Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills): 9/4/16

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Deniece Williams

We're trying to do theme posts. The theme is a great R&B song from the 80s or 90s.

I'm going to go with a turntable classic.

I had this on 45 and used to leave the arm up on the stereo so that it would go back to the start of the song after it reached the end and the arm with the needle picked up.

(If that's all gobbidy gook to you, you never had a lp player.)

This isn't Deniece Williams biggest hit. There are her duets with Johnny Mathis and, of course, her number one solo hit from FOOTLOOSE "Let's Hear It For The Boy."

But "Silly" was always my favorite song by Deniece Williams.

"When you could care less."

She seems so wise and torn all at once when she sings that line.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, September 9, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, lying and spinning continue, where does it all end? Not with the current government in Iraq -- according to CIA Director John Brennan.

Silicone party barbies
To the left and
Joan of Arcs to the right
No one feeling insecure
We were all gorge and famous in our last lives
In the glories of the 80's
You said 'the end is nothing to fear'
I said: blow the end now baby
Who do I gotta shag to get out of here
-- "Glory of the 80s," written by Tori Amos, first appears on her TO VENUS AND BACK

Welcome to the never ending election, where nothing is ever proposed and Trump and Clinton supporters spin and lie in the ongoing campaign of "Yes, my candidate lies but not as much as the other!"

That's what Democratic and Republican politics have come to, "Vote for the liar who lies a little less often than the other."

The madness never ends as FOIA requests are something to ignore -- a long with the destruction of evidence subpeoned by Congress.

Everything can be justified by lying to yourself.

Hiram Lee (WSWS), while reviewing JASON BOURNE --Matt Damon's desperate attempt to extend his flat acting career -- observes this behavior:

The name of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is mentioned at various times throughout Jason Bourne. Damon, for his part, came out publicly in Snowden’s defense in a 2013 interview with the BBC, saying, “I think it’s a great thing that he did.” Around the same time, Damon told Black Entertainment Television that Obama “broke up with him” and that he questioned “the legality of the drone strikes and these NSA revelations.”
By 2015, Damon and Obama had patched things up. Now Damon described the individual at the head of the government responsible for those drone strikes and NSA programs as “a remarkable human being” who was “shockingly easy to be around.”
“I don’t ever question that it’s coming from the right place with him,” Damon reassured the press.

The problems and pressures revealed in that turnabout, as much as anything else, explain why Jason Bourne is ultimately such a poor film.

"I don't ever question that it's coming from the right place with him"?

Maybe you have to picture him saying that with a cock in his mouth to truly appreciate it?

Calm down, Matt. You're getting uglier and fatter, people will stop wondering if you're gay shortly. And then when no one cares about you and even TV won't take you, you'll miss the days when you went around teasing the media that you might be gay -- only two decades later to blame others for the rumors.

Equally disgusting is Daniel Ketchum.

At the website INQUISITR, he apparently believes he can just lie:

As proof of his stellar foreign policy experience, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has frequently claimed that he did not support the Iraq War. However – as Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton pointed out at the NBC Commander-in-Chief forum yesterday – Trump did in fact support the war in the beginning and there is clear audio and video evidence backing this up.

Oh, great, I thought, I don't have to be fair anymore. There's multiple interviews of Donald Trump supporting the Iraq War.

I don't like Trump.

I've never liked him.

And so this was great news. I didn't have to sit here and be fair anymore.

He'd dug his own grave.

So I read Ketchum eagerly only to discover that he has nothing.

There is no "clear audio and video evidence."

There's the Howard Stern September 11, 2002 interview where all Donald says is "I guess so."

The media does need to push back.

It needs to push back against this wave of lies.

‏@mattyglesias

You can’t just let Trump tell obvious, widely-debunked lies in interviews

For those who don't know or don't remember, Matthew Yglesias cheerleaded the Iraq War.

I guess that explains why he's a liar today.

Because "I guess so" is not support for the Iraq War.

It's a month before Congress is even voting.

It's six months before Colin Powell's 'blot.'

And the words are "I guess so."

Now if you're an idiot, a newborn, a hack or a liar, that's support for the Iraq War.

If you're someone who spoke out against the Iraq War, that's not support for it.

People who spoke out against the Iraq War were targeted.

Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Janeane Garofalo, Harry Belafonte, the list is long.

People who supported the Iraq War felt they could lie and publicly attack anyone and everyone.

If the worst any of us had to fear was an Iraq War supporter saying "I guess so," the number speaking out would have been much greater.

I started speaking out in February of 2003.

The fact that I didn't do it in January of 2003, does that mane I supported the Iraq War?

No, I never said "I guess so" but I don't see "I guess so" as support.

I see "I guess so" as let's move the interview along.

And I'd wonder if Howard Stern supported the Iraq War?

That would even more explain why one friend speaking to another on radio would answer "I guess so."

(I don't know Howard Stern's opinions. I don't like him. Unlike THE NATION magazine, I've never hailed him -- or Bill Maher -- as examples of the great left. They're sexist pigs and I have no tolerance for either.)

