Thursday, February 26, 2009

I Hate The War

All the young (and not-so) duds are thrilled with Racheel Maddow and with the interview she did with Nancy Pelosi. They shouldn't be. Rachel not only does not watch television, she doesn't read.

If you're going to have the Speaker of the House on your program Wednesday night it's incumbent upon you to do some research. I ignored Maddow (as always) but encountered Pelosi Wednesday night in the pages of Rolling Stone. Tim Dickinson does an interview with Pelosi. All those brave statements the Young Duds spent all day slobbering over? Well apparently Rachel Maddow's not the only one who can't be bothered with reading.

In one of the most hilarious passages, about what might happen to Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Date Number 3 (Josh Bolton), Nancy says that it's up to the speaker to determine charges. That would be her. [Speaker Pelosi, "The natural course of events from here is that the speaker will determine what charge we're going to pursue, because there are more than one."] So the interview (presented in Q&A form) really requires her to either offer what SHE will or might do. Barring that, it requires Dickinson ask her. It just floats right by instead.

Again, Maddow should have done her homework. She should have known that Rolling Stone had an exclusive (and lengthy) interview with Pelosi, that the interview was not out and that in it Pelosi speaks of Senator Patrick Leahy's efforts re: Truth Commission and of US House Rep John Conyers' efforts. More so on the latter because she's Speaker of the House.

Rachel did her usual half-assed interview and you'd hope all the Young Duds would grasp that when they were busy calling Time out for tossing imploded sex bomb Ann Coulter on the cover, Rachel was covering for Time. They better grasp that her best friend wrote that article. They better grasp that she not only refused to call that garbage out, she refused to explain why. She cut off guests (on her radio program) who brought it up and she refused to talk about it. At one point, she even defended the article. And never said, "I know the writer, he's my friend." That disclosure was needed and never made. She's not an ethical person, those attempting to turn her into a hero should remember how she stayed at Air America Radio to begin with: Lying to the listeners. Lizz walked. They're replacing her show in two weeks . . . with Jerry Springer? Lizz walked. Chuck D wanted nothing to do with it. But Rachel was there every day. Spreading whatever lie management ordered her to. "Lizz is sick." "Lizz is really, really sick." "People, it is not helping Lizz' illness for you to spread rumors." The whole time Lizz was never coming back, the whole time the show was being cancelled. And Rachel never said a damn word. She lied to listeners, she abused their trust, she destroyed the basic relationship a dee jay is supposed to have with the audience.

She's an idiot, she's always been an idiot. She doesn't do her own clippings from the newspapers which is why she never what day's paper she was reading from on air. Facts is hard for Big Brain.

And it's too hard for her to pick up the March 5, 2009 issue of Rolling Stone whose cover proclaims, "NANCY PELOSI HITS BACK ---- THE RS INTERVIEW." It's four pages and that's a sign of how bad Rolling Stone has gotten. (And we though it was bad when the RS Interview was reduced to eight pages.)

Had Rachel Maddow done the work required, she might have been able to ask about this remark by Nancy:

Tim Dickinson: I'm talking more about the level of a Donald Rumsfeld -- people who authorized torture and greenlighted the kidnapping and rendition of innocent people.

Nancy Pelosi: I didn't like their policies, which is why we needed to win the elections -- to get them out of power. But I don't know what the evidence against them on any specific charge. When you have a truth-and-reconciliation commission . . . look, I'm still fighting the bombing of Cambodia. I still have my gripes with the administration that bombed Cambodia before you were born, so I think it's important to bring these things out. If you have a case against someone, you bring a case.

Tim Dickinson: With all due respect, we've had elections before that tossed people out, but then the same people returned to power later -- just as Dick Cheney did after leaving the Nixon administration. If we turn the page without full examination and prosecution, aren't we in danger of seeing this again.

And the interview's really just garbage other than that section. Iraq's never raised. Not one damn question. Even while pursuing a courtship and pursing fleeting, nameless encounters at Golden Gate Park, Jann still found time to care about Vietnam back in the day. Today? He's so in love/lust with Barack, he can't be bothered with encouraging actual journalism. I honestly never planned to mention any of that. Ralph Gleason largely avoided mentioning it in public when he was alive. It is why Jann had to put distance between himself and Ralph, Ralph knew what was going on and Jann was so bound and determined to live up to his idea of what a 'successful' 'normal male' does. Jann couldn't take Ralph knowing the truth, it's the main reason why Jann trashed Ralph like crazy, why he worked overtime to destroy him. (Yet strangely, those tears at Ralph's funeral were sincere.) Didn't plan on ever mentioning that or any other stories. But you do a Rolling Stone Interview with the Speaker of the US House of Representatives while two wars are going on and your published interview has nothing to say on it? Well, too bad, so sad for you that you'd prefer the whole world believe that one day you suddenly woke up and were instantly gay after a long lifetime of straightness. I fully grasp why that lie is important to Jann and to various males he's been involved with. I also grasp that he realizes if he's known as Gay Jann those kiddie porn RS covers of Justin Timberlake, et al. might lead to even more of his desired demographics fleeing. (Female readers were never valued by Jann.) That's not my problem. You want to cover for Barack, Jann? Go for it. But grasp that you can't cover for him and cover for yourself. Jann's far from the only one who needs to grasp that.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4245. Tonight? 4251. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,311,696 as the number. The number they finally moved up to three weeks ago. Like Jann Wenner, JFP has 'other' things to do.

Here's US Senator Russ Feingold on Barack's 'withdrawal:'

After years of failed Iraq policies, I am pleased by reports that President Obama plans to significantly reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by August 2010. Our presence in Iraq has cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, overburdened our military, fueled anti-Americanism and distracted us from the global threat posed by al Qaeda. I am concerned, however, by reports that tens of thousands of U.S. troops may remain in Iraq beyond August 2010. I question whether such a large force is needed to combat any al Qaeda affiliates in Iraq or whether it will contribute to stability in the region.

And I thought I was done. Eddie just e-mailed to note John Walsh. Walsh wrote a great article at Dissident Voice, "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again" and today (see this afternoon's snapshot) the publicity hack for Pathetic Democrats of America showed up to spin and lie. Eddie e-mailed to note John Walsh has responded to the hack:

John Walsh said on February 26th, 2009 at 12:51pm #
"P"DA is complicit in war.
In response to Laura Bonham’s claim that "P"DA is principled and consistent on the question of war, I have to ask, Is she kidding? Or whom does she think she is kidding?
"P"DA supported John Kerry in 2004 when he ran on a prowar platform.
"P"DA supported Barack Obama in 2008 - even as he called for a 100,000 increase in men and women in the active duty army and marines and even as he called to step up the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So far as I know, "P"DA will not be joining the March 21 national mobilization in DC against what the mainstream media call Obama's war.
Obama has been bombing Pakistan, an act of war, without any Congressional declaration of war, an impeachable offense. "P"DA has not called for impeachment.
If Bush were doing any of this "P"DA would be yelling at the top of its lungs. But I hear only quiet when Obama does these things -- perhaps a few statements on the web site to cover their ass, but no action at all.
As Eugene McCarthy, echoing Daniel Webster, said of the war on Vietnam, it went on because too many placed party over principle. That is exactly what "P"DA is doing.
john walsh

Time permitting, we'll note that tomorrow as well. The e-mail address for this site is

john walsh