Tuesday, February 25, 2003
••Seymour Hersh: Rumsfeld authorized evacuation of al Qaeda••
On PBS television's Now With Bill Moyers,this past Friday Feb. 21, 2003, Jane Wallace interviewed Pulitzer-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who disclosed
that an evacuation of Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan into Pakistan was authorized by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- as a favor to Pakistan.
SY HERSH: Okay, the cream of the crop of Al Qaeda caught in a town called Konduz which is near ... it's one little village and it's a couple hundred kilometers, 150 miles from the border of Pakistan. And I learned this story frankly-- through very, very clandestine operatives we have in the Delta Force and other very...
We were operating very heavily with a small number of men, three, 400 really in the first days of the war. And suddenly one night when they had everybody cornered in Konduz-- the special forces people were told there was a corridor that they could not fly in. There was a corridor sealed off to-- the United States military sealed off a corridor. And it was nobody could shoot anybody in this little lane that went from Konduz into Pakistan. And that's how I learned about it. I learned about it from a military guy who wanted to fly helicopters and kill people and couldn't do it that day.
JANE WALLACE: So, we had the enemy surrounded, the special forces guys are helping surround this enemy.
SY HERSH: They're whacking everybody they can whack that looks like a bad guy.
JANE WALLACE: And suddenly they're told to back off--
SY HERSH: From a certain area--
JANE WALLACE: -- and let planes fly out to Pakistan.
SY HERSH: There was about a three or four nights in which I can tell you maybe six, eight, 10, maybe 12 more-- or more heavily weighted-- Pakistani military planes flew out with an estimated-- no less than 2,500 maybe 3,000, maybe mmore. I've heard as many as four or 5,000. They were not only-- Al Qaeda but they were also-- you see the Pakistani ISI was-- the military advised us to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were dozens of senior Pakistani military officers including two generals who flew out.
And I also learned after I wrote this story that maybe even some of Bin Laden's immediate family were flown out on the those evacuations. We allowed them to evacuate. We had an evacuation.
JANE WALLACE: How high up was that evacuation authorized?
SY HERSH: I am here to tell you it was authorized -- Donald Rumsfeld who -- we'll talk about what he said later -- it had to be authorized at the White House. But certainly at the Secretary of Defense level.
JANE WALLACE: The Department of Defense said to us that they were not involved and that they don't have any knowledge of that operation.
SY HERSH: That's what Rumsfeld said when they asked him but it. And he said, "Gee, really?" He said, "News to me." Which is not a denial, it's sort of interesting. You know,
JANE WALLACE: What did we do that? Why we would put our special forces guys on the ground, surround the enemy, and then-- fly him out?
SY HERSH: With al Qaeda.
JANE WALLACE: With al Qaeda. Why would we do that, assuming your story is true?
SY HERSH: We did it because the ISI asked us to do so.
JANE WALLACE: Pakistani intelligence.
SY HERSH: Absolutely.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/25/2003
••a restless wreckless mind••
This is why Bush has not had a press conference since December 5th; however, it is precisely when George Bush speaks without a script that we should be listening most closely, because it reveals the awful truth of a careless wreckless mind:
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." ~ George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2003 - Slate
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/25/2003
Monday, February 24, 2003
••make tea, not war••
a shout out to bryan for this most appropriate of headlines; in his typical no-nonsense less-is-more style, adams said it best.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/24/2003
Thursday, February 20, 2003
••how low can you go••
picture this:
a tight-frame closeup on a late 20-ish brunette woman, mascara tears streaming down her face, a red inflamed nose, a cheap ill-fitting cowboy hat perched atop her noggin, distraught yet indignant as she looks into the camera, chin jutted up and out, voice quivering, each word, measured and deliberate, as she declares in a texas twang:
“i spent 9 and a half months in and out of hospitals.
never in my life did i think i’d stop being hot.
even if i spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair, i’d still be hot.”
had i not looked up and realized that the channel was on some new contestant show called “Are You Hot? The Search For America’s Sexiest People”, i would have sworn i’d been listening to a rerun of an hilarious skit from Saturday Night Live.
and please take a moment to send some props to the fine expert judges.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/20/2003
••soled out••
ouch. there goes President Bush's downhome cowboy image. No real cowboy would be caught dead wearing fancy Italian-made shoes.
think again.
President Bush and Saddam Hussein both share the same taste for expensive $1000 Italian handmade designer shoes by Vito Artioli from his London shop. both men have three pairs that are exactly the same as the others'.
Artioli notes that Bush wears size 10 shoes, while Saddam Hussein a 9 and 1/2, and that both bought a plain leather shoe, a brogue pair, and a crocodile pair, all in black.
"It came as a bit of a surprise when I noticed the order forms from both Saddam and President Bush.
"We've been making shoes for important figures for years. But to have both Bush and Saddam in the present climate is a bit odd."
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/20/2003
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
••6 degrees of separation••
here's a small tidbit of unimportant yet nonetheless mildy entertaining info about John Roberts, CBS Senior White House correspondent and first-call standin-in for Dan Rather as Anchor on the CBS Evening News .... (Roberts, who, btw, i think is doing a kickin' job -- he at least does his best to kick that repulsive ari fleisher's propagandist ass)
did you know that:
•John Roberts used to go under the moniker "J.D. Roberts"?
•he is Canadian and hails from Toronto?
•he was a dee-jay on Toronto's CHUM-AM radio?
•he joined CITY-TV in Toronto as a music vee-jay?
•his first on-camera gig was as a co-host & interviewer for CITY-TV's "The New Music"?
but le piece de la resistance (not), is that:
•i was John's first-ever on-camera interview.
i was only 17, and promoting my first record on CITY TV's "The New Music"; before the camera's red light went on, he leaned forward, and told me i was going to be his first on-camera interview and that he was scared shitless... i, of course, having also never done any "on-camera" interview before in my life, was equally as scared, but instead patted his arm and said,
"let's pretend it's you and me talking and no one else is here....."
i doubt it was a great interview from both the question or answer perspective. we were media virgins. however, looking back, it was a refreshingly honest if not a rather naive admission to make to an interviewee -- and it put us on equal footing, no matter how shaky our balance must have surely been.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/19/2003
••a broken string of perles'••
"All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it.
