Angelina Gives Cheney a Surge in His Pants

So yesterday, the most famous set of lips this side of Mick Jagger decided to use the celebrity bully pulpit to discuss her perspective on the situation in Iraq.

Page A-26 applauds Angelina Jolie's interest in global humanitarian issues; her sincerity is obvious. Not only has she visited many of the world's most depressing and distressed areas to observe the situations for herself, but she has also gotten involved with the United Nations in an effort to improve the lives of people around the world who are less fortunate than herself or most Americans. (Although, it appears that the UN has a proclivity for handing out such titles to attractive Hollywood types. Hmm. Who's next we wonder.)

All well and good, however, Jolie's editorial about Iraq is problematic. First, we find it hard to believe that she wrote one word of it. Oh sure, she probably conferred with a couple of writers about what she wanted to say and then reviewed a few drafts, but that's a lot different from actually writing the piece herself. (Although other humanitarian op-eds have been published under her name -- look at the date on this one. Does she "write" one a year?)

Secondly, while her focus is on humanitarian issues, the piece basically stands out as a propaganda tool for the Surgists who insist that we must stay in Iraq until ALL of the Neocons as yet unspecified criteria for success have been met. Even now as you read this piece, conservative chuckleheads around the country are waving Jolie's piece around and shouting, "See, see! even the Hollywood elites are now saying that we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely. See, see! The surge is working. See, see! We were right to illegally invade Iraq after all."

Third, though she is obviously sincere, we have serious doubts about the people providing her with information. She's only getting to see and hear what the U.S. government whats her to see and hear. When she was in Iraq determining whether or not the surge was working, did she visit the same thriving open-air market that John McCain found so reassuring?

The Neocons couldn't have scripted this one better if ole' Dicky C or Turd Blossom had written it themselves. Wrapped in a humanitarian cloak, the piece essentially claims that things are getting better in Iraq and that we should stay until the job is done. And, if any clear-minded folk disagree with the Administration's posit--, er Jolie's position, then they are ripe for attacks from the right about being invested in defeat and not caring about the fate of citizen Iraqis.

But today's rant is not about Jolie per se, but about the failure, once again, of the Main Stream Media to present content honestly.

Regardless of whether or not AJ misses the point about the stay-or-bring-them-home debate or whether her job as a make-believe artist qualifies her as an expert on geopolitical affairs, Page A-26 wants to know why Ms. AJ gets to have her op-ed run for two straight days? Can't recall seeing this before. Could it be that her celebrity status does mean something after all? Not for the debate on Iraq or the facts of course, but for the Washington Post's bottom line. Would a similar op-ed advocating peace and diplomacy by say Dennis Kucinich or Michael Moore get two straight days on the front page of the online Post? Sadly, this is just more evidence that news and journalism no longer exist in the country -- it's all about entertainment and profit.