First up, Jimmy Dore.
So many people are fake and I guess these people need to attack Rose McGowan and Jimmy Dore to feel better about themselves. I hope those people get that we're on to them and that there's more of us with each passing day.
New topic, THE GOLDBERGS? They finally got Erica and Jeff back together. Took them long enough. I was hoping Bev would find out how much Big Tasty had done to keep them apart but that didn't happen. Barry skated free again. And it would have been so easy for her to catch him this episode since he was continuing to keep Erika and Jeff (Geoff?) apart until the end of the episode.
Next week, Erica and Jeff should be a huge part of the episode -- Jeff's planning to do something.
If the series hadn't been renewed this week for a ninth season, next week's episode would have been the final for the program. It would have be been a strong way to go out too.
Idiot of the week? Goes to AOC and her heavy handed drama all week long. She's so stupid and thinks she can use one bit of 'drama' after another to fool people.
Glenn Greenwald (SUBSTACK) reports on one incident:
So when AOC decided on Monday to finally use her massive platform to condemn specific political figures expressing this pro-Israel mentality, which of those powerful targets did she choose? None. Her brave outspoken moral stand was reserved for someone who has never held elected office and has zero power over U.S. policy toward Israel: New York City Democratic Mayoral Candidate Andrew Yang. As Democratic politicians in New York City have done for decades, Yang (just as his top rival, the African-American former police officer and Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, did) issued a standard pro-Israel statement, one very similar to the statements from countless Democratic officials across the country:
(Responding to criticisms, Yang posted a new statement on Tuesday that, among other things, acknowledge the criticisms even from his own supporters for failing to acknowledge Palestinian suffering, saying: “I mourn for every Palestinian life taken before its time.")
AOC said nothing about the State Department's ongoing defense of Israel. She condemned none of her powerful colleagues in Congress who did the same. She refused to call on the Biden administration explicitly to change its policies or denounce Biden's fanaticism on this issue. Her only previous utterance was a mealy-mouthed, barely cogent tweet in which she randomly threw the Israel/Gaza conflict into a laundry list along with “paramilitary violence in Colombia” and “the detention of children on our own border and the militarization of US police departments” to say: “the United States must seriously assess its role in state violence and condition aid.”So when she finally worked up the courage on Monday to single out a political official for public scolding and shaming on the issue of Israel, she decided that it should be Andrew Yang
Again, that's only one incident. It's been a drama heavy week for AOC. And she caps it off by winning idiot of the week.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, May 14, 2021. A US outlet rushes to lie about the Iraq War (its beginnings) and Ihab al-Wazni's death -- part of a wave of assassinations -- continues to generate protests.
SLATE continues to cover the lead up to the Iraq War. Can't cover the ongoing Iraq War because, well, that would be actual work. Can't cover the disaster that the US has created in Iraq. But they can go back now, nearly 20 years later, and 'reflect' on . . . well, reflection really isn't their thing.
They're trying to promote their heavily criticized podcast (not just by us) that's focusing this season on the lead up to the Iraq War. They'd doing that by also offering text articles about what the podcast is (mis)covering. Noreen Malone offers a lot of words in an article in which only the following is accurate:
Slate was part of this pro-war consensus, too.
That's really it.
All those words and that's the only honest part.
It's cute how they note 'liberals' who were in favor of the Iraq War and leave out Judith Miller, by the way. Judith was a liberal or 'liberal.' She wrote for THE PROGRESSIVE at one point -- a detail they love to leave out including in that 'anniversary' issue where they looked back on their past.
Why did some 'liberal' support the Iraq War?
That's what the fourth episode of the podcast and Noreen's article (''based on the podcast'') attempts to confuse while they pretend to answer.
One reason is that they wanted their media platforms. That's a detail Noreen misses. Phil Donahue was taken off MSNBC despite delivering the cable network's strongest ratings. Why? MSNBC honchos were afraid he wouldn't be waving the flag and promoting war and might hurt their brand.