If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now ."
is Richard Perle a freaking klingon?
Richard Perle -- Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon made up of leading figures in national security and defense which backs laying the groundwork for overthrowing Saddam Hussein through military means.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/19/2003
Thursday, February 13, 2003
••chillingly prophetic••
might i suggest Gore Vidal's latest book "Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta", containing a collection of articles and essay's he's written over the past 8 yrs.;
paticularly chilling if not downright prophetic, is the last paragraph in Chapter 1 written on Jan.15, 2001 for The Nation:
"Expect a small war or two in order to keep military appropriations flowing. There will also be tax relief for the very rich......The military -- Cheney, Powel, et al.-- will be calling the tune, and the whole nation will be on constant alert, for, James Baker has already warned us, Terrorism is everywhere on the march".
••if a Dove cries in the Senate, will anybody hear it?••
Senator Robert Byrd spoke today on the Senate floor in Congress and echoed what i believe to be the thoughts and concerns of a majority of North American citizens -- citizens who have so far been consistently misrepresented by skewed polls, marginalized by the media and deemed irrelevant by the Bush administration.
"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of
human experiences. On this February day, as this nation
stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level
must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent - ominously, dreadfully
silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the
nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our
own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.
Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive
discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple
attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes,
represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning
point in the recent history of the world."
~ Senator Robert Byrd (D - W. Virginia) | Feb. 12, 2003
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/13/2003
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
••stimulate this••
well, today's New York Times headline "Greenspan Throws Cold Water on Bush Tax Plan" is a welcome wrinkle in Bush Inc's plans to pillage and plunder the U.S. gov't's cash till...
Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, today rebutted many of President Bush's arguments in favor of big new tax cuts, saying that the economy probably does not need any short-term stimulus and warning that budget deficits could spiral out of control.
Mr. Greenspan did not attack the specifics of Mr. Bush's $674 billion tax-cutting package, but he cast doubt on the need for a stimulus proposal in the first place.
He also disagreed with the Bush argument that rising budget deficits have little link to higher interest rates. And he pointedly took issue with the administration's argument that the best way to balance the budget is by promoting faster growth.
"I am not one of those who is convinced that stimulus is desirable policy at this point," he told lawmakers at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. "My own judgment is that fiscal stimulus is premature."
Because of Mr. Greenspan's enormous stature as a spokesman on economic issues, his comments today were a serious blow to the Bush administration.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/12/2003
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
••White House Press Office does al Jazeera's bidding?!••
so, earlier today, i watched the live telecast of CIA chief George Tenet, FBI honcho Robert Mueller and U.S. Sec. of State Colin Powell report to Congress about the state of affairs as it pertains to terrorism and hostile regions around the world.
Colin Powell, in his testimony, refered to a tape of what "may or may not be Bin Laden" that proves that "he is in partnership with Iraq"- a tape that he seemed to know at 10:30 in the morning would be played later on today on al Jazeera.
cut to today's White House Press Briefing, and Ari, who of course is the White House Press Secretary, announces in a live broadcast on all the cable news channels, that there will be a tape of Bin Laden that will be playing later on today on al Jazeera.
so, what's now rifling through my head at this point as i'm watching the live coverage of the briefing, is, how is it that Ari Fleisher, and Colin Powell on behalf of the rest of the Bush administration already knows IN ADVANCE that there is going to be a tape of Bin Laden played "later in the day today" on al Jezeera??
and since when has the U.S. government given us a "tip" about any tape about Bin Laden, nevermind do al Jazeera's bidding for them? it makes no sense.
(unless of course, the U.S. govn't supplied it - unbeknownst to al Jazeera, who would have received it "anonymously").....
so while i'm ruminating on all of this, CNN's John King raises his hand at the press briefing and asks Ari how it is, that in light of this administrations current policy of requesting to the U.S. television news media that they restrain from playing any tapes of Bin Laden, so as to not insight fear or give credence to al Qaeda, how is it that the White House itself has now come to announce the release of a Bin Laden tape on - of all things - al Jazeera, and King wondered aloud if the release of this tape wasn't in fact advantageous to making this administrations' case to the American people watching that al Qaeda was connected with Iraq, and is it that this administration prefers that all the cable news channels run the Bin Laden tape....
Ari spun in circles on his heels with this one, not fully able to spin his way out of it....
shortly thereafter, two other White House press corps journalists asked follow-up questions about this, and of course, Ari averted answering any of the questions.
John King already has this one figured out, as i'm sure most of the White House press corp has as well.
what i still can't figure out is how no one got around to asking just HOW is it the U.S. already knows IN ADVANCE about a Bin Laden tape that is "about to be played on al Jezeera later today"????? and why, for the first time ever, is the White House o.k. with having the U.S. cable news outlets do what they have previously cautioned them not to do, nevermind, act as the literal p.r. secretary for the al Jazeera cable news network?
it's incredibly convenient that Colin Powell just happened to be addressing Congress today and while having the address be covered live by all the cable news networks, he was able to drop that handy tidbit of news about news that had yet to become news, if you catch my drift.
i bet you this time out the White House will be eerily silent in cautioning the cable news media from playing a Bin Laden tape that "might give credence to al Qaeda"....
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/11/2003
a doonesbury doomsday "call"••
the opening line in the first panel of today's Doonesbury strip rings the perfect note of irony: a wife hugging her her husband who is dressed in military gear as he is about to depart for Iraq implores,
"promise you'll call as soon as you've changed military regimes?"