But "I guess so" in September 2002 is not support for the Iraq War.

If you think it is?

(A) You weren't old enough to remember the start of 2003, (B) You've chosen to forget or (C -- most likely) you went along with the mob attacking those of us who spoke out.

I hate Donald Trump but I'm not going to let a lot of little whores rewrite that period.

You were attacked if you spoke out.

There's the pot head columnist who fancies himself a hippie who has repeatedly apologized to me -- I wasn't attacked by him, I just blew him off because of the column -- who floated in a column in February 2003 that those peacefully protesting against the Iraq War were committing "treason" -- he used the term.

So don't come to me now and start your b.s.

Sheryl Crowe was attacked in the press for where she stood on the Iraq War.

The orders came down from editiors -- and I have a list of ten editors -- that in their Grammy pieces, they had to attack Sheryl.

Three years later, Jane Fonda returned to film with MONSTER-IN-LAW which was a funny comedy. And yet you still had editors giving orders to trash the film.

Don't come to me now with "I guess so" is support of the Iraq War.

Because it isn't.

And you're not going to lie for your War Hawk Hillary and get away with it.

So as you read Ketchum's awful article in search of these pre-war interviews -- this evidence he has! -- you find he has nothing but the 2002 interview.

The lying needs to be called out by the press.

But, of course, that would be depending on the same press that sold the Iraq War.

And we all know they don't do their job.

Alan Greenspan would eventually admit the Iraq War was about oil -- he would do that on live radio and TV (DEMOCRACY NOW!). He would have to retract it under pressure.

But the Chair of the Fed knew it.

So why we are giving Andrea Mitchell a pass?

Why isn't she being Judy Miller-ed?

She's been married to Greenspan for decades.

So she knew what was what.

Didn't stop her from filing pro-war pieces in the lead up to the Iraq War, did it?

Liars clearly can't call out other liars.

I hate Donald Trump.

I find him offensive on every level and have for years and years.

But that doesn't give me the right to lie about him.

And if I do lie about him to score some political points, then I'm far worse than he is.

I'll never rank as the greatest person in the world -- or in the country -- or in the state -- or even just in the room.

But I do have ethics and I will not turn myself into trash by ignoring my ethics.

I really fear for this crowd today, these whores and liars who sell themselves for politicians.

Where does the whoring end?

What's his name?

They used to say Mary Matalin was him in a dress.

Lee Atwater.

Is that how this whoring ends?

You go through life smearing others and lying and then, on your deathbed, you try to apologize for it?

Like that makes any difference?

Because it doesn't.

You've already done the damage and you just look pathetic -- someone frightened of dying and judgment rushing to be absolved.

As for changing stories, there's always Hillary.

‏@mtracey

Contra her claims last night, the central premise of HRC's 2008 campaign was that the Iraq vote was *not* a mistake 

240 retweets269 likes

AFP reports:

In an interview this week with the CTC Sentinel, a publication from the West Point military academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency said the current system of governance in the two countries might change altogether.

“I don’t know whether or not Syria and Iraq can be put back together again. There’s been so much bloodletting, so much destruction, so many continued, seething tensions and sectarian divisions,” Brennan said.

“I question whether we will see, in my lifetime, the creation of a central government in both of those countries that's going to have the ability to govern fairly.”

Well Iraq's certainly not governed fairly today. We'll give Brennan credit for telling the truth there.

It's hard to tell who isn't persecuted in Iraq because it's pretty much everyone and has been that way since the start of the Iraq War.

Among those persecuted are Christians.

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY reports:

After the United States has declared that genocide is taking place against Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq, what is the next step for genocide victims displaced from their homes?
“Together, we will advocate for the Christian, Yazidi, and other communities in Northern Iraq that they may return to their homes on the Nineveh Plain to be secured there by coalition and successive international forces,” Andrew Doran, senior adviser to the group In Defense of Christians, stated at the Sept. 7 press conference beginning the group’s advocacy convention in Washington, D.C.

Years and years of persecution in Iraq ignored by the White House until the right wing p.r. campaign to promote war via the Yazidis came into place and finally, as sop, the word genocide got applied to the systematic eradication of Christians in Iraq.

For those who've forgotten, the Iraqi Christians who were not forced to leave (or killed) began relocation to northern Iraq.

On northern Iraq, we'll note this.

‏@K24English

ICYMI: President Barzani: No country is against Kurdistan independence
http://bit.ly/2cyzfyl 
#TwitterKurds #Iraq 

7 retweets11 likes

President Barzani may be a little optimistic.

Yesterday, the US Defense Dept announced:

Strikes in Iraq
Fighter aircraft and rocket artillery conducted seven strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Albu Hayat, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two bunkers and two vehicles.

-- Near Haditha, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a building.

-- Near Mosul, two strikes engaged an ISIL financial center and destroyed a weapons storage facility.

-- Near Qayyarah, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle, 12 rocket rails, four rocket systems and an assembly area.

-- Near Ramadi, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Sinjar, a strike destroyed an ISIL tunnel entrance and suppressed a mortar position.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.

