if you're honest, what she stated on NBC's Meet the Press was that an investigation was needed.
But, hey, former CIA Director David Petraeus testified in private to
Congress and none of us know what he said and reports are conflicting,
but Paul Abrams and company tell us that everything's been decided,
everything's been settled. A friend at Wired asked that I note this from Spencer Ackerman on Petraeus appearing before Congress to talk about Benghazi:
The
Obama administration's explanation of the assault on Benghazi evolved
from emphasizing an ultimately incorrect connection to the anti-Islam
video to blaming Benghazi on a terrorist assault. Its defense is that
the intelligence shifted; critics believe that Obama was covering up a
terrorist attack to ensure his reelection. There are numerous unanswered
questions about what happened in Benghazi: for instance, why security at the consulate was so light despite numerous precursor attacks that summer. Petraeus, finally out the door of the administration and under investigation by his own former agency, just added a few more, rather than clearing up the existing ones.
And on Meet The Press
yesterday, noting Susan Rice's statements to the American people,
Feinstein said, "We are going to find out who made changes in the
original statement. Until we do, I really think it's unwarranted to
make accusations." But, hey, Paul Abrams is bored and four Americans
had funerals so can't we all move on to wasting time on Paul's fantasy
that Hillary will run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination
in 2016?
We all are aware that Benghazi has
forced Paul to write about actual events as opposed to fantasies. It's
hard on Paul. Reality's not pleasant when it forces non-thinkers to
think.
As for who made changes in the talking points? Friday, Larry Johnson (No Quarter) argued
that if the public remarks are correct, the National Security Council
wrote the talking points and passed them "off as intel product." He
explains what he bases that on -- actual experience in the CIA. Aaron Blake (Washington Post) reported
that US House Rep Mike Rogers, appearing on Meet The Press with Senator
Dianne Feinstein, stated that "the talking points used by United
Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in the days after the attack were changed
once they got to the National Security Council Deputies Committee, which
is staffed by top deputies to Cabinet secretaries that deal with
national security."
In this [language warning] Larry Johnson post that Ruth noted,
he is even more clear in the process for such a memo. Some who 'just
know' what happened, might need to review Johnson's reporting because
they apparently do not understand the writing process, the review
process or even the chain of command with regards to custody for such a
document.
We talked about women
and the literary canon. One of the many women who paved the way for so
many others and went on to become one of the great American songwriters
is singer-songwriter Carly Simon.
She's won the Grammy (twice), she's won the Golden Globe, she's been
honored with The ASCAP Founders Award, she's even won an Academy Award.
This Wednesday night, she's doing a web concert with her children Sally Taylor and Ben Taylor.
It kicks off at 8:00 PM EST, 7:00 PM Central and 5:00 PM Pacific. It is
a forty minute concert. Tickets are $20 with a portion going to the
Red Cross for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. Carly is notoriously
stage shy. She could make a ton of money today if she did a national
tour. She's one of the few acts that could make a ton of money. And
one reason she could haul in that money (I'm not talking a ten date
tour, I'm talking across the country) is because she has toured so
rarely and so many of her fans across the country haven't had the
pleasure of seeing her live (though they've wanted to). The tours have
been very rare and tended to be short ones. This is a chance --
first-come-first-serve, there are about 90 tickets left -- for you to
see her regardless of your location. The concert is Wednesday. And
Sally and Ben are their own artists. You can hear strains of their
parents in them but they are their own artists with their own unique
talents so the concert should really be something. And Ben is also the guest on NPR's Mountain Stage
-- the program may have already aired today in your area but you can
check it out here -- 41 minutes of audio and also a video of him
performing "It Really Doesn't Matter To You." I haven't had time to
stream the concert but I do know "It Really Doesn't Matter To Me" and I
think it's among his best, right up there with "Wicked Ways."
And while I'm plugging music, Janis Ian
is an amazing artist, real, genuine, able to touch the heart. A very
gifted artist and a sweet woman. A music producer friend asked me
awhile back to note that Janis -- who is always on the road -- was
performing in Dallas, Texas at a very intimate venue. This was going to
be the first time Janis was in Dallas in some time and, again, it was a
club where every seat was supposed to be a great seat. So we were more
than happy to include it. The same friend called to ask that we note
that Janis hits Texas next month and will perform at One World Theatre in Austin on Monday, December 10th; Dosey Doe in The Woodlands on December 9th; and Saturday, December 8th, Janis will be back in Dallas at Hamon Hall. As Ann and Nancy Wilson
can tell you, if you can get Texas behind you, you can always tour. As
a state, its history hasn't been to be trendy and, if you give a good
show, concert goers will show up for the career highs as well as the
more mellow periods. Janis is one of the premiere concert artists. She
is not going through the motions, she is creating a show. She's a
legend on the road and, if you're able to check her out, please do so. Click here for her full touring schedule.
But, I'm not joking, it's known in the music industry that if you can
get into the Texas circuit and give a strong show, concert goers will
show up for years to come. They really value music -- and not trends
-- in Texas. (That's also the reputation Louisiana has and why smart
stage performers like Stevie Nicks always include those regions when planning a tour.)
And
the friend I'm dictating this to asked if I was going to mention Ann? I
didn't know Ann Wilson had something this week. Ann and her sister
Nancy are the trail blazing rockers behind Heart which has a new album Fanatic (Kat raved over it here) -- on sale for only $6.99 as an Amazon download right now, a tour and also a wonderful book Kicking & Dreaming: A Story of Heart, Soul, and Rock and Roll (Ava and I loved it).
But Thursday, November 22nd, (that's Thanksgiving Day), Ann will be
performing the National Anthem, broadcast on Fox TV, at the Dallas
Cowboys versus the Washington Redskins football game. The game's
scheduled to start at 2:15 PM EST, 3:15 Central, 1:15 Pacifica. Along
with being on Fox TV (that's the entertainment channel that airs The Simpsons, Fringe,
etc. -- I know Fox has a ton of channels), it will also be broadcast on
Sirius Radio (channel 93). So Ann sings the National Anthem. And
she's someone who can. Many don't have the range for that song, it's a
hard one to sing. Ann's got the range and, goodness knows, the power so
it should be something to see and hear.