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/11/2003
••speaking of smoking guns...••
Last Thurs. Feb. 6, the Guardian and the BBC online provided breaking news in the U.K, revealing that large parts of that U.K. intelligence dossier were totally lifted from:
[1] a 2002 academic thesis written by a post-grad student,
[2] a 1997 article by a journalist who works for military magazine Jane's Intelligence Review;
Both men said they were shocked their work had been used in the Government's dossier.
the Toronto Star reported that post-grad student Ibrahim al-Marashi said,
"The fact that they would have to turn to something in the open media reflects that maybe there is a deficiency in the intelligence gathering."
the Mirror in London wrote that Jane's Intelligence Review journalist Sean Boyne stated:
"I don't like to think that anything I wrote has been used for an argument for war. I am concerned because I am against the war."
now, how on earth could news like this remain under the radar in the U.S.? The U.K., Canada, and practically the rest of the world found out about it last Thursday and early Friday morning.
plus - in light of the around-the-world live coverage by all the U.S. cable news channels of last Tuesday's U.N. Security Council "smoking gun" presentation by Colin Powell, how is it that despite the actual smoking gun stunning revelation two days later about the U.K. intelligence dossiers' plagerism, those Sunday news politicos missed reporting it at all?
particularly egregious, was Tim Russert who's Meet the Press guest for the entire first half hour was none other than Colin Powell; how could he not have questioned him about the now-questionable integrity of the U.K. intelligence dossier? particularly in light of the fact that Powell refered to in glowing terms at the U.N. presentation as,
"the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities."..?
the question is: if the U.K. government, with the acknowledgement and full support of the U.S. government, has so sloppily slapped together the "intellingence dossier", a dossier of which its primary purpose was to be instrumental in being a formative part in not only shaping public opinion, but in creating multilateral support for a pre-emptive war on Iraq because it supplied supposedly new incriminating evidence regarding Iraq, but has now been exposed to have been largely filled with dated information that has been public since 1997 and was plagerized from a post grad student and a journalist for Jane's Intellignece Review, then why should the intergrity of those responsible for it, be credible or trustworthy?
for your edification, this BBC article provides examples of the stunning similaries between the British Intelligence Dossier, and those presented in the post-grad students' thesis.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/11/2003
Monday, February 10, 2003
•• ism's ••
In Bush's State of the Union Address, he stated "In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America."
hmmm... "Hitlerism, militarism and communism...."
I know the first and last "ism" is gone forever, but the middle "ism" is alive and well with the Bushovics...
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/10/2003
•• WAR-ellian Doublespeak ••
in response to my post titled "Wall Street Journal: anti-war = pro-saddam" regarding the WSJ's recent headlines that continue to brand those who oppose war with iraq as being "pro-saddam", frequent voxpopgirl poster dc-hoe posted a shout out that merits posting here in the main body of these pages; dc-hoe writes:
"Not only that voxpopgirl but we're Neo Neville Chamberlain "appeasers", that's my favorite...Throw in that Bush is a "liberator" and we've got some great Orwellian language being tossed around in the public debate...Listening to Colin Powell on Meet The Press this morning, its clear that they haven't thought this through...He couldn't answer any serious questions concerning the cost of this war..."
well dc-hoe, Orwell might be rolling in his grave if he were to hear all this Doublespeak he'd originally written to represent the language of totalitarianism actually being used in the real world by the most powerful democracy in the world;
Re: "Neville Chamberlain appeasers" - that must be one of the new Bushovik/NeoCon "talking points" that Weyrich , Podhoertz , Kristol crew have been instructing all their BushBots to disperse into the media fray, cuz i just read that "Neville" allusion coming out of NeoCon commandante Richard Perle's mouth in this months' new The American Conservative mag, and heard it just this morning coming out of Fox News "anchor" Brit Hume's tight angry mouth...
gee, i thought Brit Hume and the Fox "News" peeps were supposed to be reporting the news, not shaping it.....
when one comes to think of it, who better than ex-Trotskeyites such as Kristol and Weyrich, or former to ”appreciate” the finer points of propaganda and mass manipulation by an elite few ideaologues in control of all the branches of government and the media?
*i'll post more about the AmCon mag's piece on Perle soon... it's an off the hook piece titled "Richard Perle Must Resign".
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/10/2003
Saturday, February 08, 2003
•• first, weapons of mass destruction, then celebrity fragrances. good lord, what next? ••
three time Dot-Comedy Awards winner and humourist Andy Borowitz of "The Borowitz Report" has a hilarious satire "news" item titled "U.S. Warns J-Lo: Rising tide of celebrity fragrance proliferation causes new concerns" over at MSNBC's website.
here's a teaser:
In a strongly worded message from the State Department, the United States today warned singer-actress Jennifer Lopez to cease and desist manufacturing her new celebrity fragrance Glow “immediately and forever.”
THE STATE DEPARTMENT message came in response to Lopez’s audacious announcement last week that she would start producing a new celebrity fragrance in open defiance of international treaties curbing celebrity fragrance proliferation.
Specifically, Lopez’s decision to start producing millions of bottles of Glow flies in the face of the Agreed Framework treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration, prohibiting so-called “multitalented performers” from branching out into celebrity-fragrance production.
With Lopez’s announcement, pressure may be building within the Bush administration to take out her celebrity fragrance plant in a preemptive strike before Glow can be produced and shipped.
“If J. Lo gets a celebrity fragrance, it’s only a matter of time before Kelly Osbourne and Justin Timberlake do,” said Jean-Luc Broussard of the Center for Celebrity Fragrance Control in Brussels.
“If that happens, heaven help us all.”
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/08/2003
•• any ideas for the Tradesports/Iraq tv ad campaign? ••
a few of us here have dropped a shout out or two regardingthe previous Tradesports post (re: "•• the odds are even on iraq ••"), and smack has keenly pointed out that over at Tradesports, the heavy action seems to be on April 03; for when war begins in iraq, that is.
and this just crossed my mind, what with a few of us shout-outers participating here at voxpopgirl being intimate (for better or worse) with the jingle/advertising biz and kickin' out spots over the years that have blitzed the airwaves across N. America....
so -- stay with me -- what with the U.S. being the most comodified nation on the planet, and what with an administration full of hawks beating the war drums to "keep the peace", and that big ole' war with iraq looming on the horizon and in the headlines---
cuz hell, you know that all the cable news channels have been revving up and producing their Iraq "war campaign" ads (-insert your favourite cable news network name here-).....
they’ve probably all been sitting there months ago deliberating over the "war with Iraq" theme music for (1) the Bagdad bomb blitz, (2) the Bagdad ground war and whatever else war music they think they’ll need....
and do the brainiacs at CNN and MSNBC know that both camps came up with the same campaign war slogan: Countdown: Iraq?
meanwhile, the folks up at CBC Newsworld have finally come up with what they're gonna run with: Ultimatum: Iraq....
of course, once the countdown's done and the ultimatum is up, you know everybody's already got the name bagged for the next stage of the cable news war ads' campaign.
and speaking of the next cable news war ad campaign stage -- yesterday The Homeland Security Dept. announced that the "terror threat level" has been upped to "HIGH", the 2nd highest terror alert level (from "amber to orange), which had CNN upping their war campaign slogan to Showdown: Iraq (wanna holla out any possibilities here? go ahead and drop a shout out down below!)
the point being, that they’re all placing bets on some particular angle having to do with a war in Iraq -- it’s not just the regular everyday street peeps at Tradesports. nope, the big old pros in the media is where it's at; hell, they have to get into the action, cuz, it’s their business to have to “get it right” and anticipate where the story’s gonna break, when it's gonna break and what all the "angles" are gonna be that’ll help keep the most eyeballs locked on their cable news channel.
keeping all that in mind, my fellow ad whores out there -- you know it wouldn't be that much of a stretch -- what with Tradesports already doing big business online handling "trades" about....war! so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to soon see a whack of shiny hot new Tradesports ads slammin’' the airwaves, drum-thumpin', techno-tinged, hard guitars, stars n' striped sound track, and that movie trailer dude's voice buzzin' "you know who the winner is..."....
so here's where my voxpoppeeps come in -- ad pros and those who like to watch alike -- : anybody wanna wager a bet as to what the new spot will look and sound like?
chime in and drop me a shout out here as to what the •slogan• might be, what the •music• and •sound• design might be -- what the •angle• is and "who" the •target audience• might be... jump in and throw out your professional and couch potato best... for all we know, one of us ad kidz here might one day soon, be getting a call from Leo Burnett or BBDO to do just that.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/08/2003
Friday, February 07, 2003
•• the odds are even on iraq ••
this has to be seen to be believed...
for those hawks addicted to betting, we have a site to feed your addiction..... a site that doesn't call it betting, but instead, calls it "trading".
folks, welcome to: Tradesports
because: TradeSports is a Trading Exchange, it's not a Sportsbook.
they're placing odds on when war will begin with Iraq and taking bets, er, i mean, making trades.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/07/2003
•• former fiscal conservative nods off ••
“the budget is so boring i’m losing consciousness”.
Nation Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg, in response to CNN anchor Bill Hemmer’s question about whether America can afford a war with Iraq and implement all the new policies and programs proposed by President Bush.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/07/2003
•• et tu, michael jackson? ••
this morning on CNN’s American Morning “Gimme A Minute” segment, CNN anchor Bill Hemmer, after having wrapped up a discussion about Iraq, the case U.S. Secretary of State Powell made to the U.N. and France’s refusal to support it, turned to his guest panelists Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile, The Nation Review Online's Jonah Goldberg and The New Yorker magazine’s Andy Borowitz, and asked if there’d been any "surprises" in last night’s 20/20 Documentary Exclusive about Michael Jackson.
Andy Borowitz jumped in and said,
Bill, the big bombshell from last night is that Michael Jackson has definitely had plastic surgery. However, France is not convinced, and they want more time.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/07/2003
•• Wall Street Journal:
anti-war = pro-saddam ••
to hear it from the OpEd pages of the WSJ, is to accept as fact everyone who opposes America going to war with Iraq is “pro-Saddam” and “Saddam’s diehard backers”.
so say the WSJ's Opinion page headlines from yesterday and today's edition:
[1] "Miller Time:Not everyone in Hollywood is pro-Saddam"
[2] "Powell’s Smoking Gun:Powell’s presentation persuades all but Saddam’s diehard backers"
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/07/2003
•• different man, different "moment" ••
there’s a worthy New York Times OpEd by Adlai Stevenson III refuting this White House's spin that Powell's address to the U.N. Security Council was "an Adlai Stevenson 'moment' ". Stevenson III perspicuously delineates the differences between the objectives of the Kennedy White House and the motives of this Bush White House.
who better to impugn Bush Inc.'s hollow rhetoric than the son of the man the Bushoviks are trying to compare their own man's "moment" to?
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/07/2003
•• entre nous no more: a mind made up?••
did President Bush tell the Ramon family something that he has yet to tell the American people? According to this article in a conservative Israeli newpaper called Arutz Sheva: IsraelNationalNews.com:
“U.S. President George Bush, who took part in the memorial ceremony for the seven astronauts in Houston yesterday, approached the family of Israel astronaut Ilan Ramon afterwards and told them [paraphrased], ‘Ilan blew up the Iraqi nuclear reactor [in 1981], and I will finish the job’."
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/07/2003
•• did Noonan mean big "S" or big ass? ••
i don't know which anti-psychotic prescription drug Peggy Noonan was on when she described Bush's demeanour in last weeks' State of the Union address in this Wall Street Journal OpEd, but judging from her melodramatic hyperbole (or is it hyperbolic melodrama?), her doctor needs to vastly increase the dosage:
"For a moment I though of earnest Clark Kent moving, at the moment of maximum danger, to shed his suit, tear open his shirt and reveal the big "S" on his chest."
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/07/2003
•• investigate m.j? d.a. in l.a. says ix-nay ••
in case you don’t read any of the Shout Outs to these posts.....(and you should cuz that’s where the fun exchanges and interactivity are taking place),
my fab friend jetfuel dropped a Shout Out to “••the many of faces of michael••” post... jetfuel writes:
“Tonight's 20/20 was the Nine Eleven of Celebrity documentaries. It'z precident setting. Who's next? What will MJ do?”
to which i replied:
“yes, it was a personal all-time crash of massive proportions for mj. now, if that isn't daring the l.a.p.d and prosecutors' office to get an immediate warrant and break down the doors at Neverland a.s.a.p., i don't know what is!”
well, apparently, the d.a. in l.a. thinks otherwise.
at least ---- for now.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/07/2003
Thursday, February 06, 2003
•• the many faces of michael ••
watching the 2-hr 20/20 special on michael jackson was like watching an unstoppable trainwreck:
you know it's coming and yet there's nothing you can do about it;
and then when the trainwreck actually happens, you can't help but stop to look at it with morbid curiousity, and at the same time, turn away in abject horror.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/06/2003
•• oligarchic plutocrats or plutocratic oligarchs? ••
i cannot believe this president is marching the country to a goddamn war. a seriously scary war. scary because the cia testified that only if saddam were attacked and provoked, would there then be the casus belli for saddam concluding he's got nothing to lose, and using wmd or chemical/bio warfare.
and did you see Bush today -- when Colin Powell came out first, followed by Bush, but then the ding dong up and turned on his heels suddenly, and left and walked through a doorway, and closed it? whatup with dat?
they want war, they'd planned for war with iraq before 9/11, and then god help us, when 9/11 happened, these bastards did what they always do, which is to push for the ultra-right neocon agenda they'd already decided upon, using the current circumstances as a pretext to push for that already determined agenda. whether it's a war, a tax "stimulus" plans, whatever. sorry, but even if you agree with some of the republican policies these guys espouse (crumbs of distraction to appease their loyal base), their actions regarding the war and how they've manipulated the american people and the rest of the world, is a serious indictment and indicator that if they can screw that many people over regarding something as serious as a war, then it's small potatoes when it comes to lying and bullshitting domestically --policy-wise/civil rights/you name it -- cuz any move they make is for nothing more than a power grab and the re-aligning of power in their favour, whether it's the world stage and rearranging the middle east, or at home, securing enough votes in order to stay in power so that they can keep on using the american government for their own financial gain around the world.
and god help us all, as these bastards seemingly are oblivious to N. Korea as they thumb their collective noses and surge forward with their nuclear program -- it makes me wonder if a war with NK isn't what these Bu$hoviks already have in mind as part of their new world order. it's almost unthinkable, but shit, they did put Korea into their little "axis of evil", so who knows. god help us.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/06/2003
•• so the Maine Senate opposes the war ••
the Portland Press Herald reports:
"The Maine Senate endorsed a resolution Tuesday that asks Bush to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iraq rather than going to war. The House is expected to take up the proposal on Thursday at the earliest. The 18-15 Senate vote represents the first time nationally that a state legislative body has taken a stance against a war in Iraq.
Sixty-three U.S. cities, including Portland, have voted to support similar resolutions. The Senate vote was partisan, with every Democrat supporting the measure and every Republican in attendance opposing it."
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/06/2003
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
•• who said anything about a war? ••
on tonight's Crossfire, Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif) had the nerve to employ Orwellian doublespeak when debating Iraq and insisted that the U.S. is not going to "war", but is instead "liberating the Iraqi people".
so all of sudden, the "w" word is verbotten -- unless of course, it's in relation to this presidents' middle initial.
perhaps Mr. Rohrbacher and his fellow hawks need to be reminded that plans for war on Iraq” were already well in the works mere weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 tragedy.
the headline from a Dec. 2, 2001 Guardian/Observer article says it all: "Secret US plan for Iraq war"
so, on Dec. 2, 2001:
"Bush is said to have issued instructions about the proposals, which are now at a detailed stage, to his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, three weeks ago.
But Pentagon sources say that a plan for attacking Iraq was developed by the time Bush's order was sent to the Pentagon, drawn up by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, chairman of the joint chiefs General Richard Myers, and Franks."
so, let's get this straight: even prior to Bush's issuing of instructions about "proposals"(which would have been around the week of Nov. 11/01, according to the article), those neocon hawks Rummy, Wolfy and 2 Pentagon generals, Meyers and Frank had already "developed" a plan for war with Iraq and drawn them up!
but let's put all that into a larger context: according to the Guardian/Observer report, President George W. Bush was ordering "the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation" for a war with the nation of Iraq a mere 4 to 5 weeks after al Qaeda terrorists attacked on American soil and killed almost 3000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.
given the plans' detailed strategies (which you can read in the Guardian piece), it could be easily surmised that discussions regarding U.S. actions against Iraq were long in the works, perhaps even prior to Sept. 11.
a European military source who had recently returned from General Tommy Franks's headquarters in Florida shortly after Sept. 11/01 said:
'The Americans are walking on water. They think they can do anything at the moment and there is bloody nothing Tony [Blair] can do about it.'
but who said anything about a war?
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/05/2003
•• Perle's of wisdom? [part 2] ••
check out what Richard (Perle) said last night about the U.S.'s longtime ally France, long after the newspapers had long rolled off the presses...
UPI Chief International Correspondent Martin Walker reports:
"France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance 'must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance' the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday."
that's quite the threat, dick. i mean, Dick.
this man is the epitome of arrogance and hubris that is this administration and its policies -- if, they in fact have any.
good gawd, could this administration do any worse in their daily corrosion of allies and squandering of good will since Bush Inc first "took" office?
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/05/2003
•• that was then, this is now ••
there's a documentary on my tv right now called "Generation", juxtaposing interviews and concert footage from the 90's version of Woodstock against footage from the original Woodstock from the 60’s....
so, a moment ago, there was a scene where Greenday was on stage singing the opening lines to "Basketcase":
do you have the time to listen to me whine
about nothing and everything all at once
the doc then cuts to Todd Rundgren, who, when asked what the difference is with the “kids today” as compared to back when he was young said (and i'm paraphrasing here) that,
"with today’s generation it’s stylish not to care about anything, but back in my time it was stylish to care about something."
with terrorism omnipresent, the subsequent subverting of civil liberties in exchange for "security", the u.s. ecomony stalled and in recession, the largest deficit in American history, North Korea giving a collective nuclear finger to Bush Inc., the Bush admin's collective shrug of indifference in response to that breaking news, and the President and his mens' rock hard jones for a preemptive war with iraq, let's hope that "caring about something" comes back into vogue.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/05/2003
•• veiled message ••
in today's NY Times' OpEd, Maureen Dowd writes:
"When Colin Powell goes to the United Nations today to make his case for war with Saddam, the U.N. plans to throw a blue cover over Picasso's antiwar masterpiece, 'Guernica'."
"Too much of a mixed message ", diplomats say. As final preparations for the secretary's presentation were being made last night, a U.N. spokesman explained, "Tomorrow it will be covered and we will put the Security Council flags in front of it."
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/05/2003
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
•• "this is a government that is marinated in oil" ••
so says the former presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader at a press conference.
According to an AP at Salon titled "Bush oil ties sited as fueling Iraqi war",
"Nader noted that Bush received nearly $2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry during the 2000 election and that Vice President Dick Cheney headed Halliburton, an energy company, before taking office. Nader also questioned meetings Cheney's energy task force held with industry executives while the White House formulated its energy policy. "
The Salon piece went on to say that,
"Nader, along with Greenpeace USA and other peace activists at the news conference, criticized Bush for refusing to meet with retired military officers, former intelligence agents, academics, clergy and business leaders who support reaching a diplomatic resolution over Iraq."
They spoke before anti-war demonstrations which were held at gas stations across the country.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/04/2003
•• anomolies and tragedies ••
yesterday morning, my friend Steven emailed me the following observation:
"So, I'm reading through some of the coverage this morning of the horrible avalanche tragedy . Truly heartbreaking when you see that these kids were all real overachievers likely to make some kind of impression in the world. They were from Strathcona-Tweedsmuir Secondary. Acronym STS. 10 children injured...7 children killed. The Flight designation for the shuttle, painted on the side of the ship... STS107.
Now, I am virtually immune to this kind of paranormal, harbinger of doom thing... but it actually creeped me out.
Tell me, what are the statistical odds of this kind of coincidence?
As rational beings, we must absolutely dismiss this as a statistical anomaly.
We must absolutely explain this as a pure fluke of timing.
We absolutely cannot point to the combined tragedies of the weekend as being indicators of some kind.
Right?"
well Steven, i have something more to add to this haunting confluence of tragedies..... they both shared a name in common:
Columbia. the shuttle name was Columbia and the avalanche tragedy occured in the province of British Columbia.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/04/2003
•• a room full of quacks ••
Q: what is a compassionate conservative?
A: a humanitarian who doesn’t let it get in the way.
Slate's Michael Kinsley recently observed that new Senate Majority Leader, Republican Sen. Bill Frist who is also a doctor, fits the bill and "looks from afar like a decent, generous man with humanitarian instincts who doesn’t always let decency, generosity, and humanitarianism get in the way of his ambition." it should be noted that Sen. Frist is on the shortlist of suspects who may have been behind the sneaking in - under the dark of night - of the despicable Eli Lilly provision into the massive Homeland Security Bill; a provision that will protect Eli Lilly and a few other big pharmaceutical outfits from lawsuits by parents who believe their children were harmed by thimerosal.
oh, did i mention that thimerosal was developed by Eli Lilly & Company in the 1920's and is a preservative that contains mercury and was used for many years as an additive in some routinely administered children's vaccines? no sweat. take 2 aspirin and call Dr. Frist in the morning.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/04/2003
•• Da Do Wrong Wrong Wrong? ••
Phil Spector and his toupée were arrested yesterday.
he was charged with the murder of a woman found shot to death in the foyer of his "castlelike home". the reclusive and eccentric rock 'n' roll legend and "wall of sound" producer was released later that day on $1 million bail posted by Mr. Spector himself. monday's New York Times noted that, "accompanying Mr. Spector was his lawyer, Robert Shapiro, who had also been a part of the O.J. Simpson defense team."
The NYTimes went on to report that "A friend of Mr. Spector, the lawyer Marvin Mitchelson, said he was living alone and working on a movie about his life.....Another friend said Mr. Spector had been in good spirits in recent years, and had been spending time with Nancy Sinatra, attending Los Angeles Lakers games with her."
hopefully, at time of trial, Mr. Spector's friends will rally around him.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/04/2003
•• bleeding heart conservatives in da house ••
former Talk magazine editor Tina Brown has written a piece titled "Waiting For War" over at the Opinion pages at Salon,
which is focuses on the current war clouds that loom over the collective heads of the American people regarding the tilt towards war with Iraq by this President and his men.
But halfway through the piece, there's a paragraph that hones in on the hypocrisy practiced by these principled Republican ideologues in this White House.
"Franklin Roosevelt did it with his pledge to the Four Freedoms, JFK with his "ask what you can do for your country" inaugural. But Bush just can't get there. In his State of the Union pep rally a smirk of privilege hangs in the air even as he goes for maximum gravitas. He eye-sweeps the House chamber with stirring talk of freeing the Iraqis at last from torture and tyranny, which is great -- except that we know what he and his pals in the Cabinet really think about bleeding heart nation-building."
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/04/2003
Monday, February 03, 2003
•• Perle's of wisdom? ••
what did come as a somewhat of a shock was that Richard Perle just told Lou Dobbs that when it comes to N. Korea, this administration shouldn't exclude the possibity of taking military action.....
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/03/2003
Lou Dobbs just announced on Moneyline that when they come back from commercial, "Richard Perle will explain why inspections are " 'unnecessary' ".... gee, what a shock. right.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/03/2003
•• Tom Tomorrow Today ••
Tom Tomorrow's latest This Modern World comic strip titled "Shared Sacrifice" gets it right with its byline that reads:
Each of us has a responsibility to do his or her part in the war against terror.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/03/2003
•• godfather of Gonzo is baaaaack ••
there's an interesting new interview with Hunter S. Thompson in the News & Politics section over at Salon today.
he's promoting his new memoir "Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century" which is apparently going to be on this weeks' New York Times bestseller list.
the article/interview states that Thompson, a lifetime member of the NRA and a friend of Pat Buchanan, says he believes the Bush "administration is 'manufacturing' the Iraqi threat for its own political gain and the economic gain of the 'oligarchy' (read: the military-industrial complex)."
When asked what the folks in the White House get out of it, Thompson responded:
"They get control of the U.S. economy, their friends get rich. These are not philosopher-kings we're talking about. These are politicians. It's a very sleazy way of using the system. One of the problems today is that what's going on today is not as complex as it seems. The Pentagon just asked for another $14 billion more in the budget, and it's already $28 billion. [Defense spending in the 2003 budget rose $19.4 billion, to $364.6 billion]. That's one sector of the economy that's not down the tubes. So, *some* people are getting rich off of this. It's the oligarchy. I believe the Republicans have never thought that democracy was anything but a tribal myth. The GOP is the party of capital. It's pretty basic. And it may have something to do with the deterioration of educational system in this country. I don't think Bush has the slightest intention or concern about educating the public."
The Salon.com interview might be a subscriber Premium service -- so i don't know if the link will allow you full access; i'm a Salon premium subscriber, however, i'm not completely certain, but i think that Salon's now offering a free "day" pass to those who want to read their premium articles without fully subscribing.
can't you just see the OpEd peeps at both the WSJ and The Weekly Standard blast-faxing their talking points to all their tv talking head operatives over at Fox News and across the conservative dominated American talk radio programs to those GOP/Bush administration "arrow carriers" like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham?
i must say, i do hope Hunter goes over to MSNBC and talks to Chris Matthews on Hardball , and hooks up with Pat on Buchanan and Press ; that should be fun.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/03/2003
•• it's an "s" thing ••
why can't George W. Bush pronounce his words like other American citizens, some who haven't had the near same benefit of higher education?
he can't pronounce his "s's"... the *soft* and the *hard* "s" get mangled. hear me out:
with Bush, a *soft* "s" come out sounding like "sh"... so that if he said: "a 'just' war", instead of the word "just" being pronounced a "just" with a soft "s" before the "t", Bush incorrectly pronounces it as "jusht".
and then, if that's not bad enough, Bush does the weirdest pronunciation for the *hard* "s" that often come at the end of a pluralized word such as "pieces".
the "s" at the end of "pieces" has a slight soft "z" sound at the end of it; but Bush pronounces the *hard* "s" at the end of a pluralized word by using a soft "s".... so that the word "pieces", which should be pronounced as "pea-sez", gets incorrectly pronounced by Bush as "peacess".
Explain please? or rather, as Bush would say it: "Explain pleece?".
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/03/2003
•• protecting american interests: paleocon v.s. neocon ideology ••
i am against any nation engaging in a pre-emptive war on any country; and when it comes to being against America entering into war on Iraq, i would never have believed that an "inside the beltway" friend of mine in Washington D.C. who proudly refers to himself as "a Pat Buchanan conservative" and a "pro-American patriot" would ever share the same p.o.v. with a liberal such as myself.
however such is the case with my paleocon friend, a 31 year old with "old-time" Republican values, who said that on the grounds of traditional Republican ideology which does not espouse multilateralism to protect "American interests", he is against this war. he says that this is what separates old traditional "value" conservatives like him with the new "flag" conservatives who now populate the Bush administration and have greatly shaped its foreign policy.
that got me thinking.... i suppose that depends on how one would define what "america's interests" were, wouldn't it?
i mean, if this heavily laden neocon Bush administration, as my paleo conservative pal wholeheartedly believes, is pushing the cause of "Empire" (even though this is not how they are representing it to the American people), and if, as my friend believes, they are going against the traditional Republican values and are instead pushing for multilateralism as a pretext for protecting "america's interests"; as in, "folks -- they could attack us!! they are forcing us into a war!!" (which is roughly what Bush alluded to in his SofU address the other night, when he said "...if war is *forced* upon us..."), then i'm curious.
cuz how does an old conservative such as my D.C. friend, then square -- lets' say -- fighting communism -- which was the the centerpiece of the Republicans' mantra for 30 years... when it came to "protecting America's interests" back then?
i mean, America dug in deep in carving up sides in Germany delineating the difference between East (communism) and West; then for 40 years, in the name of fighting it because it was in America and it's allies "interests", they put army bases everywhere in Europe; they sent a generation of America's young men to war in Vietnam to fight for America's interests against communism; together with the CIA, they deposed democratically elected leaders in South American countries to rid the threat of communism....
not taking sides here, i really am just now in this moment, coming to wonder how today's neocons couldn't handily point to that ole' paleocon cause (fighting communism) as a rationalization for multilateralism in order to "protect american interests".
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/03/2003
•• Alias gets an alias ••
earlier tonight, i watched the 2nd episode of the uh, "new and improved" Alias on ABC, which in point of fact, is more like an alias of Alias as it has now been almost completely stripped of much that made it orginal and unique.
according to Salon.com's Arts & Entertainment writer Carina Chocano:
"Nobody really understands why "Alias" is not a ratings smash. Critics love it, fans are obsessed with it, ABC is behind it, and star Jennifer Garner has had more magazine covers than she's had hot meals. So what, exactly, is the problem? The only explanation -- and the brain trust's current thinking -- is that the plot is too confusing. And it is. It is staunchly, proudly and maddeningly impossible to follow. You can't just drop in and out of "Alias." You have to account for your whereabouts. "Alias" demands loyalty, devotion and the ability to keep even the most Byzantine convolutions straight. And once you get into it, you really want to. You want to do it for Sydney, the most beautiful, sensitive, ass-kicking, tortured and put-upon double agent in the history of fictional counterintelligence. But 9.3 million viewers aren't enough, so as of Sunday, after the Super Bowl, a new, revamped "Alias" hits the airwaves. Weekly cliffhangers will disappear and new episodes will be more self-contained, requiring less knowledge of the previous week's episode. ("Alias" is such a teased-out serial that each week's episode is preceded by a detailed rundown of the previous week's episode.)"
so far, i'm having a difficult time adjusting ... i feel a bit, well, betrayed. SD-6 in gone, so this means Sydney and dad Jack are no longer counterspies anymore.... adios to the mounting drawn out sexual tension between Sydney and Vaughn (cuz hey -- Sidney and Vaughn are now an item); speaking of complex character relationships: the Bristow family troika storyline has fallen under the radar and disappeared. don't get me wrong, i still dig all the characters, but some of the sudden character "shifts" and disappearances are quite the stretch: out of the blue Will has suddenly fallen into lust with Francie, and hey, i'm still mourning over the finality of the fact that the very sweet Francie is, well, dead, nevermind that she's been suddenly replaced with a genetic facsimile. i know that one of the kewl things i always dug about Alias is that it was a full-on action comic spy thriller starring hot babe Jennifer Garner (who rocks in this role -- pun intended btw), but this is waaaay too fictional to buy into.
so, since the Super Bowl, buh-bye to those cliff-hanging nail-biting weekly storylines with evolving character development. i think ABC didn't do their job in promoting this show from day one as a show that you have to follow with dedication from the beginning of - and to the end of - each season, much in the same way you do with The Sopranos and with last years' sleeper hit 24. Neither of those shows were episodic series, and last time i checked, their audiences were dedicated followers, had no trouble remembering complex evolving plots and character sub-plots. Alias requires - and won - the same sort of audience involvement, and that was *without* ABC promoting in the way that a show like 24 was advertised.
so, bad on ABC, who i'm still having trouble forgiving for having pulled the plug on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and replaced it with that waste-of-airspace-of-a-show The Jimmy Kimmel Show. uh, quite the unoriginal format there -- and nice programming fellas. i bet your numbers are down. way down. that said, i'm counting on Alias creator and exec producer J.J. Abrams and his co-exec producer and director Ken Olin to care about this baby enough to not let her get so cosmetically altered as to be unrecognizable. you go boys.
aside from the wonderful work of Garner and her Alias co-stars and cast members, at least one other thing has been consistent on Alias as of this date... the stellar roster of guest stars, starting with season one with Quentin Tarantino who played a really bad dude, the introduction of Lena Olin as Sidney's spy mum in season 2, then a few episodes back there was Faye Dunaway as an evil SD-6 bitch, then last week Rutger Hauer was the Sark stand-in and temporary head of SD-6, and tonight Ethan Hawke was in da house, and there was brief appearance by an old aquaintance of mine back in my l.a. days, Olivia d'Abo, who did a great job as the blonde CIA agent who had been strapped with explosives in one of the earlier scenes of this episode.
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/03/2003
Sunday, February 02, 2003
•• they ain't in da house: Levin, Case, Isaacson and Turner ••
all is not the bomb diggity in the AOLTimeWarner crib......
[1] CNN parent company AOLTime/Warner's accounting practices have been under investigation by the SEC for almost a year....
[2] in early 2002, TimeWarner CEO Levin left AOLTimeWarner and was "replaced" by Parsons.
[3] about 7 months into it, AOL's Case steps down....
[4] 2 weeeks ago CNN's Walter Isaacson resigns....
[5] 4 days ago, AOL Time Warner posted the largest annual loss in corporate history. The company posted the yearly loss of nearly $100 billion.
[6] and, on that very same day, CNN creator Ted Turner resigns.
so wassup? could it be that Turner, Case & Isaacson know something we don’t? either way, the vibe ain't kickin', and i have a feeling we're gonna find out some more really really bad stuf.....
as CNN Moneyline host Lou Dobbs commented on that historic day last week Wed. Jan. 29/03:
DOBBS: AOL Time Warner today posted the largest annual loss in corporate history. The company posted the yearly loss of nearly $100 billion. It's roughly the same amount AOL paid for Time Warner just two years ago. Gregg Clarkin, it has been quite a journey.
CLARKIN: The company also announced that Ted Turner will leave the company, stepping down as vice chairman at the May shareholder's meeting.
DOBBS: (his head shaking) I don't know what to say about this one.
CLARKIN: A lot of folks don't.
DOBBS: Ted Turner, stepping off the same day as this announcement is being made. It's still unclear whether or not he's going to remain on the board and the company can't speak to this issue. This sounds like, if you will, trouble in River City.
CLARKIN: Absolutely, Lou.
DOBBS: Like you need more evidence of trouble in River City
CLARKIN: There is a statement from the company saying that Dick Parsons anticipates he'll be there. It sounds at this point they're very hopeful that he'll be there. Discussions are going to be held and are still undecided, unclear as to whether he wants to say.
DOBBS: Do you have the feeling that Dick Parsons must be really, really eager for this news all to get behind him?
posted by voxpopgirl |
2/02/2003
|
|
|
|
|