And not just hosts, guests too. You would lose your media platform if you spoke out against the war. You weren't part of the cool crowd and you wouldn't be invited on. The exception to that being you would be invited on Bill O'Reilly's show where he would yell at you for not supporting the war..
So you wanted to protect yourself.
Another was herd mentality. Stay with the pack. It's okay if we're all wrong but if I step out and speak out and I'm alone and wrong my career is over!!!!
Third reason? Some of these people see war as the answer everytime.
Bill Keller? I was so glad when we stopped covering THE NEW YORK TIMES daily because it was getting harder and harder to hold my tongue about Bill Keller (and we ripped him apart several times here but I'm talking deeply, personal information). What war hasn't Bill cheered on?
Thomas Friedman? Squishy sort of 'liberal' who supports all interventions.
THE NEW REPUBLIC has a history, a long history, of cheering on war so why are we not addressing that?
There are all these reasons that are not being addressed and yet they devoted a whole podcast -- and now articles -- to it.
They're just liars.
The media went along for many reasons. One reason seldom noted was the waivers and consolidations they wanted. They got what they wanted from the FCC. They weren't going to rock the boat and they didn't.
Another reason? Being right doesn't mean a damn thing in the media landscape.
People who were wrong didn't suffer for it. People who lied didn't suffer.
And not only were they rewarded by corporate media, they were also rewarded by so-called 'independent' media. MOTHER JONES chooses to hire a blogger. Did they go with someone who was right about the Iraq War?
No, they went with Kevin Drum who was a cheerleader for the Iraq War.
Once upon a time, FAIR liked to do pieces and segments (segments on their radio program COUNTERSPIN) about all the people who were wrong about the Iraq War that ended up getting bigger jobs in the media for it.
They loved to ride that high horse until we started slamming them for for failing to note that the same thing was taking place in Beggar Media (outlets that always have their hands in your pocket for money to 'deliver the real news'). (Panhandle Media ditched even the pretense of fairness in 2008, see this piece on KPFA that Ava and I wrote in real time.)
Big media, small media, the racket played out the same. Be part of the group think and you will be rewarded.
I love how one (read the crap if you want to, we don't promote that guy) insists that as a Jewish intellectual blah blah blah. Excuse me, but intellectual implies thought. And there's no thought being put into going along with breaking international law. The Iraq War was illegal from the beginning. Don't try to hide behind the claim that you are an 'intellectual' and don't hide behind being Jewish and trot out the Holocaust. You embarrass yourself.
There was also the fact that the media would slam you if you spoke out.
I've noted before one of the nation's top ten papers set out to destroy people who were against the war. Sheryl Crow was savaged and attacked for her album and I know why because the journalist apologized to me for it and I told them to go f**k off. The same journalist wanted to interview me for a feature and I do my research and said no because of an attack on Sheryl's music because Sheryl was against going to war on Iraq. (The attack was so outrageous that they elevated Christian Aguilera saying she should have been nominated for X award and not Sheryl when Christiana's album wasn't even eligible because it came out after the deadline for that year's Grammy nominations.) After I said no, the journalist continued to e-mail and call. It was February and I was already speaking out on campuses and I ended up the journalist's city and they show up wanting an interview and I explained no and why. The journalist wants to whine (and will do in e-mails over the next two days -- e-mails I still have) explaining that they had been ordered -- the entire entertainment beat -- to attack anyone speaking out against the impending war.
Don't give me your b.s. SLATE, I'm not in the mood.
You had a pothead who thought being a pothead meant he was a liberal who wrote a column calling those who protested against the Iraq War traitors and they were committing treason (for a war that hadn't even started?). That's what the 'intellectual' level was at the time.
I know too many journalists so don't give me your b.s., SLATE.
It was an organized movement against peace, it was a deliberate choice to push the illegal war.