And out of the rubble grows -- as Hillary Clinton would put it -- business opportunities.

Good for GE -- bringing good things to life -- as anyone who's seen the Hudson River can attest. (That was sarcasm.)

The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan -- updated:

Iraq

Thursday, September 08, 2016

Video you have to check out

Evan Ross is the son of Diana Ross.

He's married to Ashlee Simpson.

And that video contains some powerful singing (as well as T.I. doing one of his best raps).

I was really surprised to learn who that was.

Evan Ross can really sing.

Please check out the video.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, September 8, 2016. We spend the snapshot on the non-debate last night on NBC.

So the biggest loser in last night's farce?

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

No one would want their organization tied to the nonsense that was Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump spewing talking points.

Matt Lauer, host of NBC's TODAY SHOW, moderated.

The Cult of Clinton's in a tizzy over one incident.

View all

Link to headline article

Matt Lauer Lets Donald Trump Get Away With Iraq War Lie It's been nearly seven months since audio surfaced proving Trump's 2002 support of the Iraq War.

HuffPost Politics

Sep 08, 2016

Search results

NBC says it fact checked the issue:

FACTS: The only report that found Trump speaking about the Iraq war before it happened was by Buzzfeed News, which reported that in a 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Trump was directly asked if he would support the invasion of Iraq, which didn't begin until Jan. 28, 2003. "Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

Shortly after the Iraq war began in 2003, Trump began slowly condemning the decision and told the Washington Post in March of 2003 that he thought the Iraq war was "a mess."

Use the BUZZFEED link and you're told the interview was in September of 2002 -- specifically September 11, 2002.

So a month before the Iraq War was voted on by Congress, and on the first year anniversary of 9-11, Donald Trump said, "Yeah, I guess so."

And this is support for the Iraq War -- by the same group that repeatedly ignores Al Gore's support for the Iraq War?

The first documented remarks against the war anyone can find are from March 23, 2003.

(Do not e-mail me that the byline on THE WASHINGTON POST article includes a date of March 25, 2003. I saw that. I also know the Academy Awards ceremony was March 23 that year because I was speaking out on a campus tour starting in February of that year and had to fly in day of the ceremony to attend. Trump's remarks would have been March 23, 2003.)

By the above, he did not cheerlead the Iraq War.

By the above, he may have been against it before it started on March 19, 2003.

If some want to see him as supporting the war with "Yeah, I guess," then they should also be willing to admit that within four days of the start of the war, he was against it.

In 2008, I supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary.

I hadn't planned to take a position because I knew so many of the candidates: Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Grabby Hands Edwards (who was never going to get my support because you don't win me over by mauling me), etc.

I knew I couldn't support Barack Obama because earlier I had hoped to support Barack.

I was still speaking to groups against the Iraq War (as I still do today) and headed to Elaine's city. We planned a fun night of catching up. But several weeks before that day, she got invited to a local event for one of her state's own, a man who was against the Iraq War (and who was introduced back then as bi-racial, at the event).

So I told Elaine I'd gladly go and bring my checkbook and we both planned to donate the maximum amount -- because we were opposed to the Iraq War.

Then we got our face time with the candidate who wanted to be a US senator.

And Elaine told him how happy she was to support someone who would fight to end the war.

And he replied that, actually, the US was on the ground in Iraq now so it really didn't matter -- ending it.

I made sure that's what he was saying and with a "rot in hell" goodbye to him, we both walked out.

So Barack was never going to get my vote.

Hillary was offering tepid remarks about her vote being a mistake.

Those paying attention in 2006 and 2007 might have seen that as a victory considering her previous cheerleading and inability to own her mistake.

I knew Hillary and I knew how she liked to present herself.

I was willing to see the Iraq War as a stray vote.

And I could support her in 2008.

Then she became Secretary of State and she did nothing to help Iraq and -- as her e-mails proved -- even balked at the suggestion of a friend that she just make public remarks about Iraqi women at an event focusing on women around the world. See the July 9th snapshot if that's news to you -- and notice that Hillary could and did pressure Iraq on increasing oil but wouldn't do a thing to help Iraqi women.

If you make a mistake, you work to fix it.

Hillary did nothing as Secretary of State to fix Iraq.

Then there's her support for war on Libya (which was a disaster and continues to be one), her desire for war on Syria, etc, etc.

I can't support her today.

But in 2008, I could give her the benefit of the doubt.

As the record stands on Trump's claim currently, I don't see the problem.

I was booed in February and March of 2003 many times I spoke out. And I bring that up because some people love to rewrite history including some boo-ers. I would visit the same campus a year or two later and someone would come up to me and talk about how right "we" were because we had been opposed to the war back then and he (it was always a he) had been at that earlier event.

Yes, he had been. And he had booed me. Sorry, I don't crumble, I don't cry when someone boos me. I make a joke to get rid of the tension and we move on.

But I never forget the face of someone who actively booed me.

Did Trump have a mental rewrite of his support for the war?

Could be.

Could also be that he's confusing private conversations.

I don't know.

At worst, Donald Trump realized the Iraq War was a mistake four days after it started.

Which puts him ahead of Hillary by several years.

The Cult of Clinton is in a fit over Matt Lauer.

The forum did not allow for a great deal nor did he fact check Hillary that hard.

(Disclosure: I hate Matt Lauer. You can't have been around this site for very long if you don't know that. If I thought Matt did a lousy job, I would call him out like crazy. I have openly -- to his face -- despised him since the 90s. I have no reason to spin for Matt. I didn't see it as a bad job, I didn't see it as a great job. I don't think he played favorites.)

During the forum -- Hillary and Donald did not appear on stage together -- Hillary insisted, "He supported it before it happened, he supported it as it was happening."

No.

That's a lie.

Matt didn't correct her on that.

If you want to say he supported it before it happened based on the September 11, 2002 remarks, fine.

But there is nothing else that's turned up in the public record to back up that "he supported it as it was happening."

In fact, the public record rebukes that claim so Hillary's statement is a lie.

She was not challenged on that by Lauer.

Not even when she declared, of her e-mails and private server, "I have made no excuses for it. It was something that should not have been done,"

She has done nothing but make excuses.

Including the lie that she didn't want to carry two devices (she did carry more than one device).

From day one, she has lied and made excuses.

Hillary's evolving explanations on her e-mails are noted in THE WASHINGTON POST fact check.

Again, despite multiple questions, she was allowed to repeatedly alter history.

For those whining -- and some are -- that the e-mails were even raised -- hold a real press conference, quit running from the revelations.

It's on her, she's a lousy campaigner.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, as an Army veteran, a commander-in- chief's to empathize with servicemembers and their families is important to me. The ability to truly understand implications and consequences of your decisions, actions, or inactions. How will you determine when and where to deploy troops directly into harm's way, especially to combat ISIS?

LAUER: As briefly as you can.

CLINTON: We have to defeat ISIS. That is my highest counterterrorism goal. And we've got to do it with air power. We've got to do it with much more support for the Arabs and the Kurds who will fight on the ground against ISIS. We have to squeeze them by continuing to support the Iraqi military. They've taken back Ramadi, Fallujah. They've got to hold them. They've got to now get into Mosul.

We're going to work to make sure that they have the support -- they have special forces, as you know, they have enablers, they have surveillance, intelligence, reconnaissance help.

They are not going to get ground troops. We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops. So those are the kinds of decisions we have to make on a case-by-case basis.

And, remember, when I became secretary of state, we had 200,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I'm very grateful that we have brought home the vast majority of those. We have a residual force, as you know, in Afghanistan. We have built up several thousands of the folks that I've talked about who are assisting in the fight against ISIS.

But it is in our national security interest to defeat ISIS. And I intend to make that happen.

They are not going to get ground troops?

They have thousands of US troops -- and that's before you factor in Special Ops.

And she knows that.

And she lies.

Here's NPR's fact check on her no ground troops claim:

Is that a promise she could keep as president?
The Short Answer
No.
The Long Answer
Clinton has outlined a policy on ISIS that would pick up where President Obama's policy left off. Today, there are about 5,000 American troops in Iraq and several hundred deployed to northern Syria. They include special operations forces who are helping the Kurdish, Arab and other indigenous fighters, plus advisers, support troops and others. The White House doesn't count them as "ground troops," and evidently neither does Clinton, but they are serving close to the combat zone.
U.S. service members have been killed as part of the fight against ISIS both on the ground and as part of the ongoing U.S. airstrikes. They've also found themselves in potential peril from airstrikes by Syrian and Russian warplanes, which are operating in Syria in support of the regime of President Bashar Assad. The Pentagon issued a stern warning to Damascus and Moscow to keep their aircraft well clear of where American troops in Syria are working on the ground to support indigenous forces in the fight against ISIS. American fighter aircraft have also tried to warn off Syrian and Russian warplanes.
Clinton's promise about "ground troops" appeared to echo Obama's opposition to using large numbers of American forces to get into direct combat with ISIS. So although American special operations troops are helping Iraqi commanders plan their operations, and American pilots are flying overhead to spot targets or attack them, and American artillery is shelling ISIS positions, none of them count as "ground troops" under this construction.
The U.S. has spent about $9 billion on the fight in Iraq and Syria since August of 2014, according to the Defense Department. American warplanes, both drone and human-piloted, have conducted about 15,000 airstrikes in both countries.
Clinton said Wednesday at the forum, held in New York and televised on NBC, that defeating ISIS was her "highest counterterrorism goal," and that she wanted to do it with "air power" and "with much more support for the Arabs and Kurds who are in the fight ... we have to squeeze them." Clinton also promised that if she's elected she'll order what she called "an intelligence surge," which she said would involve helping U.S. intelligence agencies collect more information and distribute it "more quickly down the ladder" to state and local law enforcement agencies, in hopes of preventing terror attacks.

And nothing she spoke of goes to the issue of eliminating the Islamic State.

You do that by stripping them of anything they have that can make them look like a savior.

So you make demands on the Iraqi government to stop persecuting the Sunnis.

You make them abide by what they have agreed to.

You make them carry that out.

How?

You withhold money if they won't do it, you stop sending F-16s if they won't do it, on and on and on.

Hillary, despite being Secretary of State for four years, has only one answer: War!

Diplomacy is what she forgot -- repeatedly.

Maybe that's why she underwhelmed Peter Beinart (DAILY BEAST)? He notes:

She’s running against Donald Trump. On substance, Trump was, as you might expect, absurd. (Fun fact: The only foreign-policy positions detailed on his website are veterans affairs and trade with China.) But in crass political terms, Trump did well. He did well because he capitalized on the public’s sour mood: He said the war in Iraq was a disaster, the withdrawal from Iraq was a disaster, the war in Libya was a disaster, and the management of the Department of Veterans Affairs is a disaster. And he blamed Clinton because she was part of those decisions and he was not.
[. . .]
Clinton, on the other hand, offered no vision at all. She was at her best discussing the processes of government. She explained, for instance, that when people leave the military, the Department of Defense often doesn’t transmit their records to the VA.

The one area he felt she was strong in, she wasn't.

What "she explained" is nothing new.

Since 2006, this has been an issue in Congressional hearings. (Check the archives, we reported on many of those hearings here.)

This is why Barack was able to campaign the first time for president on the "seamless transition," the electronic record.

It would follow you from DoD to VA.

If Hillary's saying that's needed, it is.

If she wants to find fault for it not existing, that's Barack.

You could blame Eric Shinseki who lied repeatedly about the issue.

At one point, he lied and blamed then-incoming DoD Secretary Chuck Hagel who just wasn't having it and that resulted in a meet-up in the Oval Office.

But even that didn't get the ball rolling.

This shouldn't take 8 years to implement.

But no one -- including Barack -- wanted to pay attention.

It's one of the big domestic failures of his administration.

The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan -- updated:

Iraq

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

What doll would you want?

‏@EHopegood

1978 MATTEL 2494 CHERYL LADD DOLL CHARLIES ANGELS MINT IN BOX TV'S STAR WOMEN http://dentistry-usa.info/trys/dnts/?query=http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?ff3=2&toolid=10039&campid=5337597384&item=122104994820&vectorid=229466&lgeo=1 …

I bought that doll.

Years ago.

For my niece.

I also bought the first three Angels (Farrah, Jaclyn and Kate) for another niece and a nephew (one set for each).

And my nephew was upset because Sabrina (Kate Jackson) did not look like Sabrina on CHARLIE'S ANGELS.

It was because they made her hair too long.

So I got the scissors and fixed it.

I would have done the same with Jill (Farrah Fawcett) but there wasn't enough hair rooted the right way to give her layers.

Anyway, Cheryl Ladd replaced Farrah.

And by that time they were making the small Kris doll and also the Cheryl Ladd doll which was probably 12 inches.

I bought a niece the Charlie's Angels dolls when Drew Barrymore did the movie -- Drew, Cameron and Lucy.

So I was thinking about dolls and wondering who you'd buy.

Maggie has a Ben Affleck 'doll.'

It's an action figure of him from ARMAGEDDON.

I'd buy a Robbie Williams doll.

I'd buy a Carly Simon doll and a Joni Mitchell doll.

I'd buy a Diana Ross doll (and own the last one that came out in the 00s -- the Diana Ross Barbie doll).

Who would you want to be a doll?

Oh, Gerard Butler!

I'd buy a doll of Gerard.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, September 7, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, SLATE continues to embarrass itself, did you hear -- no, why didn't you hear about the presidential ticket where one member is saying Barack Obama is acting unconstitutionally, and much more.

In one of the most laughable claims made so far in the election, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party presidential nominee, claimed she was running a campaign of ideas and not destruction.

And now we have this official Tweet.

‏@HillaryClinton

"I think I've made a lot of sacrifices." —Trump's response to the parents of Humayun Khan, who died serving in Iraq 

2,601 retweets4,521 likes

First, I'm sure Donald Trump does know more about the Islamic State than US generals do. US generals are not sociologists nor are they gods. They serve civilian leadership. It's amazing that Hillary, while her campaign attacks retired general Colin Powell, wants to also act as though Donald Trump said something outrageous when he claimed to know more about ISIS than US generals.

The military plan being carried out against the Islamic State is a failure.

That's only in debate if you're an idiot.

It's a failure in every way -- including what's it is doing to the civilians.

If Mosul is ever retaken -- if -- it will still be a failure.

Wow, you've turned it back to 2014!!!! Way to go!!!! You didn't run the Islamic State off, you just took away their ability to govern!!!!!

Their ability to 'govern' was actually losing support for them.

I'm not just referring to within Iraq -- but, yes, it was there too.

I'm talking about in terms of recruiting.

When they initially seized Mosul, there was celebration among factions outside of Iraq. And then came the realities. And suddenly the Islamic State didn't seem to be a new way.

So going back to 2014?

That's what they do best, bomb and kill and terrorize.

And the plan or 'plan' Barack's overseen hasn't done a damn thing to address that.

Nor has anything Hillary Clinton's offered.

(In fairness to Hillary, no presidential candidate of any party has offered a way to address that.)

You want to destroy the Islamic State, you take away the reason for its existence in Iraq.

You end the persecution of the Sunni population, you take away its driving force.

Instead of dropping bombs daily since August of 2014, Barack should have ordered a major diplomatic surge.

Instead of handing over this weapon or that weapon or this huge amount of money or that, Barack should have made every step conditional upon results. "You want this shipment of F-16s? First, we want to see . . ."

Barack has not taken away the reasons for support of the Islamic State.

He can bomb this or bomb that but he's accomplished nothing.

Hillary's Tweet is getting attention.

At the hotel we're staying at, two women in their 50s were laughing about it as they checked their phones. Hillary, one insisted, knew more about sacrifice than Donald.

After all, the one told her friend, it was Hillary who repeatedly crawled into bed with Bill Clinton after each affair was exposed.

"What some women won't do for power," the other nodded laughing.

And what some people won't do to avoid reality . . . .

‏@Slate

The untold story of the Iraq war’s disastrous toll on the city of New Orleans: http://slate.me/2cAHtZP 

21 retweets19 likes

Oh, goody, another story about how the Iraq War destroyed . . . the US.

Let's avoid the real victims, right, SLATE?

Did I blink and miss your expose on the birth defects in Iraq?

RT's repeatedly covered the topic and here's one example from earlier this year:

JESSICA DESVARIEUX: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.

A new investigative report titled, Irradiated Iraq: The Nuclear Nightmare We Left Behind, looks at the U.S. legacy of deadly radiation in Iraq. This exposé writer Barbara Koeppel studies how America's use of Uranium missiles and explosives has negatively affected the health of veterans as well as Iraqis. With dramatic increases of cases of leukemia and breast cancer, as well as an increase in infant mortality.

Joining us now in our Baltimore studio to talk about her piece is Barbara Koeppel, she's a Washington D.C. based investigative reporter. Thank you so much for joining us Barbara.

BARBARA KOEPPEL: Thank you for having me.

DESVARIEUX: So Barbara, first people are going to think Nuclear weapons comes to mind when we think about radioactive weapons. Not these Uranium weapons that you described that are technically conventional weapons is that right?

KOEPPEL: Right, which is how they get away with it because they're not called nuclear. However, they are radioactive because they contain uranium and uranium is a radioactive element. They also contain very toxic chemicals and so in theory they are not nuclear but they are radioactive because of the uranium concentrations and they have the same effect. They create birth defects, the way you had after Chernobyl. They create all sorts of leukemia's as you said. But huge amounts not just a little bit but spikes.
[. . .]

DESVARIEUX: Yea let's talk about that, 2003. What did we find?

KOEPPEL: So we now invade Iraq and the numbers which had already spiked took another huge leap. So that by 2008 one interesting number, I hate to just delude you with numbers because they can get confusing. But there was something like 40 cancers out of 100 thousand population. By 2005 or 2008 it was up to 16 hundred new cancers. Again a 38% increase in leukemia, a 10% increase in breast cancer. It had an infant mortality rate that was 8 times higher than it's neighbor Kuwait. So you have these numbers, one scientist took samples of the women who had, usually the children die at birth because they're so badly deformed. They have one eye in the center of their head or their brains are inside out or their stomachs are inside out or they have no hands and feet. I mean they're really grotesque and they don't tend to live but a few hours or a few days. The researchers have studied that and they put together the numbers. But the U.S. doesn't admit to that.

DESVARIEUX: What about the Iraqi government? I'm sure they're being..

KOEPPEL: It's very interesting that you ask that. They did study around 2009 remember we invaded in 2003. And basically the last of the troops or most of the last of the troops left in 2011. And in 2009 because they were getting so much flack; they did a study that proved that not only did they not have an increase in birth defects, and leukemia, and general cancers. They had less than developed countries. But they didn't use hospital records. They only did a door to door survey and ask people do you have cancer or something like that. And you have to say well, why? Oh and then the Lancet, which is a very highly respected British medical journal, wrote an editorial or maybe some people wrote an article, saying we think you need to revisit these numbers. And the WHO also concurred, that's the World Health Organization. So you have to ask yourself, why would the Iraq Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization which people respect a lot, why would they have concurred?

Well Iraq gets most of it's money from the United States and as long as it depends on the United States for it's budget they're not going to put out information that the United States doesn't want out. Similarly WHO, all UN agencies get the biggest part of their budget from the U.S. Even though it doesn't pay what it's suppose to pay. It still is the largest part of their budget. So it's pretty clear why they take these lines. The Lancet said, do another study, this is really crazy. These numbers make no sense.

DESVARIEUX: And then like you said they can't actually do real testing because they're not actually doing real funding so you're sort of caught in this caught 22. We have all this evidence that there's smoke but no one really wants go investigate if there's a fire. You're saying that we certainly need to be questioning this more.

KOEPPEL: And their websites keep putting out the lie that there's not one cancer or that there were also burn pits. For those that don't know what a burn pit is, when the U.S. invaded and they got thousands and thousands of service people there, they have to put them somewhere. So they have bases. Some can be as small as 20 men or women. Some can have 90 thousand. How do you dispose of your waste? You have to dig a big hole in the ground and they're called burn pits. They dump everything. Whether it's human waste, plastic bottles, which when they're burned that's illegal by the way according to U.S. policy but they burn them anyway. That produce dioxin which is the main ingredient in Agent Orange.

They burn these round the clock. They put in unexploded weapons, hospital waste, batteries, lithium batteries, everything. Which is incredibly toxic. So our troops who were stationed usually for a year, a term would be. They would breathing this and some of them got and are terribly sick right now. But the Iraqis were breathing them for years and years and years not one year terms are even sicker. The wife of one, a captain who breathed in the smoke from the burn pits, started an organization called 360.org; I'm confessing there might be another word in there, to get support for these veterans.

DESVARIEUX: I was going to say that. Is there anything on the side of the Iraqis? Is there any sort of legal remedies for them?

KOEPPEL: Zero.

DESVARIEUX: Nothing is going on to..

KOEPPEL: No, no, zero. And even for the Americans, some of the veterans have launched a suit. But they're, I don't know, this is probably going to take 10 years through the courts. But even there the U.S. didn't want to admit it because when this woman's husband Captain Torres came back and couldn't breathe the VA diagnosed him with some unknown problem. Then more and more of his other soldiers and marines had the same problem. So the DOD sent 200 of them to Vanderbilt University Medical School and the head of the pulmonary division biopsied them which the VA didn't do, they just X-rayed them. I spoke to Dr. Miller who said we biopsied them and we saw this very debilitating lung disease which is only going to get worse and worse. And he stopped getting veterans and DOD, the Defense Department and the VA stopped sending him veterans to study because they were very unhappy that he biopsied them. Because he said you can't see it unless you biopsied their lungs. So there are all these people that are terribly sick but the DOD, the Defense Department, the VA doesn't want to admit it.

DESVARIEUX: And why don't they want to admit it?

KOEPPEL: Well liability. If you admitted that you exposed 200 thousand troops to this you can imagine what the liability would be.

DESVARIEUX: And what would the liability be for places like Raytheon or Lockheed Martin.

KOEPPEL: I don't know it's a good question. Because they're the ones, Raytheon has a patent for uranium. For weapons where uranium is an option. That patent's been around for maybe 15 years and one other corporation too. But they don't say that they're in these weapons. They just say no, no they're conventional but in fact they are radioactive.

And have the same effects that you have from Chernobyl when the reactors blew. Or that you have from Hiroshima, you know you just keep getting generation after generation of mutated genes and mutated children and adults. But the dust maybe has settled. So there's perhaps not as much dust now. But for the people that were living there, in the 2000's, it's in their lungs, it's in their bodies.

On the effects of a country where the population is so young -- due to all the deaths -- and they are neglected and ignored?

AL BAWABA reports:

Young Iraqis, Sunni and Shia alike, agree there's little to look forward to in a country where poor service provision, corruption, and daily violence is the stuff of private conversation and public protest.
Politicians pay lip service to reform, but talk of reducing the age of candidacy and other appeals to young voters are dismissed as electoral pandering ahead of important provincial polls in 2017 and parliament elections the following year. It will take a lot more than Facebook pages to convince young Iraqis that their future is anything but grim.
By UN count, 473 Iraqi civilians were killed in acts of terrorism, violence, and armed conflict in August alone, 231 in Baghdad governorate. Nearly 3.4 million Iraqis have been displaced since the conflict with IS began in 2014. And last week Human Rights Watch alleged that forces aligned with the Iraqi government have been recruiting children to this struggle.
Young men who have grown up since the fall of Saddam Hussein have few options. Job opportunities are few. Salaries are low. As the ICG report highlights, Iraqis effectively must find a way into employment via a government patronage system, join a militia, or leave the country – nearly 149,000 Iraqis applied for asylum in Europe in 2015.
As Iraq's government and the wider international community focuses on the fight against IS, they ignore their young men – not to mention their young women – at their peril.

On how a country of refugees adds to the crisis?

Yesterday, the United Nations News Centre noted:

6 September 2016 – The United Nations food relief agency has delivered urgently-needed aid to more than 30,000 people in and around the northern Iraqi town of Qayyarah in the past week, reaching an area that has been under siege and inaccessible for more than two years.
“The people of Qayyarah had been living under siege for two years and are suffering extreme hunger with scarce access to food supplies. Reaching them with life-saving food assistance is a very positive step forward,” the UN World Food Programme (WFP)’s Country Director, Sally Haydock, said in a news release.

With military action turning towards retaking Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, from Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the UN Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had warned that displacement may worsen “dramatically,” and announced preparations to ramp up operations and set up additional camps.

By all means, let's make the Iraq War about Hurricane Katrina because, here in America apparently, we can never stop having our heads up our asses.

Next up. SLATE reveals the real victims of the Holocaust: The US fast food industry!

We don't focus a great deal on running mates. It's a ceremonial post.

That said, we were always going to have to focus on Tim Kaine -- mainly because we knew the press wouldn't do their job.

Michael A. Memoli (LOS ANGELES TIMES) writes:

Speaking in North Carolina on Tuesday in what Hillary Clinton’s campaign billed as a major national security address, the Virginia senator performed the customary role of a running mate, seeking to dismantle Trump’s qualifications to lead the nation on the world stage while praising Clinton’s.
Kaine said the issue of national security is personal to him, with a son deployed overseas with the Marines. While he trusted Clinton with decisions that directly involved his family, the prospect of Trump as commander in chief “scares me to death,” he said.

That is a line crossed.

In an election where a sitting Supreme Court justice has forgotten her role and shot her dumb mouth off, it's hard to believe things could get worse.

Enter Tim Kaine.

Donald Trump could win the presidency.

I'm not voting for him but others are and it may be enough for him to win.

The country does not need Tim Kaine's garbage.

If Tim wants to make those type of comments, he needs to drop out of the race.

As someone running to represent the country, he needs to watch his words.

To suggest what he's suggesting is harmful and offensive.

It crosses a line in campaigning and it is not helpful to the United States.

He needs to apologize and he needs to stop making these types of remarks (unless he drops out of the race and speaks as a private citizen).

What scares Tim?

A great deal actually since he's such a coward.

Yeah, that's the story the press doesn't want to tell you.

Tim Kaine is in the US Senate.

He's got Jim Webb's old seat -- so you know it's dirty.

And Tim's spent nearly two years now blustering about something being unconstitutional.

So what's he doing?

Just blustering.

He's a US senator and could be putting holds on nominations, etc, to force something to happen.

Instead, he's all talk.

The US Defense Dept announced yesterday:

Strikes in Iraq
Bomber, fighter, and attack aircraft conducted seven strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Beiji, a strike destroyed an ISIL rocket rail and a cave entrance.

-- Near Kisik, a strike destroyed two ISIL fighting positions, two tunnel entrances, an observation post and a rocket firing position.

-- Near Mosul, four strikes engaged three ISIL tactical units and destroyed an assembly area, a fighting position, a vehicle and a headquarters building.

-- Near Ramadi, a strike destroyed a rocket system.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.

And these daily bombings are in addition to the thousands of US troops Barack has sent into Iraq since 2014.

If you're confused, we're still on Tim Kaine.

These are the actions that Senator Tim Kaine has repeatedly called unconstitutional.

And since he was doing that before Hillary chose him as her running mate and since she's not issued any statement saying she disagrees with him, we have a Democratic presidential ticket stating that a Democratic president is acting unconstitutional.

That's a story.

That's a legitimate and needed press story.

Where's the story?

Where's the coverage?

And if you want to be legal and logical, if any president acts in a manner that is unconstitutional, that meets the criteria of high crimes and misdemeanors -- impeachment.

So Hillary and Tim should be asked if they're saying Barack Obama's actions in Iraq warrant impeachment?

Tim Kaine has appeared in multiple Iraq snapshots here.

Because he's anti-war?

No.

Because, since 2014, he's repeatedly stated Barack's actions are unconstitutional.

How did the corporate press miss it?

Oh, that's right.

They don't really report.

They don't really investigate.

They just jaw bone.

On issues that actually matter, Omar Sattar (AL-MONITOR) reports, "The idea of forming the Iraqi Supreme Strategic Policy Council has re-emerged nearly six years after first being put forward. Back then, the idea was part of what was called the Erbil Agreement in 2010, upon which the second government of Nouri al-Maliki was formed."

Don't get too excited though, Nouri is giving lip service to support it in talks with the Kurds.

Nouri supported it in talks with Barack Obama in 2010, he supported it while in the Parliament in November 2010 waiting to be named prime minister-designate and, of course, supported it the day before that when he was signing off on The Erbil Agreement.

He lies a lot when he wants to get people to rally behind him.

He just never keeps his word.

Internal business: People are asking about THIRD. I almost did a note here last night. But it would have been rude. I will leave it at this: Ava and I wrote our TV piece and then, on Monday, we rewrote it (we were asked to make it longer). With Ty, we also did the Q&A piece on questions about the TV piece on voting. With Betty, Elaine and others, we did a quick piece on Stevie Nicks. And we did a short piece. We did not participate in an editorial or anything else. We expected stuff to go up on Sunday. When it did not, we rewrote our TV piece. That stuff should have gone up on Monday. It did not. It is now Wednesday. We do not have anymore time -- Ava and myself -- to spend this week on THIRD. They can post that on this coming Sunday -- what was completed. And we can do some new stuff or not.

But this is why Jess walked out. "Exactly why," he stated when we were griping to him about this.

It should have gone up Sunday. It did not. Ava and I had done our part and then some.

The community newsletters are never late. If they don't have enough, Gina, Krista, Hilda, Polly, Miguel, Francisco, Maria, etc will just put out a short version of their newsletter.

I do not have time to keep going back to something that should have been published on Sunday. It's Wednesday, life has moved on.

I've said that as nicely as I can.

Iraq

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)