They can't address any of the above because they're too busy continuing the lies.
Are we really surprised that they can't be honest when they look back? I mean, these are the same outlets that ignore what's happening in Iraq today. SLATE's never done any strong work on the war. They cheerleaded it, they egged it on and attacked those who spoke out and now they offer this mediocre podcast that distorts and lies. No real surprise.
Iraq Security and Humanitarian Monitor notes:
Ihab's mother is speaking out. ALHADITH Tweets:
In the video, use the link if it doesn't show above, she says there is no government, just militias, that it's open season on the Iraqi people and no one is there to protect the people.
Also speaking out is Ihab's brother:
Ali Alsewedy offers this thread:
And it's not just Karbala. Shams Bashir1 Tweets:
And since the western media tends to ignore women and render them invisible let's note this Tweet because, as usual, Iraqi women are part of the protests.
Ihab's assassination is not a one-time event. It's part of a wave of assassinations, a wave of threats and intimidation, an effort to suppress the people. ASHARQ AL-AWSAT maps it out:
Targeted assassinations threatening the lives of civil society activists and candidates running in Iraq’s 2021 parliamentary elections, slated for October 10, have fueled fears that the early vote will be delayed until next year.
Ihab al-Wazni, who helped organize anti-government protests that swept Iraq in October 2019, was shot dead on Sunday outside his home in Karbala, a city located 100 km south of Baghdad.
Only a day later, another murder attempt sought to take out journalist Ahmed Hassan in the nearby city of Diwaniyah, located 180 km south of the capital.
In parallel, a female candidate from Baqubah province, situated northeast of Baghdad, also reported an attempt on her life.
The heightened risk of assassination has been directly linked to candidates increasingly pulling out from the October race.
For example, the Bayariq Al-Khair parliamentary bloc revealed on Wednesday that some of its candidates had withdrawn from the upcoming elections after receiving death threats.
“Some candidates of the Bayariq al-Khair bloc in Baghdad withdrew from the upcoming parliament elections after receiving death threats,” said Muhammad al-Khalidi, who heads the bloc.
Khalidi held relevant security authorities responsible for the safety of candidates.
“Security services are aware of what happened and have seen the messages that the candidates received,” he said.
We noted THE WASHINGTON POST article yesterday, the one about Ihan. It was co-written by Louisa Loveluck and here's a Twitter thread from her:
At RUDAW, Sura Ali continues to cover the protests and the protesters. From Ali's latest:
Dozens of Iraqi protesters on Friday visited the Najaf grave of Safaa
al-Sarai, an activist who was killed by security forces in 2019 and
became a symbol of the protest movement. It is traditional to visit the
graves of loved ones during the Eid al-Fitr holiday.
“Protesters gathered from different Iraqi cities, mainly Baghdad and Nasiriyah, and held a ceremony at Sarai’s grave, chanting slogans condemning the killing of activists,” protester Ali Munaf told Rudaw English.
Sarai participated in protests and published pictures and videos documenting brutal tactics used by security forces to suppress the demonstrations. On October 28, 2019, he was fatally shot in the head with a tear gas canister. He is buried in Najaf’s Wadi al-Salam cemetery.
Iraq’s security forces are accused of deliberately firing teargas canisters at the heads of protesters, making them lethal weapons.
“Security forces have fired tear gas canisters directly at protesters in Baghdad, Iraq on several occasions since the demonstrations resumed on October 25, 2019,” Human Rights Watch reported in November 2019.
After his death, Sarai became an iconic figure of the October [Tishreen] protest movement. Anti-government demonstrators across southern Iraq still carry his image during protests.
A group of activists also visited the grave of Ihab al-Wazni, who was a protest leader in Karbala and was assassinated last Sunday. Protesters lit candles near his grave and chanted slogans calling for a renewal of the protest movement and the dismissal of the government that has failed to arrest those responsible for killing dozens of activists.
The following sites updated: